Task Force to Reimagine the Public Safety Advisory Commission Meeting - November 20, 2025

If this is the first time that you've joined us, welcome. There are a number of folks that have been meeting since last spring, and we've had a lot of different types of meeting formats. We have a document in front of us today that is an attempt to capture all of that work in one place at a level that can be forwarded to the assembly for them to take the ball and consider some sort of action, um, in developing a new commission for public safety in Anchorage. Um, we have an agenda today and it's very optimistic, so I'm going to do my best to move us along but also not rush you. So that is my intention for today.

We have a lot of structure today that may feel a little bit different than what we've been doing, and that's because it's time to make decisions. So I'm going to kind of walk through what that looks like, and we can talk about, you know, how that feels for people and whether there's questions around how you can engage.

We have some time set aside to walk through the document, and I know many of you, you know, we just distributed it Monday, so So we want to create some space for that. My job, I think, today is to help us really focus on the document itself. Okay? So I'm going to try and keep us focused on content and maybe wording and making sure things are clear. I also want to recognize that we've gotten a lot of feedback that isn't included in the document that is probably— the reason for that is because it's probably more appropriate for maybe the implementation phase.

Or even that steps between what happens here and what happens at the assembly. Um, this process wasn't resourced with legal review or drafting for an assembly document, so there may be some technical questions that come up that we're just not going to be able to answer in this process, and, and that's okay. So the hope is that our recommendations capture the intention of this process, and that's our work. And then just know that then, then there's another phase, and that is the policymaking process, and there will be advocacy that everyone will need to do to help engage there, and that'll be a different process.

Okay, um, so we do have a plan for some voting and decision-making after we get through the document and some of the— we received 8 amendments before today, um, and we— I already know of one that's being drafted right now. Um, so if you have an amendment, um, that you think you want to put on the table, um, see one of my team members and they'll kind of work with you because we're going to have to pivot real quick to make space for that. And we don't really know exactly how that's going to work. Um, we're using technology for our voting, so we have to kind of figure that out. Um, but I think And if you all are ready, we're ready to start leading you through that process.

What am I forgetting? I'm totally off script here. Give me a second. The voting. Yeah, should I walk through it?

Yep. Alright. So what we were thinking before we walk through the document, we were thinking about doing a little practice vote that might be fun. It's about pineapple on pizza. So before I go there, I want to talk a little bit about this phase of the process.

And so back in September, this is the fourth of four meetings for what we've been calling Phase 2. And we wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity for those of you— I've seen many of you at every single meeting, and so we wanted to sort of honor that and create space where people that were in the voting process have been engaged in some way. And so members of the public and task force members are invited to participate participate in the voting process, um, so long as you have participated in one of the last, uh, 3 meetings, so today being the 4th. Um, that includes whether you have gone online and watched one of the videos, and I've already heard from a lot of you that you did that, and we're using the honor system. So if that's you, you're invited to vote.

If that's not you, you are absolutely invited to participate in all of the discussions today, and you are absolutely invited to even submit an amendment, um, but we just won't have you participate in the voting part. So, um, we'll take a count once it's time, um, and we're going to use consensus voting, which means we have zero no votes for something to move forward. But if we have a no vote on something, then we'll move into a majority vote, which will mean, um, 50% of the number of votes plus one. And in order for us to get to that point, we need to assess how many people are actually going to be voting.

And then I also want to say anyone at any point, if you're eligible to vote and you're in this room, you can absolutely abstain from any vote. And so there may be folks in this room that want to abstain. If you are eligible to vote, we ask that you abstain versus opting out of voting so that it's an accurate reflection of the majority count overall. And so if that's something that you choose to do, we're also doing it confidentially, and we hope that that So that creates space so people feel like, you know, they can vote their heart and there's not going to be any ramifications from anyone in the room. Our team will have the ability to tell, like, we need to have some integrity with the voting process in case there's something really close.

We are asking that you put your name in the system. We won't be showing it on the screen and we won't be sharing it unless somebody does a public records request. I mean, it is potentially public information, but I just want to share that intention is that the vote What's confidential in the room, our team will not be sharing any of that information, and that's my expectation is that that's how it will end up. Okay, um, what have I missed?

I think we've gone through it. You guys want to do a practice vote? So we're, we're going to use a light version of Robert's Rules once we get started.

Yes. Um, so I think I already see like a, like something that we might want to talk about. Like, I don't know if everyone has the ability to actually do the voting. Oh, thank you. That was, that was something.

Thank you. We have some iPads, so if, if you are not interested in using your phone or you don't have a phone, um, please let one of our team members know. We have iPads, um, or one of our team members can actually be your, your proxy and will confidentially walk you through it. Is that the best way to handle that? Yeah, just raise your hand or let me or Annika or Everett know and we'll come over and help you.

Does that work for everyone? Yes, yes, go ahead. There was a video that people were supposed to be able to watch before they could vote. How was that information shared with the groups? Did everybody in the group get that information?

Like the people that were here at the last meeting, were they told at the last meeting, hey, make sure you go to the website, visit the website, and there's going to be a video on that that you're going to need to watch to be able to vote. Yeah, so I believe what's happened, but I'm going to let others that have been in charge of this correct me. Um, so there have been communications, publicly noticed since early September, about how this entire Phase 2 process would work. But obviously, if you're not like watching the public notices, um, you know, but there's a big listserv that I know, um, exists. So if people are on the Public Safety listserv, it's been pushed out We do these regularly to the best of our ability.

So I guess I'm just wondering if everybody in the room kind of, you know, realizes that that was a requirement to vote and if that is a necessary barrier that should be put up for people to be able to vote. And I'm not going to vote today. I'm an assembly member, and so this is not my time to vote. It's the community's time to vote. But I'm just wondering if the community realized, right, like—.

Yeah. And maybe they all did. Yeah. I'm happy to hear it. But I didn't hear anything about it at the last meeting, which I think would have been important.

Like, if you're here in person, tell people that are here in person. Yeah, yeah, I'll go, you know, do this. Yeah, anyway, that's not— so is that a barrier for anyone in the room? Yeah, um, just on the surface, this is not the end of voting. This is a proposal that's going to be assembled.

There's going to be time for you to submit students to engage. If you're identifying that it's not getting a wide enough dissemination, that's something that we can continue to work on. Yeah, I think I saw a hand back here. No? No?

Okay, go ahead, Jamie. I did have one question. I apologize. No problem. I take responsibility.

Let's hear it, Jamie. So this document has amendments to a document that I guess was published on Monday. Yeah, I never saw that document. Yeah, fair. So I don't know what the original is.

Is there an extra copy of the original? That includes the original copy. Yeah, yeah. So like, it's just broken up into the section. So like the first page that you see, that's the original version.

Yeah. All right. I didn't know if there was a—. Thank you for asking that. So if today's the first day that you're seeing this document, that's why we're going to make space to walk through it together.

It shouldn't be new information because it represents our work, but we'll see. What you got? I have no idea what video you are talking about. Okay. It sounds like multiple people don't.

So were we supposed to watch a specific video, or are we talking about just watching any of the videos of the meetings? So, um, the process for this phase started back in September, and we hoped everybody would participate in at least one meeting before today. And we allowed folks to go watch one of the meetings if they couldn't do that. Okay, so participation is okay. They don't have to watch a video if they participate.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, so there was no like video you had to watch before getting here to vote, right? It was either you're here in person or you are being truthful and honest and saying you have watched at least one of the prior videos that are on the website. That's it. Okay, sorry it took me a second.

Alright, I'm with you. You ready to dive in?

Okay, so before we walk through the document, we're going to do a little test here and see how this goes with the voting. So Isabella, do you want to— Does anyone need someone with an iPod to come over to help them before we get into the voting? This is just a test.

Okay, if that is you, let us know. Yeah, so again, um, we're going to start with a consensus vote, and the question is— actually, sorry, we're coming. Do it. Yeah, so the question is, so let's imagine that we're voting on amendments. I'll switch the slide in just a moment.

Yeah, should we wait for presenter? Yeah, I'll switch the slide. Are we—. When do we get to that? Yeah, that one already.

So let's Imagine that we're amending our recommendations that all commission meetings will have pizza with pineapple. Okay, so that's the amendment on the table. When we get to amendments, I'm going to ask if somebody— if I have a motion to move that amendment. So I'll need somebody in the room to make a motion, and then I'll need somebody to second that. So can we practice that?

Somebody want to try that step? And just because you make a motion doesn't mean that you're in support of it either. Yeah, I move to approve. All right, do I have a second? Second.

Okay, let's go ahead and see whether we have consensus. So the choices are yes or I can live with it, and if you choose I can live with it, then that, that counts with the yeses for the total. And are you guys—. Are you answering for real? I'm like, no.

And then we've got some people abstaining. So this is also going to help us with the number of total votes here. Although I haven't counted people on the road. Can you—. I don't want to single anybody out if they're not voting.

And then I see some folks coming in. How about we just count the people that are on this line?

Oh, it's 21. Okay, we're getting there.

Yes, we did. We have invited the public to participate alongside the task force. Yeah, from that group. Yeah. Okay, so I've got 21 total.

I'm seeing a few people join. I'm going to come back to the total voters, and we're just going to raise before we start the real voting. But this is basically— look at this, we've got 6 nos. So you know what that— what does that mean?

We don't have consensus. Yes, great. So we're going to go ahead and do a majority vote now, which means you got to pick yes, no, or abstain. It's 50% plus 1. So we're going to use the number 21 on this because that's how many we had.

Is that right?

15. Oh, why did I—. There's 21 people like signed in. Okay, okay. Do we think anyone's having issues?

Is everyone that's wanting to vote able to? You got to do it again because it's not going to be another It's okay, it doesn't show up. I know, I'm trying to keep it as confidential as possible, but we might need to resort to the hand raising. Start to support that theory. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, so it looks like we have 21 people that are logged in, but only 15 people that have submitted a vote. So I am going to do a hand raise just because it's pineapple, and I think it's a safe thing to know who's voting. Um, can you— oh, look, there's 16. Can you raise your hand if you voted so we can make sure everyone's working? All right, thank you.

Keep them up. Oh, you haven't done yet? Okay, gotcha. Okay, all right, we're coming, bud. Thank you.

What are you doing though? Oh, I'm trying to make sure that everyone, everyone who has voted that we have that it's working.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

So you have 16 people? Yep. So it looks like— you still raising your hand? Did you get what you need? I think so.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right, so, uh, pineapple wins.

Uh, what we will do if we have a very close vote, just because technology can be funny, we have a very close vote, our team will go and look and we'll get to the bottom of it because we will have your names. All right, so we're clear on that, Samwork? You ready to walk through the duck All right, so you all have a document that looks like this, and it's titled, uh, Draft Recommendations and Received Amendments, and it's got today's date on it. So if you didn't see the first version, the only difference between this version and the version that went out is that we've actually highlighted the content that we received amendments on. So we're going to walk through each section and just cover the content to make sure it's clear what it means, and we'll also cover the, the amendments that we have received so far by section with the goal of brief discussion about the intention of the section, maybe a little deliberation, but this isn't new discussion.

We've been talking about these things for 6 months, so it shouldn't feel too new to folks. But really the goal is that we understand what we're voting on, right? And then once we get through this, if there are any other amendments that we would like to have happen in the room, then we'll see what those are. We have 8 in front of us and 1 that I think is being drafted, so that's 9 total. So it's going to take a minute for us to get through.

Um, so let's go for it. Yes, sir. I'm drafting one as well. Okay.

So then it would be great, Kyle, if when we get to that part with our overview that we can have a conversation about what you're thinking, um, because the way that we order the voting, like, you can't propose an amendment to reverse one that we voted on. No, no, it only applies if it passes. If it doesn't pass, it doesn't apply. If the whole thing passes? If Amendment 1 passes.

If you want, I can speak to it now, but it will be a first point unless it Got it. Not at all. Okay, all right, well, it sounds like it's going to come up real quick. Yes, this is the first one. Okay, got it.

All right, so, uh, Section 1 is about mission and duties, and we have 4 total sections. So just so you know where we're going, we've got mission and duties and then authority options, right? And under authority options, we've got 3 different options, and we have some amendments there, and those I want to make sure we have plenty of time to Walkthrough, and then we have Membership Structure and Staffing, and then a final section on Evaluation, Reporting, and Bylaws. We've received proposed amendments on the first 3 sections. We did not receive any on Section 4.

So, all right, so I'll just give everyone a moment. Um, I don't think I'm going to read this out loud. If you look at the second page, there's proposed replacement language for the highlighted bullet titled "contain community input including public concerns related to homelessness, crisis response, and broader safety concerns." And the recommendation is to replace that language with "contain community input including public concerns related to law enforcement response, crisis response, and broader safety conditions. So this is just for discussion and clarity, so let's hear it. Okay, so, uh, Miss Brigger, I mean no disrespect, uh, anyway, we had a conversation of it, and so, um, my story was almost a bit out of it, uh, worked at Coalition, so I have experience there, uh, I go to camps pretty much every day, probably more field experience.

Anybody in this room? At camps. And so what I can say is this, I also go to these PRS meetings, uh, and it's Homeless Prevention Response System Advisory Council. They mainly deal with data. And so, you know, it's an hour Zoom call.

This one Zoom call was canceled. It was supposed to be today. And pretty much they just talking in this Zoom call and it's talking about data and it's not people. 10 Out of 13 people that call Commission never stepped foot outside. And so while you have those organizations, they sort of exist in a vacuum, and they are specifically dealing with housing, they're not dealing with public safety.

And then on top of this, this commission is supposed to be to advise the mayor on policies related to safety. It is an advisory board, it's directly to the mayor, um, so there was some weight to it that isn't with just a normal 501(c)(3) that's operating suddenly outside of this. And so, personally, I do not believe that this amendment should pass. I think we should say that we want to include people pertaining to homelessness because they tend to be overlooked in these sort of things where the driver of this thing was officer-involved shootings. And while public safety is obviously a broad topic, most of the interactions that police have are with people outside.

They fear retaliation They do not report things, and a lot of times their safety is— it just, it seems like it's swept under the rug. The shooting that happened on Fairbank Street last year, that wasn't even somebody who lived there. The shootings that happened at Davis Park, those were not people that lived there either. The people—. There was a woman who came up to me last Friday at one of the Pantry's Fairies ones that I volunteer at.

And she approached me. And ever since the invasion of Davis Park, she's been wandering the streets, uh, with nowhere to go. And she used to be in a tent in Snowdon, and if anything happened and approached her, uh, somebody would scream, somebody would go over, put that person in check, and she would be protected. There was strength in numbers for people that were there from outsiders. And now, uh, she's sleeping anywhere.

When I saw her Friday, she was sleeping under a bridge. The night before, she woke up within the span of days previous to this, someone ambushed her, essentially accosted her, and she's less safe now than she was before and is so numb and tense because nobody is around that she knows to protect her from outsiders. And so pertaining to public safety, I think, uh, you know, in this coalition of homelessness, I work for them, I still talk to Justin regularly, and I'd probably go back, but I do think Jim, sorry to cut you off, but just to kind of move us along, am I hearing that you're supportive of keeping— I'm again, yes, if there's one wish I would keep, I would, because there do need to be people with lived experience, homeless lived experience on this thing. Yeah, that's great. Sorry, do you have a comment?

No, no, that's okay. I just wanted to one, acknowledge that my amendment isn't about trying to diminish the experience those people who are experiencing homelessness. It was more to add clarity to the fact that we're talking about public safety, we're not talking about a commission or committee on addressing homelessness only. And so when I originally kind of got involved in these conversations, I immediately was like, well, what about domestic violence and sexual assault victims? What about people who say they have been falsely arrested?

And my brain started going into all of these pieces because when homelessness is listed, I'm like, okay, should we also be addressing some of these other things? So rather than creating that reaction, I was like, really, we're talking about law enforcement response, crisis response, and safety concerns. And so it wasn't to say that issue isn't important, it's that I think it starts to cloud the purpose of the discussion. Separately, I think there should be complete—. It's mainly ECH and HPRS does not cover this, and this is ECH.

Okay, I agree. So I have 5 hands up, so let me just make sure that— so I've got Terry first, and then I have Kyle, Bruce, and then Thea. You guys remember that? Okay, Terry, go ahead. Um, I, I think it'd be really good if we listen listed everything in there because homelessness is an issue.

One of the things that's striking about homelessness is all the other issues end up there because we're not dealing with the other issues, right? So I think we just list them. Like, how do we have this whole thing about sensitivity, increased sensitivity around this, which is this, this, this, this, and the police are going to need all kinds of support for that and training. And like, we need to do something about that. We only have one response that deals with 24/7, that's our case.

That has to change and have some other responses. I know we're working on crisis now and working on all these things, but do we have the commitment, the will to change the conditions that we have where some people are just going to fall off and it's okay because everybody's walking around with habit and it's okay because we have to deal with our life driven by, um, like we're all driven to make sure we keep our house We're all driven to make sure that our kids stay with us. We're all driven by that. What do we do to change those conditions?

So that whole there thing about public safety begins with our children first, and we're not dealing with that. So, um, when we list them, because homelessness is an end result about all of those things, and we do need to look at it, it's a fundamental thing, but I think we need a list about all the ways that violence occurs, just list them. Okay, I see your hand up there. I'm going to go to Bruce and then Kyle, and then come back here. What was your name?

I'm Jana. Jana. And do you want to read this? Oh, you don't want me to say something? I'm sorry.

Okay, I'm sorry, Jana. We'll get right to you though. Okay, well, I was going to make a motion that we vote. Oh, you just want to vote?

Well, we do want to keep the discussion brief. I think what Bruce wants to get through this today is what I'm guessing. Yeah, okay, let's, let's get back through the people that had their hands up and let's come back to the decision on this one and let's try and move through this document as fast as possible. I'll keep it very brief, but that next express an opinion, just provide some clarity of thing— what I think the intent here is. Um, you know, there are other organizations that deal with homelessness specifically, other advisory groups that deal with homelessness specifically, and it's sounding like the intent is to create an organization that collaborates with those other organizations so they can get the whole picture together.

Um, that, that's what I was reading. Um, so it's, it's, I I think that's why it's on the document to be struck.

Okay, Janet, anything else? Well, I like what we're hearing about intent. Is this for the people? And so when we're talking about convene community input, including public concerns related to the houseless entities, I mean, these people just don't have a house. They might have a home somewhere And what are we calling them?

How are we looking at these people that have a need? Are we community servants, or are we just wanting money and time and to do what we want? You know, I don't know. And so it says, you know, all the rest of it, but they change it to law enforcement, putting that first. They're trying to put more on these, these people.

It could be us, it could be could be us anytime. What are we doing? That's what I want. What's the intent? Okay, so two things.

One, we have a commission, it's called the HAN Commission, that stands for Housing, Homelessness, and Neighborhood Development. So we really need to be careful not to overlap. A little louder at the end. Huh? A little louder.

Okay, sorry. We have a commission at the municipality that meets monthly. It's fully staff, it's called the HAN Commission, Housing, Homelessness, and Neighborhood Development. So we have to be careful not to overlap commissions because that's when things get crazy. So I just want to clarify that.

And then the second thing is that any commission that is formed has to have a clear mission, but then it's up to that set of commissioners to determine what are they going to prioritize and focus on each year. And so I think it's also really important, maybe Homelessness is obviously a huge issue right now. Also, domestic violence is a huge issue. We also have other public safety issues. So it's going to be that commission that has to determine, probably on an annual basis, what are we really focused on this year.

And so I think it's important if we want this to last over time to not identify that, like, from the get-go, because those change over time. I mean, hopefully they change. I'm hopeful that in the next 2 years we don't have as hot of a concern around homelessness because we've actually made it better, and then we can focus on other safety issues. So I think those are the 2 things I want to say. Nice.

So real quick, Jamie, and then we're going to move on. The House of Slips experience board was up for 5 minutes and it was disbanded. And, uh, since that point in time, many other policies have come about, you know, 2025 support act, 25-61, which has essentially made it worse for people outside. And, and they're, they're being run into the ground. And so public safety, their public safety is second class.

Like Typhoon Wong, those viaductees got pushed right into their hotels. They're getting great treatment. People outside now are not. And those people, the Typhoon Wong victims, are actually sort of now on the streets and they're acting like out-of-the-box voters. But anyways, back to the point, the NAN Commission, they specifically deal with housing.

I've gone to those meetings and it is not simply no requirement. Yes, you have to be approved through the mayor. Yes, you can talk about a couple things, but it's not about public safety. It really is—. No, but it is about homelessness, and the one we're talking about here is about public safety.

I'm saying we need to not cross those lines. We don't need to have blurry missions. That's what I'm saying. So we have We have on the table, we have two options to pick from. Are we clear on what the two options are?

No. No. Okay. Well, I propose a third of that list, though. Why just these?

Listen. Under this one, Terry? Just these. The other things are like subject to violence. Let's just list them.

Do you have a list that you can—. All the different ways violence happens? Happens that, uh, and how we're responding to it, that causes more problems than it does solve problems. Can we, um, so what the response is, like, I've been a victim of somebody who's at fault and I had a really poor response with the police and the healthcare system. So there's lots of areas where there are a lot of improvement, all of those things.

Yeah, we're going to give you— I hate to sound bureaucratic But if you could write out the language, that would help move this along. That would be great. Thank you. You know, either one of these don't appear to be right because when you say homelessness, they just don't have a house. And the thing about it is we work with people in our little group and we get people into shelter.

They—. If you care enough to really Talk to them. Where do you—. Where are you from? Who has cared for you?

This—. What's important? You know, in a few minutes you can figure out where they fit. We get people into some type of shelter temporarily, maybe for a night, where they can start to go, where they can start to go. We get one or two at a time, and it's like just one-on-one talking to them, saying, where are you What's important to you?

What can we do? And sometimes it takes a while. They're not there yet. But we do talking circle. We help them where they are because we love them.

Yeah. And it takes work. Yeah. So people are voting. So I think while people are voting, like, the discussion needs to— we should be continuing the discussion while people are voting.

And I will second the motion. I don't think we're voting. Sorry. Yeah, we are. I don't know.

I had an—. Okay, so we're going to fix that. This is not part of the voting part of the agenda, guys. Sorry, that was up on the screen by accident. All right, I have a question.

I did have a hand up over here, but yes, what is your name, sir? My name is Dan. Dan Solomon with Trust and Connection. So on this right here, on the safety issue, yeah, um, so who's making the— who's, who's making the amendments now? Who's, who's controlling the safety right now?

The police. The police. And they have— so they have— so right here, we're just an advisory board to them. This is what this is right here. This—.

So what we're talking about right now is putting a body together that would be advising the municipality, so assembly, mayor, departments on public safety.

So the recommendations are to put this new board together. Okay. A city board. Yep. Does that answer your question?

Yes. So yeah, you know, with all of this, you know, I'm— I have lived experience experience, both homelessness and addiction, you know. And as of right now, all the homeless people out there, they don't— we're not— they're not looking at us homeless, you know. They're not looking at us as people. That stigma of homelessness, that's what they're looking at, you know.

And everybody— I don't know who's everybody, but You know, we, the people who are crying about it, are people who, who never lived it. Never, ever, you know. And they're at their comfortable home, they're in their comfortable home, and they're looking at people walking by and judging them and judging them and saying they don't need this, they don't need this in their neighborhood. Oh, because it's dirty in their neighborhood? What?

You know, this needs to change, this stigma on homeless homelessness. It needs to change. They need to be looked at as human beings. So this, this input that you and Jana are providing is the input that we need at the end of the mission, and it needs monthly at the—. Well, it needs to be formed before we even, even make an amendment.

We need to understand that. Yeah, I would happily come with you to do that. So I think this meeting though, is to define a separate commission that's mandate would be public safety. So that's—. I just want to be clear, we like the input you and Jan are providing, we have a commission that needs to hear it.

I brought up Sanction Camp 3 times in that commission and it went completely blank. Exactly, exactly. You know, it's all the camps and all the people out there, you know. That's who— that's why we're here. We're not here for the neighborhoods.

We're not here for the people who on the damn hillside everywhere. We're here for the people who is on the street. You guys gotta think about that. All right, over here.

Mercedes. Um, I, I just want to say that I actually support forth the Public Safety Commission addressing public safety issues around homelessness. I think what I'm gathering is that what the— what people are talking about is that yes, homelessness is focused in these coalition spaces, but they're still not covering some areas or still not sufficient enough to be able to address some of the public safety areas. My concern though, what I'm kind of looking at both sides of this because I do think that there is a homelessness component of public safety that should be addressed and could be addressed through it. Like, if someone has had, you know, some sort of, again, public safety issue, right?

But what I am worried about is that on surface value is that people are going to start confusing that we are now starting to have everyone come here for for just homelessness and not realizing there are these other resources. I think homelessness should be considered in the broader safety conditions. I also want to highlight what, um, she said over there about— I'm sorry, what was your name again? Yes, yeah, Cheryl. Cheryl made a great point that remember that this still goes through so much more public process.

There's going to be public comments, there's going to be amendments, there's going to be S versions. And while I'm not actually saying that we include this, I want that same kind of energy included when we do have a broader, broader discussion, when we do have a public comment period. So I think it's— I think we need to be careful because we are already at 11:17. We have not passed through this First Amendment. Some of this is generalized to talk about the details that need to be implemented later on.

So if we— if you can at least consider that maybe homelessness could be considered in broader scope safety conditions. I can— if Randy, you want to clarify that part, or if you mean that to be separate so that no one's making any sort of assumptions. But just to clarify, I think homelessness should be considered a public safety issue. I'm just concerned that things are going to get misconstrued, and that that also can be clarified when we have more people like in our community outside this room that can talk about that and that can support that. Just want to wait.

Do you still Do you want to say something, Tom? No, I'm moving to vote. Okay, we're moving forward. Seconded. They want to vote.

Cameron, yeah, I appreciate it. That there are people in the room that are hearing this and that whether we put in parentheses after broader conditions like homelessness or we just note, and that's what I will note, that this is a priority for for us right now, and it needs to be one of the main things we're talking about because it is a focus area concern right now. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

So when we're done here, our team will be not just submitting the list of recommendations that you'll vote on, we'll be writing narrative to capture this discussion and this, this energy and intention around all of this. So, um, you know, it'll be part of the decision making. Um, so can she confirm what she's looking for moving? Well, I mean, we were going to walk through the whole document and then do voting, but we could also just start doing voting. It kind of felt like people were ready, you know, seeing some nodding.

So, oh yeah, let's do it then. Okay, so except we had, uh, Terry had another amendment, so he's Um, is it pertaining to this amendment? I think it is. No, that's—. Yeah, now we're doing—.

This is pizza. Yeah, don't worry, you guys really want to do pineapple. Um, see Terry, why don't we get there just a quick—. Let's just see. Oh, I just want to make sure we don't get ahead of you because you have something— this is related to this one, what you're working on?

Yeah. Okay, okay, I want to honor that. Okay, um, so I'm going to move us along to the next one. Terry's got an amendment, we want to be open, and he's working real hard on that, so we're going to come back to the vote until after we have Terry's amendment. Okay, so let's go ahead and move on to Section 2, which is oversight.

So this one is a little heavy, um, so I'm glad that you're on it. Um, so there are 3 options. So there's no working on that? We're gonna work— we have another amendment that we're gonna come back to. So, um, thanks Jamie.

We'll come back to the voting. We're just gonna cover the authority options here. Uh, so there are 3, and we we have some amendments on two of them. So Option A is advisory only and would serve in advisory capacity only, reviews public safety policies, data engagement, and systemic issues. Highlighted here is convenes community input on public safety concerns, and the next page identifies some language there.

Um, and then I'm not going to read the rest of this. Option B includes all of Option A, okay, so it builds on it, and it also adds system-level review and evaluation. So it's, it's more robust. You've got this evaluation rule. And then Option C is where we get into a little bit more authority.

So receiving Receives complaints from the public, monitors active cases, reviews investigations, subpoena authority, and, and so on. So the highlighted there, if you look at the next page, there are 3 bullets that actually have some language, and I'm going to review that for you.

So first of all, under Option A, the suggestion is that— don't be Oscar. So, I'm maintaining the input. My amendments were only on C, but I don't have a hard copy. No? So I didn't have to deal with 7.

No. Okay, so there isn't an amendment on A is what I'm hearing. Okay, so our mistake, that first highlight under Option A, just go ahead and mark that off. We do not have an amendment there. So there are 3 amendments on Option C, and they are to the first 3 bullets.

So replace receives complaints from the public with "is informed by complaints from the public to guide policy and system evaluation priorities." And then the next two amendments are to delete "monitors the status of active cases without interfering" and delete "reviews completed investigations for thoroughness and consistency." Okay, I see some hands. Kyle. Uh, for clarity, I'd like to know So given that we have options A, B, and C here, this only amends option C. Will this body be voting on A, B, and C as being which one is covered? The way that it's structured, which you guys can debate whether you want it this way, but it's progressive. So if you vote on C, it's A and B.

But are we going to get the chance to We're voting on the amendment for C. Um, so we were going to go through amendments and then have you pick A, B, or C after it was amended. Does that work? Okay.

Are these clear? So I think we can debate whether we like them or not, but if you know what they mean, that's really the goal for this conversation, especially Yeah, I don't know what they mean. What are you saying? Okay, um, Bruce, where are you? Do you have the answer to that or different?

Okay, well, Denali, can we have the sponsor of the amendment please speak to it? Do you mind, Brandy? Okay, so first I want to point out I was the only one that submitted some writing ahead of time, so I feel a little— but, um, I am looking at most of my my amendments, just to kind of again put it on this level, is like, can it be implemented and can it be useful and helpful later? So for these sets of amendments, I really wanted to again not create overlap with existing organizations that are already doing the work, not to argue whether those organizations or those groups, commissions, councils, whatever, are effective or not, because I think that we should be invested in with them, but to not overlap when we're talking about limited resources. So for the First Amendment, receives complaints for the public was just vague for me.

It's like, okay, you receive complaints, but what, what do you do with them? And so I just wanted to add clarity that, okay, with those complaints, we use that to inform us for the, the policy and evaluation. Um, 3, I just deleted because it is already overlapping with, again, what existing organizations are— or missions, groups are doing. And as soon as you start adding in active cases, you're, you're adding in a whole nother level of complexity. There is a lot of confidentiality, federal, state laws.

There's—. Yeah, you have to do checks Um, then everybody on the commission is going to have to have background checks and have absent, um, tests and all this kind of stuff. So it was just like, no. Um, and then completed investigations for thoroughness and consistency. I didn't feel reflected what— again, the training that we were then focusing on later is having us review an investigation, an individual investigation saying, okay, this was thorough, that they did this thing.

And I say that because I— part of my job for many years was reviewing investigations, and that's a totally different thing than, in my mind, what a commission does. Okay, so that's clarity. Bruce, you're next, and then Mercedes. And let's try and keep our comments to clarity. Bruce?

Well, I just did on procedure. It seems like we We ought to vote on the 3 options and then discuss cultural amendments if C passes. But what if A passes? We don't need to have this big long 20-minute conversation. Very good.

Okay, Mercedes. Um, uh, just to go back to the points that were on here, um, uh, so I think first point is that yes, these may overlap with complex Ombudsman's Office, but getting informed by the Municipal Ombudsman's Office was really enlightening because there were things that they said that they wouldn't touch, and likewise, if you follow that same pattern, that the state wouldn't touch. So while those agencies do exist, they also will not touch certain things because of XYZ, because of those legalities or whatever. After talking to Daryl, that was really enlightening. So that's another reason doesn't support this.

The second part on monitoring active cases without interfering or reviews completed investigations for fairness, I mean, we're looking at the fact that like some cases can be closed, but I'm thinking about missing and murdered Indigenous people. I'm thinking about officer-involved shootings where they followed policy, but I mean, but you have a dead child, like, where— and that raises questions about whether those policies are even if those policies— they're following the policy, but the policy itself is flawed and dangerous. So I think that there's still an argument for if we are going for option— if we wanted just this, we would just vote for Option C. But as it stands, the whole point of Option C is to have a little more, as we've heard a lot of times, teeth about what oversight actually means. And while yes, this would require additional training, a lot more complexities, I would argue that there are other agencies around the country that do this in Oakland and Spokane and Seattle and Columbus that require the same types of training and the same types of complexity. Not saying that you can't do it, it's just that if you wanted to, you could.

So there are other examples around the country that they do these kinds of models. Sorry, we're looking at your amendment, Terry. Thank you. Okay, I have a question. So this is to change the report system from the ombudsman people to an advisory board that is like part of the assembly.

I work with the ombudsman people, and if they have a little bit of funding, they do really a good job. They're healthy. Ombudsman's a good word. They're helpers, and they've helped me a lot. And so, you know, like, what's, what's with their Why are they changing it from those folks who are already doing the work to somebody else that might not even be affiliated or understand?

We're not changing the scope of that. No, are they changing the job? Because it doesn't— he just told me that they now are reporting to the Ombudsman Office. This is about a new commission. The Ombudsman Office will continue as is.

Yeah, and this new commission is to take the are there even complaints and stuff? That's the discussion right now. Yeah. And so what is the alternative? These are the three alternatives.

I know, but if, if we didn't do it, what are they doing now? It goes to the ombudsman office. Okay, well, I don't keep it that way. Okay. Okay.

So, Terry, we've got, we've got your amendment in here, and I think we have a game plan there. Um, Are we clear on what the 3 options are? I think I'm seeing nodding. I mean, there's still going to be some implementation that needs to be clarified, right? Cameron?

Yeah, I just want to, um, maybe, uh, ask a question or point out one thing, and that is that, um, that the gathering of the information— so in these areas of active cases or investigations or thoroughness, that one option could be to ask for independent reviews in those things, and then the Commission receives the results of those, right? The Commission itself doesn't do the investigation. The Commission engages others to do data gathering, right? And so that's, I think, just one of the clarifications. Points is that, for instance, recently there have been a number of independent investigations happening and the results of those have come back.

And so, and then there's a discussion about what actions could be taken or wouldn't be taken as well. And so just a quick question. I know that Randy was talking about if you are involved in those investigations, there's a high level sort of requirements involved in that. This commission, there's, I think, a potential to have them involved but not necessarily have them doing the investigation itself. I'd welcome having a different kind of clarify that mechanism because then later you have subpoena authority and things like that.

And so if a commission separately sees, well, I have authority we do, be engaged in active investigations, I can see all the information I want, like all of that totality, we might lose the fact that the mechanism of how we gain that information is through XYZ. But I completely agree with you. I think—. Because I think you could have a set of volunteers that don't have to have a high level of security clearance, for instance, but can ask for, you know, external independent gathering of input information and then be involved in reviewing that and recommending action for the result. So to clarify, that would be included in Option B, is that what you're saying, Cameron?

Yeah, I mean, I think that the wording is a little bit difficult because—. See, that would be the fifth bullet. Yeah, evaluate systemic patterns and emerging issues. I think that as long as it's enough for us—. Request information needed.

Request information needed. So that could be the results of those, is that what you're saying? Yeah, I mean, I think as long as there is an understanding that this body would have the power to request, you know, these kinds of things and would be able to be empowered to review and make recommendations based on those, I think is the—. Is the question. So that's— that allows them to be voluntary.

Volunteer and independent, but not necessarily have to be sworn as an agent of the whatever. And that would be a bullet under 3— I'm sorry, D. Do you think it's already there? I think it's there. I think it's the 5th bullet. Oh, okay.

That's what I just—. The only thing is we pause on that. Yeah, yeah. So would it feel weird to vote on this and then go back to the mission. Seems out of sequence, but I think I'm hearing readiness for that.

Yes. Let's clarify exactly what we're voting on. So can you tell us what we're voting on? So we have— thank you, Felix.

Uh, so Kyle is the A motion to approve an amendment, or is it to—. The amendment was before us, what we've been talking about. Therefore, I move to either approve or deny the amendment as it currently is written in Option C. Okay, what would that look like if we just— there, the consensus vote for options for the amendment to— for Amendment 2.

So we're going to start with a consensus vote. 3 Different amendments for voting. Kyle? Yes, ma'am. Sorry, so there are 3 amendments.

Are you— thank you for helping. Yes, so I'm going to suggest rather than having 3 votes on amendments that may or may not have any meaning, as I'm going to suggest that we vote on either option A, B, or C. So I'm going to look, I'm going to see who wants to move option A, B, or C. Looking for the first person to make that motion. Okay, what is your motion? I make a motion to vote on whether we want option A, B, or C. Well, no, no, pick a specific Pick one, A, B, or C. Oh, we're mo—.

Oh, uh, what? No, I want you to pick a specific motion. Are we moving option A, B, or C? C. Okay, so we have a motion to move option C. Is there a second? Second.

Okay, we have a second. Now if there's any other discussion that we need to have on that, I'll turn it back to you, and then we should vote on it. Okay, yes, thank you. Okay, then for discussion, is that before or after after the amendment to Section C. So I'm going to suggest that we, we vote on this one first and then we can make any amendments after.

Okay, so do we need another poll for that? Because that's not the either-or part. Um, Option C, consensus vote. Yep, so we're going to do a consensus vote on Option C. So the motion is to— that's what We're getting there. Sorry, I need to make a slide.

We're just having to pivot with the question because we had it teed up a little bit differently, so thanks for your patience. Um, but just so you're thinking about how you want to vote, the choices are going to be yes, I can live with it, no, or abstain. Okay, so those are your choices. So think about how you want to vote, and then we'll let Bell would tell us when it's time. This is Amendment 1, not Amendment 2.

Yeah, okay, it should be right now. It should pull up the right—. Does everyone see Option C, consensus vote? Yes. Okay.

Okay.

So we're only voting on options here, I guess. Yes. If we vote options here.

Yes. So I can ask a question.

So the people who are voting, are they only allowed to vote on one of the three options? A, B, or C. So the motion on the table was— the motion that was put out, that was the original one, but the motion on the table was, was to vote on Option C. So this is the vote for that. So if somebody supports A or B, it's actually abstain here, or would they go ahead and vote? Option C includes Option A and B.

They're progressing. No, I get that, but I mean, Option C is very different than A or B. So if someone in this room supports either A or B, how would they vote here? No, you don't support any B. Yes.

So you think they vote on A and B in a separate vote if that consensus fails? If someone can—. Let me just take a little bit more of an ownership from here. Why didn't you ask? You do this all the time.

Yes. All right, so, so I, I've decided that I'm just going to step in and lead us through a lot of this. Okay, so, um, right now the motion that we have— because I asked for a motion, right? I said, are we moving A, B, or C? And so the motion that came up was C, right?

And so that is what we are voting on. If we vote and we get a majority— obviously there's no consensus because there's no— so we'll move to majority. And if we get a majority vote on C, then we're done with option A, B, or C because the majority vote was for C, right? But you also moved for discussion, so now I'm curious. That's what we're doing.

Everybody say no and they can't live with it, I'm curious why. Well, people will need to speak up to that. Yes, that's correct.

I mean, no offense, Mercedes, but it's kind of chance that Mercedes got her hand up first, so there might be other people who want to move one of the other options. But if the majority of people support this, it's a moot point. All right, well, but if option A or B has more yes votes, wouldn't that be the option that this body should move forward? That's, that's, that's not how this works. So this, the way that this will work is if your preference is option Option A or Option B, then you need to be voting no on this.

And that is how you signify what your preference is, right? And then if this motion fails, then I'll go back and I'll say, okay, we have A and B left. Who wants to move Option A? And who wants to move for Option B? Then we'll do it again.

I need to move to majority? Uh, yeah, not yet. Yeah. I have a question. So there are amendments on the table for Option C that we have not voted on yet.

So we're voting on Option C without it being amended, correct? Is that correct? Yes. So if this were to— if C were to pass, is then there an opportunity to amend Option C? Correct.

All right, I feel like we're ready, so let's go ahead and move on to the majority vote, please. And is the—. Is the— is the QR code back up? So if you got dropped, you want to go to the folder? I can pull it back up on the screen, but I can share this.

Yeah, sorry about that.

Okay, has anyone not voted yet? Yeah, I just want to get to that. I'm sure that we're— is anyone still working on it? Okay, I see some phones out. Okay, so unless anyone tells me that you haven't voted, voted yet, I'm gonna go ahead and close the voting.

Okay, I'm not seeing anyone who says they haven't voted yet. So, uh, by a vote of 16 for— 16 yes, 4 no, and 1 abstention, a majority has voted for Option C. So now I think is the appropriate time for us to move move towards the amendments on Option C. So there are 3 different amendments, and thank you, Randy, for speaking to those amendments. Um, we'll go ahead and take them one at a time. So, um, I'll go ahead and ask if there is a motion to move Amendment 2 which is the top one of the three. Does someone want to move that amendment?

Okay, all right. And is there a second for that amendment? Okay. Is there any discussion on this amendment? All right, I'm not seeing any discussion on— yeah, go ahead.

Just clarify We're talking about received complaints from the public. Yes, yeah, I think that first block of— that is the specific event. So that first line that's highlighted, receives complaints from the public, it adds clarification language, which I think was the intent. I have one question specifically about this. Um, so, uh, Municipal Ombudsman Carroll He can speak to this far better than I could.

So if you have an active investigation, you don't disclose any information, anyone?

We can't disclose the name of a complainant without their permission. Okay, so typically most of the complaints, they are just departmentalized within the Ombudsman's Office, and then upon conclusion of the investigation, do you— are there automatically share that information with somebody else so that they are informed of it and guided by it, or is it just stay within the office? Well, we make our— if we issue a final report, it's a public document by law, and we make recommendations to the department. That is public information, but we still don't disclose the name. Okay, so, so the, the question is, it's, it's sort of you policies for the Commission of Public Reporting.

OVR, I don't think they do that at all. It's not a policy. Okay, but it's in code. OVR, I don't think they do that at all. State Ombudsman, do they do the same thing?

What does this relate to this, what's going on now? So, so basically it says receives complaints from the public. So would the Commission essentially receive a complaint complaint from somebody who just came up to testify, and then would they, uh, act on it, uh, and then forward it to the ombudsman? Yeah, basically saying that they're not taking complaints at all. They would tell you to go to the ombudsman's office.

Let me actually ask the mover what their intent was. So was your intent that the commission still takes complaints from the public? I wasn't getting into the mechanism of whether complaints are given in like totality to the Commission to review as more of a, like, a data point or a trend piece, um, or whether you guys would intend to have an actual mechanism to receive an individual complaint. I more wanted clarification on, okay, we get these complaints, now what? Um, so that there's a lot of litigation stuff that really isn't part of this proposal.

That's true. So how the Commission gets complaints, how it deals with confidentiality. All of those things are things that will take dozens and dozens of hours of attorney time that we're not going to do here, right? All right, was there any other discussion on this one before we vote? Yes, ma'am.

I'm asking, is this a person that you work for the ombudsman's office? Do you—. Okay, you're the ombudsman. Okay, what I want to know, maybe you can answer, is this, uh, So if someone has a problem, because I've gone to the investment office a lot and I have not gone for y'all before, there's been some staffing or something. But so we go to the investment, ask for help, will you help us or do we have to go through the other authorities?

And they said, oh, we can handle this. And so the investment's not going to take care of it. Are we still going to have the equal avenue to the resources that have in the past? In the past been helpful. So because of the limitations in our code, there are certain things that a public safety commission would look at that we don't look at.

So there's a role for both a public safety commission and the government. So you're looking at people's records, the public safety people aren't saying, oh, these people have had—. It's, it's case by case. You can't generalize. Okay, so there are things in our code that prohibit us from looking looking at things that would be public funding commission.

But generally, Daryl, can you say that people will still have access to your office? Yes. Doing this won't limit access to your office, right? And depending on the situation, we might refer them to the commission. Great.

Okay. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. And it's— ma'am, I'm going to suggest if you have any other like specific questions about the Ombudsman's Office, Daryl, can someone in your office talk to her? Great.

Thank you. All right, so, Karen, did you have your hand up? Okay, go ahead. I'd like to motion for us to get through voting. Yeah, like as much as possible.

Yeah, with the least amount of discussion as possible, because I feel like it's already, you know, it's already—. We got 13. Yeah, no, I hear you, and I'm going to try to move us through as quickly as we can. So can we please move to the majority vote? I don't— So can we please move to the majority vote on the amendment?

Yeah, so majority vote for Amendment 2. Yes, so this is that first amendment.

Well, I just don't suspect we're actually going to get consensus on anything today. Okay, has everyone who wants to voted, had a chance to vote. Is anyone still voting? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close this vote then. So vote: 9 yes, 10 no, 1 abstention.

This, um, does not pass. So next we have Amendment Number 3, um, and I'll let you all read what that amendment does. Do we have a motion on that Amendment? Motion? Um, when are we planning to go back?

We will go back after we're done with this. Thank you. So is there an amendment on number 3? Just to make sure. Yes.

Huh? Amendment 2. And if you had—. I move to vote on, um, to a majority vote on Amendment number 3. Okay, so you're moving to approve Amendment number 3.

Okay, um, so is there a second on that? Second. Okay, all right, any other discussion on Amendment number 3?

Yeah, so I just submitted this amendment here. The reason— hey, I'm conflicted about it, but it— there's The reason I bring it up—. Does this relate to Amendment Number 3? It does. Okay, it very much does.

Let me just clarify, you did, you did check the membership section, which is Section 3? Yes, that's what we're talking about right now. It's Amendment 3 on Section 2. There's number of entities, 3 and 4. Yeah, so it looks like your amendment is not for this section.

Yeah, we're on Amendment Number 3 to Option C. Mission and duties under authority of the chair. Authority of the chair. So I think you're getting the clarification that you need there. Any other discussion on this amendment before we vote?

Question? Yes. No, no, no. I'm literally calling questions. Oh, okay.

All right then, let's go ahead and move to majority vote on Amendment 3.

Yes, I'm in the middle of voting right now. Go ahead. Right, so 10 minutes. I think most of us knew that we were going to lose this, and we wanted to put out papers even though we had very specific concerns.

No, that's good. That's a good— we'll probably transition to that afterwards. So next thing. This is some more recording. So we were talking about, like, I don't know if anyone had a chance to read that list on the top right, but that's the procedure.

All right, so I'm just going to give folks— because I think there's maybe a few folks who haven't voted yet. But as you're wrapping up your voting— so it was mentioned to me that we are just about out of our time. So what we're going to do after we're done with this is transition to a discussion about having one final meeting. I know today was supposed to be our final. We just didn't have enough time to get through it.

So having one final meeting, actually fairly quick, for us to see if we can get it done. I wish tomorrow, but no. So I'm gonna ask people to like be prepared with your calendars in a minute, okay? So is there anyone who still needs to vote, who hasn't had a chance to vote on this one? All right.

I think the question was to vote at state rather than not vote. That's a possibility, yeah. Okay, so then on Amendment Number 3, I'm gonna go ahead and close the vote. So 3 yes, 15 no, 1 abstention. So majority vote is no on this amendment.

So thanks everyone for working through that. Obviously we still have more to do, so we're not done. And I just wanna like acknowledge and appreciate I appreciate the sort of frustrations in the room. So we are— my intent here is to get us done. So talking with Denali, it looks like if we want to get this done, there are a couple of options next week for us to get this done.

Next week? Yeah, well, that is—. Oh, got it. That next week. So there is an option on Monday.

What if we can all vote right now? Like, can we finish voting today? Is that a possibility? I can certainly ask whether we can keep going for another short amount of time and really try to get this done. So I'll ask that.

But thank you for that suggestion. So are folks— and I'll come to you in a minute— so are folks able to stay for another half hour to see if we can get this stuff today? Yes, today. Yeah, people are saying short hands of yes. No on you, you can't sit for any longer.

Okay, iffy. All right, then, um, then I'm gonna— if folks are okay, like, I'm gonna try to move us quickly through the rest in a half hour. Okay, then let's do it. Um, so now we have Amendment 4, and I will say—. I just felt like there would be a motion to extend.

We don't have to do that. We're not that formal here, but thank you. So on Amendment Number 4, so the idea here is you don't have to move the amendment. You should only move the amendment if you actually support the amendment. Otherwise, we just not vote on it and we can move on, save ourselves a little bit of time.

So does anyone want to make a motion Motion to approve Amendment Number 4.

Yes.

Sorry, was that a motion to approve Amendment Number 4? Well, he says you don't have to make a motion to vote on it. It's moved. Don't you do a majority vote? Okay, so, okay, so you're saying you want to spend the time on it, so that's fine, we can spend the So then is there a second for— okay, great.

So then Amendment Number 4 is before us. Is there any discussion on Amendment Number 4?

It's to delete reviews. Right, I know you skipped 3 because your motion was to remove 4. No, we don't. No, it's the second one. It's 2, 3, and 4.

I need one motion. I heard you wrong. Okay. All right, so I'm not seeing any discussion on Amendment Number 4, so let's go ahead and move to majority vote on Amendment Number 4. Voting is open.

Please vote.

Okay, now to go back to the first one. Yeah, so the first one I changed from what we have to do to what I want to do. So basically both of them actually replace this section, but there's two options. So I made it so that it was option 1A, which is the real one, and then this is 1B, and then there's option 2A. Yeah, I did the same.

Got it. Okay. And there are three different options. Yeah. —Want to know theirs.

They don't want to always— I know, right? Um, yeah, I think we should do 3 different ones, because if we do, people will still need to do these if we do 3 different ones, because they might want 2 of them. So one without 3, one book without 3? No, 3 different books, and then depending on the motion that I get in the room We'll go to that vote. So the motion is—.

This is what I'll do is I'll get her Word doc, I'll pull up on the screen and show the 3 options, and then we'll talk about it. And I can fix the slides. Okay, great. All right, has everyone who wants to vote had a chance to vote? Yes.

Okay, I'm seeing yes. So then on a vote of 5 yes, 13 no, 1 abstention, that amendment fails. Um, thanks everyone for putting forward all of the amendments and the work. Um, okay, so we're gonna go back now that we are done with Section 2, the authority options. We're going to go back to Section 1, which is missions and duties.

So we have 3 different options here, and I'm going to do very similar to what we did with the option A, B, and C, right? I'm gonna ask for a motion and someone is gonna move 1A or 1B or 1C. Can you talk us through what the differences are in the three? Yeah, so in mission and duties, the second highlighted, um, these two, 1A and 1B, are literally just to replace replace that bullet point with one of these two options. Um, 1A, uh, Randy, if you want to speak to this one and your intention behind it, and then 1B was Terry, if you want to speak to your intention behind it.

I would invite that. Oh, I spoke to that. Okay, Terry, do you want to talk about the differences between, um, I just said could be, could input including public concerns related to houseless citizens, those experiencing crisis, domestic and public violence, family violence, responses to mental extreme states, and include a broader coalition representing cooperative nonprofit sector grassroots respondents that can facilitate working relationships to law enforcement to create alternative responses besides law enforcement. Okay, and that's it. Anybody want to discuss that?

Okay, thanks, Terry. Yeah, I just wanted to make clear, like, that's to replace this. Okay, right. Awesome. Thank you.

So any discussion on that question? I think we'll open up the floor for—. Yeah, so, so I'm going to open up the floor in a minute, and I'm going to go to whoever raises their hand first, okay, so that it's fair. And I'm going to ask, what is your motion, right? I'm going to leave it at that.

And you make either 1A, 1B, 1C. Pick one of the three. Okay, is there a motion? I move to approve 1B with a majority vote. Okay, so there is a move for 1B.

Is there a second for that?

Okay, it's seconded. Is there any discussion on this motion to approve 1B? Yes. Um, I don't support this, not because I don't support all the things in it, but because I think it's a way to open up more appropriate policy proposals and for people to come up with in the actual commission. I think that 1A is specific enough to the response, which is really what was the impetus for this task force.

And then leaves it broad enough that people that are appointed in doing this work can then create their own broader scope as they see fit. I think getting too specific in this recommendation is going to hinder it being passed. I think that if you go too far with some of these things, it's not going to make it past Ben Summercoat, it's not going to make it past anyone on the board. I think that we should there's some realistic expectations that we need to have, and I think that keeping it the same but broad is the smartest option. Thank you.

I'll go back to you soon, Terry, but Darryl— I'll just respond to you. Actually, I'm going to go back to you soon. I concur with what was just said. Every code requires that every municipal border commission develop bylaws and operating procedures, and that is more appropriate. Appropriate for bylaws.

And I also would not support it because it uses the word citizen, and the commission would serve everybody including non-citizens.

Okay, go ahead, Terry. Did you want to add something? Um, well, why, if your experience here, if you don't name it, people forget we exist. That's right. And two, for what you were saying there, um, Other words, citizen.

I will say enough because of the very reason people forget the citizens. I will treat us for not citizens. That's what experience with autism is. That's the only reason why we're here, to remind people of citizens. Thank you.

Any other dissent? Suggestion? Yeah, go ahead. Idea, suggestion, maybe a bonus. Uh, so clearly you don't want to lock yourself too far in because then you can't expand beyond it, you've limited yourself in scope.

Um, would it be possible to just, uh, you know, maybe take some of the language from there, from 1A, but then say, uh, essentially convene community input including public servants related to law enforcement emergency response, crisis response, and broader safety concerns. This may include all of these things, and then it's just a general area to give somebody an idea of what would this body be covered, but it's not locking anyone specifically. Thanks. So, uh, do you want a quick response to that? I was going to say, is it possible to vote on 1A and have a It says we recommend bylaws that address and then just list these as bullet points instead of—.

Yeah, so that'd be— thanks. So right now we have, uh, an amendment for 1B. If the mover of that amendment, which was you, Terry— yes, okay. So if you want to, um, go with that suggestion that was just made, let us know, and then we can take that motion off the floor and then put this new motion on the floor. Will you say it?

Can you repeat it again, please? Um, if I were— I'm not sure Robert's going to go over it— if it were me, I would remove Amendment 1A and then submit a separate amendment that says we recommend to the commission to include in their bylaws, um, I don't know how we would phrase that. Yeah, so to to have to tackle issues related to, and then list, just as bullet points even. Because it's— we want to give them something to work with, not page and whole information. Okay, got it.

Is that something that you're amenable to? Okay, great. So then— so then— then— so are you here making a motion? Great. To table 1B.

Vote on 1A, and then I can write out 1D that says recommends in the Bible. I don't know if you can do that all in one thing and how you want to do that. Um, no, that's fine. So, um, we can go ahead— if you want to prepare that specific amendment, um, go ahead and prepare that amendment, which for folks in the room, it'll basically be some combination of 1A and 1B. And so that'll be written so that everyone can read it and not be confused about what you're voting on.

Could you blow that up a little bit bigger so that people in the back of the room can read it too, please? Yeah. Thank you. All right, so then we'll go ahead and come back while that amendment is being written. So we'll go ahead and move on to Section 3, which is on page 5.

5, And that is membership structure and staffing. Do you want to talk anything about this before we— sure. So membership structure and staffing, uh, we've had 3 amendments. There are 2 bullets that were struck by our team because they do not apply because they will happen automatically. That was kind of based on our email exchange, so the draft that you all are voting on.

You can just— we wanted to show that had happened with the draft in the room, but we don't think you need to vote on that. So you have 3 amendments— 4, 4, uh, okay, 4 amendments. 3 Items are actually highlighted and 1 is an addition.

So the numbering scheme is— are we keeping the numbering scheme? All right, so Amendment 5. Great, yeah, we'll start with Amendment 5. So, um, and, and just, just so folks are aware, if you are making an amendment, I am going to ask you to speak to the intent so that like everyone's on the same page of what you meant. So I'm not picking on you, I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page.

She did her homework. I was like, this— I'm not sending homework. Uh, no, this one was just to acknowledge that community members without buy-in and participation from the departments that they are making recommendations to, it end up with a lot of circular discussions. And so it's like, why don't we just build in— if this is in response to Anchorage Police Department, Anchorage Fire Department, Anchorage Health Department— that we put in that it is an expectation that they appoint somebody to be in that position. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] So I'm going to go ahead and take for an assumption that you're moving that amendment.

We couldn't hear what she said. We don't know what you're saying, and he couldn't hear it, and I couldn't hear it. We cannot hear. So this— because this commission would be making recommendations to specific departments, I had recommended that a representative of each of those departments also participate on the commission, partially for buy-in, but also for education and dialogue back and forth. And so, so, so which proposition is what you guys are saying?

So you are moving that amendment. Is there someone to second that amendment? Uh, what does ex officio mean? Commissioned by appointment of their office. So Anchorage Police Department will always have somebody in the commission, and it's not necessarily about the commission voting on that particular commission member.

So if one year it is Chief Case, but then the next year he says our member is going to be Deputy Chief Ferguson, then it gets served. Yeah, they're non-voting members. Okay, um, so I think I saw a second somewhere. Great. All right, is there any other discussion on Amendment Number 5?

Yeah, so you can have voting or non-voting. It's by the nature of their office. I put an addition that you— we could have additional non-voting, uh, members based on their office just for either limited time or for term limits from a, like, again, an education dialogue standpoint. Got it. So the intent of this amendment is to create these ex officios as voting members?

Yes. That is the intent of this amendment. Thank you for clarifying that. So if people don't want that, then it would be prudent to make a motion to strike that particular voting language. So I'm going to go ahead and and just wait to see if any other discussion pops up.

Yeah, so it appears, unless I'm wrong, that 6 would then create non-voting access for SHIP members. We're not on 6. Just— yeah, yeah, you wouldn't need to strike 5, but you already have 6 addressing that issue. No, it's two different—. Yeah, um, yeah, so Randy will get a chance to explain when we get to him in 6.

Quick question. Yeah, where are we right now? We are on Amendment Number 5, Section 3, Page 6 of your document, of your packet. Page 6. Yeah, uh, yeah, no, no, I got you.

I'm trying to write faster, uh, at the same time I'm looking at this. Sorry. All right, um, okay, anything else? Okay, not seeing any Any other discussion? Let's go ahead and do a majority vote on Amendment Number 5 as proposed.

All right, has everyone who wants to vote had a chance to vote on this amendment? Not seeing anyone speaking up or raising hands, so I'm gonna go ahead and close the voting. Oh, all right, well, I'm gonna go ahead and close the voting now. So with 6 yeses, 11 nos, 1 abstention, this amendment has failed.

So next we have Amendment Number 6. Randy, did you want to speak or bring that amendment forward? So it was just in combination with Number 5, so just having the ability to add and encourage additional non-voting members to be a part of advisory council. Again, we're talking about very local complicated and technical things sometimes, and we should want all of the information. Got it.

So just to recap in case anyone didn't hear, Amendment 6 is about adding some additional non-voting ex officio members. Um, so, um, okay, so there's a motion to approve Amendment 6. Is there a second? There's a second. Is there any discussion on Amendment 6?

Okay, not seeing any, then let's go ahead and take a majority vote on Amendment Number 6, please.

Okay, so this was like an alternative, is that it? Yeah, okay, I think so, because it says, and it has a boundary of experienced homelessness in this list. Okay, okay, and that's the other thing it does? Strike, clear, yeah, just strike.

Okay, okay, then I can go ahead and make that as an option for folks. Okay, all right, has everyone who wants to vote had a chance to? Okay, then I'm gonna go ahead and close it. With 14 yes, 3 no, 1 abstention, that amendment has passed. Thank you.

All right, so next we have Amendment Number 7 before us. Do you want to speak to Amendment 7? The only thing I was trying to do is define lived experience, because depending on what field you're in, lived experience. So when I was at Covenant House and they asked, do I have lived experience of homelessness? My answer is yes.

Now I'm at Awake, do you have lived experience? And that is pertaining to domestic violence. The answer is yes. So we really need to be clear about what we're talking about. I will be putting a self-assessment together with that first one, the first question.

I'm sorry, what was the goal? —This supports what I'm saying. Because this is so specific to this. It's really we vote on this first and then vote on—. Yeah.

So second that. OK. All right. So there was an amendment to the amendment that was put forward. And that amendment to the amendment, I believe, is to strike out—. I can speak to it if you want me to.

Go ahead. So I just want to bring it up as a point of clarity that to your point, Terry, right? Terry, yeah. To your point is that if we, you know, go back and we include, uh, you know, homelessness as being something that is being reviewed as public safety, that we want to make sure that it's in here in 7. But keep in mind, if we were to vote on initial one and were to strike that, then it would need to be struck from number 7 because it no longer is applicable because the organization is not viewing that.

So it doesn't need lived experience within that field. So not talking about whether I support that or not, I just think it's important to make a clarification. Okay, I think there will be a lot more discussion on this whole thing as it goes into before it becomes actually going to the assembly. So I, I'm supportive of that. And that's, that's true too.

Go ahead, Dirk. We need to strike homelessness as lived experience. I think that it's kind of understood that if you are homeless, you probably don't have the greatest response or public safety response. And so I don't think that we need to take out the lived experience of homelessness. And I don't think it's So yeah, so I just want to like make sure— so we don't have— right now what we have before us is Amendment Number 7, is what we have before us.

Um, so does anyone actually want to move forward with the formal process of removing that? Um, I would say no. This will be quick. I think we're conflating things. This is about the membership of the body that's going to represent the commission, whereas Amendment 1 is essentially about the community input pertaining to an issue that is brought forward.

So one is the membership of the body, two are the issues that the body is covering. So it's not going to create a problem. Thanks. So I'm going to go ahead and just open—. Yeah, I move to approve Amendment 7 as presented.

Okay, is there a second? Okay, so is there any other discussion on moving Amendment 7 as presented? Thank you. All right, all right. So seeing no other, so we're gonna move Amendment 7.

So what this means is just the original as presented, majority vote. What does A mean? It just means the original as presented. So the original on the other page, not the—. No, on this, on the number 7.

Okay, so I didn't know what they did because—. Sorry, I should just say something. Okay, thank you. Yeah, we're just doing this one.

Eagle eyes out there, guys. Nicely done. Okay, perfect. Thank you. All right, has everyone who wants to vote had a chance to vote?

Great, so then I'll go ahead and close this. With 15 yes, 3 no, 1 abstention, this amendment has passed. So next we have Amendment 8. Do you want to speak to it, Randy? Um, this one is not the first 3 training areas.

It's just adding additional training areas, considering it's a public safety commission, to get— make sure that they are educated in rights, laws, how the criminal justice system works. Okay, is there a second to that motion to move this amendment? Okay, is there any discussion on this amendment? Amendment number 8. All right, I'm not seeing any.

Any? So let's go ahead and vote. Majority vote on 8.

All right, has everyone who wants to vote had a chance to vote? Okay, all right, I'll go ahead and close this at 18 yes, 1 no, 0 abstentions. That amendment passes. So we have one more amendment that we just got, and it's going to be put up on the board so everyone can see it.

All right, and then I think this is your amendment, Donna. Do you want to speak to it? I can't, sorry.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Critical to the efficiency of this commission is representation by people with lived experience, people in marginalized neighborhoods, people who are not independently wealthy. Volunteerism is not sustainable. Members should be paid for their expertise and contributions at a minimum of the federal value of a volunteer hour in Alaska. Which is $37.13 an hour as of 2024. Members may choose to donate their stipend to a community safety fund that supports grassroots safety efforts in Anchorage for anyone who chooses not to keep the money.

And I'm going to speak to that. Go ahead. Volunteer hours have a different cost for people that are living in poverty. Think about that.

Is there a second to that motion? I second. Okay, so there is a second. Is there any discussion? Uh, discussion.

So, um, what's homeless volunteering in the car? Get out of homelessness volunteering. Uh, I basically got a emergency housing voucher. I was looking at but I took all the money I made from coalition, all the money I made in the car, and I recognized the dynamics when I got off work, I don't work, and takes me into employment, I could do far more good to help people. So I did $20,000, and I've been slow over the past few years spending down my savings because I just can't ever afford to fail outside.

But I'm essentially, essentially one month away from defaulting on student loans because I've taken my time to help people outside, but I'm not getting the help that I need to build right now. Yeah, if you volunteer, you're still working, you're not getting paid. And so if you're a poverty, if you're doing it, uh, you know, it just depends on the value, time value point. So I support this. Thank you.

All right, are we ready to vote? I think so. Let's go ahead and vote then on this new Amendment Number 9. Give me one minute. Oh, okay, just take 2 seconds.

All right, all right, all right, go ahead and vote.

That's it on this one. That's it for this section. Yes, then we're back to 1.

Has everyone who wants to vote had a chance to vote? Okay, then I'll go ahead and close it. With 12 yes for no, 0 abstentions, this amendment has passed. I know that we're slowly losing members. I'm trying to get us quickly to the finish, right?

So So next we have— we're going to go back to Section 1 because the amendment is now ready. So let's go ahead and put the amendment up on the board, please, for Section 1. Sorry, I got a little lost. Isn't that the one that Drew put forward? The one that we skipped at the very beginning.

The one that combines 1A and 1B. Oh, sorry. Yes. Yep, I'm with you. Okay.

All right. Do you want to speak to this one, Drew? I think I pretty much did already. I— it says same language as Amendment 1A, but adding a new line to see how new— I didn't write all of this. Yeah, add a new line slash intention that the commission includes in their bylaws a scope that addresses the following issues.

So I think what I wrote was encourage directs the future commission to address in their bylaws the following issues. And I said just all the ones from that initial sort of influence of the amendment. Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion?

Can I add amendment to the amendment first? Let's go ahead and get it on the floor and then we can see about any other changes. So is there a second to that motion?

Okay, Terry seconds it. All right, so what suggestion are you—. Uh, just put houseless citizens, maybe voices and safety of houseless citizens, because there's safety from the views of the people that are living in houses, and then there's a completely different type of safety from the people that are outside. So you're suggesting we add voices and safety in front of houses? Okay, voices and safety up.

This is—. I don't know how to put it. I don't know why I wanted to say the last thing. Okay, great. And that I think covers that point, Terry, of citizens or non-citizens.

Okay, great. Then, um, is there any other discussion on this amendment? Okay, not seeing any. Let's go ahead and vote. On Amendment 1D.

Did we get any—. We didn't get any amendments in the last one. Did you get any new ones? Do you want to talk about the last one, originally, before I ask for a vote on the whole thing? Sorry, it's actually majority.

My bad. Okay, um, there's still not— I can't—. Hey Felix, is it too late to go back? Uh, give me one minute, sorry. Uh, all right, while that's being fixed—.

Okay, uh, voices and safety of houses constituents and those with lived experience, or those who've lived experience. Okay, something like that, because there are people that have been homeless that get out and understand the issue as well. Um, so yeah, there's nothing with that.

We're almost there. So after this amendment, Denali is going to walk us through Section 4. There aren't any amendments for Section 4, and then we're going to vote on the whole package, and then that's it, right? So that's it, we're almost done. All right, all right, let's go ahead and vote on Amendment 1D.

I'm gonna— I'm gonna take it that we didn't change that part. Thanks.

Thank you, thank you so much. All right, has everyone who wants to vote had a chance to vote? Okay, all right, so then with yes/no— excuse me, 9 yes, 2 no, and 2 abstentions, that Amendment has passed. Can you walk us through Section 4? You got it.

So Section 4 relates to evaluation and reporting and specifically identifies an evaluation function, also requires the commission to produce an annual public report with findings and recommendations. And then there's some effective date language requiring that bylaws completed by 12 months after formation. So that's some good direction there, and it sounds like that's pretty standard. So you didn't receive any amendments on this section, right? So I'm going to go ahead and— unless someone has an amendment they want to make— I'm going to go ahead and move us on then to a vote of the full package.

So Sections 1 through 4 as amended. Recommended. Is there any final discussion that folks want to have? Uh, going to discussion was a lot of people with past experience. Yes.

Does Zach get added in there or no? Yes, I did get added. Okay, all right, thanks.

Okay, where are we going? Oh, all right, people are voting. All right, so let's go ahead and vote on the full recommendations. Sorry, you're good, you're good. I got ahead of myself.

People are ready.

All right, as everyone who who wants to vote had a chance to vote. Okay. All right, so with the vote of 15 yes, 0 nos, and 1 abstention, the full recommendations have passed at 12:29. At 12:29.

Thank you, Dylan. Oh man, and nice thinking of that to all of you. I am so impressed. Well, thank you. I know this has been a tricky process, and I just really want to thank you for allowing us the honor to guide us through it.

And, uh, all the bumps in the road, we just hung in there, and, uh, I am just so thrilled with the outcome here. So I hope you all are very proud of yourselves, and I look forward to seeing something moving forward to the assembly. And I want to thank my team. My team's been very supportive about this process. And so nicely done, you did the best you could.