1Cm 7.1 - Baker
written communications
Dear Mayor McCann and Councilmembers, April 25, 2023
On behalf of South Bay People Power, I urge you to postpone any action on the Military Equipment Report and Use Policies, until community members and the Council can properly review and propose necessary revisions to bring the documents into compliance with state law and the values of our city.
Here are a few important issues that we feel need to be reviewed and resolved BEFORE approval of the ordinance and associated Report and Use Policies:
PROCESS:
• No explicit plan for incorporation of the Privacy Advisory Commission into the process of reporting and oversight of surveillance technology.
• City Council approved formation of the Commission months ago.
Why is there no update on plans for formation?
• The Report should identify this Commission - in addition to the vague mention of "privacy policy."
• Inadequate opportunity for community engagement
"Community Engagement Meeting" mandated by AB 481 has not been held yet. • The community engagement meeting should be held PRIOR, not after, the first public hearing in order to achieve the purposes of transparency and accountability that underlie AB 481.
• The community engagement meeting should be held in a location that is convenient to the community, NOT in the CVPD, as currently announced. • What are plans for community outreach to impacted members of the community, and how will feedback from the community be handled? This should not be a box that gets checked off for compliance!
• Report contains no "complaints." Zero!
We ask that all public comments from last year's public hearings be included in the report for 2022:
• April 26. 2022 - Agenda Item 7.4 - 18 eComments and 3 in-person public comments expressed opposition and complaints about CVPD's acquisition and use of military equipment
• May 2, 2022 - Agenda Item .... - Additional eComments and in person public comments were made in opposition to CVPD's acquisition and use of military equipment.
• We ask that the City provide avenues for complaints that do not go to the CVPD, and to diseminate these alternative, confidential avenues broadly.
Currently individuals wishing to register a complaint must:
• Call the non-emergency police line and speak with a receptionist who often does not know how to route calls, leading to the need to leave voicemail and await call backs - which is utterly intimidating. • Submit complaint through a CVPD portal - again our emails often seem to go into a black hole; and later we are told they ended up in someone's Spam folder.
• The process for "Citizen Complaints" as outlined by the CVPD states that complaints will be referred to a supervisor one step higher in the hierarchy than the individual, and disposition of the complaints are up to the particular supervisor's discretion - also unacceptable for complaints related to military equipment acquisition or use.
• The authorized use of impact projectiles (which were used in the last year) and chemical agents for crowd control, with no restrictions, is a violation of state use-of-force law, as contained in AB 48.
AB 48 prohibits the use of these weapons and munitions for crowd control except in • This is defined in the statue: "if the use is objectively reasonable to defend against a his is eine in he sales threat to life or serious bodily injury" - which is a high standard. • CVPD's military equipment policies must incorporate new state limitations, contained in AB 48, on the use of chemical agents such as tear gas and rubber bullets (considered military equipment under AB 481) for crowd control.
The Report fails to detail the circumstances surrounding deployment and/or use of the impact projectiles during the past year: why and how were they used? The numbers provided for several munitions in last year's Report were corrected in this year's Report.
Why were there errors?
• How were these errors discovered?
• What oversight will there be going forward to avoid these misrepresentations?
• Report does not present the actual fiscal impact, which includes more than just initial and maintenance costs.
• The Report lists initial purchase and a very rough estimate of "maintenance" costs, but fails to include total costs of training, maintenance, & other personnel costs for each item. Until these additional costs are included, the Report is not fit for approval. • There need to be cost assessments whenever equipment is discontinued and/or replaced. For example,
We need a cost analysis regarding the proposed replacement of existing assault rifles with new weapons that reports the amount of lifespan remaining for the existing weapons, and adds costs of new and additional training, or other personnel, transportation, storage or distribution costs associated with these acquisitions.
• The proposed Daniel Defense rifles are of particular concern since they only have a 10-year life span, while other rifles have a 50-year life span. • Report lists numerous items that are not used at all, drawing into question the "need" and costs of keeping them in the CVPD inventory.
• Open and robust discussion seems in order here regarding whether and how Military equipment and munitions that are not used should be properly eliminated from the CVPD stockpile.
Consider questions such as what justifies the added costs in personnel, storage, maintenance, etc., for items that are not contributing to the well- = What are the situations and needs, for example, mental health crises or homelessness, that are being sacrificed so that CVPD can have an inventory and train with weapons that are not used?
What does proper elimination of these items look like and what type of oversight should there be?
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Margaret A. Baker, DrPH
[email protected]
South Bay People Power promotes social justice through nonpartisan civic engagement.