CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Angelique Ashby, Vice Mayor, District 1
Sean Loloee, District 2
Jeff Harris, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Jay Schenirer, District 5
Eric Guerra, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency
City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
CORRESPONDENCE
Description of Attached: Correspondence received after publishing the Agenda.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, September 13, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 7
7. Adopt an Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 2021-0034 and Adopting a New Military Equipment Use Policy and Receive the Annual Military Equipment Use Report [In Lieu of Pass for Publication Ordinance to be Published in its Entirety] File ID: 2022-01479
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: 1) Adopt an Ordinance to rescind Ordinance No. 2021-0034 and adopt a new Military Equipment Use Policy, to be published in full pursuant to Sacramento City Charter, § 32(d); and 2) Receive and file the Annual Military Equipment Use Report.
Contact: Norman Leong, Deputy Chief, Office of Specialized Services, (916) 808-0800, [email protected], Police Department
1 From: Agenda
Subject: 9/13 Council Agenda Public Comment
From: Graciela Castillo‐Krings <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 6:41 PM
To: Mindy Cuppy <[email protected]>
Cc: Keyan Bliss <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed MEU General Order
Good evening Mindy,
I understand this item will be on the 9/13 agenda and wanted to share the letter we will be submitting through the website.
Thank you,
Graciela
August 26, 2022
Mayor and City Council, City of Sacramento
915 I Street, 1st Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Sacramento Police Department’s Military Equipment Use General Order
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
As members of the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (SCPRC), we write to respectfully request that the Mayor and City Council make additional changes to the proposed Sacramento Police Department (SPD) Military Equipment Use (MEU) General Order 410.06 (GO 410.06).
We appreciate that the Sacramento Police Department reached out to meet with our Chair and Vice-Chair to discuss the changes SCPRC recommended on May 20th. While that conversation helped reach some consensus, SPD has indicated it will not implement the SCPRC recommendations because it believes their MEU policy complies with the requirements of AB 481 (Chapter 406, Statutes 2021). The SCPRC respectfully disagrees, and believes additional changes are necessary for this MEU policy to honor the spirit of AB 481 and meaningfully address longstanding concerns about police militarization.
Before the City Council approves the ordinance, we respectfully request that it require SPD to make the following five changes that will strengthen reporting standards, clarify the funding process and how military equipment is being used, and ensure transparency regarding the amount of equipment owned.
Recommendation #1: Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to produce its annual report using Comparative Reporting and Demographic Reporting.
Rationale: AB 481 requires a law enforcement agency to submit an annual military equipment report that at minimum covers the following:
● A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. ● A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment. ● The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.
● The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
● The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. ● If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
Using the information contained in the annual report, City Council is required to “only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.”1
The SCPRC recommends that additional reporting language be added to the General Order requiring SPD to provide information regarding where it uses its military equipment and munitions; wh o it is used against; and in what context the equipment is used.
According to SPD, its annual report for military equipment use is compiled by its Inspection and Standards Team (IST) which does not track demographic information. However, it does collect this data for its Use of Force Reports which are compiled by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). If this data is collected in other SPD reports, then those reports or links to them should be incorporated into the annual military equipment use report. Having the information in one place will improve public access and make any deployments visible to the community creating accountability.
Under its current “Summary of Military Equipment Usages,” the department only provides the total number of uses and unauthorized uses under each military equipment category within a broad time period between 12/14/2021 and 4/30/2022, but it fails to summarize how equipment was used in these incidents or the purpose for their usage. The department also re-states when its usage is authorized without providing additional context. SCPRC believes that in order for future reports to be AB 481 compliant, these must provide information about where the equipment was utilized, who it was used against and the reason SPD thought it necessary.
Only with this additional information will the SCPRC and the City Council be able to meaningfully measure the impacts of this policy and evaluate whether SPD’s use of military equipment genuinely safeguards the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties as required by AB 481.
Recommendation #2: Add specific language to GO 410.06 stating the limits and conditions for when military equipment can be used and cannot be used in compliance with AB 48 and AB 481.
Rationale: If the current MEU policy can describe situations where equipment can be used, the proposed policy should also specify the situations in which it cannot be used. We recommend that City Council add clear language stating the specific situations where SPD is unauthorized to use military equipment.
While SCPRC appreciates the removal of some ambiguous language and the addition of governing policies for each type of military equipment, the inclusion of phrases such as “crowd control” and “circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained” are so broad that SPD could authorize military equipment use for virtually any situation, even when reasonable or cost-effective alternatives may exist. For instance, the current draft describes specific situations for the authorized use of 40MM Launchers and Rounds, stating:
“Approved situations for use of these less lethal weapon systems include:
1. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals.
2. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
3. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained.
4. Potentially vicious animals.
1 California Government Code, Section 7071(d)
5. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.”
The lack of clear limitations for using military weapons and equipment is among the most serious concerns raised by community members, civil rights advocates, and members of City Council. These concerns arise from documented history of racial bias and discriminatory outcomes in SPD practices and procedures, which 3 separate studies over the last 20 years confirmed to disproportionately impact Black residents.2 Following the 2020 George Floyd protests in Sacramento, video documentation shared at City Council was alarming enough for the Mayor and City Council to direct OPSA and SCPRC to investigate potential misuses of military equipment against peaceful protesters.3 That response is currently the subject of ongoing lawsuits calling into question whether SPD’s prior military equipment policies were followed and whether the policies avoided excessive use of force.4 Given this history and the questions these incidents raise, it is important for the City Council to require SPD to clearly define unauthorized usage of its military equipment to show the public that corrective action has been taken to remedy prior nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance with AB 481.
Recommendation #3: Add specific language to designate independent oversight authority to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General, and the SCPRC to ensure SPD’s compliance with GO 410.06 and AB 481.
Rationale: Under AB 481, a military equipment use policy must include “the mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.”5 We recommend that the City Council designate OPSA, the Inspector General, and SCPRC as the independent entities responsible for providing meaningful oversight to ensure SPD’s compliance with the MEU policy.
Though the Department describes the procedure for filing and investigating complaints, the policy does not clearly define what “legally enforceable sanctions” are in place for MEU policy violations and only refers violations to be “handled in accordance with RM 220.01 (Internal Investigations Manual).” However, this manual does not provide a general disciplinary matrix or minimum baseline for sustained complaints. This lack of formal disciplinary guidelines has been cited by both the California Attorney General and the SCPRC, which have submitted recommendations for addressing this deficiency.6
2 See Center for Policing Integrity, The National Justice Database City Report, Sacramento Police Department, 2014 - 2019,
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/center.for.policing.equity/viz/SacramentoPDCPE2021/1_SUMMARY. See Dr. John C. Lamberth, The Vehicle Stop Data Analysis Project, August 2008, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Transparency/Vehicle-Stop-Data-History-and- Information#:~:text=Vehicle%20Stop%20Data%20Analysis%20Project. See Dr. Howard P. Greenwald, 3 See Discussion Item 16, Police Department Presentation on Protest Activity, Sacramento City Council Meeting, January 19, 2021 (video shared during Sacramento City Councilmember Katie Valenzuela’s comments) https://sacramento.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4822&meta_id=612705 4 See Garza v. City of Sacramento, ED. Cal. Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB (ongoing lawsuit alleging excessive use of force by SPD using military weapons and equipment) and White v. City of Sacramento, ED. Cal.
Case No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB (ongoing lawsuit alleging discriminatory use of force and harassment by SPD using military weapons and equipment).
5 California Government Code Section 7070(d)
6 See California DOJ, Review of Sacramento Police Department 2020 Report, pp. 65, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press- docs/SPD%20Report%20Phase%20II.pdf. See Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 2020 Recommendations.
The MEU policy designates SPD’s Inspections and Standards Unit and its Professional Standards Unit as their oversight authorities that would refer violations to the Internal Affairs Division and report instances of non-compliance to the City Council via its annual report. Given all three bodies are budgeted under the Department’s Office of the Chief, the selection of these three entities raises questions about the independence of these oversight authorities and seems contrary to the minimum requirements of AB 481.
To ensure independent review of this policy occurs, it is important for the City Council to choose an oversight authority separate from SPD that can be impartial and prioritize the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, such as OPSA, the Inspector General and the SCPRC.
Recommendation #4: Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to seek City Council approval before any public or private funding may be spent.
Rationale: The General Order authorizes the SPD to “apply for funding prior to obtaining council approval in the case of exigent circumstances.” SCPRC agrees that there might be circumstances where public funding may only be available with limited notice and require SPD to move quickly in order to apply for funding. However, this money should not be used until the City Council authorizes such action.
This approval will increase public transparency and ensure accountability for SPD to only purchase military equipment that is cost-effective in comparison to other reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
Recommendation #5: Amend GO 410.06 to limit SPD’s military equipment stockpile and require City Council approval for all annual procurements, acquisitions, or purchases separately from its annual report or policy updates.
Rationale: While SPD currently lists its projected acquisitions within its 2021 annual report, the General Order itself also lists an “annual procurement” quantity and cost for each item of equipment. Upon the City Council approving either SPD’s annual report or updates to this policy, this may allow SPD to continuously stockpile military weapons and equipment on an annual basis without a cap.
Additionally, SPD creates an ambiguous lower limit on its equipment in stock under Section H of the policy, which states: “When stocks of military equipment have reached significantly low levels or have been exhausted, the Department may order up to 10% of stock in a calendar year without city council approval to maintain essential availability for the Department’s needs.” This section does not comply with AB 481, which requires all military equipment acquisitions by a law enforcement agency be approved by the governing body without exception. Furthermore, establishing a lower limit would presume no reasonable alternatives exist for achieving officer and civilian safety, thereby disincentivizing the Department from proactively evaluating its inventory for cost-effective alternatives that achieve the same objective.
We recommend the City Council amend GO 410.06 to reflect the following changes:
1. Remove Section H and any other language that would allow SPD to order, purchase, or acquire military equipment without City Council approval.
2. Add specific language to require all annual procurements, acquisitions, and purchases be considered and approved separately from SPD’s annual report or policy updates.
The City Council has the responsibility of ensuring that SPD not only follows AB 481 but must ensure that any policy it approves safeguards the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties. We
believe these amendments will help build trust with community members and ensure compliance with AB 481. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is any additional information we can provide.
Sincerely,
Graciela Castillo-Krings Keyan Bliss
Chair, SCPRC Vice Chair, SCPRC
Mario Guerrero Richard Falcon
Commissioner Commissioner
Basim Elkarra
Commissioner
Cc:
Mayor Darrell Steinberg
Vice Mayor Angelique Ashby, District 1
Mayor Pro Tem, Eric Guerra, District 6
Councilmember Sean Loloee, District 2
Councilmember Jeff Harris, District 3
Councilmember Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Councilmember Rick Jennings, District 7
Councilmember Mai Vang, District 8
Howard Chan, City Manager, City of Sacramento
Kathy Lester, Police Chief, City of Sacramento
1 Subject: 9/13/22 City Council meeting - Public comment item #7 From: Corrine Sako <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 1:00 PM
To: Mayor Steinberg <[email protected]>; Eric Guerra <[email protected]>; Rick Jennings <[email protected]>; Angelique Ashby <[email protected]>; Katie Valenzuela (City) <[email protected]>; Mai Vang <[email protected]>; Sean Loloee <[email protected]>; Jay Schenirer <[email protected]>; Jeff S. Harris <[email protected]>; clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 9/13/22 City Council meeting ‐ Public comment item #7 Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
My name is Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako. I am a licensed psychologist in private practice, the Chair of Sacramento County’s Mental Health Advisory Board, the President of the Sacramento Valley Psychological Association, & I am a resident of District 7. I am writi
ng to you as a community mental health advocate to oppose Sacramento Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy as written and I implore you to reject this proposed policy.
Sacramento Police Department (SPD) is Not in Compliance with the Law (AB 481).
While I acknowledge SPD’s improvements in upda ting the policy, creating community listening sessions, and providing the public portal feedback option, there are still more improvements to be made to be in compliance with AB 481.
AB 481 states the City Council can only approve a Military Equipment Use Policy if it determines that four specific requirem
ents have been satisfied. SPD has yet to met any requirement, which means it is not in compliance with AB 481. For example, SPD has failed to show that the military equipment will safeguard the public’s welfare, civil rights, or civil liberties. The new law AB 481 requires that “the proposed military equip ment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. Sacramento residents and victims of police violence have repeatedly declared they feel less safe with the presence of heavily armed law enforcement and this sentiment was repeated in every single community listening session hel d by SPD. As studies also confirm, police officers' possession of military weapons have escalated situations rather than mitigated any harm, often resulting in serious preventable injuries ‐ most notably during the George Floyd protests of 2020. SPD has not proven its policy complies with AB 481.
I urge you to take seriously the Sacra mento Community Police Review Commission’s cautions and recommendations.
The Commission's recommendations are thoughtful, easily achievable, and will help strengthen SPD’s reporting standards, clarify the funding process and how military equipment is being used, and ensure meaningful transparency regarding the amount of equipment owned. It is disturbing to hea r again that the Commission's recommendations may be ignored when there is no harm, only benefit, to including the Commission’s recommendations.
There is nothing in AB 481 that prevents city council from implementing additional requirements. Just as it declared in approving the new Use of Force policy under AB 392, City cou ncil has authority to ensure AB 481 serves as a minimum foundation for SPD transparency and accountability.
I urge you to ask yourself the hard questions about SPD’s policy when comparing it to AB 481, listen to community feedback, and to consider that some of the money used to provide SPD weapons can be reinv ested into community needs for mental health care, housing, drug treatment, health, employment, and reparations. By strengthening preventative care systems that create racial and health equity, insteading of continuing to cause harm, so that we can all enjoy safe and healthy Sacramento.
2 Thank you for your consideration,
Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako, Psy.D., LMFT
‐‐
Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako, PsyD, LMFT
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers (What's this?)
Licensed Psychologist, Private Practice
President, Sacramento Valley Psychological Association
Chair, Sacramento County Mental Health Advisory Board
** New Office Address as of 8/1/22 **
1300 Ethan Way, Suite 170
Sacramento, CA 95825
tel (916) 202‐1890
[email protected]
https://cas5‐0‐
urlprotect.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=www.drcorrinemcintosh.com&umid=37946509‐82b4‐4099‐ a0d8‐742868f7950a&auth=0c78d5381d8efeba9ba4477b3ca23a49d0ab462f‐ 311d357d7998785d21faf3dd8df5386ea1ee8a1c
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including any attachments, may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or e-mail, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached.