e good afternoon welcome to the May 1st 2024 formal meeting of the Phoenix City Council we'll begin with an invitation from police chaplain Harry ston please join me our father today we prayer the mighty prayer of Moses your servant and Prophet found in the book of Psalms teach us to number our days that we may gain a heart of wisdom father however long this current season may be use it to cultivate in us a heart of wisdom that will help us to serve you well now and whatever the future brings Lord your word further says in the book of Psalm the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom all who follow his precepts have good understanding so help us to trust in you and follow your precepts in every Twist and Turn of this season grant us good understanding and guide our steps so father guide this Council today Grant wisdom and discernment that promotes peace to all In The Name Of You amen thank you chaplain we'll ask council member Galindo Alvira to lead us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you councilman I'll Now call to order the formal meeting of the Phoenix City Council will the clerk call the role councilman Galindo here councilwoman wado here councilwoman Hodge washhington here councilwoman O'Brien here councilwoman Pastor here councilman Robinson here councilman wearing vice mayor Stark here mayor guo here Mario baras and his team are with us to provide interpretation Mario would you say a few words of introduction yes mayor thank you hello my name is Mario wahas and together with my colleague Oscar Monroy we will be serving as today's Spanish interpreters we'll now take a moment to introduce ourselves to our Spanish speaking audience thank you mayor thank you so much would the city clerk please read the 24-hour paragraph the titles of the following ordinance and resolution numbers on the agenda were available to the public at least 24 hours prior to this council meeting and therefore may be read by title or agenda item only ordinances number G 7249 through 7258 s50 782 through 842 and resolutions 22195 through 222000 will the City attorney please explain the role of public comment yes mayor thank you members of the public may speak for up to two minutes to comment on agenda items comments must be related to the agenda item and the action being considered by the council General comments that go beyond the scope of the agenda item must be made in the citizen comment session at the end of the agenda the city council and staff cannot discuss or comment on matters related to pending investigations claims or litigation additionally any member of the public who appears before Council in their capacity as a lobbyist must as required by Phoenix city code disclose this fact before addressing Council the city code requires speakers to present their comments in respectful and courteous manner Prof language threats or personal attacks on members of the public council members or staff are not allowed a person who violates these rules will lose the opportunity to continue to speak thank you we'll turn to agenda item number one meeting minutes councilman Gord do you have a motion on item one yes motion to approve item one we have a motion in a second any comments all those in favor please say I I I any oppos nay passes unanimously councilwoman O'Brien do have a motion on item two uh move to approve item number two second any comments all in favor say I I I I any oppos nay passes unanimously councilman Robinson do you have a motion on item three move to approve item number three second comments all those in favor say I I I any oppos nay passes unanimously item four is boards and commissions we have distinguished residents who help advise the city council and help us make decisions vice mayor do we have a motion yes thank you I move to approve the mayor and city council boards and commission nominations second all those in favor say I I any oppose nay congratulations to our new Commissioners we will now conduct the swearing in ceremony please raise your right hand I state your name francer Julie re do solemnly swear swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States I support of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the law of the State of Arizona that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same I will bear true faith and alance to the same and defend them against all enemies foreign and domestic them all enemies forign and domes and that I will faithfully and impartially and I willth discharge the duties of the office of according to the best of my ability so help me God according to the best of my ability so help me God thank you for stepping up to serve your Community yet again congratulations if you'd please go behind the council would love to thank you congratulations to our new Commissioners but longtime public servants the city council provides an advisory role on liquor license to the State of Arizona we'll move to that portion of the agenda now vice mayor do we have a motion yes I move to approve items 5 through 18 except item 18 second motion a second any comments all those in favor please say I I I any oppos nay hi passes unanimously item 18 is in councilwoman guardado's District I will turn to her uh to introduce them the item you have any comments we do have officer Chester here to provide testimony would you like to hear that before yes we should hear testimony first perfect uh we will turn to officer Chester to provide us an update on this item which is a related to a dollar store uh good afternoon mayor members of the council I'm Kristen L benovitz with city clerk also here today is Officer Samantha Chester with the Phoenix Police Department this request is for a new series 10 liquor license for a convenience store this location was not previously licensed for liquor liquor sales and does not have an interim permit the 60-day limit for processing this application is May 11th 2024 three letters protesting the issuance of this letter license have been received and are on file in the office of the city clerk staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a police department recommendation of disapproval and the neighborhood protests officer Chester again is here with me to provide a report for the police department thank you all for allowing me to be here today to speak on this matter my recommendation of denial of Mr Chad Hawkins from obtaining a series 10 liquor license at the Dollar General store located at 2650 West Glendale Avenue is based off of the following facts that I discovered throughout the course of my investigation after receiving the liquor application these include errors and insufficient completion of Mr Hawkins state and city questionnaires violence on the property and code enforcement issues concerning statements made during the interview with the store manager of Dollar General and sufficient liquor licenses in the area to meet the need and convenience of the community regarding the state questionnaire after receiving the liquor application I conducted a preliminary review and found contradicting errors between the state questionnaire and Mr Hawkins responses when questioned on question number 12 Mr Hawkins indicated he would be the controlling person who would be physically present and managing the day-to-day operation of the license premise however during my interview with Mr Hawkins he indicated he would not be managing the day-to-day operations because he is responsible for many other Dollar General stores in the area he advised he's only required to visit the store every 45 days but tries to come in every two weeks to meet with the store manager Claire de Jesus it should be noted M De Jesus was not listed as a manager for the liquor license despite Mr Hawkins stating she was the manager in charge of the day-to-day operations furthermore Mr Hawkins said if he was being honest he did not fill out most of this application instead his company filled it out for him and told him to apply for the liquor license regarding the city questionnaire there were also errors on this on question number eight and question number nine in particular question number eight asks the applicant to list anyone having ownership interest in the business or in the profits of the business question number nine on the city questionnaire asked the applicant how much was paid for the business including startup costs and the liquor license neither of these questions should ever be left blank every business has ownership or profit in a business and everyone must pay something even if it's just fees Mr Hawkins indicated not app appable as his responses to both questions in regard to calls for service to the police department a record check of the calls for service at this location was completed for a one-year time span from the Inception of the store on March 3rd of 2023 to March 3rd of 2024 within that time frame there have been 27 calls for service 37 incident reports by police and 10 arrests made of these calls four of them are violent in nature indicating an act of violence occurred on the property two examples of these are as follows on January 20th 2024 an assault report was completed where the manager M Jesus was assaulted she asked an individual to leave the property was then assaulted by him when he hit her and spit on her on February 23rd of 2024 a strong armed robbery occurred an elderly gentleman in a wheelchair was approached by two individuals and was forcefully robbed of his personal items having a liquor license at this location will only exacerbate these above mentioned issues in regards to code enforcement violations observed on April 4th of this year I went to the store to meet with the store manager upon my arrival there were debris and trash scattered throughout the property and the parking lot after inquiring with Neighborhood Services Department I discovered Dollar General was previously cited for blight issues in March of 2021 due to failure to control trash and graffiti due to the additional blight issues I observed Neighborhood Services initiated and opened a new case on my behalf these blight conditions encourage unhoused people to Camp next to and at these locations this is evidenced by the calls for service from March 3rd of 23 to March 3rd of 24 in this time frame 80 calls for service were placed for trespassing in regards to my interview with the store manager CLA De Jesus after observing the blight conditions on the property I went inside and met with her she indicated she has been the manager there since the Inception of the store on March 3rd of 23 she outright stated to me she does not want the store to start selling liquor because she would have more problems than she has now with theft and shoplifting and according to the diagram provided in the liquor application from Dollar General they indicated they would have alcohol right near the front door with no point of sail in between the front door and the alcohol I asked her if they had security to help mitigate these issues and she said they did not Furthermore with regard to the Staffing at the location she said that they do have four managers and three sales associates on staff but due to budgeting issues Dollar General has directed her that they only want one employee working at a time this can cause safety concerns for her and her staff some of her employees also told her they will quit if they get a liquor license due to the issues it will bring to the store furthermore I asked Miss De Jesus how often she meets with Mr Hawkins since he is the one applying for this license she said she had not seen him in 63 days she further indicated she do he does not come into the store every 45 days let alone every two weeks and lastly regarding other liquor licenses in the area the public convenience and the best interest of the community would not be served by the issuance of this liquor license four other businesses near the Dollar General currently hold liquor licenses and that's the 7-Eleven gas station Circle K La Constantia and a Nicks Tavern due to the upfor mention factors in accordance with Arizona revised Statute 4- 203a the applicant is not capable qualified or reliable to own and operate a liquor license within the City of Phoenix thank you thank you so much councilwoman gado thank you mayor with this report I move disapproval of item 18 based on officer Chester's recommendation for disapproval in neighborhood protest second um okay any additional comments roll call galinda marad yes hjge Washington yes O'Brien yes Pastor Robinson yes wearing Stark Gayo yes passes 8 Z vice mayor do we have a motion related to the schedule of the meeting and suspension of the rules yes I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules and change the order of business to take item 5050 last on the formal meeting agenda prior to Citizen comments second second all any comments all those in favor say I I any oppose nay item 50 will be the final item before citizen comment city clerk are we ready for ordinances resolutions new planning new business planning and zoning yes mayor vice mayor yes do we have a motion I I move to approve second sir we did the motion on suspension of the rules right yes mayor we are now on the Omnibus motion thank you well uh vice mayor uh let's see we have been changing whether or not a couple items needed to be in the Omnibus so why don't you do a more detailed motion if you don't mind for the Omnibus I'm just trying to get clar verification I I know we had an item I'm sorry I was actually talking to Ginger I know that uh councilwoman pastor had a conflict on 39 but you said that she dropped off but I see her name so should I she's not on okay I'm ready to make a motion now now I apologize for that uh disruption there motion to approve items 19 through 1133 except the following items 26 through 31 50 66 75 81 109 and 110 noting that item 49 is requested to be withdrawn item 50 is as revised Item 99 is as revised items 111 and 112 are requested to be continued to May 15 2024 item 113 is requested to be continued to May 29th 2024 and excluding these additional items for virtual public Comet item 81 and can the clerk confirm if there are any other items that should be excluded for in-person public count comment mayor vice mayor no other items thank you second we have a motion in a second any corrections roll call galinda wado yes hudge Washington yes O'Brien yes Robinson yes wearing Stark and I apologize again yes G yes passes 8 Z wonderful just for background for people watching councilman pestor has a relationship with the community college and there was an item related to the Community College which she could not vote on but since she is not here it was in the Omnibus as part of our Labor Relations process we have memorandum of our understandings with different groups and we host public hearings for the public to comment we will now have a series of those hearings item 26 is the memorandum of understanding between the City of Phoenix and Luna local 777 unit 1 we'll open the public hearing we do not have any members of the public to comment so I will close the public hearing item 27 is theou between the City of Phoenix and asme local 2384 unit 2 open the public hearing we do not have any members to public to comment close the public hearing item 28 is a public hearing between the City of Phoenix and asme local 2960 unit 3 open the public hearing we do not have any members to to comment close the public hearing item 29 is the public hearing between the City Phoenix and plea unit 4 open the public hearing we don't have any members of the public to comment we'll close the public hearing item 30 is a public hearing between the City of Phoenix and Phoenix firefighters Association Local 49 3 unit 5 open the public hearing anyone want to guess what's going to happen we've not members of the public to comment close the public hearing all right but if you're not if you're having fun with public hearings we have we have more uh item 31 is related to the local alternative expenditure limit for the November 5th 2025 ballot open the public hearing we do not have any members of the public to comment close the public hearing all right um next up is item 50 which is I thank you 66 which is a public hearing and resolution to amend the downtown emsd boundaries to add additional part Parcels we'll open the public hearing we do have we have someone to comment available if necessary are we we're good uh devony is good we will close the public hearing uh and this one we actually take a vote vice mayor I will move to adopt the resolution second motion a second any comments roll call Galindo El wado yes Hodge Washington yes O'Brien yes Robinson yes wearing Stark gum yes passes 8 Z Item 75 is not a public hearing it is a donation from the Phoenix police foundation for the wellness center gym and police memorial wall do we have a motion I move to approve second councilman O'Brien thank you so much mayor I just wanted to take a few moments to publicly thank the police Phoenix police foundation for their continued commitment to supporting the needs of our community and for honoring our officers whether it's in the form of the annual honor run or this donation to a police memorial for the new headquarters as well as a wellness center for the um well-being of all of our officers um most recently they helped to fund the renovations to the new family Advocacy Center where victims of sexual assault will now be able to be in a warm and more comforting environment as opposed to sitting um feeling like they might be in a fishbowl I'm so incredibly thankful to Tim Thomas for his continued leadership and stewardship over the P Phoenix police foundation and I'm so grateful that um they are supporting us and the police department thanks mayor thank you so much any additional comments roll call galinda wado yes H Washington yes O'Brien yes Pastor Robinson yes wearing Stark yes Gayo yes passes 8 Z great item 81 is a contract for Legal Services with Steptoe and Johnson LLP do we have a motion I move to approve item 81 be we have a motion in a second we do have a public comment I will turn to Daryl hello can you hear me now yes now we can hear you okay thank you good afternoon mayor and Council my name is darl krippin and I serve as the president of the Phoenix law enforcement Association I'm here to express our vment opposition to continuing the contract with Steph Cohen Johnson and specifically attorney Michael bramwit was brought in to assist the city with the doj investigation as we continue to navigate this process Steptoe was awarded additional money several months ago to extend the contract through June 30th of 2024 today there is another request to extend the Steptoe contract through June 30th of 2025 with an option through June 30th of 2026 at an additional $2 million all while item number 80 on the agenda was to enter into a new contract with Denton us us to provide Legal Services related to the doj investigation moving forward why would the city need to continue to retain Steptoe and Michael bramwit for an additional $2 million especially since Michael bramwit and three other stepto attorneys are being deputized as Special Assistant County attorneys by hennipen County Attorney Mary Mor Ari in Minnesota to serve as the prosecution team for in a trial of a Minnesota state trooper that County attorney specifically said that these former Federal prosecutors will be singularly focused on this case while the rest of her team continues critical work of Prosecuting other serious cases and the next schedule hearing for that case is May 15th I question what benefit the City of Phoenix would have by continuing this contract with step toen Johnson and specifically Michael bramwit this is fiscally irresponsible and that money should be reallocated to help offset the huge loss of state tax revenue and the city is going that the city is going to experience in the near in the foreseeable future I appreciate your time thank you thank you Ann Ender is next and and has signaled that support for the previous testimony perfect um so for those who could not hear um and Ender agrees with the previous testimony and add support for it comments councilman wearing uh thank you mayor I appreciate it so I'm gonna vote against this item I was well pleased with what we did with item 80 uh I've known one of those attorneys for many years and I think uh I do see uh frankly unlike Daryl I do see the need for maybe a second set of eyes I just don't want it to be this set of eyes I um I won't belabor it you guys have heard uh my thoughts in the past about uh this particular subject uh I just simply cannot find it in me to uh support uh the tenure of this particular law firm with us anymore I do think we had other Alternatives and I thought we should have selected one of those Alternatives we didn't but I do understand the continuity issue but I think uh the Denton team would have done a fine job as simply on their own supported by maybe a couple other local attorneys so I'm disappointed that outcome of this however I do have a lot of confidence in the folks we selected with item 80 so thank you mayor I appreciate it thank you any additional comments councilwoman hun Washington thank you mayor can I ask a u couple of questions of our of our staff please um I would like to hear from our City attorney whether or not we think the retention in the um out of state case proves a conflict of interest for the city mayor members of council council member Hodge Washington so as as you're well aware attorneys are bound by rules of ethics and in this case um under those rules I do not see that their representation is a violation of any rules of Ethics which would be perceived as a conflict of interest under the rules um in the event that is there anything in our contract with the um offices of stepto and Johnson that prohibits us from terminating that relationship should a conflict arise mayor members of council council member hjge Washington um know if if uh first of all they they would need to request a waiver if there was a specific conflict that arises and that is um outlined in the contract um furthermore we always have discretion to review the contract and to review their scope of representation with the city thank you so much C councilman O'Brien thank you thank you if they're being deputized in just a couple of weeks and will I would imagine be quite busy with this trial if for some reason they're unavailable is that we could discontinue the contract for those reasons mayor members of council council member O'Brien so if if they were unavailable to represent the city at a time where we needed them then certainly we could carry on further conversations with them about their scope of representation and if needed we could terminate the contract okay thank you thank you roll call Galindo wado yes hudge Washington I want to explain my vote mayor do I'm I'm going to support the motion because we still have the ability if necess if a conflict does truly arise um to terminate the contract under those circumstances I believe at this juncture it is um presumptuous of us to presume that this trial may move forward we know many times cases are resolved before an actual trial and we at this juncture I just think that to I respect the opinions and testimony that we've heard so far on the issue but I think we are kind of putting the cart before the horse no conflict of interest has actually Arisen in this case and we still retain the ability to um terminate should one occur so I'm going to support the motion thank you mayor O'Brien mayor may I explain my vote please do um I am going to support the motion as well because I think that um it is important for us to have the step toe with us um given that they have been with us since the beginning this has been going on for two and a half years and they've been with us every step of the way I would prefer them to be a part of our team um when we get our findings so for that reason I will be voting yes Robinson all right mayor may I explain my vote as for pretty much the same reasons we've heard from some of my colleagues I I understand the importance of that continuity with um Steptoe but I'm going to be voting no I I just don't think this is the right thing to do continue with them under a variety of circumstances is going you know there are several things it's not appropriate for me to mention here but um my answer has to be no on this one wearing I think you just briefly explained my vote uh they were our lead attorneys and we chose to go a different direction I think that speaks to to how we feel things maybe have been going so going forward I am pleased that we're going to have new leadership on our legal team and Stark yes goo yes passes 62 all right we now go to the Planning and Zoning portion of our agenda items 109 and 110 are related items both at the southwest corner of 52nd Street in McDowell we will have one public hearing uh but two individual votes this is in District Six councilman Robinson do we need a staff report before the public hearing mayor I don't believe a staff report is necessary now great open the public hearing on 109 and 110 we do not have any members of the public to testify so close the public hearing councilman first 109 thank you mayor I make a motion to approve per the Planning Commission recommendation adopt the related resolution second we have a motion and a second any comments roll call galinda yes wado yes hjj Washington yes O'Brien yes Robinson yes wearing Stark yes Gayo yes passes 70 all right 110 councilman Robinson thank you mayor motion to appro approve per the Planning Commission recommendation and adopt the related ordinance second we have a motion and a second comments roll call Galindo yes wado yes H washhington yes O'Brien yes Robinson yes wearing Stark yes goo yes passes 70 all right it's been a very exciting meeting and we um move forward on that as well as some historic preservation investment some affordable housing grants and more now we go to item 50 do we have a motion oh we need to read the title thank you item 50 is for ordinance G 7258 an ordinance relating to the office of accountability and transparency amending chapter 20 Article 1 Section 20-1 of the Phoenix city code Article 2 sections 20-5 through 20-10 and 20-13 and repealing and deleting sections 20-11 in its entirety adding article 3 sections 20-14 through 20-7 and amending article 4 section 20-26 thank you now do we have a motion mayor thank you I move to approve second wonderful we have a motion and a second and we do not have any public comment on this item okay council member comments mayor councilman O'Brien I have a friendly um amendment to section 20-14 A1 the section regarding all voting members that it would instead read um oh thank you all voting members shall either reside or work in the city of Phoenix members must be at least 21 years of age no current or former sworn law enforcement officer or individual who has filed a claim or lawsuit related to actions by the City of Phoenix Police Department is eligible to serve as voting member of the board would the motion or and second um be willing to take that as a friendly Amendment mayor yes I would be willing to accept this and mayor I'm fine as well and if I could explain please do thank you so I think that um it's incredibly important that we continue to take steps forward to um Monitor and make our Police Department better um we know we're all aware that this doj we're in the middle of the doj investigation um an investigation which as I said earlier has been going on for two and a half years we still do not have an indication yet of when they may close their investigation and provide us with their findings however as we have done before and as we continue to do um Phoenix is not waiting for the doj to finish their investigation to make reforms already we've added body warn cameras to all of our officers which is not something every law enforcement agency has in this country we've invested in the community Assistance Program so that mental health professionals are able to respond to emergency calls related to mental health needs we've created the Office of accountability and transparency to work with our Police Department to review policies and provide suggested changes with an outsider perspective the police department reformed our use of force policies and implemented new training across the department Phoenix has a self- record a record of self-correcting which is shown to be an alignment with many of the requests the doj has asked of previous communities as a result of their investigations the vote today is yet another example of the City of Phoenix being proactive in self-policing and another prime example to the Department of Justice that we do not need a costly consent decree and monitor to reform our Police Department however this particular um part exclud includes all folks who have previous law enforcement experience um whether they are not a current law enforcement I think that there's also a concern to provide balance to this that we will um exclude folks who might use this position to receive additional information on a claim or lawsuit or who already have a personal agenda on the other side of the spectrum thank you mayor thank you councilwoman councilman wearing thank you mayor um I voted against the original oat two of the things that concern me were it's a sort of overview and conducting uh investigations of the police department but the state legislature took away that power my concern now with oat is primarily that we're paying the same bill I think we were originally tabbed with which I think is $3.5 million do a year Jeff unless you're going to correct it but most of the time intensive tasks that they would have been charged with they no longer do it would be as if the fire department no longer went on emergency calls it only fought fires but we kept paying the same bill that doesn't make a lot of sense but you know that I've said my piece and apparently we're going to keep doing it so um but we're paying $3.5 million for a lot less than was originally anticipated by those of you who were supportive um but in this case with the civilian review board I do understand I think it was councilwoman O'Brien said you know we're in the middle of Department of Justice investigation I don't know if this would help uh mitigate their feelings about it at all I suppose it wouldn't but the oat organization as a whole has been so neutered that I don't think it's going to be able to do any damage to the police department's Effectiveness either um and a lot of other cities do have it so I was undecided when I woke up this morning I think I'm going to support it probably if the legislature hadn't done what they had done uh might be a different story but uh but I will be supportive thank you mayor for the time thank you Council uh vice mayor and then Council gado thank you mayor um I too am going to be S supportive of this um I I'm proud of our Police Department I think they do good work but we can always understand Improvement it doesn't matter what profession you are we can always do with some improvement and um I also think this is a tool that we can use in a positive way and and in in regards Department of Justice I think we have stepped up and we're trying to address some of the issues that they're reviewing and I think this is an important step I also want to thank councilman Robinson I've had a chance to talk to him and I value him he's a former police officer and he has really schooled me in the value of a citizen uh review board and um I thank you for your advice on this um and I think it's a good step I think it's balance I appreciate your Amendment uh uh councilwoman o' Brian and um with that I'll be happy to vote yes thank you councilwoman gado thank you mayor so just a couple comments first I just want to thank our city manager Jeff Lori Ginger all of you guys that have been working on this around the clock for the last couple of years thank you guys for all of your hard work and working with all of us um this has been an ongoing process um for almost for a little bit over four years I want to say um and I just want to say that the formation of the office of accountability and transparency was and always has been driven by our unwavering commitment to for fostering a strong bond between the police of Phoenix and our our people of Phoenix and our Police Department it is imperative that that the public has confidence in the police force and believes that they are being treated fairly with dignity and respect the office of accountability and transparency is designed to provide a direct channel for Community feedback and concerns o serves as a testament to our belief that open communication transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of building trust and understanding within our community while o might not be everything we hoped it would be in the beginning of this process because of actions of the state legislature by providing an additional Avenue for dialogue we aim to demonstrate our demonstrate that the police department's dedication to serving the community with the highest level of Integrity integrity and Prof professionalism we owe this to our Police Department to our police officers to have another tool that we can use to bring community and police together and to be able to give that voice um to our community that that needs to be heard and I want to thank once again everyone for all of their hard work for everything um that everyone has done um to get us to this moment and I will be voting yes thank you councilwoman councilwoman hod Washington uh thank you mayor for the opportunity um I was in FA I am actually torn and I wanted to speak a little bit to my colleague about my concerns about the amendment um I think this is more than a friendly amendment I think this is a fundament a significant change on who can serve on the civilian review board and for us to do it at this juncture without Community feedback I am a little concerned about that I am also concerned that uh um one of the criticism that we I have heard regarding the civilian review board is that we are um taking it away from certain members of the community that are uh and I think those that have had an experience or filed a claim with PD right or wrong should not just be summarily dismissed they have they bring a unique perspective and if the goal of the civilian review board is to see how we can make more positive change towards our community I don't think we should necessarily just outright dismiss those individuals um I get it that we're in the middle of a doj investigation and we want to ensure that this is not being used for Personal Agenda however there are other ways I believe that we can make those safeguards to ensure that the information is protected versus summarily just dismissing individuals from being able to serve on this board we have adequate safeguards I believe in the actual ordinance as written for example um the members of the board have to be approved by two-thirds of this Council I think that is one way in which we do that I do not believe that it is appropriate to just summarily say that because you filed a claim and and it doesn't articulate what level of claim that could be what if that person has a claim against the police department because of an auto accident that person possibly could not serve on the civilian review board um I I understand what we're trying to do here but I think the language as proposed um I have some clms with it so I would either re vote no or have another suggestion on how we move forward and one of the suggestions I think um is ensuring that all members of the board have equal access to information if they believe additional suppl supplemental information is necessary it could be subject to the same as um section 20 hyen 15 subsection D which would require um all five five voting members to vote in favor of any item requiring action including any request for supplemental information that way we ensure that all members of the civilian review board have the same information and we make sure that it is a United it is a majority decision on what information is required so um I just wanted to put that on the record and ask that my colleagues consider um some of the comments that I have raised regarding this issue it is not to say I disagree um in an entirety I just think that there are other ways to do this but we want to make sure that the civilian review board serves its purpose and I think s ignore or omitting those individuals that have had an experience with our Police Department um are not necessarily summarily dismissed I've had as part of the community I'm sorry the Department of Justice town halls I have met individuals who have had experience with our law enforcement and not all members not all individuals are what I believe this is trying to stop what they believe to be bitter individuals or um there are some people who are just vested in actually making this a better experience and I think we don't want to Samar um dismissed those experiences thank you mayor for allowing me to voice my concerns thank you before we go on to more General comments does anyone want to react to councilwoman hunt Washington's comment and I'm sorry with councilwoman gado thank you mayor I I agree um with the councilwoman I I do believe that you know the this version is over is is already very watered down and as much as I want to support this and as much as I want to be uh part of making this happen this has been in the works for over four years I just think that um it's also very sudden um to bring this language in um for you know many of us um haven't had a chance to really process this so I'm not sure if we are willing um to change this language around um just to address some of these concerns thank you any additional comments mayor councilwoman pastor this is uh councilwoman Pastor um I'm not act actually I'm in I'm in a I I got I entered when uh councilwoman Hajj Washington was speaking at the very beginning I don't know what has been proposed so I can wait till the end where I can hear everybody and then uh made comment wonderful why don't we pause for a second and perhaps the could the city clerk share the proposal yes mayor the current motion on the floor is for item 50 to be approved with a amendment to section 20-14 A1 stating all voting members shall either reside or work in the city of Phoenix members must be at least 21 years of age no current or former sworn Law Enforcement Officers or an individual who has filed a claim or lawsuit related to actions by the City of Phoenix Police department is eligible to serve as a voting member of the board and we currently have a motion and a second and that was a friendly Amendment introduced by councilwoman O'Brien which was accepted by both the maker of the motion and the second thank you I'm gonna hold my comments until I can get on to webs thank you wonderful thank you mayor uh councilman Gord thank you can we um just get a few examples of who then would not be able to be part of this board just so that it could just put it um in context for everyone and for councilwoman Pastor mayor and members of council I think we would have to do um we would have to look to see if the item is that no person or you know that has um been a party to a lawsuit or a claim against um made against that had an action against the Phoenix police we would have to do a search so we can't give concrete um examples then I without doing that search I don't know of particularly what names the council had in mind then I would recommend that we don't accept these changes just cuz we're about to vote on a big item and either we continue the item so we can get briefed on what this means um for folks that will be part of of the board or or re re remove the language that would be my recommendation councilwoman O'Brien councilwoman gu are you looking for names or examples I'm talking about yes examples of people I mean and I want to hear it from the attorney right examples given the language examples of who could not be part uh of this board I apologize um mayor members of council so um council member to answer your question this would be any named individual so for instance if um someone was shot by police if that person had survived or if their family may members made a claim against the city related to actions by Phoenix police that might be an example of um persons who would not be eligible under this provision it's just for for for folks dealing with issues with the police department or is it issues Citywide no my understanding is it's just related to actions involving the Phoenix Police Department so that might also be a use of force if um somebody had a claim um in an arrest they had an injury uh during that arrest and they made a claim or a lawsuit against the city then that person would would not be able to be on the board okay so issues just with the police department correct not any other department correct councilwoman HUD Washington thank you I I just want to follow up on councilman g g councilman gard's question because as written it says who has filed a claim or a lawsuit related to actions by the City of Phoenix Police Department and I gave the example of a car accident what happens if this person um cuz the way I read this tell me if I'm wrong if there was a vehicle vehicle accident involved in a police officer and under our um the way that cases are pled you normally name the husband and the wife in this and one of those members of the of the marriage decided they wanted to apply for this they they've technically filed a claim or lawsuit related to action from the police police officer by the police department under this revision or Amendment this person would not be able to serve am I correct mayor members of council um council member hodj Washington I would interpret it that way thank you and my understanding sorry my understanding of the intent of this amendment what it seems twofold and so uh councilwoman O'Brien can clarify it is more so to prohibit what is I would consider a fishing Expedition or a search for additional information to support their potential claims against the City of Phoenix Police Department and two if this person may have a negative Personal Agenda that goes derogatory towards the police department are those the intent of the amendment that would that would be correct and I and I I continue to Advocate that there are additional ways for us in which we can do that without necessarily creating an entire universe of individuals that cannot serve on the civilian review board Council O'Brien sorry you can go ahead so and I I understand and appreciate councilwoman Hajj Washington's um alternative however right or wrong we have also um you know excluded an entire group of civilians who have law enforcement background so once a law officer leaves the police department like our colleague councilman Robinson after a certain amount of time he is no longer a law enforcement person he is a civilian however we have excluded all of those people as well from serving on the civilian review board so what in addition to those items that councilwoman Hajj Washington said I am looking to I'm looking to provide balance on our civilian review board by having no group on the fringes available to be on the the council the civilian review board and if I could respond to that comment I that's why I led with my initial comment where I said this is more in my opinion than a friendly Amendment the provision regarding current or former um sworen law enforcement inability to serve on the civilian review board was specifically sent out to our community and we had no feedback or any comments regarding that versus we're adding now expanding the universes of individuals that are unable to serve and that's where my concerns come from is that we don't we I don't I think this is more than a friendly Amendment it is a a material change in my opinion on who can serve and I think the community should be given the opportunity to chime in before we as council members uh make a determination on this thank thank you councilman Robinson mayor thank you you know I I appreciate the conversation that's taking place right now and I understand where everybody is coming from but what I would like to do is offer up what I think is what's most important here what's most important is that we are able to seat a civilian review board excuse me that is accepted not wholly not completely by both sides and the best way for us to do that is by not having the perception that someone sitting on the board is going to lean one way or another prior to understanding the facts and I I I understand I Council woman O'Brien said it I I think very well with regard to a former police officer I've been gone for over eight years things have changed could I sit back and render an opinion that is fair and unbiased believe I could but that perception by a lot of people would be that no there's no way possible that I would be able that that would be possible on my part so I get it I get where everybody is coming from but I think what's on the floor right now the in the friendly amendment is the right direction to go it provides us with a mechanism that would be in place that I believe we're both sides not everybody is happy and I think that tells us something that tells us that it's not leaning one way or another and I think that should be the goal is for us to seat individuals who are going to be right in the middle and when they hear the information they'll make a decision based on that so mayor thank you very much for the time thank you is there a way to tailor the language a little bit because I think it's not meant to be someone who was trying to get a police report for a car accident yes councilwoman HUD Washington thank you mayor um I I just kind of did this on the FL so it may not be the fully vetted but one of my suggestions in ensuring that one we want to make sure that all members of like I mentioned of the civilian review board would have access to the same level of information and that all members of the civilian review board have a say in what is actually if any supplemental information is requested my suggestion or my uh proposal would be to subse sorry section 20 hyphen 15 subsection D and it would bring read um five voting members of the board shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting business and five voting members must vote in favor of any item requiring action comma including any request for supplemental information so that prohibits one person from going rogue and receiving information specific to their case you now would have five members of the civilian review board saying this information is what we all want to see in order to make a determination and if that's what we're trying to event is that this per someone on the civilian review board would use this efficient Expedition they now have to explain to their colleagues on this board why this information is important and then get their in then get their consent to request that information so like I said I was trying to acknowledge what the intent was of the provision I'm sorry of the amendment from my colleague and that was my in that that's what I think would serve the purpose without necessarily changing the impact of um I'm sorry without changing in the um significantly changing the content and the composition of the civilian review board um it does part of it it does not take away the the factor of you having somebody who could have an agenda or a perceived agenda um which is by keeping somebody not on the civilian review board I don't have a problem I I understand what this does achieve and and I I don't I do like this language because I think it is important for the board to have that kind of um checks and balance as well but it does not preclude somebody as councilman Robinson was saying from being on there that could be perceived as having a negative agenda on the other side of this of this scale or Spectrum but we already have me my my response to that would be that we already have mechanisms in place under the draft ordinance that would address that to ensure that we don't in in order for anyone to serve on the civilian review board two-thirds of this city council has to approve it and I'm thinking if there is that negative perception there will not be two3 vote from this Council um and I think what we are doing here is is exactly what we don't want individuals to do when it comes to our Police Department we don't want people to presume that our Police Department is biased towards itself but yet we are presuming that anyone who has ever filed a claim against the police department could not serve in a neutral manner on this civilian review board I just don't believe that we should automatically remove somebody who has valuable experience in dealing with these types of in this situation from the conversation and I also think it goes back to for me now we are adding an entire group of people who cannot serve on the civilian review board just outright without any consideration as to who that person is and what kind of influence or impact they could make I had the pleasure of in as part of of one of my round taes um I did with Chief Sullivan a meet an individual who has had a negative in experience with the with our police department and He is wanting to figure is he is AD he he got up there and he said he doesn't have any ill will against the police department he just wants to see how he can work to make it better and under the scenario that we are presenting this individual could never serve on the civilian review board so I I I feel strongly about this and I and that's why I chose to to articulate my position on this I get where you're coming from I respect that wholeheartedly um but I feel it and within my conscience that I have to explain what it is that we are uh what that language has the net effect of doing so thank you mayor thank you we'll go to councilman wearing and then councilwoman Pastor uh thank you so if this was considered a jury and uh prosecutor was doing jury selection like they do in John Grisham novels and so forth and they found out the person who's a potential juror is suing the police department that arrested the perpetrator in my fictional uh example there's no way they'd be like oh yeah that that sounds fine they're going to be unbiased there's no way so um we're acting like with 1.7 million or 1.6 million or whatever it is Phoenicians we're going to run out because we won't be able to find somebody who's not suing the police dep department so we better make sure everybody's eligible you know what if people are that determined to serve on a border commission we can find something else for them to do they don't necessarily have to serve on this um I I just think at some point that's this is not this is well written and I don't think it's an unreasonable ask uh particularly since we're excluding other people that we're saying would be by definition be biased um which I don't think is necessarily fair to them either so um I'm definitely supportive of the amendment and would re-evaluate my support for all of this if uh if it was taken away um of course part of my support is predicated on the idea that doesn't really do anything I think oat has millions and I think they put out one maybe two reports I'm trying to think and I'll think hard about this what has changed because of those reports anything those are expensive reports I know we all have to pay a lot for copies when you go in for public records or whatever but they're not that expensive so I guess ultimately I don't know that anything's going to change because we got a civilian review board I think we're going to have plenty of people applying who aren't suing the police department that could be selected and I don't expect this to change a whole lot given how much we're spending for it um ultimately in the long run regardless because of the state legislator's action thank you mayor thank you uh I will go to council pestor and then I have a comment yes uh this question is for Julie uh Julie can you give me examples of people who have filed against PD I don't need names I want to know examples of those that would not qualify or be able to apply for Oat mayor members of council so again I think examples would be um those that have made claims or sued if they are involved in an auto accident if there's been a use of force or which may or may not include a um a shooting and in that case also sometimes then family members might make a claim or uh against that would be against the police department okay and I have a a bigger question and I'll get into it uh we had protesting going on and this is why doj is here and protesting went on and uh the police department decided to file uh gang charges on them um and they're probably in the middle of a uh class action right now uh and they have had experience with the police and the Dynamics and would have a valid voice uh would they be precluded from this mayor members of council council member Pastor yes we also uh have some lawsuits that do involve Amendment first uh you know violation of first rights um First Amendment sorry um that those would may also be precluded okay well I was part of uh one of the original uh Council people that felt very strongly that there needed to be an office of account accountability and transparency and there was a lot of work uh that went into us and it was very very um hard work tours tourway tour up pieces and there was a reason why uh law enforcement was not involved um on sitting on this board and it was because of PSB because they would be able to have the opportunity to on our uh city Side be able to go through that process and they have a whole office uh they have a whole piece uh that goes along and office the office of accountability and transparency was really a community voice coming up and wanting to say we want to have a neutral space to be able to file or to be able to look at cases that we felt uh were not necessar were not in line with policy and so I find this uh I actually find it insulting to me uh of those that worked on this uh to have a conversation as to saying okay what was the background and why was this not uh part of it uh I understanding those wanting to advocate for law enforcement to sit on there uh in any as much as we want to claim we wouldn't have bias uh in the in our career there is bias we're we're human and everything is subjective so I'm not in line with the friendly Amendment um and I just think I'm just kind of taken back thank you thank you to me oat has done very important work they issued just four reports just last week it has been analysis that has helped me and the department has made changes in response to the reports I have found it thoughtful and have gather it it's an opportunity to gather best practices from across the country there's not one tool that solves Public Safety problems we need multiple tools in the toolbox oat is important the civilian review board is important but none of it is sufficient and we have to keep working towards best practices so I appreciate the work that oat is doing the model that oat is based on is often called the review model where um civilians look at and review the actions of the police department as I understand it is the most popular model across the country it is not our first choice but it is still very valuable in doing important work um trying to understand it seems that all council members have really valid points here and I'm trying to see what is a good path forward uh one possibility is there are areas that oat has mandatory oversight on such as in custody deaths um it does not have mandatory oversight over car accidents so is there a way that um folks who have active litigation over areas where oat has mandatory oversight would not be on the board so we might exclude people involved in active litigation but then folks who've been involved in criminal in uh car accidents could be on there so it would maybe a a melding of councilwoman O'Brien and councilwoman HUD Washington's where we would not have have individuals who who are involved in areas that oat has mandatory oversight on and can you so page 422 section 20-6 mayor would you like me to read that section I think that would be very valuable so mayor members of council um the oat has mandatory review over any shooting involving uniform Personnel whether Duty related or not any in custody death or any Duty related incident during which or as a result of which anyone dies or suffers serious bodily injury as that term is defined in ARS 13-105 39 as it may be amended from time to time can I respond to your suggestion may please councilwoman I think trying to at this juncture modify the language still for me uh offends one of the my Pro my principles that we are excluding a group that with an opportunity without presenting an opportunity to the community um I I I with all due respect to councilwoman O'Brien it is I do not believe it's a friendly Amendment and I would prefer that it would be stricken from it its entirety um I think the fact that we had zero public comments about this item and today meeting which is a little surprising to me means at a minimum the community has reviewed this and finds it pass and for us now to then change our course in a significant manner um I I still continue to have trouble with it so I I honestly wouldn't want my revision or my what I what I proposed to be presented because the Comm because the public hasn't had an opportunity to chime in on it I I think it they I I think we don't want to engage in any conduct would that would undermine the The public's um confidence in this board and in in what it lies I mean it has been an issue for some time it has been an um area where I believe that we have to get it right and I think by getting it right means also we pres when we present something to them we don't come on the uh the last minute and change and say who is available to serve and what that looks like I think if we my preference would be for us to vote up and down as presented and then if we have any subsequent revisions later on we ask staff to make that proposal based on the considerations and we come back with it um that would be my preference but I'm I'm just one member on this Council and that would be how I would prefer to proceed May councilwoman o Brian I'm open to that okay um change to limit the the folks there MH thank you mayor did I add one more thing I apologize yes Council Brian and then we'll go to council and and my community did provide feedback and and they find the fact that we cannot have um not law enforcement because I do not believe law enforcement folks belong on a civilian review board but have people who had previously been law enforcement they find that unacceptable part of this so this is a way to um compromise and and move this forward and I do think it's important that we do that councilman gado thank you mayor I'm given the conversation that we're having I would like to make a secondary motion to strike the friendly Amendment so you would move up okay so I would remove whatever okay we would it would be a new it would be a motion to approve as introduced is that what it be correct mayor members of council so she you're making a substitute motion to approve the ordinance as written without changes right all right and I would second that okay so just refresher for folks who don't come to every council meeting we will first vote on councilwoman gord's motion and then we would vote if that if that passes that carries if it does not pass we would then vote on councilman Robinson's motion all right May councilwoman pestor yes um I have some questions uh to staff um the questions are is that necessarily we were told the reason why were cleaning up out was because we wanted to be in compliance with state law am I correct mayor members of council so council member Pastor one of the reasons that we were making changes to the existing sections in uh chapter 20 were to come into compliance with state law yes but my question now is there's a lot of uh ordinances that we have that state law has passed and are not in compliances and they're still on our book so I guess my question to you Julie is who asked you to change this mayor members of council so we uh because we were coming back with changes to chapter 20 um to add the Civ Ian review board we also proposed making those changes since it was coming back to comply with state law okay let me get even further down to the question since you're not answering it who did you work with on Council to change these uh amendments and change uh this ordinance mayor members of council I did not work with any specific council member to make the changes to sections 20- 1 through 20-3 okay who did you work with on all of the ordinance um who did you get advisement from on the board on the council mayor members of council so um one of the council offices had worked on the board language but all of the changes to section 20-203 um came you know from the law department and then from review after the policy meeting but the new language um we had worked with all the council offices on those language and we put through an ordinance review with uh with the law Department to make sure that the language was consistent with other sections of the code um I guess I guess where I'm going at is the whole intent of uh oat was also to bring trust to the community and that the community wanted a a a Avenue of a place where they could um file any complaint or even police police can file a complaint because the intent of vote was also to protect the police and have these uh these processes into play in order to also protect the police um and be able to get a second uh eyes or second look on it on oat I am um struggling with this and what is happening to Oat um and not understanding how this came about I understand when we were setting up our our board but I definitely know and I will not publicly say but I definitely know staff worked with members from the from the specifically worked with members to change some of this language language um and that is fine um but I I feel like the whole I think there needs to be a bigger conversation as to who's going to and changing that friendly Amendment so thank you thank you vice mayor thank you I you know I understand the concern councilwoman O'Brien has is that we s right now say no current or former former sworn law officer is eligible to serve as a voting member and I know there's a concern that in the state of Arizona I'm sure a lot of the different police departments know others that serve on um one one or another department and so I get that concern but I mean if if we want to be fair and we say take out the indiv individual who has filed a claim why can't we have some kind of law enforcement and perhaps have no current or former sworn law enforcement who served in the state of Arizona I my neighbor is a former New York City police officer and he's been retired for many a year and um but he doesn't really know anyone in Arizona but I I'm trying to find a way because I think we need to move forward we need to we need to get something done um and and and but I want to be sensitive that we really are trying to represent the en entire city and I mean by excluding all law enforcement you're excluding a a lot of the public who does support law enforcement so maybe there's some way we could compromise there I don't know but I I do want to see us move forward we'll go to councilman Galindo ala thank you mayor um I have appre appied the robust conversation by members of the council and for once I've been quiet and listened um and I um I I'm I'm not torn I I know what to do because I came prepared to vote on on the resolution or on the ordinance before us um because that's what I've talked to Residents and constituents about and to make a change on it means that I didn't I didn't share it with them and it makes me feel like I didn't do my job well and I want to do my job well and I want to represent the people that I represent well so I am going to support uh councilwoman guardado's substitute motion thank you councilman councilman Robinson mayor thank you very much you know I I don't know that a whole lot of folks did as much work on this issue as I did in my office I I feel strongly about this you know police officers and police departments get their strength get their power get their Authority from the public and it's never going to be as I stated earlier it's never going to be a complete acceptance by everybody I think the information's been put forward I believe very strongly that the motion that has been made and I'm comfortable with a friendly amendment is the right direction to go I've lived in this community since 1974 was with the Phoenix police department since December of 1980 I've worked throughout this entire community on all kinds of issues and I think it's important as we move forward that was mentioned by several folks that we do need to move forward I think it's important for us to have a body in this review board that has what I think the credibility it has the perception of being unbiased and I think we get there I truly believe we get there by not having folks from one extreme or the other extreme somebody who is completely and totally in favor of and in love with the police and somebody who is not completely and totally in hate with the police I think when you have those ex I I for lack of a better word when you have those extremes you're not going to get anywhere I think we need to move forward I think we need to and for all the right reasons have this Review Board in Place Phoenix has always been at The Cutting Edge of Citizen Community involvement civilians have sat citizen civilians residents have sat on the use of force and disciplinary review boards since 1983 been expanded we have as an organization and as a city the law enforcement the police department and the city have always listened listened to the public when things have happened and always responded I see us getting there by moving forward with this civilian review board and I I think the information that has been provided the friendly amendment I get it I understand because what it does it makes sure that one side isn't you know the scales aren't tilted in one way or another so mayor with the experience that I have and the research that has been done I just think this is a good way to move us forward for a board that does not have investigative um abilities it it's a review and recommend and I think we're able to do that I I think there are some folks who regardless of how we look at it are going to feel one way or another and if we can take that element out of the process I think we're better off for it so I go back to the the original recommendation the original motion and I thank you for your time mayor thank you councilwoman had Washington I guess I just wanted to say a couple things um I I I'm I'm not St I'm not saying here I don't want the civilian review board to move forward but I want us to also remember this is called the civilian review board so there are other boards where we require we're required to have a certain number of law enfor forcement official so we're not what I'm saying is not meant to be anti law enforcement what I'm saying is let's keep one again this was not shared with the community and we are now excluding a group of people who we weren't excluding before I am concerned with the timing of this um when you talk about um being one-sided I think we run the same risk of of our credibility being questioned if we start making the civilian review board a place where we are appointing or we're saying that um if you've ever had a claim against law enforcement you could never serve on here and that's not unfortunately that may be some civilian experience and that's an experience that we should not just summarily dismiss because we are presuming that this person won't be biased I mean it's no different than saying anyone that has ever been a police officer will always side with law enforcement and I have heard my colleagues and other members from the police department say that police officers are the ones that judge themselves harder the hardest right so why are we making the same assumption against somebody who has had a claim why are we not using that as an opportunity to learn from that person who's had a claim against the city and determine how we can become better that's where my objection comes from and I think that if this was such an important issue it should have been briefed and circular with all of us prior to today on the day we should have all had some feedback in that in that and had some conversation I I I respectfully um I understand the motive but I continue to believe it is not a friendly Amendment it is a material change to our ordinance as presented and I don't think it is fair to make that on um on the on the cusp at this juncture for something that is so important the civilian review board has been a flasho for this city for some time as so why we need it and I think we should make sure we do it the right way um so I I that will go let you speak mayor wonderful thank you throughout the time we have debated these issues one of the things that a majority of the counil has said is that we want this board to be fair we want people who can look at what is at the best of the community we do not want someone who sees only one side of an issue whether it is that law enforcement is always right or that law enforcement can never be trusted we want folks who understand the complexity the majority of the council has said we value law enforcement we think they are essential to a safe and successful Community but we acknowledge we don't always get it right and we want to learn from it so I think throughout this debate council member after council member not unanimously but a majority has said we want a body that is fair councilman Robinson makes a very strong point we want this to be a body that can make change and that people on multiple sides of the issue will respect if it is seen as something that only is captured by one segment it that will not be as meaningful to immunity safety very important to understand that people who have strong opinions can still present before this body so people who have been in law enforcement will have opportunities to share their perspective as well as people who are currently in law enforcement the body will also hear from individuals who have lost loved ones or have been deeply impacted by decisions from the Phoenix Police Department their perspectives will have a chance to be heard and it will influence the outcome the idea is picking people to serve on it who can hear and support all perspectives and and respond to it so I think with the amendment with two now amendments to councilwoman O'Brien's that that seems to make sense to me it is very now narrowly tailored to uh very specific incidents but the vast majority of folks can still who are civilians serve so I will be supporting the second motion which was made first so K yes sorry mayor will you clarify what the two motions are exactly please so first we vote to support it as introduced which is councilwoman gord's motion and then we would vote on the motion uh so that folks who have section 26 complaints in front of the city would not be on the board is that right Denise maybe I should have Denise mayor uh the current motion on the table is a substitute motion and that is for approval of the ordinance and this item as recommended by staff the original motion that was made by council member Robinson and seconded by councilwoman Stark was to approve as recommended by staff but also include a friendly Amendment from councilwoman O'Brien that regarding section 20-14 A1 and that included that all voting members shall either reside or work in the city of Phoenix members must be 21 years of age no current reform or sworn Law Enforcement Officers or an individual who has filed a claim or lawsuit related to actions by the City of Phoenix Police Department is eligible to serve as a voting member of the board and that's what I have for that first motion which was I understood it differently so I'm glad that councilman o Brian asked right so I guess I wanted clarification because was your request I had thought you had accepted it but perhaps I did AC when the second made and councilman Robinson also accepted it may I clarify mayor uh the acceptance that we just talked about is that for councilwoman O'Brien's friendly Amendment or does that was that friendly Amendment for councilwoman Hodge Washington I think it was the one from the mayor to accept 20 the 20-6 right the mandatory oversight by the O they're trying to be resp uh to take into account councilwoman pastor's comments that folks who were involved in protests should be able to serve on this and councilman hod Washington's comments that folks involved in car accidents should be able to serve on this okay it w it was hopefully to really try trying to listen to what colleagues had said and meet multiple goals councilman wearing mayor me still we'll go to council wearing okay so um so the first vote mayor and Denise is Betty's motion the second vote is the at least theoretically Kumbaya bringing together of the amendment and the original motion so if Betty's thing passes we never vote on the amendment I just that never got said so we kept talking like there was going to be a second vote a little bit not you mayor but but just generally people might have gotten confused by that I was pretty sure I knew but I want to make sure um so if this first vote passes then the amendment isn't worth the paper is written on it would only be if that fails that we get a crack at the second correct okay counc P yes um I'm still a little confused as to what the first motion is I know mayor you uh so the first in order of voting would be to approve as introduced no I understand that but what does the amendment is it your amendment is it O'Brien's Amendment ke uh hjj Washington's there were several conversation so what is this the first one I mean um the original motion okay so I I um the one that was made first in the order of the meeting but would be voted on second would now be uh all voting members shall enter either reside or work in the city of Phoenix members must be at least 21 years of age no current or former swallow sworn law enforcement order officer or individual who has filed a claim or lawsuit related to the actions by the City of Phoenix Police Department mentioned in section 20-6 mandatory oversight is eligible to serve as a voting member of the board councilman O'Brien did we get that right okay thank you okay we will move to roll call on councilwoman Gord unless everyone's happy with that one we'll go to councilwoman G's motion okay roll call Galindo yes wado yes H Washington yes O'Brien no Pastor yes Robinson no wearing no Stark No G no fails four to five now we go to roll call on the motion originally made by counsilman o Robinson roll call galinda please do can you turn on your microphone I'm really disappoint yeah I'm really disappointed today because this is not the ordinance that I came prepared to vote for um um or the one that I discuss with constituents I feel blindsided um I want there to be a civan civilian review board it's important for transparency it's important for the public to build trust with law enforcement um and I'm happy to vote on the original but I can't vote one with the substitution like this so I vote no mayor can I explain my vote please I'm also going to be voting no I we have gone round and round for many years around oh around civilian review board around what this means for our Police Department for our community I think um Chief you've done a wonderful job since you've come here and done all the changes that you have done in our police department and I'm grateful to you for that um but but we also owe it to our community um this was not something easy for the community to accept with all the changes that had to be done because of the changes that have happened at the at the state level and I think it's irresponsible for us to change the ordinance um the the community was trusting in us um and it was evident that the reason people didn't show up today is because they trusted what we were voting on is what they saw this morning and yesterday um and I think um I owe it to them I owe it to our Police Department I am going to be voting no HJ washhington before I cast my vote I actually have a clarifying question please do um and I guess this question is for Julie um I I want to understand um because I feel like this is not the right process for us to be making a determination such as this and I want to understand who can bring a motion for reconsideration um if this motion passes mayor members of council so only a member on the losing side can prevailing I'm sorry prevailing side can bring a motion for reconsideration and if you're on the prevailing side do you need the support of others that were also on the prevailing side or can you get the support of those that were on the other side as well um mayor and members of council so it it only takes one that is on the prevailing side to um file for a motion for reconsideration to have it come back on a another agenda thank you so much for that clarification um I will go ahead and explain my vote I will vote Yes simply so that I can be on the prevailing Side based on what I have heard here in the conversation it seems that I will um the concerns that I have are going to be struck but our rules allow for us to make a motion for reconsideration and I would like to come back with language that I believe with the in in consultation with all of my colleagues in order to present something that addresses all of our concerns so I will be voting yes for that purpose O'Brien yes Pastor um can I explain my vote please do um I actually I actually think that that was a wise decision on councilman woman Hajj Washington and uh I'm just kind of taken back by all of this and I don't have any words right now but um the fact that we're in the middle of a world crisis and there is war going on and that there are people protesting on campuses on both sides and the protests are only going to get louder and louder and who sweeps in in and this doesn't build trust amongst the community I guess is where I'm getting at and with these protests going on and who comes in and starts to remove protesters it's only going to get bigger and this was supposed to advance us the civilian review board would Advance us with councilwoman Ward's Amendment but this doesn't Advance us and that was the whole purpose of office accountability and transparency and I understand the moves that are being made and why they're being made but this doesn't set well in the community on trust of those that don't trust the police so I'm a no Robinson wearing mayor can I ask a clarifying question followup on please do question so Denise um for a a motion to reconsider um it's going to pass if it gets the votes and then it'll just have passed I I don't know that I've ever seen that and bringing it back council member wearing I apologize so um a a reconsideration request can be filed by a council member with the city clerk within seven business days following the original action which would have been today in terms of trying to reconsider it here in this particular case um it depends um the council could vote to reconsider an item unless the ordinance failed to pass but in that case then that would be like a completely separate motion so it was my understanding then for councilwoman Hodge Washington that you would be filing potentially a reconsideration with the city clerk is that correct that is my intention based on the vote does that make sense then council member wearing so if it passes today then the councilwoman could submit a reconsideration to city clerk and then it would be brought back in front of the council for another vote right I'm gonna vote Yes Stark yes GGO yes passes 63 thank you thank you to many individuals who worked long and did a lot of research studying best practices from all over the country so that we could add another tool to Public Safety in Phoenix that is our final agendized item um want to briefly pause before we go to public comment to congratulate Chief Connelly who will be leaving Phoenix police and serving as the police chief in Flagstaff congratulations now I'll turn to our City attorney to introduce the final portion thank you mayor during citizen comment members of the public May address the city council for up to three minutes on issues of Interest or concern to them the citizen comment session is limited to 30 minutes the Arizona Opa meeting law permits the city council to listen to the comments that prohibits council members from discussing or acting on the matters presented thank you we'll begin with Diane Barker followed by Nicole Rodriguez [Music] it's Global love day you can check it out May 1 some of you may remember Jimmy Hendricks and yes may Kate and Galindo El Vera district 7 my name's Diane Barker and I'm here to spread the global love day we are very fortunate to be people of Peace but we're experiencing over 30 universities or near that that are protesting we have War in United States this way and there are people that are in my peer group although I really relate in dance in the same beat with 20 year olds but people might remember the 60s this is a rendition of it not exactly the same thing but the thing is in global love day it is a a proclamation it is a real Day May 1st go out you care about somebody let them know you love them and have them share that same idea with somebody else I love you Phoenix Nicole thank you mayor um first I wanted to start off by thanking councilwoman Hodge Washington for your comments on the civilian review board and spearheading the conversations also thank you Council Robinson for nominating a woman and a smart woman at that to the vision zero Advisory Board um but I want to quickly go um into what I I'm I'm here today to discuss and that's on the reverse Lanes a phoenix thrives on connection but outdated reverse Lanes on the sth street and 7th Avenue continue divide our communities I launched the end the reverse Lane campaign summer 2023 to dismantle these relics and Revitalize our communities these lanes are IM Menace they forc detours to isolate residents in local businesses the lifeblood of our economy lost Revenue threatens their survival thanks to these outdated relics that prioritize speeding cars over vibrant communities we need we need a healthy environment for small businesses not a highway bypass furthermore these lanes are a slap in the face to Phoenix's Progressive Vision initiatives like Vision zero and the climate action plan strive for safer sustainable streets reverse Lanes stand in defiant opposition creating a divided Urban core and weakening our economy these lanes are not just inconvenient they're dangerous they force detours like I said before that hinder emergency response times when unable to efficiently access a safe left turn access point additionally school bus routes become more complex increasing travel times jeopardizing the safety of our children with unnecessary emissions adding insult to injury they violate traffic control standards and require expensive ineffective upgrades hence digital signs we don't want them this misallocation of resources takes away from the community's most impacted being District 4 studies show minimal traffic flow benefits in urban cords or they don't have benefits in urban cores with reverse Lanes the solution is pretty clear it's time to remove them this action is long overdue together with your support through the Phoenix complete Street policy ween in the reverse Lanes in them not try to accommodate them with signs that are digital in them which don't belong in any City especially a vibrant City like ours so let's reunite our communities Revitalize businesses and create a more livable Phoenix it's time to ditch the diverse lanes and embrace a future where our streets connect us not divide us thank you thank you that is our final speaker we are adjourned hey Detroit while you're catching snowflakes we're catching sunr for our Phoenix residents visit phoenix.gov summer is it ice do they use us for ice it's called an ice oh it's called an ice crusher