Below is a transcript of the meeting generated by YouTube – It’s possible that there are errors or typos in the transcript – Watching the video is the most accurate option.
– Good morning everyone.
00:58
I’m Representative Franklin Cooke Jr. and I’m the Co-Chair
01:09
of the Law Enforcement Accountability Task Force and
01:10
I’m glad everyone is here today. Let me start the meeting by
01:17
reading the following: Concurrent with
01:29
House Concurrent Resolution one, during a public emergency, this
01:30
body is authorized to meet virtually.
01:34
Please note there is no physical location to listen and meet
01:47
contemporaneously. Should any task force member
01:51
experience technical difficulties, please call.
01:55
The public may participate by registering via the meeting link
02:02
that is posted on the General Assembly’s website.
02:06
The public may also view this
02:13
meeting via YouTube on the General Assembly’s livestream.
02:21
The instructions for providing public comment will occur during
02:27
the public comment portion of this meeting.
02:29
Please note that votes that maybe taken shall be done by
02:36
roll call vote. Let’s begin by taking a roll
02:39
call attendance of the task force members present.
02:43
Task force members shall ensure their cameras shall remain on
02:49
for the entirety of the meeting to the best of their ability.
02:52
When your name is called, please unmute your device and confirm
03:00
your attendance. Once you have been recorded,
03:03
please mute your device for the remainder of roll call.
03:10
Representative Cooke here. Chief R.L. Hughes?
03:13
– Present.
03:17
– Can
03:21
everybody hear me? Chief R.L. Hughes?
03:22
– Here.
03:27
– Darryl Parson? – Here.
03:33
– Larry Johnson? – Present.
03:35
– Representative Briggs King? – Present.
03:42
– Senator Brian Pettyjohn? – Present.
03:48
Present. – James Liguori?
04:02
– Good morning. – Spencer Price, which is a
04:06
non-voting member.
04:14
Melissa Zebley? – Present.
04:18
– Brendan O’Neill? – I’m here.
04:21
– Michelle Taylor? – Present.
04:24
–
04:50
Bernice Edwards? – Here.
04:51
– Sherese Brewington-Carr? – Here.
04:53
– Chief Patrick Ogden? – Good morning everyone.
04:57
I’m here. – No, I can’t hear.
05:01
Stand by for a second everyone.
05:46
Since this is the final presentation of the
05:52
recommendations of the Transparency and Accountability
05:56
Subcommittee and police reforms.
06:06
Let’s look at our minutes from our last meeting.
06:11
Does anyone have any changes? – I move it is approved.
06:17
– It has been motioned and seconded.
06:21
I will take roll call again. Representative Cooke yes.
06:26
Chief R.L. Hughes? – Yes.
06:29
– Larry Johnson? – Yes.
06:31
– Representative Briggs King? – Yes.
06:34
– Senator Brian Pettyjohn? – Yes.
06:37
– James Liguori? – Yes.
06:41
– Kathy Jennings? – Yes.
06:44
– Melissa Zebley? – Yes.
06:47
– Brendan O’Neill? – Yes.
06:49
– Michelle Taylor? – Yes.
06:52
–
06:57
Bernice Edwards? Ron Handy?
06:58
– Yes. – Sherese Brewington-Carr?
07:01
– Yes. – Lieutenant Thomas Brackin?
07:12
Lieutenant Calhoun? – Yes.
07:14
– Chief Patrick Ogden? – Yes.
07:17
– Thank you. We have unanimous.
07:20
Now, we will have a final
07:25
subcommittee presentation from Transparency and Accountability
07:29
Subcommittee and I will turn it over to subchair, James Liguori.
07:34
James? – Thank you.
07:37
Before we begin, I want to echo everything that was said on
07:42
April 29th. I want to personally thank all
07:45
of the members of the subcommittee that I was on for
07:48
their honest and thoughtful conversations and the submitted
07:54
recommendations. As I told you, the
07:56
recommendations were unanimous and hard to believe based on the
08:00
diversity of our Committee. However, everyone was
08:05
thoughtful, and respectful, and honest I believe in approaching
08:10
in what we believe to be our task.
08:13
And basically, I also want to take this moment to thank the
08:19
obvious that being Sarah and Alexa.
08:25
They always helped us. We imposed on them and they came
08:30
through for us. So, I want to thank Sarah and
08:41
Alexa. At our last subcommittee
08:44
meeting, on April 29th, we believe that we had an
08:51
aggressive agenda that touched on hot button topics.
08:55
If you remember on April 29th, Bernice Edwards and Larry
09:02
Johnson talking about restoring the trust in policing.
09:06
That’s how we approached our responsibility.
09:09
The overarching theme was to increase transparency and
09:18
accountability. That’s something that we believe
09:20
needs to be done to restore trust in policing.
09:24
Knowing that we would have differences that would need
09:28
further discussion, we reached our goals by a thoughtful
09:33
discussion, like I said, voted on and submitted these seven
09:38
recommendations. Now, you have the seven
09:42
recommendations in front of you. I think they were again sent out
09:44
earlier for the third time by Alexa.
09:47
And with them, I also asked Alexa to send you not only our
09:53
exhibits that we rely upon, but also, for lack of a better term
09:59
I call the synopsis, the contents of our recommendations.
10:03
That synopsis is about two pages that is attached to our
10:08
recommendations. So, with that in mind, I guess
10:14
we will address and vote upon these recommendations.
10:18
And the
10:21
first one was to restructure and expand the council on police
10:29
training to include more civilians and provide more
10:33
authority in decertifying law enforcement officers at a
10:40
minimum. So, Representative Cooke, that’s
10:43
our first recommendation. Do you want to take that now?
10:47
Individually, I think that we have to vote on those.
10:51
– Yes, we will take that now and we will do a roll call, okay?
10:57
– Mr. Liguori, this is R.L. Hughes.
11:03
Will you repeat that recommendation again.
11:07
That’s not number one on my list that I have here.
11:12
– I’m sorry, R.L. It is restructure and expand the
11:17
council on police training to include more civilians and
11:28
authority in decertifying a law enforcement officer.
11:33
Maybe you can find what Alexa sent the other day?
11:37
– I got it. Thank you.
11:39
– It is hard to get things to Georgetown, Delaware sometimes.
11:44
– It is. It is.
11:46
– I don’t know if the two other people from Georgetown have it.
11:51
– It says something about R.L. maybe.
11:56
– Mr. Chair, point of order, I think that we should have a
12:02
motion and a discussion before we do a roll call.
12:07
– Okay, so I would move that we discuss and just vote upon our
12:13
first recommendation. – This is R.L. Hughes.
12:17
I would second that motion.
12:22
– So, I guess if we could — are we going to vote on the
12:29
discussion or vote on the recommendation?
12:31
– Point of order if I could. Just routinely, you move and
12:39
second and you call for the question to discuss.
12:40
– Yes.
12:44
So, we’re at that point of discussion.
12:48
Representative, that’s up to you.
12:49
– Yes, we can have discussion. – Thank you.
12:52
I have a question, Mr. Liguori. If you could explain a little
12:59
bit more when you talk about expanding and authority because
13:02
we also in the
13:12
Workforce Development Committee had a discussion about improving
13:17
and can you speak to what the specifics are in that
13:24
recommendation, please? – I believe there is.
13:25
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you, Sherese.
13:29
– I’m fine. I’m just waiting for you.
13:33
– I believe the approach would be that there is a lot of
13:37
overlap in what we are doing and that’s why I asked the synopsis
13:45
is included. If you turn the page, you see
13:48
our synopsis on the
13:52
council for police training. I don’t want to pick out one or
13:57
two because I know that our Committee discussed many reasons
14:02
about this recommendation. So, on Page 5 of the attachment,
14:07
it talks about what we discussed in expanding the membership and
14:13
authority on the council on
14:42
police training. One of the discussion points was
14:45
to remove the authority from the Delaware State Police and
14:51
transfer to the federal Department of Justice.
14:56
– Even though these recommendations are out there,
15:00
that’s why I asked for a little bit more detail than just
15:09
referencing the page number. We found that COPT is already
15:17
under Homeland Security. So, I’m just asking what is
15:22
different and what you are asking for?
15:25
– I believe that the Homeland Security and Melissa Zebley can
15:31
help me comes under the Delaware State Police.
15:35
– Both are true in the char man
15:43
is the Homeland Security, but the day-to-day is the Delaware
15:52
State Police. This would have all of that
15:56
working knowledge of COPT fall under the secretary.
16:02
There by allowing him to
16:13
organize strait a better work group.
16:15
If that answers your question, but I’m happy to any others if
16:21
it didn’t. – No.
16:23
I’m very clear about the authority.
16:26
We made the recommendation as well.
16:29
And in workforce development subcommittee, we discussed it be
16:34
re-branded and the day-to-day, as you said, Colonel Zebley and
16:44
not any state police entity in Delaware State Police per se.
16:49
This heaps — keeps it in Delaware State Police.
16:58
When we looked in the research and outside of the system, as
17:03
well as accountability of the Governor’s Office.
17:06
It is making sure if there is not cross pollination that we go
17:12
back what we have already recommended as a committee.
17:16
– Mr. Chair, this is R.L. – R.L. go ahead.
17:22
– Sherese, I understand what you are saying here, but I see these
17:27
both as two trains heading down the same path.
17:31
They are both asking for the transparency.
17:34
I think they both have very good pieces to them.
17:39
They can be combined moving forward, but I think that the
17:45
thrust of this is the same thing that our Committee is looking
17:49
at. I think that it is important for
17:51
us to show our support and continue with both pieces that
17:58
these committees worked very hard on.
18:01
The training piece is going to be very important in the future
18:05
and the transparency piece that are offered, both are great.
18:11
The momentum for untethering and adding more members to the
18:17
commission is very important. – Representative Briggs King?
18:20
– Thank you. Just a couple questions and
18:23
points of clarification if I may?
18:27
When talking about the proposal, the recommendation.
18:32
It says, “to allow the entity to conduct their own investigation
18:38
for desertification.” Just a question and how many
18:43
times is an officer going to go through this certification and
18:49
process? It seems to me it is going to be
18:53
done at the local level, internal affairs, and passed on
19:03
to someone else. For clarification, how many
19:09
times is this person going to have to stand before a judgment,
19:14
if you will? It appears more than one.
19:16
– It is more than one. Please correct me if I’m wrong
19:21
everybody, but I think that it would be three.
19:25
It would be the local
19:29
internal affairs makes a determination and the criminal
19:35
justice appeal and then it could go to the Council on Police
19:40
Training to certify them. So, a minimum two, maybe three.
19:44
– Okay. And a follow-up question.
19:48
A lot of this discussion and we keep seeing LEOBOR, but we have
19:54
never talked about the police chief process.
19:57
Is there an assumption here that the police chief is never going
20:03
to go through this process if there is an allegation?
20:08
I’m trying to figure out where they fit in here.
20:15
I don’t think they should have anything beyond what the regular
20:22
officer has. Has that been discussed?
20:25
– There hasn’t been a discussion within our subcommittee.
20:29
– Would you say, and I think that the police chief,
20:32
especially, in smaller departments, I don’t want them
20:37
to have the same thing they are requiring of their officers.
20:40
– I agree. There also maybe some
20:46
contractual differences too. The local police chief might
20:52
have an employment contract different that gives him or her
20:58
different rights. – But if we’re going — and
21:01
yesterday, we had a long discussion about collective
21:06
bargaining agreements and how it renders over to the body cameras
21:10
and I think that if we are going to do this, it needs to be
21:17
comprehensive and at some point, needs to be a discussion because
21:22
the police chief will be engaged and wearing body cameras too.
21:29
I think that it is important there is an
21:36
expectancy the same for the police chief as the officers, et
21:41
cetera. – We didn’t address it,
21:45
Representative, but I agree with you.
21:47
– Anymore discussion? Now, we will call for a roll
21:52
call vote on this
21:58
first recommendation. Representative Frank Cooke yes.
22:01
Chief R.L. Hughes? – Yes.
22:04
– Darryl Parson? – Yes.
22:09
– Larry Johnson? – Yes.
22:14
– Representative Ruth Briggs King?
22:16
– Yes. – Senator Brian Pettyjohn?
22:21
– Yes. – James Liguori?
22:23
– Yes.
22:28
– Kathy Jennings?
22:34
Proxy? – Yes.
22:37
– Melissa Zebley? – Yes.
22:40
– Brendan O’Neill? – Yes.
22:44
– Michelle Taylor? – Yes.
22:48
– Bernice Edwards? Absent.
22:52
Ron Handy? – Yes.
22:55
– Sherese Brewington-Carr? – Obestin.
23:06
– Thomas Brackin?
23:11
Lieutenant Calhoun? – Yes.
23:13
– And chief Patrick Ogden? – Yes.
23:21
– We have 13 yes, two absent,
23:40
and one Obestin. – The
23:44
second recommendation is to create civilian review boards.
23:47
There was significant conversation about how
23:55
approaching Civilian Review Boards should be comp prized and
23:59
whether or not we need Civilian Review Boards and if they should
24:09
be local municipalities and we send to the General Assembly the
24:15
policy for
24:19
creating Civilian Review Boards for local law enforcement
24:23
agencies. – Open for discussion.
24:27
Now, let’s bring it to a vote. – Can I just make a quick point?
24:33
– Yes, chief pat Ogden.
24:59
– I think that you are going to have widespread support for the
25:06
Civilian Review Boards, but because policing is so dynamic,
25:10
I don’t think that you are going to have a lot of support from
25:15
the police for Civilian Review Boards decision-making
25:18
authority. And the Council on Police
25:21
Training is now going to be heavily favored in terms of
25:28
civilians vs. police. We are going to have ten
25:31
civilians on it and six police. And I think that is a good
25:40
measure for civilian
25:45
authorities. – Umm, I understand that the —
25:49
if there is an expansion of the Council on Police Training, that
25:55
would help obviously. But the point here is that we
25:59
were suggesting that the Legislature needs to be aware
26:05
that Civilian Review Boards for local law enforcement agencies
26:11
are imperative and that’s the way that we voted.
26:14
– I would like to now bring this to a vote.
26:18
– May I join in on that? I want to say that I think the
26:23
time is now to create Civilian Review Boards with some teeth.
26:29
Creating just another advisory board is just allowing people to
26:34
weigh in and there’s no consequences.
26:36
This is the accountability subcommittee and
26:43
an advisory subcommittee creates no additional accountability.
26:52
A Civilian Review Board with teeth can take action and
26:58
consequences and I think what
27:08
is needed. And with no decision-making
27:12
authority is not what is needed now.
27:15
The message and my request is that we communicate to the
27:22
General Assembly is the appropriate thing to do to make
27:26
more accountability is to have Civilian Review Boards with
27:29
authority and not just advisory stuff.
27:32
Otherwise, we are just another committee that is making
27:36
recommendations. So, that’s what I think that we
27:38
ought to do. – Anymore discussion?
27:40
– Yes, Mr. Chair, if I could please?
27:44
– Senator Brian Pettyjohn? – Thank you, sir.
27:48
This is one I actually take an
27:54
issue with. A Civilian Review Board, the
27:56
members of the will you say — public that are contained within
28:04
the Civilian Review Board, I have no problem with.
28:07
But there is no professionally
28:18
regulated review board in Delaware that are made up of
28:26
people that don’t know
28:32
the profession. The Civilian Review Board having
28:34
that much authority over the police is I think a mistake and
28:42
not what we need to do in terms of the professionals making
28:46
decisions and basing it off of the actions of the other
28:51
professionals in this profession.
28:52
We don’t do it with plumbers, dentists, doctors, or anybody
28:59
else. I think that starting to go down
29:02
this avenue where we have individuals who are not part of
29:05
the job and don’t know the job and the ins and outs and the
29:13
dangers of that job inherently because they have not done that
29:20
job and giving them teeth, as I have heard, I think sets a very
29:28
bad precedent moving forward for all of our professions out there
29:34
that are regulated in the State. – Senator, I understand your
29:40
position. In my view, in no other
29:44
profession does the government, the State, or the local
29:52
municipality give the workforce the right to use weapons against
29:59
civilians. Dentists and doctors are not
30:04
authorized to use force under any circumstances.
30:06
There is a big difference because this is a period of long
30:12
disgruntlement of the public they are intended to serve.
30:17
And in most cases they do. But when you have one that steps
30:21
over the line, this is one way they can be held accountable.
30:27
No other profession has the authority to use force against
30:32
their customers or patrons and I think that’s where there is a
30:36
difference. I understand your position.
30:38
It is legitimate, I just disagree with it.
30:44
– This is hue — lieutenant Calhoun.
30:51
I mandate that attorneys and judges still yield some power
30:59
over individuals that are out there.
31:01
I don’t think that it is fair for police officers to be tried
31:09
three times in-house in
31:28
Civilian Review Boards. So, I’m a no vote on this.
31:34
– Anymore discussion? Since there is no more
31:39
discussion, I would move to a vote.
31:42
Larry Johnson? – Yes.
31:49
– Representative Ruth Briggs King?
31:52
– No.
31:56
– Senator Brian Pettyjohn? – No.
32:01
– James Liguori? – Yes.
32:06
– Kathy Jennings? – Yes.
32:14
– Melissa Zebley? – No.
32:18
– Brendan O’Neill? – Yes.
32:23
– Michelle Taylor?
32:31
Michelle Taylor?
32:38
Absent.
32:42
Bernice Edwards? Absent.
32:47
Ron Handy? – Yes.
32:52
– Sherese Brewington-Carr? – No, not
33:08
as presented. – Thomas Brackin?
33:11
Absent. Fred Calhoun?
33:14
– No. – Patrick Ogden?
33:17
– No.
33:20
– Darryl Parson? – Yes.
33:25
– Chief R.L. Hughes? – No.
33:31
– And myself is no
33:36
as presented. Now, we move to number three —
33:39
hold on. I’m sorry.
33:40
We have six
33:45
yes, eight nos, three absent, one abstain.
33:50
Now, let’s move to number three. – Well, number three is you
33:54
know, the elephant in the room and that’s to review and
34:03
amend law enforcement officers bill off Rights.
34:11
There is a number of proposed legislation that was submitted
34:16
that we included in our exhibits and the subcommittee determined
34:22
unanimously that this was something that obviously, we
34:26
need to address immediately to increase transparency and police
34:31
accountability. Knowing full well there are
34:38
aspects of recommendation number
34:43
four about FOIA obligations that also impact this.
34:46
We broke it down into a recommendation to review and
34:52
amend LEOBOR. I will leave it at that.
34:57
That’s the number three recommendation.
35:00
– Now open for discussion. There is no discussion let’s
35:03
move to a vote. – I have a point.
35:06
– I’m sorry. – I apologize.
35:09
I just have a question really. I have been engaged in this task
35:14
force and all of the subcommittees throughout this
35:18
process and we are going to take a vote on amending LEOBOR with
35:25
making transparency an important part of it, but I’m not sure
35:29
what that means or what step? I understand if an officer is
35:34
found in violation of something, they are terminated.
35:37
I don’t have any objection with making that public, but we are
35:44
making a recommendation and taking a vote on something that
35:48
I’m not sure what it is. I don’t think that any of us
35:52
know what it is.
35:56
The Devil is in the details and I haven’t seen any details on
36:03
this. – In our discussion, the details
36:06
were varied and not determining what details to use, we came to
36:12
a compromise where we basically just talk about asking the
36:16
General Assembly to review and amend LEOBOR because we think
36:20
that it is necessary at this point in time to review and
36:22
amend LEOBOR to add to the restoring of the trust in the
36:28
public because many people thought that LEOBOR was — parts
36:32
of LEOBOR were secret and those kind of things.
36:38
So, Chief, to answer your question, the recommendation
36:43
simply is to review and amend. And we have submitted
36:51
many, many variations of amendments for LEOBOR.
36:55
I leave it to the Legislature. – I guess any other point that I
37:01
will make and speaking on behalf of the police chiefs, we want to
37:06
embrace transparency for sure. But I’m not sure of any other
37:11
profession where human resource information is posted publicly.
37:16
I mean, if there’s a — you know, in your law office if
37:23
there is an issue, I’m not sure that’s public.
37:27
Now, if an officer is terminated, most certainly, I
37:34
agree with that. I’m just cautious because I
37:37
don’t know the details is all. I want to say publicly the
37:44
police chiefs embrace the issue of transparency, but not in
37:49
favor of doing it through LEOBOR.
37:51
I think that we can increase police transparency without
37:58
making it part of the LEOBOR. – Well, the subcommittee thought
38:02
it was important to review and
38:08
amend to increase police transparency.
38:10
– To chief Ogden’s point, to amend and
38:20
review is through the Civilian Review Boards and that’s a line
38:24
out of the context of why this was proposed.
38:28
– Correct. As well as transparency and
38:32
accountability for the disciplinary procedures.
38:34
Yes. – My concern is that we have —
38:39
this is Frank Calhoun. I thought we were going to
38:47
review and amend through the Civilian Review Boards and if
38:51
they see the need to amend it and not review and amend.
38:56
It leads them to believe they have to review and amend it.
39:02
I think that it is just a play on words there for me, sir.
39:08
– All right. I think that it was unanimous
39:14
consent was to review and
39:19
amend LEOBOR. – Mr. Chairman, may I be
39:26
recognized? – Sherese?
39:27
– Thank you. If I’m not mistaken in our last
39:32
session, did we not
39:41
reference LEOBOR with the police community and the current
39:45
offense and maybe the staff can help us with that just as a
39:50
point of discussion and we did amend and affirm specifically as
39:57
it related to LEOBOR and this discussion around transparency.
40:00
I think that if we are talking about review and amend as needed
40:05
is one thing versus the way it is stated.
40:09
If the Chair persons would be willing after hearing the
40:15
feedback from the previous recommendation that I think that
40:19
we did affirm as a task force,
40:25
then perhaps, that would address some concern.
40:29
Do we have that detail? – Hold on.
40:33
– I think it was community policing.
40:36
– Yes, if you refer to your minutes that you just approved,
40:42
it is on I believe Page 3, on the top of Page 3 of the minutes
40:46
that were just approved. Number
40:51
one reads “pass administrative amendments to LEOBOR to increase
40:56
transparency and accountability, thus improving trust in the
41:05
community.” – Did everybody hear that?
41:07
Did everybody hear that? – It faded out towards the end
41:13
for me. I’m sorry.
41:14
– Can you read that one more time, please?
41:17
– Thank you, Sarah. – Sure.
41:22
It is introduce and pass significant amendments to LEOBOR
41:29
to increase
41:36
transparency and police accountability thus improving
41:40
trust in the community. – Thank you.
41:45
– Mr. Chairman? – Representative Ruth Briggs
41:49
King? – Thank you.
41:51
I was also going to comment in our last meeting, we took some
42:00
steps under use of force and transparency and whether it be
42:08
under workforce development or LEOBOR and there is several
42:14
discussions about increasing police transparency and some of
42:17
this discussion has been a bit more specific and the things
42:23
that I’m reading into this current one is just a little too
42:27
broad. I like what we have done in
42:30
different areas that will
42:35
increase transparency and accountability anding — and
42:44
making sure there are resources to do that, as well.
42:47
There are specific items that I like a lot better than this
42:53
broad statement to amend the Bill of Rights because I think
42:58
that we have taken more specific steps in prior action.
43:02
– Thank you. Anymore discussion?
43:05
– Yeah, I don’t know if we have addressed the specific issue of
43:10
the defendant in a criminal case having the right to discovery of
43:17
a police officer witness’ disciplinary record.
43:26
And apparently, LEOBOR prohibits that from being disclosed, but
43:34
it has great bearing on the police officer’s accountability.
43:41
And in the other subcommittees, that never came to the forefront
43:46
and something that the General Assembly can decide whether that
43:48
is appropriate or not? And we are just saying as a
43:53
general recommendation, we ought to examine LEOBOR and where
43:59
appropriate, fix it. The fact is that we have done it
44:01
in a number of instances as Representative Ruth Briggs King
44:09
has indicated. So, I fail to see the harm.
44:11
And I have to say, some of the stances in the vote that we have
44:15
seen today, rightfully or wrongfully, create the
44:20
impression that the law enforcement community is kind of
44:23
stone walling this thing. The last two recommendations.
44:27
I’m not saying that it is that way, but the people in the
44:33
community are going to see it that way.
44:35
And that’s something that we have to be concerned about.
44:39
That’s my reason for supporting recommendation number three.
44:43
– Let me go a little bit further on this and the suggestion that
44:48
Mr. O’Neill made was included in the legislation that was
44:53
submitted by the Office of Defense Services.
44:55
That was a five page document that we reviewed and we compared
45:03
it with the ACLU’s version of amending LEOBOR.
45:09
We compared it with Senator Lockman’s suggestion with regard
45:14
to amendments to LEOBOR. And the point was that we were
45:18
not going to draft any legislation.
45:19
We were going to bring these issues to the attention of the
45:23
General Assembly and let the General Assembly choose what
45:25
they wanted. And that’s why we
45:33
left it in terms of review and amend LEOBOR and the Legislature
45:38
can pick and choose from our submissions what if anything
45:43
they want to do. Yes, that was addressed with
45:51
divulging to police council what goes on with a police officer.
45:53
– I want to be clear this is recommendations and reforms.
45:58
This is
46:05
not legislation. The subcommittee does not write
46:07
legislation and I want to be clear about that.
46:09
That’s why we are here today. Do we have anymore discussion?
46:13
I move to start vote. Larry Johnson?
46:16
– Yes, approve. – Representative
46:24
Ruth Briggs King? – Not
46:35
as written. – Senator Brian Pettyjohn?
46:37
– Not as written. – James Liguori?
46:40
– Yes.
46:44
– Kathy Jennings? – Yes.
46:51
– Melissa Zebley? – No.
46:56
Brendan O’Neill? – Yes.
47:00
– Michelle Taylor?
47:05
Michelle Taylor?
47:10
– Yes.
47:15
–
47:20
Hold on. Bernice wardens?
47:22
— Edwards? Absent.
47:25
Ron Handy? – Yes.
47:27
– Sherese Brewington-Carr? – Not
47:33
as written. – Thomas Brackin
47:39
is absent. Lieutenant Fred Calhoun?
47:40
– No. – Chief Pat Ogden?
47:44
– No. – Darryl Parson?
47:47
– Yes.
47:51
– Chief R.L. Hughes? – No.
48:00
– Myself, no, not as written. We have seven yes, four nos, two
48:10
absent and four not as written. Let’s move on to number four.
48:16
– Point of order. Can you read the count for me,
48:24
please? – So, it will be eight nos.
48:28
Correct? – That’s what I have.
48:31
– Yes. I was just explaining it as not
48:35
as written and I thought that everybody knew that was a no.
48:39
My apologies. – Representative Cooke, before
48:46
we move forward, if we can take issue and make sure that we keep
48:53
our remarks on how we are voting.
48:57
I want to make sure that we don’t despairage the intention
49:05
of others and I want to be mindful of colleagues.
49:09
– Yes, I hope that everyone heard that clearly.
49:13
Let’s respect each other and each other’s vote.
49:18
Let’s move on to number four. – Well, number four is the
49:23
elephant in the room about collective bargaining agreements
49:27
and FOIA
49:33
obligations interfere with the law enforcement officer’s Bill
49:40
of Rights. The point is there are certain
49:46
collective bargaining matters that talk about transparency and
49:48
what would be released and not released and we know that has to
49:53
be modified if we, in fact, want to change LEOBOR to be more
49:59
transparency and we wanted to address that to the attention of
50:24
the General Assembly. – Any discussion?
50:26
– Representative, I want to be clear, what exactly is the
50:33
recommendation? – That collective bargaining
50:40
agreements interfere with the transparency and the police
50:50
officers Bill of Rights doesn’t add to transparency.
50:52
– It sounds like more of a statement than a recommendation.
50:56
I wanted to be clear what exactly is the recommendation?
51:01
And I’m sorry, it is just unclear to me and I don’t know
51:05
if it is anybody else? – It is, yeah.
51:08
– It is a statement and a statement with regard what we
51:13
believe that the General Assembly needs to
51:18
review. It is our recommendation that
51:21
they address this matter. – Representative Briggs King?
51:25
– Thank you. I guess I would like a few
51:29
specific examples of what that is.
51:31
Because just like anybody else, you say, “collective bargaining
51:40
agreements”. What is in
51:46
a collective bargaining agreement that goes beyond
51:51
LEOBOR? Because I can go and look at
51:53
some of the collective bargaining agreements for
51:56
teachers and there are some things that can’t be disclosed
52:01
about them. So, an apple for apple and what
52:06
things are we talking about that under a FOIA is not
52:13
discoverable? – Yes.
52:14
To me, the most important one and it was discussed to the fact
52:22
that you can disclose something that is substantiated
52:30
or
52:33
unsubstantiated. And they talk about collective
52:38
bargaining agreements superseding LEOBOR in regards to
52:42
the transparency and accountability and we thought it
52:46
needed to be addressed by the General Assembly and hopefully,
52:50
add to the change of the law enforcement officer’s Bill of
53:02
Rights. Representative Briggs King, it
53:04
is just a difficult thing to address with the fact there is
53:08
an appearance of hiding behind — there is an appearance of
53:13
having difficulty
53:17
with FOIA and collective bargainings and getting matters
53:22
to be transparency with police
53:34
disciplinary actions. – I’m sorry.
53:36
And I see you member Johnson over there.
53:40
I apologize. I just need a little more
53:45
clarification and is the recommendation something along
53:48
the lines — and I’m not putting words in your mouth, but is it
53:57
to review contracting agreements?
53:59
– It is for the Legislature to appreciate there are problems
54:04
with collective bargaining agreements and FOIA that need to
54:07
be addressed along with the amending LEOBOR.
54:13
That’s what the recommendation
54:27
was. – Larry simps?
54:30
— Johnson? – I’m having a little bit of
54:36
difficulty trying to parse
54:40
out
54:44
the freedom of information portion of this.
54:48
I’m having difficulty understanding what your meaning
54:51
is that FOIA is
54:56
an
54:59
obstacle to transparency. Please elaborate.
55:03
– It is along the lines whether or not during litigation, what
55:10
maybe litigation, what can be with he would.
55:13
That’s where we are coming from, Mr. Johnson.
55:16
– Well, in my professional understanding, there are only
55:21
nine things that can be removed or redacted from
55:28
a freedom of
55:33
f Information Act request and that’s something that yep
55:40
jeopardizing national security. I’m having difficulty
55:47
understanding besides LEOBOR,
55:55
those three items and an Freedom of Information Act request would
56:00
complicate these things? – It is the police officer’s
56:04
ability to say there is potential litigation and
56:08
therefore, that potential litigation could inhibit or
56:13
restrict what would be disclosed by the internal affairs
56:19
investigation. – With that being said, if the
56:22
officers are acting in their official capacity, that
56:26
information is not shielded
56:42
by FOIA. I’m having difficulty
56:44
understanding if that is something in the Delaware
56:47
legislation that is different than the federal legislation,
56:58
which I’m familiar with. Under the federal FOIA, if the
57:01
officer is acting in an official capacity, that information is
57:10
available through FOIA. – The potential litigation might
57:13
prevent the information being disclosed during the IA process.
57:18
– So, you are saying that the IA process being delib ative is a
57:24
reason why the information can’t be released?
57:27
– Maybe the litigation as to what occurs would prohibit that.
57:34
– That seems contrary to what FOIA is for.
57:38
Maybe we need to be looking at the FOIA statute instead?
57:43
– That’s why we thought there are some issues in regards to
57:47
FOIA that need to be addressed when we amend LEOBOR.
57:52
– Okay. I can see your point.
57:55
But it just shows and says to me that there is something
58:01
drastically wrong with our disclosure process if that is
58:06
the case. I would have to see some
58:09
examples, so I can do more in-depth analysis.
58:13
But I appreciate your focus on this issue.
58:16
– And that was the focus of the subcommittee also.
58:19
– Okay. – Could I offer a potential
58:24
compromise? Could the language that you
58:28
referenced, the same as the rest of our reports where we made
58:35
statements and exposed concerns and legislation and that’s
58:42
included without the benefit of an official recommendation.
58:46
Can we just include that in your committee’s report, which is
58:52
already public? I’m having a challenge seeing
58:54
there is a specific recommendation.
58:56
But to ask the General Assembly to appreciate is not an
59:03
actionable item. So, that’s just what I’m trying
59:06
to get to. And we don’t have to, you know,
59:09
have you reference something or have something come up as a
59:16
result, but if that is a declarative statement that the
59:22
Committee feels strongly about, you include it, but it doesn’t
59:27
require an action, in my mind, from this Committee, unless the
59:34
Chair sees it different. – I will include this was
59:39
discussed at length that we include the carve out and
59:44
request to the General Assembly to make sure they address the
59:50
FOIA obligations and what might hamper that.
59:53
I will leave it up to the Chair as how they might want to
59:59
proceed with that recommendation.
60:00
– James, you can present it to us and we can present it to
60:07
whoever the sponsor is of putting together a bill that
60:11
they can take this into consideration in the General
60:14
Assembly. – I don’t know if that
60:22
answers Ms. Sherese Brewington-Carr’s —
60:25
whatever the pleasure of the Chair is.
60:29
But I don’t want to do anything other than what the Committee
60:39
unanimously suggested I do. – Okay.
60:41
Any further discussion? I would like to move to a vote.
60:47
R.L. Hughes? – No.
60:49
– Darryl Parson? – Yes.
60:53
– Larry Johnson? – No.
60:57
– Ruth Briggs King? – No.
61:00
– Senator Brian Pettyjohn? – No.
61:05
– James Liguori? – Yes.
61:09
– Kathy Jennings? – Yes.
61:17
– Melissa Zebley? – No.
61:21
– Brendan O’Neill? – Yes.
61:24
– Michelle Taylor? – Yes.
61:31
– Bernice Edwards absent. Ron Handy?
61:34
– Yes.
61:38
– Sherese Brewington-Carr? – No,
61:44
as presented. – Thomas Brackin?
61:47
Fred Calhoun? – No.
61:52
– Chief Patrick Ogden? – No.
61:55
– We have six yes and nine nos. And two absent.
62:03
Now, can we move on to number five?
62:06
– Number five, the subcommittee’s recommendation to
62:09
you all was to create a law enforcement officer disciplinary
62:18
database that at a minimum provides law enforcement
62:21
agencies access for hiring decisions.
62:25
And then, law enforcement agencies would need to input
62:30
both substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints and
62:36
accompanying disciplinary actions.
62:37
This was discussed a lot so that one officer can’t go to another
62:44
jurisdiction without what happened at the first one
62:48
following him. And additionally, the issue to
62:52
regard of substantiated and unsubstantiated, which was
62:59
debated a lot and a point very well taken is
63:05
that the unsubstantiated complaints might identify a
63:08
culture of abuse. And the fact that it was
63:14
unsubstantiated, we could offer a database with regard to that
63:19
without identifying the particular officer, just the
63:24
department. That there are a number of use
63:26
of force issues that go on that need to be addressed at the
63:30
culture of the department. So, I would ask that you
63:36
consider number five. – Representative Ruth Briggs
63:37
King? – Thank you.
63:38
I was just going to say in our minutes and notes, I think that
63:43
we previously discussed this too in another section about wanting
63:47
to increase the transparency and how that would come and that
63:52
process is — and that would come under the legislative
63:58
thing, though. But it is difficult to manage
64:01
this when we have different resources, both capital and
64:07
human resources in various departments and everything.
64:10
But I do think that we address this and make recommendations in
64:16
our other areas. I’m trying to look through the
64:21
notes now. I don’t know if anyone else has
64:25
any recollection and we had this discussion.
64:27
– We did. And that the databases were
64:33
problematic and we lifted a couple best practice models,
64:37
which included the University of Delaware where you have
64:41
information about substantiated and unsubstantiated, et cetera,
64:45
and we thought that needed to be a universal application to all
64:50
police departments and that it would be public on their media
64:54
pages or whatever, so we had that information on an ongoing
65:02
basis real-time. – Also, because there is so much
65:04
overlap and what we discussed before, we identified certain
65:09
areas that are important I think to put in this database
65:14
collection. You will see them in our
65:16
handout. Date of the incident.
65:18
Type of complaint. The age, sex, and race of
65:26
the officer. Complaintant age, sex, and
65:32
raise. And if the complaint was
65:37
substantiated and unsubstantiated.
65:37
I know there is a lot of overlap with this.
65:40
– Those are the same recommendations, Jim, that’s
65:45
exactly what they do at
65:50
UD, as well. And specifically, the
65:53
demographic information with the age, gender, and all of those
65:58
things it is internal within the police entity, as well as
66:02
external to
66:05
the public. – That is correct because we
66:08
related to the model from UD. – We talked about transparency
66:13
in a database and looking at the database in the State of
66:17
Delaware. Yes.
66:26
There are some databases that some people are looking at here
66:33
as we speak. – And in the one on workforce
66:37
development and the subcommittee recommendations about data
66:40
collection and where we talked about the factor, frequency,
66:44
number of incidents, discharge. It was a bit more detailed than
66:50
this. I think that we are all moving
66:53
in the same direction, but just stating it a little bit
66:57
differently. – That is correct.
66:58
– Can we move to a vote? Representative Cooke yes.
67:03
Chief R.L. Hughes? – Yes.
67:08
– Darryl Parson? – Yes.
67:11
– Larry Johnson? – Yes.
67:14
– Ruth Briggs King? – Yes.
67:21
– Senator Brian Pettyjohn? – Yes.
67:23
– James Liguori? – Yes.
67:26
– Kathy Jennings? – Yes.
67:32
– Melissa Zebley? – Yes.
67:38
– Brendan O’Neill? – Yes.
67:39
– Michelle Taylor? – Yes.
67:43
– Bernice Edwards absent. Ron Handy?
67:48
– Yes. – Sherese Brewington-Carr?
67:50
– Yes.
67:54
– Thomas Brackin is absent. Lieutenant Fred Calhoun?
68:00
– Yes. – And Chief Pat Ogden?
68:02
– Yes. – Unanimously is voted yes from
68:08
all. Let’s move on to number six.
68:10
– Number
68:14
six is to we’ve asked you to consider sending to the
68:18
Legislature our recommendation to increase the public’s access
68:24
to already desertification decisions made by the Council on
68:32
Police Training and to be placed in a state depository and not
68:36
just the national desertification database.
68:40
–
68:46
Any discussion? Let’s move to a vote.
68:49
Representative Frank Cooke yes. Chief R.L. Hughes?
68:52
– Yes. – Darryl Parson?
68:54
– Yes. – Larry Johnson?
68:57
– Yes.
69:00
– Ruth Briggs King? – Yes.
69:07
– Senator Brian Pettyjohn? – Yes.
69:11
– James Liguori? – Yes.
69:15
– Kathy Jennings? – Yes.
69:19
– Melissa Zebley? – Yes.
69:23
– Brendan O’Neill? – Yes.
69:29
– Michelle Taylor? – Yes.
69:33
– Bernice Edwards absent. Ron Handy?
69:36
– Yes. – Sherese Brewington-Carr?
69:38
– Yes.
69:41
– Tom Brackin is absent. Fred Calhoun?
69:44
– Yes. – And Brackin has been trying to
69:48
get on. He’s having a hard time getting
69:51
on. – Okay, thank you.
69:52
– And Chief Pat Ogden? – Yes.
69:56
– Okay, two absent and 15 yes. Can we move on to number seven.
70:04
– Sure. Very candidly, the last
70:08
recommendation to me, and I included it, because that’s what
70:13
the Committee wanted is part of what think is number five.
70:19
That would be creating a law enforcement database to provide
70:23
the public with information on citizens made, substantiated
70:29
complaints, unsubstantiated complaints and disciplinary
70:34
actions for each law enforcement agency.
70:37
Apparently, we discussed at length the public should be
70:42
provided with an easily accessible depository of this
70:48
information. And the subcommittee wanted to
70:50
carve it out and give it extra attention.
70:54
But respectfully, quite candidly, I think that we have
70:59
addressed it in number five. – Any discussion?
71:02
– I recommend that we don’t and if Mr. Liguori is in agreement,
71:08
no need to hold a vote. – Well, I can tell you that it
71:14
is — I think
71:18
that it is subsumed in number five very candidly, but I will
71:24
leave it up to the Chair person to decide how they want to
71:28
handle that. – My recommendation would be to
71:32
go ahead and merge 5 and 7.
71:37
– Umm, Mr. Chair, I’ve got a problem merging another
71:43
recommendation with one that we have already voted on.
71:46
– I think that because it is public record, we just go ahead
71:53
and vote on it. Just to be clear.
71:56
We have this out. – And to be very candidcandidly,
72:05
my subcommittee had this carved out.
72:07
I’m bringing to your attention what they asked me to do.
72:11
– This is very broad and it is not saying that it has to name
72:16
an officer or anything else. It could be just a report by an
72:20
agency. Certainly, you want to make
72:23
allowances in some cases where you have a new officer that does
72:26
something, they are reprimanded and there is an improvement plan
72:31
and it never happens again. For certain reasons, I think
72:36
that it doesn’t need to disclose the name.
72:39
Although, this doesn’t say that, I think that it would be for
72:45
consideration down the line. – Thank you and yes.
72:47
– And because this is public record and it is out, I think
72:51
that we should just vote on it and that’s what I’m going to
72:57
recommend. So, let’s move to a vote.
72:59
Larry Johnson?
73:14
– I’m going to
73:19
about stain. – Ruth Briggs King?
73:20
– Yes. – James Liguori?
73:23
– Yes. – Kathy Jennings?
73:26
– Yes.
73:34
– Melissa Zebley? – Yes.
73:39
– Brendan O’Neill? – Yes.
73:41
– Michelle Taylor? – Yes.
73:45
– Bernice Edwards is absent. Ron Handy?
73:47
– Yes. – Sherese Brewington-Carr?
73:52
– Yes.
73:57
– Thomas Brackin? Fred Calhoun?
74:02
– Yes.
74:06
– Chief Patrick Ogden? – Yes.
74:10
– Darryl Parson? – Yes.
74:19
– Chief R.L. Hughes? – Yes.
74:21
– And myself yes. We have 14
74:28
yes, two
74:31
absent, and one abstain. – With that, Representative
74:34
Cooke, you can see that the Committee — the subcommittee
74:40
was very engaged in what we think were needed to have for
74:47
immediate change and to hopefully, restore trust.
74:52
We would hope that this matter be sent to the General Assembly
74:56
to be addressed immediately. We thank you all for allowing us
75:01
to do this. And personally, thank you
75:06
Representative Cooke and Darryl Parson for letting Ray Armstrong
75:13
and I Co-Chair this matter. Thank you.
75:16
– Thank you so much. I want to let everybody know
75:21
that I will be contacting all of the Committee Chairs and
75:27
subcommittee Chairs with our action plan.
75:30
I want to say thank you to the countless advocates that made
75:36
their voices heard during this process.
75:38
I just want to say thank you. Now, I want to open up
75:59
to public comment. – If you would like to provide
76:02
public comment please utilize the “raise hand” function.
76:09
Denise, you may provide public comment.
76:13
You have two minutes. – Can you all hear me okay?
76:15
– Yes, ma’am. We can.
76:18
– Thank you. I would also like to see the
76:24
Attorney General’s Office held to this kind of accountability
76:27
that the police officers are being held to.
76:29
The catch and release program is not working.
76:33
It creates more chance of crime and more arrests and less
76:41
accountability for the police officers themselves.
76:43
That is going on daily. And so, I would like to see more
76:49
police accountability. And why not keep records for all
76:52
of the statistics for the police officers that have saved lives?
76:59
Saved babies, including abused children and women in domestic
77:09
violence situations? I don’t see why that couldn’t
77:13
also gain the public’s trust? Seeing the good things that the
77:19
police officers do. And in this Committee and I
77:25
hear there are people on here and especially, one person on
77:30
this Committee that doesn’t know what he is talking about.
77:32
It is very hard to listen to that person.
77:34
I think that anyone who is going to make any kind of
77:39
recommendations for police, should have at least, some
77:44
experience in the work they do. My feeling is, as a law-abiding
77:51
citizen in this state, a police officer is going to
78:00
endamager his own life because he hesitates to pull his weapon.
78:07
So, I would like to see some positivity mentioned in this.
78:11
Just leaving open-ended things for legislatures to make law on,
78:19
because you are making law, even though you state that you are
78:23
not. You are.
78:25
It is unfair and removing the ability for the police officers
78:29
to do their job correctly. – Thank you for your comment.
78:33
Your two minutes have expired. – Thank you.
78:37
– Cindy, you have been permitted to speak.
78:41
You have two minutes. – I have heard many times
78:53
professions have no oversight. I would refer you to DPR.
78:58
The unqualified practice of medicine and other certain
79:04
healthcare professions. The board of licensing in
79:08
Michigan is comprised of 16
79:14
members. Nine of which are not
79:23
doctors. If police officers would
79:27
self-report and have transparency and accountability,
79:32
we would not need Civilian Review Boards.
79:38
I’m disappointed this board is not working to make change in
79:45
some of these issues. I have two
79:53
white, middle-class teenager children who have had no
80:00
encounters with law enforcement and they don’t have trust in the
80:05
law enforcement community. You are losing a generation who
80:10
think that police officers have integrity and morals.
80:13
Please think about that. I want to see that changed.
80:15
Thank you.
80:19
– You have been permitted to speak.
80:22
You have two minutes. – Yes, thank you.
80:26
I’m a retired Presbyterian pastor and I’m grateful for your
80:35
work. I listened to your report when
80:37
it happened earlier. This is the second meeting.
80:41
As quickly as I can, I’m happy to hear what you are doing with
80:46
police. Police have a tremendously
80:51
demanding job. They need a good salary.
80:54
They need support for mental health and all kinds of things
80:58
to keep them function well. In the training and I’m glad
81:02
that you talked about training and training needs to include a
81:06
deep respect for every other human being, no matter their
81:10
circumstance or how they have offended the police.
81:12
I know that takes a lot of training, but it is extremely
81:22
crucial. I would like for you to do a
81:27
little more today. You did work on police
81:29
transparency and disciplinary matters.
81:32
The Civilian Review Boards need to be established.
81:34
It is a matter of how you structure them is the issue.
81:38
I encourage you to be a little more courageous and trust God a
81:44
little more fully because the community needs policing.
81:47
That’s a reality. And in that way, the community
81:52
still support police. But when there is like the
81:58
previous one just ahead of me, the person’s comment, when you
82:02
see abusive police, it is hard for every other policemen.
82:10
There are wonderful policemen and women out there working and
82:14
I’m extremely grateful for them. We need to keep enforcing the
82:19
positive, pay well, et cetera. Those are my comments.
82:23
Thank you for what you have done.
82:26
Your spirit, I see some opens in your spirit, as well as fear and
82:33
worry about what this all means. There needs to be an honest talk
82:40
through. Thank you for all that you are
82:42
doing for our General Assembly. – Thank you for
82:57
your comment. – I’m a Co-Chair
83:03
for the coalition for police transparency for Delaware.
83:11
I have sat in on the meetings for the other subcommittees.
83:14
I have to say I’m disappointed with the votes today from the
83:22
Transparency and Accountability Subcommittee.
83:22
To me, the three recommendations that were kind of the guts of
83:27
this subcommittee were shot down.
83:28
I understand that some of this is subsumed in some of the
83:33
recommendations from the other committees.
83:35
But I think that the symbolism of these recommendations from
83:40
this more committee, Transparency and Accountability
83:45
Subcommittee being shot down is poor.
83:47
I’m afraid that it is possible that the Legislature, without
83:53
these specific recommendations from this Committee may not see
83:59
the recommendations from the other subcommittees and they may
84:02
get buried. I think that I hear what Chief
84:10
Ogden said about recommendation number three being very broad
84:14
and not specifically stating what disclosure is sought.
84:19
Again, this is something for the Legislature to determine.
84:22
The Legislature can determine whether a disclosure of only
84:29
substantiated incidents and terminations are reported or
84:35
something broader. To the extent these three
84:38
recommendations are broad, it is okay for them to be approved.
84:41
The
84:45
Legislature can make that determination.
84:48
And I’m particularly disappointed that the
84:53
recommendation for the Civilian Review Boards was shot down.
84:55
I understand that Civilian Review Boards made up of
85:04
civilians may not address the professionals, but that’s a
85:08
decision of the board. – Thank you for your comments.
85:13
– Hi. I’m a member of the New Castle
85:18
County Chapter of the Senator justice campaign.
85:22
I would like to thank the Committee Members for their
85:26
service to this task force and all of the other subcommittees,
85:31
as well. I have attended a majority or
85:36
watched a majority of the subcommittee meetings and I know
85:40
that the Committee Members have taken the job seriously.
85:44
I’m also disappointed in today’s votes and the Committee did not
85:51
vote to support items 2, 3, and 4.
85:54
The police are given the authority by the people and
85:58
that’s why they say they serve the public and I think that the
86:04
single most effective decision that could have been made to
86:08
increase transparency and accountability would have been
86:12
the oversight of the police. And I think that there are many
86:16
communities that have done these and there are ways to address
86:20
the concerns. To not forward the
86:25
subcommittee’s recommendations for the Legislature to consider,
86:27
I’m very disappointed in that. Thanks.
86:44
– You have been permitted to speak.
86:47
You have two minutes. You have to unmute your
86:53
device. – Yes, ma’am.
86:54
I want to thank you for allowing me to be permitted to speak.
87:00
I want to read from scripture. “Keep your conscious clear so
87:08
they may see the good life that you live.”
87:13
James three. I have been in prison and been
87:22
involved with the Criminal Justice System.
87:24
That’s not a route that I wanted to go down and all of my
87:29
interaction with the Delaware State Police or any other
87:32
agency, I have always been treated with a fair amount of
87:38
respect even when I have broken
88:37
a law. – I would like to say that
88:39
policing is a proposition and the public needs the mission —
88:45
police and the police relies on the public to do
88:58
their job. We hold them in such a high
89:02
standard and we lose sight of the fact they are prone to
89:05
suffer from alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence,
89:11
gambling problems, PTSD, depression, sexual and child
89:16
abuse to name a few. The difference is they enforce
89:20
the law and are allowed to use deadly force.
89:25
In order for the partnership to work, both parties must trust
89:31
each other. Unfortunately, this is not the
89:33
case. Due to the lack of transparency,
89:35
the public has lost faith in the police.
89:38
The public
89:42
deserves Civilian Review Boards to know that officer’s behavior
89:46
and disciplinary records are made available.
89:49
And I would like to say, a start would be to mandate that alcohol
89:54
and drug tests be done for all officers involved in use of
90:01
force incidents, especially involving deadly force.
90:04
The majority of police officers are good, decent, and hard
90:09
working individuals who take the job of protecting and serving
90:13
the public seriously. It is the few that give the
90:17
department a bad name. LEOBOR needs to have a whistle
90:25
blower provision, where police officers can report other police
90:32
officers without fear of retaliation and termination.
90:35
This can be under the purview of the Civilian Review Boards.
90:43
Until and when LEOBOR is removed —
90:54
– Your two minutes have expired. Mr. Chair, that concludes public
91:00
comment. I hope that we have demonstrated
91:03
today our commitment to seeing this process through and that we
91:07
have produced a strong roadmap
91:17
for addressing law enforcement transparency and accountability
91:21
in Delaware. I hope that we are able to take
91:23
action in the coming weeks and make positive changes and I mean
91:28
positive changes that would improve the lives of all
91:32
residents in the State of Delaware and our police
91:36
officers. I would now defer to Darryl
91:39
Parson for closing comments. – Good
91:44
morning all. The Saturday morning in June of
91:48
2020, Representative Cooke called me and asked me to
91:52
Co-Chair this task force. We discussed the growing number
91:56
of documented episodes of police misconduct, which had been
92:03
publicized in the media. And we also discussed a number
92:10
of not good, but great law enforcement officers that make a
92:16
positive impact in our communities.
92:18
And at the end of that conversation and those of you
92:25
who know Representative Cooke, you know that he can be very
92:30
persuasive, I signed on to address the racial inequities in
92:38
the community. And Michelle Taylor evoked
92:45
a proverb “if you want to go fast, go alone, if you want to
92:55
go far, go together.” When Representative Cooke and I
93:02
created the subcommittees, we deliberately invited persons
93:06
with opposing views. Debate, discussion, and even
93:11
argument are healthy ways of exchanging ideas and effectively
93:15
seeing the other side. Over the past few meetings as we
93:19
voted on the subcommittee recommendations, I think that we
93:22
have seen the opening debates and arguments that are going to
93:26
take place in the General Assembly.
93:28
I hope that exchange of information, that exchange of
93:35
ideas will continue leading to some equitable progress.
93:40
I’m proud of the work that we did.
93:42
I look forward to working with all of you.
93:44
And on behalf of Representative Cooke, I want to thank you for
93:48
your sincere service to the citizens of the State of
93:52
Delaware. Thank you again.
93:54
– I entertain a motion to adjourn.
93:58
– So moved. – Second.
94:05
– Thank you. We are adjourned and thank you.