04.10.24 POP MinutesBoulder Police Oversight Panel (BPOP)
April 10th, 2024
Meeting Minutes
In attendance:
Panelists: Soledad Diaz, Mylene Vialard, Madelyn Woodley Strong, Victor King, Luna
Rosal, Abigail Franke, Lizzie Friend, Bill de la Cruz, and Bwembya Chikolwa.
City Staff: Nuria Vandermyde-Rivera (CMO), Sherry Daun (IPM), Erin Poe (CAO), Selena
Duenas (CMO) and Sterling Ekwo (BPD).
Consultants: Farah Muscadin.
[02:20 – 15:45] Introduction/Nuria Conversation
City Manager, Nuria Vandermyde-Rivera, welcomed the new panelists. She shared
that they are an integral part of the city, and she strongly believes in oversight and
thinks it is important. The city manager does not lack faith in the police but believes
in accountability, where the Panel holds a critical function. She thanked them for
their time and energy. She acknowledged that in the future the panel will see
difficult cases and footage and hopes that they especially take care of their mental
health. She is aware that the panel is curious and will review a few topics with
them.
What is the timetable of the hiring of the Chief of Police? Recruiters are updating the
job description. The city will send a survey to critical stakeholders like POP. They will
solicit input from other community organizations and critical stakeholders including faith
leaders across the community. They will finalize the survey by the end of this month and
send it out to those listed. Also, the city plans to finalize the recruitment brochure and
make the recruitment website live. A recruitment website is not something they do for
every position; however, the city wants to be transparent regarding this recruitment. She
hopes the consultants complete the brochure and website by the end of this month so the
community can see progress as they move forward. They will post the position by early
May for three weeks to make sure that since it is a national search people have an
opportunity to apply. This recruitment will be done with an external recruiter (Raftelis) and
not the city’s HR. During this process, the city will finish and develop the next stages
which are the interview process, community meetings and the series of interview panels.
At the end of May they hope HR and the consultants will complete the initial review of the
candidates. She hopes to have a Chief in place by the summer of 2024.
Budget for the Panel: The city manager understands the importance of the budget to be
prioritized for the panel’s Community Engagement & Communications subcommittee.
She advised the panel to reflect on the kinds of engagement they want to make during the
year and provide to Ms. Daun to make that request. Department requests are due by May
17th, 2024. The IPM & panel are constrained as they do not receive a lot of funding, but
she understands the importance; the city wants the panel to be able to perform their
function of engaging with the community. The city manager has more flexibility with one-
time dollars and is not concerned about the panel lacking resources to conduct their
engagement activities.
Mr. De la Cruz asked if the panel has a strict budget or is a one-time dollar amount?
The city manager answered that none of the advisory boards have permitted budgets, but
the money essentially comes out from the liaison department.
The new panelists introduced themselves to the city manager.
Mr. De la Cruz asked how extensively the recruiter will, in terms of candidates,
investigate candidates of color and if they are adaptable.
The city manager mentioned that the city has used Raftelis for a few years and is pleased
with some of the recruitment. She noted previous h recruitments that she was not
pleased about and sent them out again because they lacked diverse candidates. As city
manager, she leans into the city’s racial equity goals and the recruiter is aware of these
goals as well. Upon her review of the job description, she edited quite a bit because it
initially lacked sufficient racial equity in the description.
Ms. Vialard inquired about how the city evaluates whether a candidate's vocabulary
aligns with their actions on their resume.
The city manager added that they will look further into that when reviewing the
candidates’ accomplishments, and their referrals. The city manager hopes the community
partners and panels will challenge candidates with their questions during the interview
process.
[15:50 – 40:47] Farah Muscadin welcome & Bylaw Options
Ms. Muscadin introduced herself to the new panelists and referenced a prior email
to the panelists regarding the bylaws and starting the process of reviewing them.
She gave a brief history of why the bylaws are important to the panel. Ms. Muscadin
asked for feedback from the panel as to how they want to proceed with this
process. She mentioned that the bylaws need updating to comply with Ordinance
8690 and for consistency with on how the panel operates. There are incomplete
sections of the ordinance require finalization. Ms. Muscadin provided three options
to the panel and the logistics of each option. Ms. Muscadin anticipated there will
choose some combination of each option.
Ms. Vialard inquired about how long this process will take. Ms. Muscadin explained
that timing will depend on their level of participation. Under Option 1, the review
will be about a month or two, Option 2, will be closer to a two-month turnaround.
Option 2 is the same process the panel took when they updated the ordinance,
when they worked through the summer and finished by August of 2023. Farah
continued to explain how each process could look.
Ms. Friend asked if there is an urgency, specifically legal concerns, or can they take
their time? Ms. Poe answered that there is some time, and the panel is getting
through their agendas and making things work as they go. She added that there is
not a legal requirement for bylaws so they are not in jeopardy without them, but
updated bylaws will make things easier for the panel.
Ms. Friend asked how many people want to be involved in putting in time to review
the bylaws.
Ms. Muscadin shared that what worked in the past was having a new member and an old
member participate. The new member brings in a new lens of what it means to them being
new to oversight, while the old member brings in the historical context of what has not
worked for the group. Ms. Muscadin recommended that the bylaws be a standing item on
the agenda to update the panel every month.
Ms. Franke and Ms. Diaz volunteered for the working group.
Ms. Woodley Strong opined that this is a critical project for the panel because it
allows them to operate consistently as a group.
Ms. Diaz added the urgency of this work as the vision and intention of the new
ordinance do not match with the current bylaws. She expressed the need to align
them as soon as possible, and thinks they need to catch up to embrace the new
ordinance. She thought 90 days was reasonable.
Mr. King added that anyone who volunteers for this work needs to consider
balancing their time with case reviews and other panel work. Mr. King liked Option
2.
Ms. Friend asked how many hours are dedicated per week. Ms. Muscadin
estimated two hours weekly initially and as time goes on changing the meetings to
biweekly. Ms. Friend asked those who were present during the last bylaw update if
there was public interest and whether there was a precedent for community
members wanting transparency when creating the bylaws. Mr. King added that
when the panel created and updated bylaws in the past it was tedious to have
public members apart of the working group, but they should limit it to only two
members of the panel. Ms. Muscadin explained that as a standing item on the
agenda, it provides transparency.
Ms. Diaz proposed to the panel that every other meeting be closed and open to the
public. Her proposal was for extensive work to occur in the closed meetings and
intend for the open meetings to encourage participation and feedback.
Ms. Muscadin summarized that the panel’s decision is a combination of options
between a two-person work group from the panel with alternating public meetings.
Farah will send an email to the panel about what the meeting schedule will look
like, essentially it would be two subcommittee meetings, an open meeting for the
public, and a bylaw update at an All-Panel meeting.
Ms. Vialard motioned to approve, Ms. Woodley Strong seconded, approved.
[41:10 – 42:00] Case Review
Mr. King explained this item to be voted on for the panel to move to a closed
session for the sole purpose of discussing confidential case reviews and for the
panelists to ask questions about confidential material.
Ms. Diaz motioned to approve, Ms. Vialard seconded, approved.
[42:00 – 01:07:24] Closed session
Break
[01:07:47 – 01:23:20] – Case Review Vote
Mr. King explained this item that the panel will need to vote on and assign cases
that they voted on at the last meeting.
SM2024-002: YES, 9-0
Ms. Vialard, Ms. Diaz, Mx. Rosal, Mr. Chikolwa volunteered to review this case.
MI2024-011: YES, 6-3
Ms. Diaz, Ms. Friend, and Mr. De la Cruz volunteered to review this case.
MI2024-012: NO, 1-5; 3 abstentions
MI2024-013: YES, 7-2
Ms. Diaz, Ms. Vialard, Ms. Franke, and Ms. Friend volunteered to review this case.
MI2024-014: YES, 8-1
Mr. Savela, Ms. Barlow, Mx. Rosal volunteered to review this case.
MI2024-015: NO, 0-8; 1 abstention
MI2024-016: NO, 3-5; 1 abstention
MI2024-017: NO, 2-6; 1 abstention
MI2024-018: NO, 0-9
The panel previously voted on the following cases and needed to select reviewers:
MI2023-034: Ms. Villalobos needs to be replaced as she no longer is on the panel, Mr. De
la Cruz volunteered to be the replacement.
MI2024-002: Ms. Franke and Ms. Barlow volunteered to review this case.
MI2024-005: Mr. Chikolwa, Ms. Franke, Mr. Savela volunteered to review this case.
MI2024-008: Ms. Diaz, Ms. Vialard, and Mx. Rosal volunteered to review this case.
MI2024-009: Ms. Vialard, Ms. Diaz, Ms. Franke, and Ms. Woodley volunteered to review
this case.
[01:24:24 – 01:30:00] Committee Updates
Community Engagement
Ms. Diaz gave the update of this subcommittee; they have been in contact with El Centro
Amistad and are trying to set up a meeting with them. They are waiting to hear back from
them with dates.
Ms. Diaz mentioned that two panel members and Ms. Muscadin are planning the Retreat.
Farah mentioned that her thoughts of retreat are very formal compared to this “retreat”
which is an opportunity for panel members to get to know each other, determine how they
want to work together as a team, and take the opportunity for some team building. This is
scheduled for Sunday, April 21st, 2024, 9am-12pm. Ms. Muscadin provided some logistics
and questions expectations for this “retreat”. Ms. Franke and Mx. Rosal have reserved the
room, and the panel will meet at the CU Wolf Law building, Rom 303.
Legacy
Mr. Chikolwa gave the update of this subcommittee; they are still waiting on their data
request from BPD Daniel Reinhart. Once they have that data, they will dig into it and
present it at the next meeting.
Ms. Daun added that Dr. Reinhart explained that this request was going to take him a bit
longer than expected. He will attend this next subcommittee meeting on April 25th, 2024,
at 6:00PM.
[01:30:00 – 01:33:02] Follow-up from Q1 Meeting with the Chief
Ms. Vialard shared that the panel had previously asked the Chief to limit his
answers to less than five minutes.
Ms. Vialard asked Ms. Duenas regarding the occurrence of this meeting. The
Quarterly POP and the Chief of Police meeting is moved to the fourth Monday from
6:30 – 8:30PM. This schedule change is reflected on the Police Oversight Panel’s
website.
[01:33:12 – 01:46:16] Naropa MOU
Ms. Daun circled back with the panel regarding the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Naropa University. She sought movement on whether they want to
continue services with Naropa’s counseling services.
Mx. Rosal asked for more information regarding this MOU. Ms. Daun explained that it is an
expired contract, and the conversation is whether the panel wanted to renew this
contract especially since the panel will be reviewing documents of the fatal police
involved shooting.
Ms. Vialard added that students would provide these services and she does not believe
that is sufficient. She clarified that her concern is not because of their teaching, but
because she feels the students are too early in their careers to handle this sort of
situation. She requested that the panel add to the budget for a search of actual
experienced counselors or therapists.
Ms. Woodley asked Ms. Daun how the panel came about contracting these services with
Naropa. Ms. Diaz added that Naropa provides free counseling to the community, and it
was giving the panel access to those services. She added that maybe they can choose
one specific person who may be more experienced.
Mr. De la Cruz added that internal services where employees can access. He is
wondering if staff can check if this is available for panel members before they start
searching for services. Ms. Diaz also clarified that this is no way undermining the services
that Naropa provides but there is a concern that the panel might need a higher level of
expertise.
Mr. King added that this MOU does not have to be contracted for many years and that right
now the panel does not have any other support outside other than just themselves. He
suggested ed that the panel consider contracting with Naropa for a couple of months until
they figure something out, so they have some resource in place Mr. Chikolwa agreed with
Mr. King and thinks the idea of setting up this MOU with Naropa is to have something and
not have nothing. They will investigate further into the services and add this item to the
next meeting.
[01:46:26 – 01:47:35] Approval February 14, 2024, BPOP
Meeting Minutes
Ms. Woodley Strong motioned to approve, Ms. Vialard seconded.
[01:47:10 – 01:48:00] Approval March 2024 BPOP Meeting
Minutes
Mr. De la Cruz motioned to approve; Ms. Vialard seconded.
[01:48:52 – 01:57:16] IPM Report
Full case file review(s) completed in March 2024: 0
Full case file review(s) completed and pending BPD disposition: 0
Cases awaiting Panel Review: 9 (MI2023-035, MI2023-035, SM2024-001, MI2024-
001, MI2024-002, MI2024-003, MI2024-005, MI2024-008, MI2024-009)
March 2024 Monthly Case Statistics
Number of complaints that IPM classified: 13
Misconduct: 8
Serios Misconduct: 1
Community Inquiries: 2
Community Feedback: 2
Conflict Facilitation Process: 0
Interviews IPM observed: 6
Critical Incidents Scene response: 0
BPD investigations IPM deemed thorough and complete: 3
Case investigations BPD closed: 3
Open Docket
As of April; 1, 2024 open IPM-BPOP docket: 21
Classified cases: 21
Pending IPM classification: 0
2023 Open Cases: (x5)
MI2023-018: IPM deemed investigation thorough and complete in February 2024, pending
Chief’s final determinations.
MI2023-028: IPM deemed investigation thorough and complete in March 2024, pending
Chief’s final determinations.
MI2023-033: accused officer returned from extended leave in March 2024; interview
pending.
MI2023-034: IPM deemed investigation thorough and complete in March 2024, pending
Chief’s final determinations.
MI2023-035: IPM returned to BPD for additional investigative steps.
Update: December 17, 2023, Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting
Ms. Daun informed the panel that BPD expects to be scheduling their force review panel,
give everyone access to the file and providing invitees about three weeks the opportunity
to review all the footage.
IPM Community Engagement
Ms. Daun attended multiple events hosted by the Boulder Chamber of Commerce and an
event at the University of Colorado Center for Race, Media, and Technology. She is
continuing her collaborating with the Center for People with Disabilities.
Ms. Daun attended BPD’s two trainings: classroom training in high-risk traffic stops and
related field training.
[01:57:23 – 01:58:02]
Ms. Daun updated that the Governor signed the law banning law enforcement
agencies and coroners from using the term excited delirium in their reports.
[01:58:08 – 01:58:35] Public Comment
a. No public members attended.