CLAREMONT POLICE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 CLAREMONT POLICE COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA We are a vibrant, livable, and inclusive community dedicated to quality services, safety, financial strength, sustainability, preservation, and progress with equal representation for our community. City Council Chamber 225 Second Street Claremont, CA Thursday December 03, :00 PM COMMISSIONERS FRANK BEDOYA CHAIR FRANK DELEO JONATHAN HUANG BECKY MARGIOTTA CALEB MASON RAFIK MOHAMED JOHN PEREZ JON STRASH ROLONDO TALBOTT Pursuant to the local emergency concerning the COVID-19 virus declared by the City Council of the City of Claremont on March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Health's "Safer at Home Order" issued March 19, 2020, and Executive Order N issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 18, 2020, the following protocols will apply to public participation for the duration of the emergency: Members of the public will not be permitted to be physically present at meetings. To allow for public participation, the Police Commission will conduct its meeting through Zoom Video Communications. To participate in the meeting from the comfort of your own home or office, download Zoom on any phone or computer device and copy and paste the following link into your browser to access and participate in the live Police Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m.: or to only listen from the phone dial (213) , Webinar ID: Members of the public who wish to address the Police Commission on any matter listed on the agenda or a subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Police Commission may utilize the following methods. The Commission requests, but does not require, the public speakers to identify themselves. OPTION 1: LIVE COMMENTS - Through Zoom, someone wishing to speak may virtually "raise your hand". Wait to be called upon by the Commission Secretary, and then you may provide verbal comments for up to 4 minutes. OPTION 2: - Public comments may be sent via to Lisa Amaya, Commission Secretary, lamaya@ci.claremont.ca.us. All s received before 3:00 p.m., will be distributed to the Commission, imaged into the City s document archive system, and read into the record (up to 4 minutes).

2 Page 2 Police Commission Agenda December 3, 2020 OPTION 3: MAIL - Public comments may be mailed to Claremont Police Department, Attn: Lisa Amaya, PO Box 880, Claremont, CA All comments received via mail will be distributed to the Commission, imaged into the City s document archive system, and read into the record (up to 4 minutes). OPTION 4: TELEPHONICALLY - Members of the public wanting to address the Police Commission telephonically are requested to inform the Commission Secretary no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Lisa Amaya, Commission Secretary, can be reached at (909) , lamaya@ci.claremont.ca.us. You will be called during consideration of the item you are interested in and given up to 4 minutes to speak. The meeting will not be live streamed through Granicus as the meeting will be live streamed through Zoom instead. The recorded meeting will be uploaded and saved as a record. CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE POLICE COMMISSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS CHIEF'S REPORT PUBLIC COMMENT The Commission has set aside this time for persons in the audience who wish to comment on items that ARE NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA, but are within the jurisdiction of the Police Commission. Members of the audience will later have the opportunity to address the Police Commission regarding ALL OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA at the time the Commission considers those items. At this time the Commission will take public comment for 30 minutes. Public Comment will resume later in the meeting if there are speakers who did not get an opportunity to speak because of the 30-minute time limit. The Brown Act prohibits the Commission from taking action on oral requests relating to items that are not on the agenda. The Commission may engage in a brief discussion, refer the matter to staff, and/or schedule requests for consideration at a subsequent meeting. The Commission requests, but does not require, speakers to identify themselves. When you come up to speak, please state your name unless you wish to remain anonymous. Each speaker will be allowed four (4) continuous minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. The Police Commission or one or more Commissions and/or Committees have previously considered most of the items on

3 Page 3 Police Commission Agenda December 3, 2020 the consent calendar. The Commission may act on these items by one motion following public comment. Only Commissioners may pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion. Now is the time for those in the audience to comment on the consent calendar. Each speaker will be allowed four (4) continuous minutes to comment on items on the consent calendar. 1. POLICE COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2020 Recommendation: Attachment(s): Staff recommends that the Police Commission approve and file the regular Police Commission meeting minutes of November 5, DRAFT Police Commission Minutes ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 2. POLICE DEPARTMENT DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Recommendation: Attachment(s): Staff recommends that the Police Commission take the following actions: A. Review, discuss, provide opportunity for community input, and provide feedback. B. Provide recommendations on additional data fields to include in the future data collection. RIPA 2020 Report Quick Facts AB953 Template Based on the Final Regulations SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AD HOC COMMITTEE (ORAL REPORT) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Police Commission receives an oral report from the School Resource Officer (SRO) Ad Hoc Committee. ON-LINE CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM (ORAL REPORT) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Police Commission receive, provide opportunity for community input, and provide feedback REPORTS Commissioner Comments ADJOURNMENT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CLAREMONT POLICE COMMISSION WILL BE HELD ON, JANUARY 7, 2021, AT 7:00 P.M., VIA ZOOM.

4 Page 4 Police Commission Agenda December 3, 2020 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA, AND SUBMITTED TO THE POLICE COMMISSION AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA, ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE CITY CLERK S OFFICE AT 207 HARVARD AVENUE, CLAREMONT, MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 7 AM 6 PM. SUBJECT MATERIALS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE - For more information, please call the City Clerk s Office at IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 0F 1990, THIS AGENDA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE FORMATS TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO REQUIRES A MODIFICATION OR ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A CITY MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK AT VOICE OR TT/TTY AT LEAST THREE (3) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, IF POSSIBLE. I, LISA AMAYA, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OF THE CITY OF CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING AGENDA WAS POSTED AT CLAREMONT CITY HALL, 207 HARVARD AVENUE, ON NOVEMBER 25, 2020, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION ANY ITEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN INITIATED BY 10:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED POLICE COMMISSION MEETING. FURTHER, ANY ITEM INITIATED BEFORE 10:00 P.M. ON WHICH A CONCLUSION HAS NOT BEEN REACHED BY 10:15 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE POLICE COMMISSION. POST THROUGH: DECEMBER 4, 2020

5 Claremont Police Commission Agenda Report File #: 3599 Item No: 1. TO: FROM: POLICE COMMISSION SHELLY VANDER VEEN, POLICE CHIEF DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2020 Reviewed by: Finance Director: n/a SUBJECT: POLICE COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2020 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Police Commission approve and file the regular Police Commission meeting minutes of November 5, PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Due to the current health orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, parts of the City s regular agenda distribution process have been suspended as public review copies cannot be placed at their regular locations due to facility closures, or limited access. The agenda and this staff report are available on the City s website. If you desire a copy, please contact the City Clerk s Office. Submitted by: Shelly Vander Veen Police Chief Attachment: Draft Police Commission Meeting Minutes of November 5, CLAREMONT Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/25/2020 powered by Legistar

6 CLAREMONT POLICE COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Thursday, November 5, :00 PM Meeting Conducted Via Zoom CALL TO ORDER Chair Bedoya called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present Via Zoom: Absent: Also present via Zoom: Commissioners: Bedoya, De Leo, Huang, Margiotta, Mason, Mohamed, Perez, Strash, Talbott Commissioner: none Shelly Vander Veen, Chief; Lisa Amaya, Commission Secretary, Viola Van, Management Analyst CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PRESENTATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS CHIEF S REPORT Commendations/Complaints Since the last meeting, the Department has received 10 commendations and is investigating 1 complaint. Officer Recruitment Chief Vander Veen reported the Department is conducting recruitment to fill Police Officer positions that are anticipated to be vacated due to injuries and retirements. The Department is looking for both entry level officers to send to a Police Academy as well as lateral police officers from other agencies. She anticipates filling at least five officer positions over the next year. For this recruitment, a variety of recruitment websites have been added to reach a more diverse group of potential candidates. She stated that the Department is also in the middle of a testing process to fill a Dispatcher and a Records Clerk position. Community Services Officer As part of this fiscal year budget, the Department added a Community Services Officer (CSO) position. One of the roles of the unarmed CSO is to handle report calls with no suspect contact that would normally be handled by a uniformed Police Officer. The employee that was selected to fill this role completed the two-week CSO training this past week and has started a field training program this week where she is receiving additional training in report writing. The community should expect to start seeing the CSO responding to some calls for service rather than a uniformed Police Officer. The Department will start doing various forms of outreach to the community to make them aware of this change.

7 Patch Design Updates Chief Vander Veen reported several potential patch designs have been developed and are being presented to the Police Department groups for input and feedback. Police Commission Ad Hoc Updates Chief Vander Veen stated the number of ad hoc committees that the Department currently has is unusual and several of the committees have done substantial work. To ensure that the length of these meetings is appropriate to continue and maintain community engagement, the ad hoc committees have not been agendized. She asked that the chairs of each committee meet with her over the next two weeks. In those meetings, it can collaboratively be determined if a progress report should be created in the form of an agenda report and agendized appropriately in future meetings. The Chief gave a brief update on each ad hoc committee s activities. Use of Force Ad Hoc Committee Documentation of Firearm Use Form and Policy is being reviewed by the Police Association and then it will be returned to the ad hoc committee for input before final implementation. The Committee is also expected to have additional meetings with the Police Association Board to discuss the reviewing of use of force incidents, similar to how the PRAH reviews citizen complaints. Community Outreach and Engagement Ad Hoc Committee Over the last month, the Committee reached out to several student groups from the Claremont Colleges as well as additional community-based organizations. Each group has asked to schedule meetings later in November. During the months of November and December, the Committee plans on reaching out to groups that they previously met with to provide updates and collect additional feedback. Citizen Complaint Process Ad Hoc Committee Department staff has facilitated the purchase of the software Smartsheets and are developing an online complaint form that will allow for the recommendations provided by the Commission, including adding attachments to the complaint and the complainant receiving an receipt. This complaint form and process should be completed and ready to present to the Police Commission at the next meeting. Data Analysis Ad Hoc Committee Chief Vander Veen has been speaking with a local professor regarding conducting a deeper evaluation of the last five years of data that she previously presented to the Police Commission. Currently, an agreement on how the data can be used is being developed. The data potentially to be evaluated does not include stop data. After meeting with the Committee and hearing their recommendations, she has assigned a volunteer Police Officer to evaluate the 2019 arrests, pulling stop data from the related reports. This data will be further evaluated once obtained. During the next Police Commission meeting, Chief Vander Veen anticipates having a presentation on State Assembly Bill 953 on the agenda, which requires police agencies to start collecting stop data. She believes the information that the Department will start collecting as a part of this requirement will meet the stop data desires of the Police Commission.

8 School Resource Officer (SRO) Ad Hoc Committee During the September Police Commission Meeting, Chief Vander Veen gave a presentation regarding the role of the Department s School Resource Officer. Following the presentation, public comment, and Commissioner input, the School Resource Officer (SRO) Ad Hoc Committee was developed. The goal of the Committee is to develop recommendations based on data and community feedback. The Committee has met and developed a three-pronged strategy: 1. To examine historical context of the SRO Program, to better understand how and why it was implemented 2. Analyze the SRO s effectiveness 3. Conduct outreach with various groups to gain perspective and insight on the SRO Program The Committee has met with CUSD Board members and administrators, teachers from Claremont High School and El Roble Intermediate School, community and student-led organizations, and parents. The Committee has also requested statistical data from the Police Department, which is being gathered. The Committee is on track to deliver a set of recommendations for Department and community feedback by the December Police Commission Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Acknowledging that there would be quite a few speakers, Chair Bedoya said he would extend public comment to 45 minutes and would continue public comment later in the meeting, if needed. Chair Bedoya invited public comment. Kalilah Hamid, Claremont High School (CHS) Student, spoke in opposition to the presence of an armed police officer on CUSD campuses and asked that the students be heard, and work be done to remove the officer from campus. Lucy Higuera, student at CHS, amplified her peer s voices and does not support the presence of an armed police officer on school campus. She believed that false and illegal prosecution, specifically in school environments, is a devastating issue in this country that people of color face every day. Joe Tonan, Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) teacher, spoke about what he believed was a flawed investigation involving the School Resource Officer and a teacher in He urged Police Commissioners to listen to the investigation tapes and spoke in support of removing the SRO position. Ty Waggener, junior at CHS, echoed his peer s comments related to the removal of an armed police officer on campus. He believed the issue of drugs within Claremont High School can be handled in a much healthier manner. Darla Hobson, Clinical Therapist for CUSD, spoke about the vital and positive aspects of the partnership between Claremont PD and CUSD and believed the elimination of the School Resource Officer in Claremont would be a step backward.

9 Nicki Mitchell, CUSD counselor, questioned the level of accurate education students have given themselves regarding the SRO position. She believed CUSD is a role model for other communities looking to implement an SRO program and said a more effective question should be, How should a School Resource Officer be used? She spoke in support of the SRO position and advocated for educating students on the critical role the SRO plays in schools to bridge the gap on what they assume the role to be. Dr. Micah Cohen, CUSD school psychologist, expressed support to the Police Commission as it considers the CUSD/SRO position. He also expressed appreciation and support of students and community members who expressed concerns regarding CUSD having an SRO. He believes the students are telling the truth when they say they feel unsafe, which is a problem that needs to be addressed. He spoke in support of the SRO position, especially during a psychiatric evaluation. Julianne Ceccarelli, CHS Coordinator of Services Counselor, shared her experiences with the School Resource Officer within the School District and spoke in support of the position. Harmonie Redding, Counselor and CUSD parent, spoke in support of having a School Resource Officer and believed the unique role cannot be replaced by a mental health therapist or another counselor. Therese Reisch, senior at CHS, amplified the voices of her peers in saying that she does not support the presence of an armed officer on school campus, and spoke in support of a mental health professional. Deborah Scott-Toux, teacher, spoke in support of having a School Resource Officer on campus and believed students can ask questions and learn to trust and respect officers. Amylah Charles, student at CHS, spoke on the lack of information students are given on the purpose of the School Resource Officer. She commented on building a relationship between the officer and students to make students feel safe. She shared an experience that has had a longlasting effect on her. Asiya Junisbai, senior at CHS, commented on the differing opinions throughout this conversation and believed the voices of the students need to be centered. She asked that students voices are heard and not misinterpreted or spoken for them. Commissioner Mason thanked the students who have called in and said Commissioners are listening to them. He encouraged students to continue to call in and Commissioners individually. Commissioners s are listed on the City s website. He agreed that the student s perspective is the important one. Chair Bedoya echoed Commissioner Mason s comments. Chief Vander Veen encouraged members of the public who wished to speak to participate after the next presenter, when public comment would resume. Commissioner Perez agreed with Chief Vander Veen and stated it is important to listen to the young voices of the community. He believed the role of the Police Commission is to find the center and bring everyone together and try to understand both sides of what is not known. There were no other requests to speak.

10 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Police Commission Minutes of October 1, 2020 Chair Bedoya invited public comment. Seeing none, public comment was closed. Commissioner De Leo moved to approve the Police Commission Minutes of October 1, 2020, seconded by Commissioner Huang; and carried on the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bedoya, De Leo, Huang, Margiotta, Mason, Mohamed, Perez, Strash, Talbott NOES: None ABSENT: None 2. Tri-City Mental Health Psychiatric Assessment Care Team (PACT (Oral Report) Shawn Smith, Crisis Intervention, Medication Support, and Intensive Outreach and Engagement Manager highlighted the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Smith responded to questions related to whether the team would be available at night; if they would have an office at the station; the process for determining whether Tri-City or an officer would respond to calls; and if Tri-City had access to the case coordinated entry system to refer people experiencing homelessness to housing. Chief Vander Veen and Mr. Smith responded to Commissioners questions related to a similar program, CAHOOTS; who is funding the PACT; if there would be coordinated training between the Department and Tri-City Mental Health; if a press release announcing the partnership would go out to the community, if tonight s presentation would be available to Commissioners and the public. Commissioners expressed appreciation to Mr. Smith for his report and they look forward to seeing the progress of the partnership between Tri-City Mental Health and the Department. Chair Bedoya invited public comment. Fiona Baler, former CHS student, amplified the voices of her peers and reiterated that they do not support the continuation of the SRO position at CHS. Chair Bedoya reminded the public audience that out of respect for the presenter, at this time public comment is only being taken for this item, which is the Tri-City Psychiatric Assessment Care Team. Public comment related to the SRO position will be revisited later in the meeting. There were no other requests to speak. Chair Bedoya invited Commissioners comments. There were no requests to speak. Chair Bedoya reopened public comment related to the School Resource Officer, as stated earlier.

11 Diana Zhen Zhang, senior at CHS, spoke to express her disapproval of the SRO on CUSD campuses. She believed there will never be true healing regarding racial equity in the school district with an armed officer on campus. Ella Misawa, junior at CHS, amplified the voices of her peers in saying she does not support the presence of an armed officer on school campus. She would like the Commission to truly focus on the voices of the students. Jayla Sheffield echoed earlier comments and spoke in support of the removal of the SRO off the CHS campus. Harmonie Redding added to her comments from earlier and spoke regarding the Healthy School Safety survey the students take each year and its positive outcome of students agreeing to feeling safe on campus. Kevin Hammill, senior at CHS, expressed that like his peers, he does not support the presence of an armed officer on campus. He believed there is racially biased violence and profiling that occurs. Lily Widrig, senior at CHS, echoed her peers comments related to the removal of an armed officer on school campus. She believed the major issue of the current law enforcement program is extensive use of force. Dixie Reese former CHS student, stated she does not support the presence of an armed officer on any school campus. She believed the youth need to be heard, especially those of color. Robert Mann, junior at CHS, echoed his peers comments and is not in support of the presence of an armed officer on campus. He asked that the Commission listen to the voices of the students. Julia, CUSD parent, shared positive experiences she has encountered with the SRO. She believed children need to establish a healthy relationship with the police at an early age and having the SRO on campus is important. Trevor Mitchell, senior at CHS, echoed his peers comments regarding the removal of the SRO due to feeling unsafe. Bennett Rea, commended all students who have advocated for themselves and for their peers. He believed the voices of the students should be centered and not the idea that students need to be comfortable with and respect police. Miracle, former CHS student, stated she does not support the presence of having an armed SRO on campus. She questioned Harmonie s statement regarding the Healthy School Safety survey and its accuracy involving people of color. Sophie Rivasplata, junior at CHS, amplified the beliefs of her peers. She believed the presence of armed police officers in Claremont schools are damaging and counterintuitive and must be removed.

12 Christine Margiotta, CUSD parent, spoke about the jarring sight of seeing a weapon at eye level with young children. She echoed the students comments in support of the removal of the SRO position. Olivia Allison, junior at CHS, echoed earlier comments on the removal of the SRO and believed the school resource officer program has been a biased institution. Simonson, CUSD parent, spoke in support of the Claremont Police Department and the SRO position. Noah Winnick, Claremont Change, spoke in support of the students. He believed that students are being patronized and instead need to be listened to. Change needs to be made. Sy Rai Houston, sophomore at CHS, strongly disagreed with the presence of an armed officer on campus. She shared an experience in relation to the SRO and believed students should be allowed to have the final say. Alicia Brady, CUSD parent, amplified the voices of the students that are strongly disagreeing with the position of the SRO on campus. She believed their voices need to be centered and that mental health professionals are needed. Zack Kreines, senior at CHS, echoed students comments for the removal of the SRO position. He believed the voices of students of color need to be prioritized. Tegan Diercks, parent, spoke in opposition of the SRO position. She believed the true benefits and job requirements of the position need to be transferred into a new position or multiple positions that have no affiliation with the police. Josue Barnes, Claremont Change, echoed the voices of the students and parents not in support of the SRO position. He mentioned that he believed the See Something, Say Something Campaign encourages racial profiling and needs to be reevaluated. Larissa/Michael Judson, senior at CHS, spoke on his disapproval of a School Resource Officer on school campus. He believed that students are not being listened to, which shows a clear bias. The written public comment of Eve Mefferd was read into the record. Chair Bedoya reiterated what had been said and thanked the students who had come forward and shared their thoughts and opinions regarding this important topic. Chair Bedoya invited Commissioners comments. Commissioner Mohamed stated that he truly appreciated everyone s feedback. He believed the students were brave and compelling and he applauded them for coming forward with what they did. Commissioner Margiotta echoed Commissioner Mohamed s comments. She encouraged the students to keep showing up and keep telling their stories. She hears and sees them and is aware that this is a very important issue in the community.

13 Commissioner Talbott echoed the other Commissioners comments and reiterated the Chief s comment during her report regarding a School Resource Officer Ad Hoc Committee. He hoped that the community is seeing that the Police Commission is being responsive to this by the creation of the SRO Ad Hoc Committee along with specific goals and data. Commissioner Mason thanked the SRO Ad Hoc Committee for their efforts and looks forward to hearing updates. He commented on in-class drug searches and encouraged his colleagues on the SRO Ad Hoc Committee to directly ask that question to the school board to get some answers. Commissioner Huang thanked each speaker that made public comment. He commented on the intent of this ad hoc committee and was aware that there are other communities in California that have been advocating the same voices. He stated that additional work still needs to be done. Commissioner De Leo said he was encouraged to see this many ad hoc committees at one time. He believed there are a lot of good things happening and is excited for what is to come. Commissioner Talbott thanked the community for their participation on these important issues and encouraged them to continue to engage with the Commission. He thanked the Veterans on the Commission and the Veterans out in the community for their service and their sacrifices that they have made on behalf of everyone. Commissioner Mohamed echoed Commissioner Talbott s comments. Commissioner Margiotta thanked Commissioner Talbott for his service and asked Chief Vander Veen when the online complaint form will be available. Chief Vander Veen stated that Department staff is currently developing the online complaint form via the Smartsheets software. Commissioner Mason spoke in support of the expansion of the ad hoc committees. He thanked Chief Vander Veen for her efforts and believes the Department and City are being made a better place. He assured the community that the Police Commission is making progress on the statistical analysis front. Commissioner Strash echoed Commissioner Mason s comment on the efforts of the ad hoc committee and said it s encouraging. He appreciated the students feedback and believed it is important to hear their experiences. He also expressed appreciation for the psychologists, counselors, and therapists who stepped up and told their side of what they see and who they deal with. Commissioner Huang echoed his colleagues comments and understands that there is homework that needs to be done. He believed that there is no doubt that there is fear and racism that needs to be removed from the public-school setting. He would like the students to think about the statistics and data and how it can be better addressed. Commissioner Perez commented that there is a lot of room for growth and collaboration opportunities. In his opinion, the ad hoc committees are going to make changes everyone wants to see. He shared a personal experience and explained that it is important to find safety

14 that everyone is comfortable with. He appreciated everyone s comments, including the new Commissioners. Chair Bedoya thanked everyone and all the Commissioners for the work that is being done collectively and noted that the Police Commission has hard work ahead of them. There were no other requests to speak. REPORTS Looking ahead, Chair Bedoya reported there will be an analysis of the juvenile arrests, a patch update, and pre-employment evaluation on Candidate and Officer Personnel Survey to include screening of racial and ethnic and gender bias. He reiterated that in about two weeks, he, and Commissioner Talbott will reach out to discuss any information with the ad hoc committees and encouraged the committee members to share any information with Chief Vander Veen, especially written reports. In closing, he thanked everyone and wished all a Happy Thanksgiving. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bedoya adjourned the meeting at 10:01pm. The next regular meeting of the Police Commission will be held on Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. via zoom. Chair, Frank Bedoya ATTEST: Sr. Administrative Assistant, Lisa Amaya

15 Claremont Police Commission Agenda Report File #: 3606 Item No: 2. TO: FROM: POLICE COMMISSION SHELLY VANDER VEEN, CHIEF OF POLICE DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2020 Reviewed by: Finance Director: n/a SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY In 2015, Assembly Bill (AB) 953 enacted The Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIPA) into law which among other things, requires each California law enforcement agency employing peace officers to annually report their stop data to the Attorney General. RIPA s intent is to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve and understand diversity in law enforcement through training, education, and outreach. Under the RIPA requirements, the Claremont Police Department is required to start collecting data on January 1, 2022, so it can report it to the Department of Justice (DOJ) by April 1, The Police Department and the Police Commission s Data Analysis Ad Hoc Committee are evaluating past collected data and preparing for data to be collected in the RIPA program to ensure that the collected data is utilized to its fullest potential. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Police Commission take the following actions: A. Review, discuss, provide opportunity for community input, and provide feedback. B. Provide recommendations on additional data fields to include in the future data collection. ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION In addition to the recommendation, there are the following alternatives: A. Reject recommendation. B. Delay recommendation and request additional information. CLAREMONT Page 1 of 4 Printed on 11/25/2020 powered by Legistar

16 FINANCIAL REVIEW The staff cost to produce this report is estimated at $2,370 and is included in the operating budget of the Police Department. ANALYSIS In 2015, Assembly Bill (AB) 953 enacted The Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIPA) into law which among other things, requires each California law enforcement agency employing peace officers to annually report their stop data to the Attorney General. As defined in the regulations guiding RIPA Stop Data collection, a stop is any detention by a peace officer of a person or any peace officer interaction with a person in which an officer conducts a search. The data collection is for both pedestrian and vehicle stops. AB 953 established a phased approach for law enforcement agencies to collect and report the required data, based on the number of peace officers employed. The first wave submitted their first reports in 2019, and included all eight agencies in California that employ 1,000 or more peace officers. Refer to Attachment A for the RIPA 2020 Report Quick Facts with the Department of Justice s analysis of data provided by those eight agencies. Under the RIPA requirements, the Claremont Police Department is required to start collecting data on January 1, 2022, so it can report it to the Department of Justice (DOJ) by April 1, Per the Department of Justice, based on agencies who have already implemented RIPA data collection, it takes an average of 6 to 12 months for agencies to implement the data collection process within their agencies. The data that has to be collected includes: Date, time, and location of the stop; the reason for the stop; and the outcome of the stop, such as no action taken, a warning, a citation issued, property seized, or an arrest. If a warning or citation was given, the data must include the warning given or violation cited for. If an arrest was made, the offense charged. The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped. Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, including if the officer asked for consent to search the person, and, if so, whether consent was provided. Whether the peace officer searched the person or any property, and, if so, the basis for the search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any. Whether the peace officer seized any property, and, if so, the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing the property. Refer to Attachment B for a template of data values to be collected. There are two data collection options. An agency may choose to use the CA DOJ hosted web application, which is owned and operated by CA DOJ. When using this option, all data goes directly to CA DOJ, with DOJ providing an annual report with an analysis of the data. A second option is for agencies to gather data locally and periodically submit the data to CA DOJ. By gathering data locally, an agency can provide for more timely analysis with increased frequency. CLAREMONT Page 2 of 4 Printed on 11/25/2020 powered by Legistar

17 To collect the vast amount of data required under RIPA, the Claremont Police Department is in the process of determining if our Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS) vendor can develop software within our existing system. The Claremont Police Department contracts with Pulsiam (formerly Hitech) for both its CAD and RMS. Pulsiam provides these services to one other law enforcement agency in California (South Gate Police Department). Police Department staff has been in discussions with Pulsiam to develop the necessary software to collect and report RIPA data. An additional benefit to gathering data locally is the ability to customize the fields collected, specifically adding additional data points to be collected. The Data Analysis Ad Hoc Committee (comprised of Commissioners Caleb Mason, Jonathan Huang, Rafik Mohamed and Frank DeLeo) believes the data that will be collected in response to AB 953, is appropriate. However, if the collection of additional data is desired, it is imperative that the Police Commission give their recommendations prior to the completion of the software development. With respect to public access to and analysis of that data, the Data Analysis Ad Hoc Committee will continue to work with the Department and consider various possibilities. The Department of Justice analyses submitted data and will make it public annually. By having an associated software within our local Records Management System, we will have the ability to analyze and produce statistical analysis and reports more timely and frequently. Production of such an analysis will be immensely easier and less time-intensive for Department staff once the AB 953 collection protocols and system are in place. The Department currently collects the following arrest/citation data: Date, time, location of stop/contact If arrest made or citation issued, offense charged Physical descriptors including race, sex, age Vehicle information (year/make/model) A breakdown of this data for was provided to the Police Commission in the form of an agenda report during the July 9, 2020 meeting. The Data Analysis Ad Hoc Committee believes that the Department and Commission s goals of transparency will be furthered by additional analysis of this data to help provide a statistically rigorous perspective on issues raised by citizens regarding their interactions with the police. As stated above, data such as date, time, location, officer identity, subject race, and information for vehicle stops (vehicle s year/make/model) is already available and contained within the Department s Records Management System. Per a request from the Police Commission Data Analysis Ad Hoc Committee, information that will be added to the collected data includes the reason for the stop and whether or not the vehicle/subject was searched. The Committee believes that the further analysis of past data will provide a baseline for comparison with the future data to be collected under AB 953, insofar as the Committee has an interest in evaluating trends in data over time. To fulfill this request, Police Department staff is currently reviewing each of the 1,917 arrest reports from 2019, pulling available stop data from the narratives. The data will be placed into a spreadsheet that will be the basis of a database that can be meaningfully evaluated using statistical tools. Further analysis of all these fields will allow for meaningful discussions about Department policies and practices. CLAREMONT Page 3 of 4 Printed on 11/25/2020 powered by Legistar

18 The RIPA Board encourages law enforcement agencies to partner with colleges or universities to help with translation of data and to ensure that the collected data is utilized to its fullest potential. Chief Shelly Vander Veen and Data Analysis Ad Hoc Committee member, Commissioner Caleb Mason, have been searching for a University/College Professor from the region to conduct the initial statistical analysis. The ideal Professor will have research experience focusing on statistical analysis of policing data, particularly police-citizen interactions. An agreement on the use of the data, and the expectations of the Police Commission and Police Department is being developed, after which data analysis will begin. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff has evaluated the agenda item in relationship to the City s strategic and visioning documents and finds the following: General Plan, Budget, and Youth and Family Master Plan. CEQA REVIEW Receiving and filing the Police Department Data Collection and Analysis Report is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, Sec et seq.) ( CEQA ) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activities will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activities are not a project as defined in section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) excludes continued administrative activities and organization activities that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment from the definition of project. Moreover, even if the report were a project, it would be subject to the CEQA exemptions contained in CEQA Guideline Section because the report merely consists of information collection, and Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. Receiving and filing the report will not have a significant effect on the environment because the action will not result in or lead to a physical change in Claremont. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Due to the current health orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, parts of the City s regular agenda distribution process have been suspended as public review copies cannot be placed at their regular locations due to facility closures, or limited access. The agenda and this staff report are available on the City s website. If you desire a copy, please contact the City Clerk s Office. Submitted by: Shelly Vander Veen Police Chief Attachments: A - RIPA 2020 Report Quick Facts B - AB 953: Template Based on the Final Regulations CLAREMONT Page 4 of 4 Printed on 11/25/2020 powered by Legistar

19

20

21

22

23 AB 953: TEMPLATE BASED ON THE FINAL REGULATIONS Additional data values for the stop of a student in a K-12 public school are listed in red. 1. Originating Agency Identifier (prepopulated field) 2. Date, Time, and Duration of Stop Date: (e.g., 01/01/19) Start Time (approx.): (e.g. 1530) Duration of Stop (approx.): (e.g. 30 min.) 3. Location Report one (listed in order of preference): block number and street name; closest intersection; highway and closest highway exit. If none of these are available, the officer may report a road marker, landmark, or other description, except cannot report street address if location is a residence. City: Check here to indicate stop is of a student at K-12 public school: o Name of -12 Public School 4. Perceived Race or Ethnicity of Person Stopped (select all that apply) Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino(a) Middle Eastern or South Asian Native American Pacific Islander White 5. Perceived Gender of Person Stopped (may select one from options 1-4 AND option 5, if applicable, or just option 5) 1. Male 2. Female 3. Transgender man/boy 4. Transgender woman/girl 5. Gender nonconforming 6. Person Stopped Perceived to be LGBT (Yes/No) ( Yes must be selected if Transgender was selected for Perceived Gender ) 7. Perceived Age of Person Stopped (input the perceived, approximate age) 8. Person Stopped Has Limited or No English Fluency (check here if Yes ) 9. Perceived or Known Disability of Person Stopped (select all that apply) o Deafness or difficulty hearing o Speech impairment or limited use of language o Blind or limited vision o Mental health condition o Intellectual or developmental disability, including dementia o Disability related to hyperactivity or impulsive behavior o Other disability o None November 7, 2017 Page 1

24 AB 953: TEMPLATE BASED ON THE FINAL REGULATIONS Additional data values for the stop of a student in a K-12 public school are in listed in red. 10. Reason for Stop (select one - the primary reason for the stop only) o Traffic violation Specific code (CJIS offense table; select drop down) and Type of violation (select one) Moving violation Equipment violation Non-moving violation, including registration violation o Reasonable suspicion that person was engaged in criminal activity Specific Code (drop down; select primary if known) and Basis (select all applicable) Officer witnessed commission of a crime Matched suspect description Witness or victim identification of suspect at the scene Carrying suspicious object Actions indicative of casing a victim or location Suspected of acting as a lookout Actions indicative of a drug transaction Actions indicative of engaging in a violent crime Other reasonable suspicion of a crime o Known to be on parole/probation/prcs/mandatory supervision o Knowledge of outstanding arrest warrant/wanted person o Investigation to determine whether person was truant o Consensual encounter resulting in search o Possible conduct warranting discipline under Education Code sections 48900, , , , and (select specific Educ. Code section & subdivision) o Determine whether student violated school policy A brief explanation is required regarding the reason for the stop and must provide additional detail beyond the general data values selected (250-character maximum). 11. Stop Made in Response to a Call for Service (Yes/No) (Select Yes only if stop was made in response to call for service, radio call, or dispatch) 12A. Actions Taken by Officer(s) During Stop (select all that apply) o Person removed from vehicle by order o Person removed from vehicle by physical contact o Field sobriety test conducted o Curbside detention o Handcuffed or flex cuffed o Patrol car detention o Canine removed from vehicle or used to search o Firearm pointed at person o Firearm discharged or used o Electronic control device used o Impact projectile discharged or used (e.g. blunt impact projectile, rubber bullets or bean bags) o Canine bit or held person o Baton or other impact weapon used o Chemical spray used (e.g. pepper spray, mace, tear gas, or other chemical irritants) o Other physical or vehicle contact o Person photographed November 7, 2017 Page 2

25 AB 953: TEMPLATE BASED ON THE FINAL REGULATIONS Additional data values for the stop of a student in a K-12 public school are in listed in red. o o o o o o o o Asked for consent to search person Consent given Consent not given Search of person was conducted Asked for consent to search property Consent given Consent not given Search of property was conducted Property was seized Vehicle impound Admission or written statement obtained from student None 12B. Basis for Search (if search of person/property/both was conducted; select all that apply) o Consent given o Officer safety/safety of others o Search warrant o Condition of parole/probation/prcs/mandatory supervision o Suspected weapons o Visible contraband o Odor of contraband o Canine detection o Evidence of crime o Incident to arrest o Exigent circumstances/emergency o Vehicle inventory (for search of property only) o Suspected violation of school policy A brief explanation is required regarding the basis for the search and must provide additional detail beyond the general data values selected (250-character maximum). This field is not required if basis for search is condition of parole/probation/prcs/mandatory supervision. 12C. Contraband or Evidence Discovered, if any (during search/in plain view; select all that apply) o None o Firearm(s) o Ammunition o Weapon(s) other than a firearm o Drugs/narcotics o Alcohol o Money o Drug paraphernalia o Suspected stolen property o Cell phone(s) or electronic device(s) o Other contraband or evidence 12D. Basis for Property Seizure (if property was seized; select all that apply) o Safekeeping as allowed by law/statute o Contraband o Evidence o Impound of vehicle November 7, 2017 Page 3

26 AB 953: TEMPLATE BASED ON THE FINAL REGULATIONS Additional data values for the stop of a student in a K-12 public school are in listed in red. o o Abandoned property Suspected violation of school policy Type of Property Seized (select all that apply) o Firearm(s) o Ammunition o Weapon(s) other than a firearm o Drugs/narcotics o Alcohol o Money o Drug paraphernalia o Suspected stolen property o Cell phone(s) or electronic device(s) o Vehicle o Other contraband or evidence 13. Result of Stop (select all that apply) o No action o Warning (verbal or written): Code/ordinance cited (drop down) o Citation for infraction: Code/ordinance cited (drop down) o In-field cite and release: Code/ordinance cited (drop down) o Custodial arrest pursuant to outstanding warrant o Custodial arrest without warrant: Code/ordinance cited (drop down) o Field Interview Card completed o Noncriminal transport or caretaking transport (including transport by officer, transport by ambulance, or transport by another agency) o Contacted parent/legal guardian or other person responsible for the minor o Psychiatric hold (Welfare & Inst. Code, 5150, ) o Referred to U.S. Department of Homeland Security (e.g., ICE, CBP) o Referral to school administrator o Referral to school counselor or other support staff 14. Officer s Identification (I.D.) Number (prepopulated field) 15. Officer s Years of Experience (total number of years worked as a peace officer) 16. Type of Assignment of Officer (select one) o Patrol, traffic enforcement, field operations o Gang enforcement o Compliance check (e.g. parole/prcs/probation/mandatory supervision) o Special events (e.g. sports, concerts, protests) o Roadblock or DUI sobriety checkpoint o Narcotics/vice o Task force o K-12 public school, including school resource officer or school police officer o Investigative/detective o Other (manually specify type of assignment) November 7, 2017 Page 4

27 Claremont Police Commission Agenda Report File #: 3607 Item No: 3. TO: FROM: POLICE COMMISSION SHELLY VANDER VEEN, POLICE CHIEF DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2020 Reviewed by: Finance Director: N/A SUBJECT: SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AD HOC COMMITTEE (ORAL REPORT) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Police Commission receives an oral report from the School Resource Officer (SRO) Ad Hoc Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Due to the current health orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, parts of the City s regular agenda distribution process have been suspended as public review copies cannot be placed at their regular locations due to facility closures, or limited access. The agenda and this staff report are available on the City s website. If you desire a copy, please contact the City Clerk s Office. Submitted by: Shelly Vander Veen Police Chief CLAREMONT Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/25/2020 powered by Legistar