The Cleveland Community Police Commission, a civilian oversight body established under the city's charter to provide independent review of police discipline and policy decisions, holds regular meetings where commissioners address accountability concerns, including member attendance issues, policy development, and grant management. The commission operates under a federal consent decree following systemic accountability failures that contributed to tragedies including Timothy Russell, Melissa Williams, Tamir Rice, and Tanisha Anderson. During this May 27, 2026 meeting, the commission addressed concerns about commissioner attendance, discussed disciplinary policy revisions, reviewed budget adjustments, and received public comments on the commission's effectiveness and independence from political interests.
5/27/26 Full Commission MeetingAdded:
Thank you.
Okay, go. Good evening and welcome to the Cleveland Community Police Commission's full meeting for Wednesday, May 27th, 2026. I officially call this meeting to order and welcome you. I will take a roll call attendance.
Commissioner, I'm going to Commissioner Adams >> present.
>> Commissioner Chur is not with us. I'm sorry, guys. I can't I don't know the order. Commissioner Van Leer, >> present.
>> Commissioner, >> present.
>> Commissioner uh Maria Bonito, >> present.
>> Commissioner Concincaid, >> present.
>> Commissioner Coleman, >> present.
>> I am present. Commissioner Miller, >> present. Commissioner Nelson and also Commissioner Rodriguez are currently not present. Oh, and C and Commissioner Mason.
Okay, we're going to move to adopt the agenda.
Is there a second?
Second.
>> Okay. Um, all in favor of adopting the agenda as is?
I >> I >> I >> I >> Are there any opposed?
>> Any abstensions? That passes. I'll read the meeting to quorum statement.
This meeting of the Cleveland Community Police Commission is a lawful meeting.
Under section 65.04 04 of the codified ordinance. No person with purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting shall do any act which obstructs or interferes with the due conduct of such meeting. Members of the public are invited to speak in accordance with the public comment rules. Disruptions including but not limited to speaking out of turn or making loud utterances that interferes with the due conduct of this lawful meeting may constitute a misdemeanor and a violation of section 605.04.
If this meeting is disrupted, I will call for a recess and the room will be cleared. Persons who violate the city ordinance and commit misdemeanors may be subject to prosecution. When the body is able to return from recess, then in compliance with the Ohio Open Meeting Act and section 101.021 of the Codified Ordinance, the meeting will be open to the public.
We have minutes from the last meeting.
>> Okay. So, we're going to move past the meeting minutes cuz those aren't available right now to public comment.
>> Do you have a public comment for >> Oh, is there Did anybody sign up for public comment? We need the sheet for >> Excuse me.
She don't really >> Brenda Baker.
>> Good evening.
>> Is the mic on?
I don't know how you turn on >> like that.
>> Good evening.
>> Good evening.
>> Well, a couple of things. Um, first [clears throat] you guys were voting in to take charge of the commission and the things that need to be done with the commission.
You have to come up with some type of resolution or sometime accountability for disruptions that's been going on at these meetings and it's been going on way too long and it has to cease because it's impairing you from doing your work.
It is.
Secondly, now that we're getting staff, the executive director, we have assistant executive director. We have to remember we have to support the staff and the executive directors.
Well, both of them now. You have assistant one now so we can move so you guys can move forward and start listening to cases.
So, that's what I wanted to say, my two cents. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Next on the list is St. James. I'm sorry. What's the last name? Singleton.
>> How y'all doing?
>> All right. I don't really have a whole lot to say, but um first of all, I just wanted to um get familiar with the process of how everything works. It's it's new to me. I've been going around learning and I'm speaking in different places uh because I have interest in our community and and to make sure it's I can do my part, right? Um not trying to do your part. That's your part. But I'm trying to build strong relationships where we can help one another. Most people just come I can't really speak for most people, but I'm not the one who come and just say, "Hey, can you do this for me?" I'm coming and say, "How can I work with y'all?" and we find a solution for the problems that we have in our community. Um, so and a little bit about myself for y'all that don't know me. Uh, I created a program because it's a need in our community for these young kids to have something to do in the summertime.
Probably about like 11, 12 years old.
From experience, we want our own money.
And if we don't get it, we going to find a way to get it. And from experience, there's always somebody in the streets that's going to give you an opportunity to do it the wrong way. Not too many people that create programs and opportunities for you to be a successful young man. In the neighborhoods that I'm from, it is riddled with violence, um, criminal activities, and they teach you that. They give you a gun. They'll give you drugs. They'll give you something to drink. And there's very few positive role models there that can help you, actually give you something that can sustain you at 12 years old. So, because I I see me and all of these young men and women, um I said, "What can I do?"
And what I learned is I can only do what I do. So, I went to prison for all of them. They don't have to go. Anybody that says something under me, they don't have to visit prison. And I did that.
Um, I went to school and got educated for them. So, anybody that sit up under me, I do that, too. Right? So, what I did out of my own pocket and I had to remind myself because God told me to do it. I don't know if we really believe in God anymore, but I do and I hear from him in my head, in my heart, right? So, I had to kind of check myself because I was expecting other people to do something for me when when God said, "I'll I'll do it." Right? So, I got a program that's building strong individuals where I teach them how to do trades for free.
I do I teach them how to do trades for free. Electrical, plumbing, drywall, framing, all that stuff out of my own pocket with no existence really at all.
Right. But I think it's so important that I try to figure it out on my own how to feed them, how to give them transportation, how to do all this stuff right here. And I want to know, is there anybody else that care besides me um to be able to do something? Do anybody else care?
>> All right.
>> Thank you.
>> Next is Daryl Houston.
>> His name was on the list.
>> Come on. Come on.
>> I don't think you checked it.
>> Oh, yeah. You didn't check.
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> That's okay.
>> Come on. Let me come.
>> Just go and he can go. Oh, okay. Um, just Okay, there good evening everybody.
Um, glad to see you guys. Um, I just have a few uh questions uh for the community. Uh, we're concerned about a few things. of I've noticed that a few members haven't been here and uh I put a complaint in about that because I believe they're receiving tax dollars and every one of you guys took a sworn oath and stated that you can do 10 hours committed and we have a few members that's not committed to that and I'm a little concerned about that because if we don't have everybody as a whole function as a unit then we won't get anything accomplished. Okay. And my next question to you guys is uh now that we have these two executives, we have these positions filled, can you tell the community when will you guys hear your first case?
Okay.
I'm interested in making sure that we start to move the ball for the community to see that this is effective for the community and the police officers cuz we want it to be balanced because the police officers also have a hard job out here as well and we want to assure them and the community that we are invested as a group. So, I'm looking forward to hearing a case very soon because I think, you know, we've been at this about 24 months for me and I haven't seen any traction, but I do believe in everybody that's on this panel. Okay?
So, I'm looking for traction now. Okay?
Because we're sitting now. We're here.
We have everything I believe that we need to move forward and I would like to see us move forward for the community again and the police. Okay? This is a balance. This is a 50/50 situation, right? And I think all of us are intelligent enough. We've experienced enough in the community and I don't think not one person came here not to do their jobs. Okay? I believe in everybody on this entire panel, but I will hold you guys accountable if I don't see progress and I think that's fair from the community and the taxpayer to hold you guys accountable. Okay. Thank you.
Okay, next is uh Terry Wong. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Jake Williams. My apologies.
>> Good evening.
I was here last week and um I sat in on the grants and budgeting meeting and Richard Jackson name came up concerning an opportunity with this great body. Um not only do I believe that Mr. Jackson is an important part of helping facilitate what's about to happen with the community police commission. I wanted to be one of the residents that will stand up and say I support him.
I sincerely unequivocally support him. Not just because he is a retired police officer. Not just because he was in the military, not just because he has his own investigation company, but because he understands the heartbeat of what we are doing. So I hope and pray that this wonderful body will consider this wonderful person as being a part of making the community police commission work. That's why I'm here and I pray you would do that. Thank you so much.
>> Okay, Terry Wong.
Good evening. The public should be aware that the commission just attempted to lock me out of this public meeting in violation of the First Amendment and the Open Meetings Act. I will be posting the video of this on my um Instagram commissioner Terry Wong. The Department of Justice imposed a federal consent decree because Cleveland had systemic failures of accountability that contributed directly to the tragedies such as Timothy Russell, Melissa Williams, Tamir Rice, and Tanisha Anderson. Yet, after four years, this commission has failed to publicly hear a single police discipline appeal case.
When I was the chair of police accountability, I attempted six separate times to move forward the appeal, Mr. Antoine Tobber and was repeatedly blocked by the primary efforts of Shireina Zed and Dr. John Adams. Uh the mayor, however, has chose to keep people who are impeding the charter instead of keeping someone that was trying to fulfill it. The commission has not only violated the first amendment and due process rights, but also charter 155.
And accountability is not only about discipline after harm occurs. It's about creating constitutional policies before harm occurs. That brings us to flock cameras. Flock cameras are network surveillance systems capable of tracking vehicle movements through jurisdictions, storing historical location data, and sharing information between police agencies and private entities. These systems directly implicate the fourth, 1st, and 14th amendment rights involving protests and political activity. Yet, while I served on the community police commission, uh the body that is in charge of final authority over police discipline and to oversee constitutional accountability, no comprehensive or none at all flock or license plate reader policy was ever reviewed. To my knowledge, there was never public or DOJ review of who can access data, how long the data is retained, and how data is shared, what auditing exists, and what safeguards protect residents from political surveillance. And this failure was not accidental. Commissioner Pete Vanlier, the person right here, repeatedly presented himself as an expert on civilian-based police reform while helping to weaken meaningful oversight. Residents may remember that he worked with the mayor's administration and law department to insert provisions into the police drone policy permitting the warrantless surveillance of protesters. And now we are learning that Cleveland police sought to access flot data connected to no king's protesters through neighboring jurisdictions like Shaker Heights while refusing meaningful transparency about their own surveillance practices. So the public deserves answers. Who approved these systems? What contracts or grants funded them? Why is there no meaningful civilian review? And why are residents expected to accept expanding surveillance without informed public consent? Oversight without accountability is theater. And by this I mean this commission was a theatrical sham effort to pretend to do police reform while moving millions of dollars of public money into the pockets of Mayor Bib and Blaine Griffin's allies.
And if you doubt me, just look at the last four years of what you guys have accomplished. All that money was moved, but no police discipline and no policy was written.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Next item on our agenda is our executive director report given by our executive director Shelley Williams.
>> Good evening everyone.
>> Good evening >> and welcome to this evening's meeting.
>> So the month of May has marked a period of significant operational growth, strategic development, and institutional advancement for the Cleveland Community Police Commission. Some key highlights include the onboarding of two new staff members, the introduction of two pieces of enabling legislation, the commencement of a new hiring cycle, active engagement at the Ohio State House on public safety, and continued progress on resolving the structural pay accompany barrier that has prevented the CPC from participating meaningfully in officer discipline. ary proceedings as mandated by charter amendment 115. And so I am very pleased to welcome. We did have two new staff members on board this month. Our office manager who was also our um finance coordinator, Miss Lisa Johnson. She's not here this evening, but she's here every morning at 7:30. So if you call or you happen to come by, you will be greeted very warmly by our new office manager, Miss Lisa Johnson.
We also have tonight with us our new assistant director, Mr. Timothy Scott.
And I will let Mr. Timothy Scott say a few words about himself.
>> Thank you, Director Williams. And uh thank you to the commission and thank you to citizens of Cleveland for allowing me to serve in this position.
I've been a area resident for about 5 years now. I come with some experience from the Prince George's County, Maryland administrative charging committee where I uh conducted additional investigations and um updated policies for the administrative charging commission there. So um in the interest of time, I will get to know all of you all individually, but I just want to say thank you very much for um allowing me to take this position and bring my skills and expertise to the CPC. Thank you.
Thank you, Ad Scott. And up next, we will be hiring for our uh policy analyst positions. Um those interviews will be to begin next week or the week of yeah, June 1st and then following our community engagement coordinator position. So, we should be fully staffed up, I would say, no later than the month of July or August.
The legislative uh initiatives that I want to speak about tonight, there are two of them. Uh the first one has to do with our grants, our grantees. And so as you guys know, when I first entered um in January, we were backlogged in grants by about two two and a half years.
In an effort to get us caught up, because we're going into the 2026 grant cycle. So, in an effort to get us caught up, what um the budget and grants committee along with our co-chairs have decided to do was to combine two grant years, 2024 and 2025.
Well, in doing so, that effectively puts some of our grantees over the $50,000 uh threshold to move forward. It requires legislation or approval by city council. And so, I did write some legislation. It did uh get introduced to city council last Monday and it will go before them again on well committee as a whole on June 1st and then on that same day it will go before city council again for final approval. Um, included in that legislation is another piece of legislation where um, because we are we're building out staff, we're building we're building this office up rather quickly. And so, in an effort to make sure that we have everything that we need technologically and otherwise, I have um, dropped some money from salaries and benefits to operations. And so that legislation too is going before city council on again the 1st and it will be voted on by city council and the city council meeting that evening. So hopefully everything will be passed and ready to move forward by June 3rd. Um we will resume with making sure that our grantees can move forward in the contracting uh process.
strategic plan. So, it has been a long and hard road to tow, but we are actively putting together a strategic plan for the remainder of this year.
I've been working with our committee chairs um [clears throat] to get their input and um building up our strategic plan uh for the remainder of this year.
So, more to come on that. Our strategic plan should be finalized within the next two to three weeks. we should have everything in place and moving forward for the remainder of the year.
um we are actively working on a new disciplinary process and I know that since I got here in January and from February on I've been saying constantly that we need to come in on the front end of discipline rather than on the back end which is where we have been since the commission has been here on the back end of discipline and coming in on the back end of discipline renders us ineffective.
So, we have um identified working with Commissioner Bonito and working with Commissioner Van Leer and with consultant Richard Jackson on a new process that will enable us to come in on the front end and work uh within some of the boundaries uh to get us participating in the disciplinary process. More to come on that as new developments happen. Um, yes, I did go down to the state house and met with um, Representative Sean Brennan and also Representative uh, Darnell Brewer about um, public safety and how to move money or what it is that they intend to do to move money away from mass incarceration and into community development, community engagement, and public safety.
More to come on those conversations as well.
Um, again, we are actively building our staff, which means we need to expand our office and so we have been consulting with um I forget the name of the company, Nation, Nationwide or something. They're going to assist with building out some new cubicles for us um while we're still here under contract.
I've also been actively looking for some new spaces to assist with our our growth. Um, we will probably be leaving here sooner than later. Um, but while we're here, we'll continue to build up this office until we can find some place that will be comparable to what it is that we're growing into. And that is my report.
Okay, guys, my eyes are failing me today. I missed a person for public comment. Miss Otis, would you like to give your public comment?
>> But of course.
>> Okay. [clears throat] >> She takes me.
>> Good evening everybody. As you know, um it's the summer months and hopefully your calendars will allow you all to start stopping in to the district policing committees. Um for first district, you guys are on my calendar.
You're part of my agenda. Um, I would expect somebody to show up and speak and start letting residents who are for or against still know what this um committee is about and also giving them an assurance that things are or will start to be getting done. That is it. That is all.
>> Thank you very much.
Um, so next on the agenda is our co-chair report. I'm going to start that co-chair report off. So during our last full commission meeting, incorrect information was shared regarding our public records request, specifically that no records had been received this year. That statement was inaccurate and we want to um just kind of clarify that.
We want to acknowledge and apologize for the incorrect report. The Cleveland Community Police Commission has developed a very strong and productive working relationship with Amy Huff and her team um in the law department who assist with processing records requests and we appreciate their continued responsiveness, professionalism, and cooperation. We value the partnership and regret any confusion that statement may have caused.
>> Thank you. So, I'll continue with the report. So, um just a few things. So, I think we're all aware that the city has hired a firm uh Jensen Hughes to sort of do um an assessment of how oversight is working in Cleveland. So, I just wanted to say that um I know that Shireena and uh Ed Williams and myself met with them and so I think it was just a start of a meeting where they're trying to figure out sort of where some of these gaps are, where some of the things are getting lost in translation. So, um I thought it was a a productive meeting with them. I think they're right this first round they were just trying to just gather information. So, I would assume that there will be follow-ups.
They said there will be follow-up. So, um we are meeting with them to figure out how do we work better together uh to kind of move this stuff along. Um also, um I just wanted to once again remind the commissioners that there has been an update to the SharePoint drive where records are housed. And so what uh Amy Huff has done is instead of just what was happening previously where we were just having like random not random records but what records were requesting in terms of like disposition letters uh they were just being sent like weekly or bi-weekly just via email. And so what they've done if you go into SharePoint drive is they have created folders like month by month where they are putting all the disposition letters um in a more organized manner for us. So I I do appreciate that. So I think it was it was difficult to keep track of them because they were coming in via email and so you either had to kind of put them in your own separate folder on your own. This is which is what I was doing or um you know we would uh then we have to then share those documents with the commissioner. So I just think that this process will be better for us. So, if anyone's curious about sort of what's happening with officer discipline, uh it is now easier for us to go online on the SharePoint drive and actually uh view those documents. So, I wanted to thank Amy for that. And then also just uh lastly, I just wanted to say that um one of the issues that we have in the background um are um the settlement agreements that have been entered into.
And so, um, one of the things that we're requesting and we're trying to kind of just do like a data, um, just to get some data, like we just don't know the frequency of them. Um, we don't know what the discrepancy and discipline is.
So, we're requesting um settlement agreements just so we can kind of just understand sort of like how often they are happening um what type of discipline are being um administered and also what types of officers are are going into those settlement agreements. I think we have some some um you know we have some we think we know kind of what's happening but we don't want to say what we think is happening until we actually get the settlement agreement so we can get the data. It was more of just like a a data gathering thing so that we can kind of assess sort of where it is.
>> What's that?
>> It's exploratory.
>> Yeah. We just want to know like we we know that they they're happening. We just don't know anything beyond the fact that we know that they exist. So we want to get the data for that. So um just to keep you a breast to that and I think um a lot of the other things that I might have covered I think E Williams uh covered this. So we'll just end the culture report there.
>> Yeah. Go ahead. Good question. So, I know there was an opportunity for us to do SharePoint training. So, I have two questions. One is, was that a citywide training that you could just join or was that set up specifically for us? And then my second question is depending on that answer, can we is there another one or can we get another one scheduled cuz I missed it and really need to attend?
>> Okay, I think that's a private question through >> the chair. Yeah. So, that uh specific training was for us. However, I can reach back out to John Guzire. he's available to do a one-on-one training with you. You just have to set some time up with him.
>> So, thank you. But I do think it's important as we all start using SharePoint. So, to the extent we can get a commissionwide where everybody can go, that'd be great. But I I know that I missed it and would like to go, but I'm not sure.
>> Well, >> yeah, that that training was set for the entire commission. All the you everyone was invited where chairs were chairs of each committee were certainly invited.
Um, but again, John Boomer, he's the person who did the training for us and he's more than happy to set a one-on-one with you >> through the chair. I'm sorry, through the chair, if we can have another part two because um, we did not have access at the time and I am a, you know, hands-on learning. So, that would be nice if we can do a part two as a recap, please. Thank you. Yeah, that's kind of what I was saying. Like instead of a one-on-one with me, if we could just get an opportunity for the whole commission >> to the chair, I just request that we get that scheduled for outside of business hours.
>> All right, we're going to [clears throat] move on to the committee status reports. Our first status report is going to be for a rules committee given by its chair ter commissioner ter.
Hi. So we don't have any business today.
I'll just give a general update on what's been happening with the rules committee. So, um, as we probably know from our last updates, the rules committee has undertaken an effort to receive feedback from all commissioners and from, um, our executive director for any changes or requests or things to review within the CPC internal operational uh, operations and rules. So we brought in taken in that feedback and then we had our initial meeting after all that feedback was taken in um to kind of see what all the changes were and consolidate them. So what we found were there were kind of themes that really break down into three main rules.
So each committee member of the rules committee has been assigned what I call a rule of focus or a main rule meaning change changes to that rule change various several other things within the operations uh manual and so um we all are assigned one rules of focus that we're focusing on right now are uh 1.44 leadership 1.45 four five committees 1.78 meeting attendance and participation and within those three rules it does encompass all of the feedback that we've gotten from commissioners for new roles etc. Um let's see. So as a part of that assignment, each committee member um is tasked with a number of things. One being um cross-checking changes of that rule across the entirety of all of our rules, which we realize is a very um painstaking and tedious process and cross-checking each change um against the charter. So to accomplish that, we've created a uh a worksheet, like a comprehensive review worksheet to take you step by step to make sure everything is cross-cheed. And our plan is to all have those worksheets completed by our next meeting. Thanks.
Thank you, Commissioner Coleman. We're going to move uh to our next committee, our police accountability committee.
That report is going to be given by its chair, Commissioner uh Maria Benito.
>> Good evening. Um so we don't have any business in front of the commission today. So I'll also be giving a general update. Uh in our last supple commission meeting, we uh did vote to uh engage council to um talk about the issues around um the reviewing of discipline as it relates to um the collective bargaining agreement. So we are in the process of enga um engaging [clears throat] with council around that and then we'll be providing an update to the commission.
We also uh have been working with uh the policy committee around the connect developing the a new disciplinary review process that happens on the front end as our executive director discussed where we would um be able to weigh in on police discipline decisions before um the chief uh and the public safety director are imposing them so that we can evaluate them for fairness and consistency.
um and utilize the um and utilize that process that then would allow us to uh engage in a more fair process for the officers where they aren't being disciplined multiple times uh and allows us to potentially work around some issues around the collective bargaining agreement. Uh so we are working uh with that with the collective action policy and um developing that process. There was a meeting with CDP with uh uh Commissioner Van Leer and um Commissioner uh Nelson uh and they kind of started the conversation with CDP about that and then I know there's been continued discussions um with CDP and so the beginnings of that conversation are happening uh and so we are in the process of developing that, flushing that out, identifying barriers to implementing that. Um and additionally we have our Brady Gigglio work group uh that will be meeting to select the community members that will serve on that work group. And so we uh we will have those community members selected and contacted by the end of the month.
And then we will have our first um meeting with those community members in the month of June uh so that we can um get our ready process.
>> Thank you. Uh our our police policy committee report is going to be given by its chair, Commissioner Pier.
>> Thank you, co-chair. Um so we have a few things on the agenda, one of which we could vote on. Um, as you may recall at the last meeting, we passed the vehicle pursuits GPO and we got feedback from the division after the fact um that there is language in that GO about the inspection unit and I printed this out.
there's five five times it's um it's in there as the inspection unit, but in fact that has been absorbed by the internal affairs and so they were requesting that we change that language from inspection unit to internal affairs. Um this was discussed in our last policy committee meeting and we voted to to move that on to the full commission. It's not really a substantive change but it felt like you know we needed to to talk about it, make sure there are no questions and uh and have a vote on that. So that's that's the first issue. So um I would make a motion that we approve that the changes are not reflected in here but it's simply the five instances of inspection would be changed to internal affairs. So I make a move that we u make a motion that we approve those changes.
>> I'll second.
>> Is there any discussion?
So just for clarity, you said the changes that you're referring to just the five occurrences of that language are not on >> they're not on this copy. Yeah, >> this is the copy we already have.
>> So the same copy we voted to pass last time.
>> Perfect.
>> And you know it's pretty minor change and I probably could have done it ahead.
>> Yeah, totally.
>> Excuse I'm sorry for clearing. You're talking about the vehicle.
>> Vehicle the one in front of you. vehicle pursuit >> and what what needs to be changed cuz he's trying to >> so inspection unit >> five instances of that being mentioned need to be changed to internal affairs >> because it's been absorbed inspection unit was absorbed doesn't exist actually >> so it's really just a language >> internal affairs >> five times it's mentioned in that >> inspection unit >> being changed >> wherever it refers to the inspection unit we are replacing that with internal affairs >> exactly So, no further discussion. Do you want to call vote or >> I'll vote?
Is there any further discussion?
>> Okay. If none, co-chair Adams, >> I.
>> Commissioner Coleman, >> I.
>> Commissioner Kincaid, >> I.
>> Commissioner Miller, >> I. Commissioner Maria Bonito.
>> I >> Commissioner >> I.
>> Commissioner Vanlier.
>> Hi. And >> I vote yes. That passes.
>> Thank you. So the next issue is with the wearable and car camera systems police order GPOS. There's three of them. We we voted to approve last time. There's really only an issue with one of them that we've had feedback from the division after the fact after months and months of discussion. Um, and in the last policy committee that basically there's language in there about and there's no vote tonight, so I just want this is an update. Some I don't have it printed out or anything.
Um, basically they they said that language in there about secondary employment would violate the collective bargaining agreements and they that would be an issue for them. So in a policy committee meeting and other members of the committee can speak up as well. I would appreciate it. Um, we discussed that change and we felt we did not given that that language was in the first draft that was sent to us for review from division. We were kind of surprised by it and there was some conversation in a meeting at city hall um and the division said that they had flagged the issue but in fact this that was the last time we passed this was the second time [clears throat] we passed it. and one of the change they wanted to make last time was to something about the uniforms when they were in secondary employment. So, it's a very we need to the committee didn't feel comfortable saying yes, we'll change this um without just with the division's input and I sent an email after that uh to the monitoring team division and um the other city people who were in the meeting about that um which is about a process and um director Williams referenced that a process to streamline our our conversation and uh our conversations around policy. And so we I sent an email to that group saying pretty much what I just said to you that we're we're waiting for the monitoring team to give us feedback because it's a consent degree related issue and we that's what we need. The division of uh the the department of justice signed off on it said they had no comment on neither vehicle pursuits or um the wearable camera GPOS's.
So, we're waiting from waiting the monitoring team to say yes, there's an issue here. We need to correct it. Um, is that accurate? Is that a good >> chair to >> Yeah. Can you >> Yeah, I'm sorry. May I >> Commissioner Caller? So, as a policy committee, we have been making the effort to include CDP upfront as we in real time as we're making all of the changes and we usually have members of the division at our policy meetings and that has been working out really well. And so the process is we work with CDP as the changes are being made. We pass them as a rules committee.
They come to the full commission and then DOJ monitoring team looks at them.
In this particular instance, we followed that exact process. But now the division came back after all of that with new changes. And then when we looked into it, we realized they were actually just or they were wanting to take something out that it was they that put it in originally. So, we're like, we went to the originals. We're like, well, this is what you asked us to pass, we passed it, DOJ signed off, and then the division wanted to make a change. So, that I think does that clarify the that's what I think what Pete is saying about why we didn't just move. So, moving forward, um yeah, we just are going to continue to have them included up front because after we do all that work, and this one particularly, we really were working with the division um back and forth for quite some time. So, it is kind of disheartening to get to all the way to the finish line and then a hold up. So, I think we're just going to keep trying to follow that process moving forward, I think. Yeah. Um uh just to uh I concur and in addition we also have monthly meetings with members of the policy division and um DC slot and so we are meeting multiple times a month with the policy division and working on these policies. I think part of the challenge may be that they are having turnover um in their unit and so they might not like that could be part of the issue. But I think what we've been seeing in the last few months is frequently after we pass a policy them coming back and saying well actually we'd like to see this be changed or we we you know we have concerns with this and this and I think at the end of the day we need to make sure that we are maintaining our authority that we are the final authority on police policy. if they need to make an additional change after policy has been passed, then at that point it maybe needs to be a new proposed policy. Um because I don't think it's effective for us to just continually revise policies that we've already passed because we have already passed them and then that is the final say on police policy.
Commissioner K, did that answer your questions or do you >> not necessarily, but I I'll ask >> this this is a good time to ask.
>> Well, I I wanted to know more in detail about exactly what they wanted change, but that may be getting too into that.
>> No, no, I think that's a a valid question. Um, so basically they want us to take the language around secondary employment out of it >> completely. Completely all of it >> that any because it goes from their perspective goes against the collective bargaining agreement. Um, and so there's a deeper issue there too as to final authority and the charter versus collective bargaining agreements and how we work on that. So I think there's some deeper issues there, but they're asking for that that provision to be removed.
>> The language they want is the language they propose be in it, which is what the whole thing >> what they have to do wearing a camera during secondary employment in a certain uniform.
>> And so that's that.
They want to remove >> Yeah.
>> the >> requirement to still wear if they are engaging in secondary employment.
>> That's my understanding. Yes.
>> Cuz they sneaky. [laughter] >> So, and we're not willing to do that without more input from the monitoring team at least to consider it. I mean, bring it back to >> sneaky people, >> you know, as as things go.
>> It's for protection, too. So, leave it on. as far as these things go, we'll this is a discussion we'll have here.
>> And so, and that's why I was like I you know, we can maybe >> Yeah, but no, I think it was a good question to ask.
>> So, maybe I will just attend that meeting and have sharing that conversation.
>> Yeah, we we want to have that conversation with with the division again and I'm hoping to hear back from the monitoring team um if they have concerns.
>> All right, >> any other questions on that?
>> Okay. Um, the next issue is corrected action guidance. Um, I have put that out to the full commission twice and I've not heard back from anyone. So, I assume that no one has any feedback on that go.
>> There's no vote tonight, but we're going to >> Did you send us a red line? Is are there track changes or is the final?
>> I do not know what I sent out right now.
I have to look at what I sent, but I sent it out a couple times.
But what you sent is what you want us to review and ultimately pass.
>> No, what I want is feedback.
>> I'm asking for feedback. I mean, that's if people have ideas or thoughts that you know >> you feel need to be in there, >> then we should talk about it. Now, this also has been in the works for a couple years. So, I would like to get it moving forward, >> but I would like your feedback if you have it.
>> Commissioner Coin.
>> Yeah, I I make a suggestion. I it might be helpful cuz I know and I've been in the policy meetings where we have been discussing that for quite some time.
Maybe if we as a policy committee highlight like the five key things of debate and just get that to the commission like here are the key things that we're trying to think through cuz it I think that's the holdup, right? Is that we keep kind of debating a few couple points.
>> Um >> so that's just my suggestion. I would suggest we get the top issues in front of people.
um and then give feedback on those at least.
>> This is a core this is a core issue, right? I mean um I mean there's there's certainly issues for debate with the division and what they want to see, but I think I really want people to look at this in it entirely and say, you know, and I don't have a problem with flagging some things, but I think I want people to read it and understand it because this is a core piece of our work that, you know, it's been in the work long enough.
>> So what's the hold? So, yeah.
>> And, uh, Commissioner Vaner, I suggest that maybe just maybe bump it back up, resend it, and give a deadline for when you would like feedback >> by what date.
>> That's all, Mr. B.
>> No, I think we could I think just a couple things we could highlight from what we've been working on with it just to guide people as they read it. Um, you know, I I have not heard any contention between the commissioners about this and we haven't had any um to Commissioner Coleman's point, I don't think we've had any contention on the policy committee disagreements. It's mostly uh some disagreement between CDP and uh the kind of the draft that we have from the commission. Some of the um the kind of two greatest things that we've been going back with the um division about are one in previous drafts or in previous discipline policies we have seen this we've had the same the same language of same types of infractions listed in multiple group levels. So a group level determines the seriousness which then it correlates to the amount of discipline that is given.
So you would see the same infractions listed in multiple group levels and the CD CDP would use their discretion to determine whether they thought that based on the situation they thought whether it best fit a group one, a group two or a group three violation. Now, our when we put together this draft with, you know, fantastic input from um uh Sergeant Jackson and Kayla Pinkis and uh other community members, but we one of the main things we wanted to do was ensure that there was not that kind of blanket discretion where the same type of infraction could be moved between group one and group three because some of the complaints complaints that we hear from officers is that they feel like one person will get a group one and another person will get a group two for the same.
>> So for example, discourteousness.
>> Yes. In multiple group levels if it's based on their superior's discretion, you use profane language versus using a slur and that would determine what group level this courteousness falls under in your situation.
>> Improper. Another one is like improper um use of equipment. Yeah, great example. Yeah. And so what we wanted to do was to um >> decrease discretion and increase transparency and fairness around officers. It's clear this officer does this. This is the group level. There's uh we've gotten some push back from CDP who feel like you know and I understand their perspective of they feel like every situation is different. Um you know it's hard to capture all of that.
How do you you know like you it's not always easy to lay it out and we understand that but at the same time what we think is more important is that we are ensuring fair and consistent application of discipline to all officers. Um, so that is something that we've had some back and forth about. And then the other piece is people might remember from the previous policy that we passed is that we had a committee that was established uh with members of the division where they would review disciplines um and make recommendations to the chief about trends that that they are seeing. what through conversations with um uh HPOA um Black Shield uh in in the continuous conversations that we have that you've heard about tonight about how do we make sure that we are getting on the front end of discipline um we are taking that same stated goal of ensuring fairness and consistency and uh updating that um part of the policy to give uh greater um give a greater role to the black shield and HPOA to be able to uh speak and make recommendations through the discipline process. Right now members of um HPOA and Black Shield are able to attend but they may not speak and they may not um they don't have any ability to make any like formal recommendations.
So that is something that we have put in here and then we are also in that session would be including this process of how the um CPC it gets involved in reviewing and approving discipline decisions on the front end. So those are the biggest changes um those are the biggest areas that we're having back and forth with the division about and so I'd suggest the commissioners to review those areas. There's Yeah, good. Great.
>> I was going to say that's exactly it all I was asking for. Those are the two main issues that are the holdup. So, >> yeah, >> we don't need to send that email. Those are the two issues.
>> There's I mean there's some other like in for example part of the one the um was there's been um desire to have the video recording. Did you mention >> Oh, yes.
>> the video recording of that formal interview. So that, >> you know, as a way for the commission and others to get in and see that and see really what happens, not just a transcript, that that was another piece that they were um there was some conversation around. And um there was some um conversation around the using the word knowingly. I think the copy that I sent everybody and I can send it again. I had a lot of this was highlighted in yellow so that you could see you know where the issues were. Um so we have knowingly in there we've removed it. We've talked about it. We've put it back in. Um you know the legal term what it means and also the other issues were about using numbers like how many times something happens and we have felt that's important to say you can if you're late a couple times it's not that's going to be okay but if it's more than that then it becomes an issue.
again removing some of the discretion.
Um and there's been yeah a lot of conversation as you said about discretion where they feel like the division feels like it's really important um and that they've changed over the years so that discretion is something different now than it was. Um, so there's there's a lot of conversation around that and we're gonna have getting your feedback will be helpful because then when we're engaging with the division, we can it's not just the three of us talking about it, but it's a a deeper conversation, but I will send this out again.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Vanlier. Um, we're going to move forward to the next uh committee update from our outreach committee given by its chair, Commissioner Mike Page.
>> Hey, everybody. Um so I'll be brief. Um our next outreach meeting is on the 1st.
Um we are inviting the public to come um to discuss with us how you would like to see us show up in terms of outreach. I would like to hear some direct feedback from everyone um around that. So come out and have a conversation with us. Um and we're we're going to keep it we're going to keep it brief. Um, in terms of the meeting, we kind of just want to hear from you. Tell us about the events you have coming up. Um, put some things on our calendar directly. We can do it right there, right then in the meeting.
Um, I can add things to the calendar in real time. Um, I also, uh, you know, everybody knows my favorite word is accountability. So, as a matter of accountability, um on the holiday, we had previously discussed, I don't know if everybody remembers, I mentioned uh that there was a community block party that we um could or should attend uh and that some members of the community were anticipating our attendance. I do not believe that any of us were in attendance at that black party. Um, and so for that, I personally, as the outreach chair, apologized to the community that I was unable to be there and that I did not communicate my inability to be there. Um, and so I will admit that I allowed it to fall off of my radar and I also did not follow up with my colleagues in regards to being there. So, um, in the future we uh will make some changes to how I, as I mentioned, add things directly to our internal calendar so that those things won't be overlooked. And so starting with our next outreach meeting, any of the events that you share with me in that time in real time, I will add to our calendar so that we can all just see them in real time. Um, and it keeps it on our radar um so that we can ensure our attendance. So again for that I apologize. And um Oh, and Shelly, I'm overthinking my portion of the strategic plan, >> but I'll get it to you. I I'll get it to you. I've been having a lot of uh internal debate about um our opportunities and our priorities in regard to outreach. So, uh but yeah, I think that's about it for me.
I just wanted to add one thing. I um something that we talk about but we really need to do um we um and I think we can organize this. Commissioner K would be willing to do it but we we need to come up with some type of organization so that we can make sure that we have presence at these uh board meetings and the uh district policing committee meetings. I know we've talked about it, >> but um >> you know, I think we can start let's start with like maybe like our own district or our own ward and then maybe we can just try to commit to I do owe Sabrina an apology because I was supposed to come to last month's meeting and I was tired after work. I thought I could get a quick nap in, but I didn't wake up from my nap. So, I do owe you an apology. um cuz I I did tell I was going to attend, but I think if we can just maybe start with our own ward, start with our own district and then we can kind of build out from there. But um we we have to have some type of presence um at these meetings. I know it's like an additional ask of us, but it is one of our duties and I think it's important for us to continue to get out um and you know, speak to the community about, you know, what we do and what we're trying to do so that we can garner more support. But we uh we should make a real effort to make that happen.
>> And to the chair, if I could just say one thing about our DPC meetings, um I believe that we are on the agenda for each DPC meeting. We're we have a standing spot on the agenda. Um and certainly when the CEC's get in place, they will be required to attend all DPC meetings.
Um, I would just say uh to the staff maybe that's something that we can work on getting those DPC meetings and the ward meetings added to our CPC and each commissioner's calendar.
>> Thank you.
>> I have >> as far as contacts, I asked for that as well >> to know which w who to contact. Yeah, >> the chair. So, it might be the staff person we're waiting on, but I think a first step >> outreach if we could have um well, I know we as commissioners should know, but maybe if the list was together of which commissioners are in which board and then the compiled list of all the meetings just sent >> together to us and then, you know, I'll know like if me and another commissioner are in the same ward, I can just look at that list say, "Hey, how are you going or vice versa?" I think that would be better than just having it all on our calendar because they're on our calendars now, >> but I see all the different wards and it would be better if it's like no, I have responsibility for this ward.
>> Quick question. Are we talking about wards or districts?
>> Fair meetings. Okay, >> because there are award meetings as well.
>> Okay, thanks.
>> Okay. Um, we're moving on to our budget and grant committee update given by that chair of that committee, Commissioner Emo Olen.
>> Um, thank you for that and thank you for the um opportunity. Um, anyone, if this is your first meeting, usually Dr. Adam steals my whole report. Um, but uh, he didn't today, so I want to give him a shout out. Um, and thank you to [laughter] uh, but uh, thank you to Director Williams um, for your help. I know in your report you were mentioning um the work that we were doing with the grantees combining the 2024 and 2025 grantees. So I want to thank you for putting that legislation forward because you know we needed that. So we appreciate your help in doing that. So again that'll be the beginning of June um when the Cleveland City Council is going to go ahead and vote on that um since it was sent to them. Um other things that the director mentioned was kind of just operationally things that as she's building up the office and different things and assistant that she needs um kind of moving the money from city council kind of like for our personnel budget. So from personnel to operations for her to utilize technically we have to vote on that. Um, so my first motion is a motion to approve that budget adjustment just so that, you know, funds could be moved from personnel for there not being, you know, enough staffing. Um, there's those funds that were kind of just, I guess, just in gray space. So, um, we want to move that to operations so that, um, it could be utilized. So, my first motion is a motion to approve that budget adjustment. Again, going from personnel, um, funds going to from personnel to operations. Is there a second?
>> I'll second that motion.
>> Discussion. Yeah. Could I have more detail on >> the mo I mean how much from where to where? I think we need a more detailed motion.
>> Oh yeah. No, I appreciate that. So um when the the office was understaffed, technically salaries that weren't paid were just sitting there. So, we wanted to utilize at least $140,000 from that space to move to operations just, you know, in case cuz we've been using a lot of money as far as when it comes to uh legal representation and things like that um that have been coming up. So, just for like safety, you're trying to um to move 140,000 from personnel to operations.
>> Is it under any specific line item under operations or just general operation funds?
>> Yeah, just uh general operations. So, yeah. So personnel to to operations.
>> I think it uh I think you can correct me. I think it would probably go under the um contractual services mostly considering that we have outside representation. So, this sort of like a contract that we have with the attorneys and I think that uh there's also um uh >> move to professional services as well because we would like to possibly hire some uh consulting help as well.
>> Oh, yeah. No, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.
>> Question. Um so the 140 originally set for salaries is this essentially money that >> for past salaries basically that we didn't use and so we'll still >> this hypothetical 140 we have a new today for whom we're bringing in right now. Gotcha. And then my other question is since we don't know what line items it's going under. I'm just curious the process to how we got to 140 that we want to move if we don't know where it's going to be.
>> You're not getting through. Go. Yeah. Go ahead.
>> So, just one at a time, everybody. So, let's have uh the executive director and then if other commissioners want to chime up, I think she can answer the question.
>> Thank you. And through the chair uh to Commissioner um Coleman. And so we had technically banked like $800,000.
And so of course we don't want to you know move that much money but um for our and I want to say um contractual services fund we want to put some money there just for you know legal defensesmemes um the office buildout technology that we're looking to to update the office with each one of these positions requires a technological component that goes with it. So, I want to make sure that we have money to build the infrastructure that is necessary to move this office and this work and support what you guys are doing uh in a progressive manner.
And so, we just, you know, kind of set aside some money. We gave some ballpark figures. Um we researched software so that we were aware of what kind of money we might need for software. uh research theme firms to set aside money that we might need for uh contractual services when it came tomemes and so and and not to take away too much money from the top.
>> So just for uh easy Williams for clarity for the public can you explain the acronym?
>> Oh I'm sorry. Uh subject matter expert.
So there are subject matter expert firms. Uh subject matter expert. Uh, Richard Jackson would be considered a subject matter expert in policing practices.
>> Any other questions?
>> Do I have to break them? Yeah. Yeah.
Through through the through the through the chair though through the [laughter] >> um I would say I I have been privy to I think we've been kind of discussing this and I know it's everybody's knows about it and so no qualms or problems with the the motion. I would just want to say in the future, usually when you have like um a financial motion, you would have a line item of the budget for what the proposed 140 is for so we know why we're moving it. I would just ask going forward if we just have those details before we move money.
>> N is there any further discussion? If none, we'll take the vote. Co-chair Adams.
>> Hi.
>> Commissioner Coleman.
>> Hi.
>> Commissioner Concaid.
>> Hi.
>> Commissioner Miller.
>> Hi.
>> Commissioner Morero Bonito.
>> Hi.
>> Commissioner.
>> Hi.
>> Commissioner Van Leer.
>> Oh, he's out.
>> Uh, Commissioner Zed. Oh, yes.
>> Is that a Yeah, that's understand what just went down.
>> If it passes, [clears throat] we can ask.
>> He's coming over like this.
Commissioner Baylor, we would like to know what your vote is going to be on um moving the $140,000 to personel. Yes.
Okay. Sorry about that.
>> All right. Um so the other thing I had on here was I know we've been and especially last week in the budget and grants meeting we were talking about hiring a contractor and and what that would look like. Um technically in the city there's like I guess different processes and ways to go about it. Um like a non-competitive bid or a bid where you kind of um you know people sent in request um to offer their services. Um I don't really want to bring this motion now just to kind of provide um additional context around what we want to do for that. Um I received some information today from the city law department on on how that process will work. So, I'mma hold off on that one so I can send it out um just so that all the information is out there and then everyone gets gets that. So, I'mma hold off on that that second motion and um that's all I that's all I got.
>> All right. Our next report is going to be given by our training committee chair, Commissioner Enonte Miller.
>> Hello everyone. Thank you for being in attendance tonight. First, I want to make a comment um about the DC DCP meetings. That's fifth district that we supposed to attend. Um actually our training committee is on meets the same day as that um DCP meeting. So what is on the next um committee meeting is we're going to vote on a different day.
So that way Sheila um Commissioner Mason and I can rotate because we are you know in that district. Um then we're going to move on to the we have some trainings that needs to be um approved from the full commission but not today. Um we were unable to move on with our training committee on Wednesday May 20th. So, um, these are in your emails, so you have time to review them for the next full commission. I do apologize to, um, CDP because we, um, you wanted them before June, but we weren't able to do that.
So, just so you know, um, one of the trainers is recognizing and responding effectively to traumatized youth. They will focus on the function of the teen brain. Um, what is trauma, how trauma disrupts the brain, and teen how the teen brain responds to that trauma. Um it's also best practices in there with interacting about interacting with them and with traumatized youth. Second training will be um that you received is the taser 10. The CDP is transitioning from the to that taser platform. Taser 10 platform which is the latest model from the company Exxon. That will be an 8-hour training in person course along with a pro um proficiency testing. Then you have the 2026 needs assessment. Um we this is the one that we complete annually with session combined with session one, two and three. Um that is the annual in-house training session with active active um shooters um bystanders um using the able training. That would be first aid training. And then one question that we do I have to make clear is is they do have the um taser 7 refer certification in there with the use of force policy. But if they're transitioning I'm pretty sure that that would swap out to taser 10 instead of taser 7. That just needs to be probably approved so they can put it in there. Um session eight will I mean session two will be a 8 hour training which focus on firearms which is what we viewed before.
So, we basically go through and see if there's any changes or um updates on it.
That is a statemandated annual firearm certification training. Session three is a 16-hour in-person training, which is in cris um crisis intervention, sorry, focus on officer wellness and um mindfulness, which is very much needed. Community problem oriented policing, which is CPOP, community engagement, including reality based scenarios on how to engage with the public. integrated um reality based training which is the IRBT is a 8-hour training for use of force search and seize bias-free police policies which incorporate real video scenarios where they emphasize key policies aspects to promoting able strategies and intervention techniques. So please if you have please um they're already in um emailed to you. So if you have any questions, concerns, please get them to me before our next meeting. So that way we can invite um CDP to come in if we have any or need any clarity. But I am going to reach out about the um or they're going to swap out the tra taser trainers for the 2026 um assessment needs. Thank you. That will complete my report.
>> Thank you. Next is the promotions and evaluations committee. the promotions and evaluations committee report given by Dr. Adams.
>> All right. So, uh so just real quickly, so where we are with this is uh we have um we have a a draft of a policy that um that needs to be updated. Uh I said the policy, I mean the rubric. So we already revised the policy. We have to revise the rubric. So, I'm tasked with uh working with Commissioner Miller and I can't remember who else to revise that and then is it.
So, we'll update that and then once we are able to do that, we'll have a formal meeting of the promotion evaluations committee and then we'll move that forward and bring it to the commission.
>> Okay. Thank you for that. Um, next item on the agenda is our new business. We uh want to discuss uh commissioner attendance.
I'm ask >> Yeah, I just would like to note that um Commissioner Rodriguez has been absent from for um significant number of meetings, has uh resigned twice and then unresigned um and is at this point is far out of compliance with the rules. Um and I at our for our rules, we would need to send a letter to the mayor. Um uh and so I would just would like to move that that letter be sent.
>> Okay. [clears throat] So um was it is there is there a second so to open up?
>> Does it have to be a motion? I thought we just automatically >> Yeah, [clears throat] it doesn't have to be a motion. We just thought it would be appropriate to have a discussion uh considering that there are concerns from community members as well as um fellow commissioners about um attendance. And I think um to Commissioner Z's point that you know as we are a body who um has the responsibility to and the duty to try to hold police accountable we also have to try to hold ourselves accountable as well as sort of hypocritical um and so you know we um don't want to take this lightly but I would just say that uh based on our record so so when we look at the our rules our rule 1.7 7 1.7.8.1 it states >> I'm sorry but our rule 1.7.8.1 8.1 um it talks about the negative impact of chronic absenteeism. And so the the what is laid out in our rules, it states that um if a commissioner misses um two unnotified absences in a row, meaning that uh they did not contact the co-chairs within the 70 the recommended 72 hours, that is considered chronic aspentism. Also, if a commissioner misses three um consecutive u meetings in a row um I think it says unexcused absence in a row or any commissioner who misses 1/4 of the total number of full CPC meetings in 6 month period. So those are the standards that uh we have to go by and based on our um the attendance that we have. We're currently in a situation where there have been um there have been four out of the last five meetings for the full commission have been missed as well as um uh committee meetings, the policy committee. The record show that there's three in a row there. And so, um, I think that we were hoping to get some type of resolution on this, but the reality is is that, um, there's, um, it there's no response to these absences. And so, at this point, um, we are now officially an additional meeting past those three unexcused absences. And so, um, we just felt in terms of trying just trying to hold ourselves accountable and not setting a precedent that, um, you know, we we we don't get paid a salary, but we do get paid a stipen, and that's taxpayer money. And we if we're going to get paid to do that work, then we should be present to do it. And so, um, we, like I said, we don't do this lightly, but we, as a commission, a lot of commissioners feel that we should address it because, um, because we're actually required to in our rules. Um, and it's just, um, it's an issue.
>> We also received community uh, input on this. Multiple community members have complained. They've noticed the absences. Um, so we had we couldn't take this lightly. We had to address it.
>> Commissioner Bonito.
>> Yeah. Just want to add, you know, this commission has a significant amount of work that we have to do and um and uh right now we have already have a vacancy on the commission. We only have 12 commissioners and then if we have another commissioner that is not engaging uh that brings our number down to 11, which um is significant and we need we need engaged commissioners to do this work. we took an oath. Um and uh we have a responsibility and [clears throat] uh like you know I know from the policy committee uh you know we have a significant amount of work that we have to do with four people and to do it with three three people we just really need the support and um and so I think that it is both what is right in terms of accountability to our for ourselves and to the oath that we took um and also we need to move the work forward and we need engaged commissioners in order to be able to do that.
Any other uh comments?
>> Is there a motion pending right now?
>> Is there a motion pending right now?
>> There's a motion to send the letter to to enforce the rule and send the letter to the mayor.
>> I just wanted to >> or I guess my question on the discussion has anybody talked to her or I mean I guess >> so I'm just looking at the charter for the process if >> Okay. So before so um >> when we Okay. So we are not when we send a letter to the mayor >> we're not asking for a resignation. I just think we're just required by the rules to just notify the mayor that hey this is what our rules say this is what the attendance is and then it's up to the mayor of like how he would like to move on that. But like we're just required to notify the mayor that there's a chronic absentee.
>> I believe there's a template in the rules for what the letter says.
Okay. If I request your job say all that, guys.
>> Yeah, you got to go to the charter. It tells you to go to the charter, >> right? That's why I was making sure what our motion was. So, make sure how we're describing our rules verbally right now.
I don't see. So, I'm just saying I >> as the rules chair. Um, >> yeah. Let me see. I was about to go off.
I say that we would have to follow the rule. And >> which rule are you looking at?
>> We're looking at 1.7.81, which talks about uh sending a letter to initiate removal. That's actually what the rule says.
>> Could you say that again, John? Cuz I can't hear you.
>> It just says that uh the rules say that uh that the >> I read it.
>> Yeah. Go ahead.
I I here's what I believe the discussion is about. It's the last uh full paragraph of 1.7.81 and it says the official attendance record will be kept with the minutes of each meeting. Chronic absenteeism will trigger the co-chairs to initiate the removal process outlined in charter section 115-5 under the charge of gross neglect of duty. And so that's why I was reading the charter and it doesn't I don't know where we're getting this letter stuff from.
>> Yeah.
>> In in the past how we have initiated the process is by sending a letter to the mayor >> through the chair. It says contact the mayor. How how do we contact the mayor?
>> We'll just send a LETTER [laughter] [laughter] IN.
>> OKAY. So Okay. So >> Okay. Here's what I'm saying. We have a pending motion right now on the table that says we're sending a letter to the mayor. That is it. Right.
>> The discussion right now is what are we asking the mayor to do?
>> People just said we're not asking for removal. And I'm saying I think that's what our rules say we have to do. That's what needs to be clarified.
>> Um I it's not I'm not stuck on the semantics of a letter or how we contact the mayor. I'm saying we need to clarify what we are moving to do right now.
>> I Okay. So what I will explain is that I think that we would just inform the mayor of the rule. The rule will be because the rule says what it says. It says that it initiates a removal process and then we just provide the documentation of the chronic absenteeism because in the end it's still the mayor's decision. We can't force the mayor to remove a commissioner. All we can do is make the mayor aware of the rule and then send the evidence and then that's the mayor's decision. That's what the motion >> video says.
>> I withdraw my motion.
>> We still we still send it cuz we don't need a motion to send it. It's in our rules.
>> We don't need a motion to send it.
>> Yeah.
So, this was just meant to be like a public discussion. I mean, the rules, we're required to to communicate with the mayor about this via our rules. So um you know just for transparency um because it has it is something that has been brought to our attention by community members. So we wanted to address it um in a public meeting. Um but we will uh follow what the rules say and contact the mayor about the chronic absenteeism.
But then again we don't have the authority to remove a commissioner. That is what the mayor can do. So, we have to make the mayor aware and that will then be the mayor's decision to either remove the commission or not because what we do know in the past is that we have sent letters to remove commissioners uh to the mayor in the past and it was not done because it's not our decision to make but it is our duty to make him aware of the problem.
>> Is there any further discussion?
>> Okay. If none, we're going to go to the next item on the agenda, which is another public comment. Is there anyone that would like to make another public comment?
>> Yeah, me too.
>> Okay, anybody in this room probably want to say something?
I'm going to say this one more time. You guys was charged by the organization that I founded, Citizens of Cyper Cleveland, to do your job.
And you're NOT DOING YOUR JOB RIGHT NOW.
CUZ NOT only did Audriana Rodriguez haven't been showing up, she wasn't doing her job when she was in on the commission. Because back in December of 2025, I brought it to your attention.
She was supposed to been doing the commander's promotion and she didn't do it for 15 months. So now we at 2 years, it still has not been done. So how can you guys sit there and say we can't make a recommendation or we can't tell the MAYOR TO DO? WHY NOT?
You can do that. You have charge to do that >> flat out.
>> So, do you think that if we call out the police, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALL YOU OUT?
>> WE'RE GONNA call you out. IF I CALL THIS OFFICER OUT, IF I CALL OUT OFFICER MICKEY, I'm going to call you out.
>> I'm just [clears throat] going to keep it real WITH YOU. THIS IS NOT THIS IS NOT A DIFFERENT STANDARD. THIS IS level across the playing field.
THAT'S WHAT THIS CHARTER WAS MADE FOR.
IT'S NOT ONE-SIDED. SO, please do your job. Do the job that 30,000 people voted for you to do.
>> Thank you.
>> That's still it.
>> She's still a taxpayer.
>> I'm going look at this camera. I'm a taxpayer. I'm a business owner and I demand results from any member that's receiving a stipen or anything else to do their jobs. And if it says in the rule books that they are complicit for not doing their jobs and it's grounds for removal, uh Mr. Adams, chairman, please don't dance around the facts.
Okay? You've been here long enough, right? I've been here 24 months with you, right? And I'mma hold you accountable because see you've been complicit to bits and pieces of what you supposed to really been doing sir. And now it's time for everybody to be held accountable such as the young lady concaid always use accountability that go for everybody including her right cuz she just sat here and says some stuff that I'm watching as well. And what I want this community to know that I'm watching every single thing that go on whether it's with the police or this commission and I'm a balanced 50/50 equal person. If you're doing right, I will come in here and give you flowers.
If you're not doing right, I will stone you and I will try to run you out of here because this is bigger than everybody in this room. Right.
>> Thank you. This is way bigger than every personality in this room, including mine, coming from a wrongful imprisonment individual that's been home 16 18 years now. And I'm getting sick and tired of games being played on other people's lives. Okay? We can do better.
I believe in a few of y'all, but it's time for accountability on all of y'all.
Okay? And I ain't going nowhere. And if you think I'm bluffing, try me. I will put all the paperwork in up under the Constitution because the Constitution stands and until it fall, I'm gonna stand right here and hold everybody to that oath that they took.
Right? You took a oath that you was going to put in 10 hours. I want to see 10 hours. I don't want to see now one of these seats empty. Y'all only meet once a month. Why can't everybody be here once a month and we got missing members?
Man, get yourself together, okay?
Because it's application time for new people to sit at these seats, right?
Your time is up in December. Please don't sign up again, sir. I'm done with you.
>> I don't know.
>> I thought that was >> Thank you. Um, anyone else for public comment?
>> Again, good evening. Uh, I want to deal with the grants >> and all of the information that keep recycling about what is missing in the 24 25 grants.
as one that oversees the witness project that's out here in this community, bringing the Cleveland police into a space that they have an opportunity to hear from witnesses that always face retaliation only to hear that this grant process is just going on and on and on. I pray we get a resolve.
Um I I looked at my email today. It says we now have to do uh the competition, the uh comp because what was in 24 and 25 is no good. it somewhere in this equation.
We're going to have to find a better way to deal with us. That's because you taking No, not you. I feel I'm being taken for granted.
>> I feel the work that I'm doing in the community.
Uh I honor the executive director. She just got here. I can't attack her.
>> I can't run around and say she's not doing her job. She's trying.
>> She goes out of her way to says this is what you need. This is what's not happening. This is what you have to and we start the whole process all over and it's irritating.
>> Especially when you're working in the community. It's I'm not getting paid from the grant.
The grant is not putting money in my pocket.
The grant is changing people lives, but we can't even get the money.
I And you give her now she has an executive assistant. She has an office manager. I pray I pray you, Mr. chairman over uh budgets and grants that we will be able to move forward cuz right now it's 24, this 26.
You can look at me and frown. You can look at me and roll your eyes. You can look at me and act like I'm I don't mean anything. I have no threats.
All I'm saying, help us out.
Help us out. That's what I'm saying.
>> And we welcome back the law.
>> Thank you.
>> Board of Commission.
>> Next commenter.
>> I guess we've all said the obvious that for most of you, it's about the money and it's not really about police reform.
And that goes for people sitting at the table and a lot of people sitting in the audience.
The public needs to understand that there is no institutional neutrality surrounding the consent agree and police reform in Cleveland. Now, we know this because the Trump DOJ worked with our mayor, Council President Blaine Griffin, law director Mark Griffin, and former members of the O of CPRB to try to terminate the consent decree before constitutional policing was achieved.
Judge Oliver blocked that effort because the city had not reached substantial compliance. But now we are left with institutions that are either compromised or structurally limited. The DOJ is no longer neutral. The court and monitoring team are constrained by the consent decree itself. I don't know if you guys even understand that. And then there is the community police commission which after four years has not produced any work despite enormous authority and resources because actually much of the reform work that should be presented right now was already done by my work groups and then many of you buried it. Discipline policy was written by me and a Harvard educated defense attorney. You buried it. Brady Gigglio was done by that same lawyer, a community member and a member of the public defenders office. Thousands of hours spent and you buried it and you want to reproduce it again because you're helping the mayor. You're not independent. I actually have Dante Spencer Thomas recorded the chief ethics officer saying that this commission is not independent of the city.
So, and you also harmed citizens appealing misconduct through obstruction and intentional delay. And I encourage anyone whose appeal has timed out because of the negligence of this commission to contact me and I will find you legal help.
And now the commission itself is entangled with all these political interests, grant making, money conflicts rather than constitutional accountability. Take Sergeant Jackson for example. you praised him, but he has repeatedly sought influence and funding through the commission despite having numerous OPS cases that disqualifies him as a commissioner under Charter 155. So now I guess you're going to pay him even more to be a consultant when he retaliated against me when I tried to do significant and legitimate and fair police reform. and one of his allies, Miss Kayla Pinkinas, went on public record at city council and admitted that she had sexual relationships with both the mayor and OPS administrator Marcus Perez. Yet, Pete Vanlier allowed this woman who has an obvious conflict to co-write the the police discipline policy. I must be like dreaming here.
So now after years of failing to establish coherent disciplinary procedures, the commission suddenly wants to intervene before disciplinary decisions are finalized by the police chief and safety director. I will finish. I don't care what you do. Police unions will use this irregular to challenge the discipline and arbitration.
>> Do you understand me? And you tried to lock me out today in violation of the US Constitution. So how can we trust that you can ensure constitutional policing?
the order.
>> It's fine.
>> This I'm done.
>> Time.
>> She is corrupt. I call this meeting to order. Get the [ __ ] out. YOU ARE DISRUPTING THIS MEETING.
>> GET THE [ __ ] OUT OF MY FACE. BUT I DON'T talk to you, [ __ ] This meeting's business HAS BEEN DISRUPTED. CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
Please refrain from the lawful meeting that interferes with the due conduct of this meeting. This is a warning that such activity is a violation of a codified ordinance and must immediately stop all of you getting money through the commission. You will >> TELL YOUR BLACK GET MY [ __ ] >> THE PUBLIC MONEY. THERE ARE PEOPLE I believe that will do real violence interruption WORK REAL TIME DON'T [ __ ] with me.
>> Meeting is ajourned.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
