Our Reply to MVPD Report
April 19, 2021
Dear Mayor McCauley, Chief Navarro and City Council,
We are writing on behalf of the Police Working Group (PWG) of the Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity and Empowerment (MV FREE), formerly the Mill Valley DEI Task Force, to respond to the written MVPD DEI Update Report, Item 7 on the April 19, 2021 Agenda.
As you know, the Mill Valley DEI Task Force was created to investigate, research and recommend racial equity best practices to address the historic and persistent racial inequities in our community. The impetus for this work—the police murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, the reaction of Mill Valley’s then-Mayor, and the ensuing protests—dictated that safe and equitable law enforcement would be a primary focus and objective. Now two more Black lives lost at the hands of police in just the past week, Duante Wright and 13-year-old Adam Toledo, stand as an agonizing reminder of what is at stake in our conversation about race and policing.
On December 7, 2020, the Task Force presented its Report & Recommendations (Task Force Report) which contained 13 recommendations in the realm of policing. These were based on tested strategies, the expert research and analysis of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (21st Century Policing), and the recommendations of the California Governing Board for the Racial & Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). In addition, the Task Force provided extensive policy and best practice proposals on a range of police issues that are set out in the Report’s 22-pages of appendices.
The City Manager analyzed the Task Force Report and—without meeting with or speaking to the PWG or other Task Force members—issued his own report on February 18, 2021, interpreting and evaluating Task Force recommendations. Four he deemed, “already implemented or in progress.” As to the rest, the City Manager classified them as “not recommended” or in need of “additional direction, research or consideration.” Although the City Manager’s report was labeled a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion “Work Plan,” it contained virtually no objectives, action plan, timeline, or performance metrics. The report did propose to provide “a broader staff report on the police-related recommendations” in 60 days. Council adopted the report in its entirety with minimal discussion of its substantive provisions.
Chief Navarro, who was hired in January of this year was tasked with providing the promised 60-day report on police-related recommendations to which this letter responds.
Police Working Group Meetings with Chief Navarro
Chief Navarro reached out to the PWG asking to meet with us to discuss our recommendations for racial equity policies and practices for the Department. We have had two, two-hour meetings with the Chief and his leadership team (Police Leadership Group). We appreciate that the Chief has acknowledged the need for a change in the culture of policing and has expressed a desire to make the MVPD a model for bias-free policing. His first effort in that regard was to develop a Bias-Free Policing Policy that tracks many RIPA best practices. We were encouraged by the Chief’s willingness to include revisions proposed by the PWG to strengthen the policy and its accountability provisions. Of course, it is not the policy, but how it is implemented that will determine whether change occurs.
The Department has also been working to initiate RIPA data collection (demographic data on police stops) in June or July of this year, six months in advance of the statutory deadline. These data will help us to measure and pinpoint inequitable policing and to develop and monitor remedial strategies.
These early discussions between the PWG and the Chief have yet to touch upon many of the Task Force recommendations that are the subject of the MVPD DEI Update Report. As will be seen, in some cases, we differ with the reported status of the recommendation. We hope and expect that most of these differences can be resolved through further clarifying discussions between the PWG and the Police Leadership Group.
MVPD DEI Update Report
The PWG was very concerned upon reading the Chief’s DEI Update Report that it appeared to suggest the Department’s racial equity work was nearly complete. We have spoken with the Chief who assures us that he views this Report as an early update and that he remains committed—as we are—to the long-term work necessary to achieve racial equity, community trust and legitimacy in the MVPD. The PWG is prepared to hold the Chief, and ourselves, accountable in that effort.
The following discussion briefly addresses each section of the Report to identify areas of agreement, corrections, clarifications, questions and concerns. We have also identified next steps and areas of exploration for the PWG and Chief to take up in future meetings.
Initiate RIPA Data Collection by January 1, 2021
Reported Status: In Progress
PWG: In Progress
We understand that it has taken some time to put the necessary systems in place and that these will be operational in time for a launch by or before July 1, 2021. The Chief has invited the PWG to participate in ensuring that RIPA data, once available, are made available on the website in a timely, complete and understandable manner.
Of course, the data collection and reporting is not an end in itself. Critical next steps include:
Developing protocols for regular data analysis
Identifying and implementing targeted remedial strategies
Providing for ongoing assessments to measure progress and ensure accountability
Integrating transparency throughout the ongoing process to build community trust and legitimacy
Adopt RIPA Model Policies for Bias-Free Policing
Reported Status: In Progress
PWG: In Progress
The Bias-Free Policy is nearing completion. As stated in the Chief’s Report, the PWG has undertaken a final review and will meet with the Police Leadership Group shortly to address any remaining suggestions and concerns.
Next steps in this area should include:
Developing and formalizing training and oversight protocols to ensure Department-wide understanding of and compliance with the policy as well as effective systems of accountability.
Align MVPD Training with RIPA Best Practices
Reported Status: Implemented
PWG: In Progress
As the Chief’s Report demonstrates, the Department has made some substantial efforts to find and offer anti-bias training opportunities for its officers and supervisors beyond the previous minimal requirements (a two-hour course on racial and cultural diversity every 5 years if we recall correctly). Currently, it appears that many in the Department are taking advantage of these opportunities. The Police Leadership Group has also expressed a willingness to consider speaker and trainer recommendations from the PWG, and we have begun compiling those recommendations.
However, proposed language in the current draft Bias-Free Policing Policy suggests that the only required training under the new policy would be “initial racial or bias based profiling training” and “an approved refresher course” every three years. This language is vague as to the precise nature, duration and other aspects of the required training; it appears to fall short of the RIPA recommendations; and it does not appear to encompass many of the new training opportunities identified in the Report.
The Chief and PWG should next explore:
A more focused and intentional training policy and program based on RIPA best practice recommendations (excerpted at Task Force Report, Appendix B)
Protocols for ongoing analysis of MVPD training needs and objectives informed by analysis of RIPA data
Specific and clearly-articulated minimum training requirements that include all courses deemed reasonably necessary to achieve anti-bias training objectives (the adequacy of training must not be made to depend upon members’ voluntary participation in optional offerings.)
Incorporation of effective implicit-bias and anti-racism into in-service training
We have not yet had an opportunity to review and discuss the current training offerings with the Police Leadership Group and look forward to doing so in upcoming meetings.
Adopt RIPA Best Practices to Prevent Bias-by Proxy
Reported Status: In Progress
PWG: In Progress
The Department has included language in the current draft Bias-Free Policing Policy that defines bias-by-proxy (a concept not included in the Lexipol policies) and expresses the generalized aim that officers “should always aim to build community trust through all the actions they take, especially in response to bias-based reports.”
Again, this is a good first step, but the policy does not address the standards, training and guidance recommended by RIPA that are necessary to empower officers to respond appropriately to these calls. The Chief’s Report asserts that “all police department staff have been trained in Bias-by-Proxy.” However, neither the proposed required training policy, nor any of the optional training programs described in the Report appears to cover this topic, and certainly not in the way detailed in the RIPA Best Practice recommendations.
Next steps for the PWG and Police Leadership Team in this area should include:
Developing a policy and program based on RIPA Best Practices for Responding to Bias-Based Calls for Service (excerpted at Task Force Report, Appendix C) with specific guidelines on:
How to identify bias-based calls for service
How to avoid needless contact or confrontation with the subject of a suspected bias-based call (e.g., evaluating circumstances from a distance)
How to interact with community members who make bias-based calls including follow up by shift supervisors to alleviate the likelihood of future bias-based calls
How to interact with the subject of a bias based call, when necessary, in a way that preserves the individual’s safety and dignity
Establishing and implementing clear and specific training standards and requirements in the area of bias-by-proxy
We appreciate that the MVPD relies on the Sheriff’s Department to dispatch calls which limits its ability to identify and address bias-based calls at the dispatch phase. However, these RIPA recommendations apply to responding officers, not merely to dispatchers.
Finally, we anticipate that the Sheriff’s Department and other neighboring police agencies will be increasingly amenable to MVPD recommendations for alleviating bias-based policing as these agencies begin to grapple with the racial disparities reflected in their own data. (Sheriff’s Department RIPA data for the past 6 months show that Black people are stopped by Sheriff’s Deputies at ten times the rate of white people). This moment offers a unique opportunity for MVPD to take the lead on racial equity and to become a model for others in this important work.
Align MVPD Policy with Procedural Justice Best Practices
Reported Status: Implemented
PWG: Requires Further Discussion
Align MVPD Use of Force Policies & Practices with 21st Century Policing
Reported Status: Implemented
PWG: Requires Further Discussion
We are addressing these two recommendations together as they have the same legal and theoretical basis, and we believe the approach of the Report suffers from the same shortcoming as to both.
The Report identifies these recommendations as “Implemented” based on the mistaken assumption that the standard policies and updates provided by the Lexipol software company are aligned with the best practice standards of 21st Century Policing. This is simply incorrect. Lexipol policies are designed, first and foremost, to meet minimum legal and constitutional requirements to which police departments must adhere. This is a wholly different standard from the law enforcement best practices recommended by the experts on the 21st Century Policing Task Force and the RIPA Board.
The Department’s own proposed Bias Free Policing Policy illustrates the point. The draft policy embraces RIPA and 21st Century Policing standards and therefore addresses a variety of important issues and practices as to which the Lexipol policies are silent (e.g., implicit and explicit bias, bias by proxy, racial profiling). The draft policy also provides clear and explicit anti-bias requirements and accountability provisions, which the Lexipol policies do not.
The Chief’s Report states that the Department has created “an internal policy review committee to continually evaluate and assess best practice policies.” The existence of this committee reflects further acknowledgement from the Department that it is both possible and desirable to review and revise the Lexipol policies in accordance with the dictates and values of procedural justice. The Final Report on 21st Century Policing underscores:
Adopting procedural justice as the guiding principle for internal and external policies and practices can be the underpinning of a change in culture and should contribute to building trust and confidence in the community.
Final Report, p. 11.
Procedural justice principles are premised on respect for human dignity and the sanctity of all human lives. Procedural justice calls for a change in the culture of policing, from the mindset of a “warrior” to that of a “guardian” and recognizes that “the absence of crime is not the final goal of law enforcement. Rather it is the promotion and protection of public safety while respecting the dignity and rights of all.” Id. at p. 42.
A comprehensive review and revision of MVPD policies from a procedural justice perspective is a substantial, long-term undertaking. That is why the Task Force Report prioritized certain policies for review including bias-by-proxy and anti-bias training policies (discussed at sections 3 and 4 above) and the use of force policies discussed in the Task Force Report at pages 24-25 and Appendix D.
The PWG welcomes the opportunity to participate in and assist the Department’s policy review committee in implementing recommendations 5 and 6. Priorities should include:
Aligning bias-by-proxy, anti-bias training, and use of force policies with RIPA and 21st Century Policing
Identifying other specific priority provisions in need of revision to align MVPD policies with the tenets of procedural justice.
Collect & Publicize Comprehensive Data on MVPD Website
Reported Status: In Progress
PWG: In Progress
The Department has significantly increased the amount and accessibility of data on the MVPD website and has plans to further expand and improve these offerings.
Current and anticipated efforts by the PWG and Police Leadership Team under this recommendation include:
The PWG has recommended improvements to the reporting of Calls for Service to provide more meaningful classifications (rather than generic terms like “Community Policing Activity”), and to enable a functional assessment of the Department’s workload to inform potential improvements to methods of service delivery (this to inform the analysis discussed at Items 11 and 12). The Chief is exploring available methods for implementing these recommendations, including the possibility of including recommended incident categories in the RIPA reporting software.
Working to increase public access to timely and meaningful data from and about the MVPD on an ongoing basis.
Improve Community Access to Civilian Complaint Process
Reported Status: Implemented
PWG: Requires Further Discussion
The Department has increased the availability of civilian complaint forms on its website, in the City Hall lobby, and by requiring officers to carry complaint packets in their duty bags and vehicles. The
Department has also updated officers’ business cards to include a link to online complaint information.
The PWG has recommended that officers distribute cards to all civilians they stop and expect this will be discussed in an upcoming meeting with the Police Leadership Group.
But access to complaint forms means little if people who have experienced racial profiling or other misconduct believe that filing a complaint will be futile, or worse, will subject them to further misconduct. The Task Force intended this recommendation to accompany the development of a true civilian review process for complaints of police misconduct. See section 9 below. Until that occurs,
The PWG and Police Leadership Group should discuss methods of making the process less intimidating such as allowing for the filing of complaints with civilian staff at City Hall.
Develop Civilian Oversight of MVPD
Reported Status: Implemented
PWG: Not Implemented
The current approach of having the City Council monitor the MVPD does not address the primary problem this recommendation meant to address. At meetings over the past year, City Council members have heard dozens of individual accounts of racially-biased policing in Mill Valley, accounts that, understandably, were never reported through the Police Department’s internal complaint process. As the Task Force explained,
BIPOC who have been harassed or intimidated by a Mill Valley police officer want to avoid the re-traumatization of another encounter with MVPD; and the obvious, inherent conflict of interest of having the police department investigate itself leads people to assume that their complaints will not be taken seriously. That assumption is arguably borne out by the frequency with which MVPD determines complaints to be “unfounded.”
Task Force Report, p. 26.
The Task Force sought, by this recommendation, to separate the civilian complaint process from the police department to alleviate these impediments to filing a complaint, and to reflect community voices and values (including BIPOC) in the consideration of police complaints. Having a City Council subcommittee review complaint statistics after the fact responds to neither concern. Further, by holding its quarterly review meetings behind closed doors, Council’s Police Governance Subcommittee tends to undermine rather than promote community trust and legitimacy in the process.
We have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this issue in our meetings with the Chief, but the PWG continues to prioritize:
Developing an entity and mechanism for review of civilian complaints that is outside and independent of the MVPD.
Providing true civilian oversight of the MVPD (outside of City government)
Ensuring transparency of police oversight regardless of the entity performing that oversight
Investigate & Consider Prior Misconduct in MVPD Hiring Decisions
Reported Status: Implemented
PWG: Requires Further Discussion
The Department has provided a great deal of information regarding the application, interview and assessment processes for new hires. See, POST, Background Investigation Manual (2020); POST, Psychological Screening Manual (2020).
The MVPD hiring process involves a detailed investigation that appears to allow for consideration of prior misconduct. Law enforcement employers in California are required by law to maintain records of any investigations of misconduct by a peace officer; and candidates for employment at MVPD who have previously worked in law enforcement are required to give the Department permission to review their personnel files and any other files reflecting investigations of misconduct. Investigation Manual, part 5-12. In addition, psychological evaluations are meant to screen for a wide variety of “job performance problems” that include “[e]xcessive use of force” and “[b]ias/prejudice/intolerance (reflected in dealing with co-workers, citizens).” Screening Manual, p. 48.
While an officer’s prior misconduct is one of many considerations identified by POST as potentially relevant to the hiring decision, it is not prioritized in the mountain of POST Investigation and Screening manuals (that total over 400 pages of dense text), and POST offers no specific standards or criteria for assessing the significance of such misconduct to the hiring decision. The only relevant standard requires every California peace officer to be “of good moral character as determined by a thorough background investigation.” See Minimum Peace Officer Selection Standards, Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 1031(d). “Good moral character” is so vague and subjective a concept that it provides no meaningful guidance as to whether and how a candidate’s prior misconduct might factor into the employment decision.
Given the highly predictive correlation between past and future police misconduct—and the need for clear, objective standards—the PWG would like to discuss with the Police Leadership group the following processes and standards reflected in the Task Force recommendations:
MVPD should use all reasonable means at its disposal to discover and review any civilian complaints and/or civil lawsuits arising out of a prospective officer’s prior employment.
Candidate interviews should include questions designed to uncover the existence and details of any such complaint(s) and lawsuit(s).
The frequency, recency and severity of complaints and litigation should be considered in determining the weight they should be given in the hiring decision.
Mill Valley should develop a policy that forbids the hiring of a police officer with a proven record of prior serious misconduct.
Assess MVPD Functions & Funding Against Community Needs
Reported Status: Completed
PWG: Requires Further Discussion
This Task Force recommendation was misconstrued in the City Manager’s February 18 report as seeking a determination of whether the MVPD was overstaffed and/or overfunded in comparison to like jurisdictions. This misunderstanding was carried over into the Chief’s Report which reflects completion of the work described by the City Manager. However, the substance an purpose of the actual Task Force recommendation have yet to be addressed.
The true focus of the Task Force recommendation is to gather and publicize data on the breakdown of functions currently performed by the MVPD (e.g., what portion of the MVPD work involves violent or serious crime, mental health issues, unhoused individuals, traffic enforcement, noncriminal community issues, etc.) and the cost to the City of providing those services. The purpose of the recommended assessment is to determine the specific needs and duties in our community for which armed law enforcement personnel are uniquely well suited, and those that might be performed more safely, more effectively and at a lower cost by skilled professionals (e.g., mental health workers) or other well-trained unarmed service personnel. Task Force Report, pp. 31-33. The Recommendation is directly related to, and intended to inform, the need-based community service model discussed in Item 12.
The primary goal of the two recommendations is to minimize the danger and intimidation posed to BIPOC from armed police officers by reducing the number of armed, uniformed officers in our community. Based on the longstanding, successful model in Eugene, Oregon (Task Force Report, p. 32) , we know that this approach can also significantly reduce the cost of service delivery. Even apart from these aims, the data we are seeking will enable better planning, hiring, training, work assignments and resource allocation within the Police Department.
The PWG has been discussing with the Chief how to improve existing data collection systems (e.g., at dispatch, through its call logs, when closing out calls, as part of RIPA data collection) in a way that would allow for a meaningful functional assessment of the services provided by the MVPD without imposing significant additional burdens on officers. See Item 7 above. We look forward to continuing this discussion.
Develop & Implement a Need-Based Community Service Model & Budget
Reported Status: In Progress
PWG: In Progress
The Report describes two approaches the Department is taking in an effort to tailor services to the community needs. First, the Department partners with a variety of government agencies and community groups to assist on calls for service within their areas of specialization. Second, the Department has begun training a Community Service Officer to handle calls for service where a sworn officer might not be needed.
As to the first approach, there are clearly benefits to be gained for community members from MVPD partnerships with community groups and agencies that have specialized skills outside the realm of core police functions. As they currently operate, it appears these service providers work in tandem with MVPD on calls for service, and therefore do not serve the specific purposes of this recommendation: to reduce the presence of armed responders and the attendant dangers to the BIPOC community.
The second approach of having a “Community Service Officer” respond to non-threatening calls for service is certainly a step in the right direction, provided that Officer is unarmed.
There is much more that the MVPD can and should do to reduce the presence of armed officers in our community, informed by the collection and analysis of data described in Item 11. Those data should help MVPD and the PWG begin to answer questions such as:
What is the nature and quantity of community functions and needs that are best addressed by sworn law enforcement officers?
What is the nature and quantity of community functions and needs that can be safely addressed by an unarmed, ununiformed law enforcement officers or other service providers?
What is the nature and quantity of community functions and needs that might be better addressed by specialized service providers (mental health workers, social service workers, youth or education specialists, etc.)?
What is the nature and quantity of routine community needs and functions that could be safely and adequately addressed by trained staff and/or volunteers outside of law enforcement?
With answers to these questions, we can begin to evaluate the services available from existing partners and providers as well as alternative models so that Mill Valley can employ the safest, most effective and efficient options to serve community needs.
The PWG has begun discussing these issues with the Chief who has been receptive to collecting the data in order to better tailor services, to assess the availability and effectiveness of services offered by third-party providers, and to consider unarmed and nonpolice responders for service calls where appropriate. We look forward to continuing this discussion.
Conclusion
The PWG and the Police Leadership Team have begun an important and difficult dialogue. We hope that the City Council will respect and support this process and will not prematurely rule out or dictate where it might lead.
Sincerely,
The Police Working Group on behalf of MVFREE