Doc 303 Status Conf 9-6-17

Doc 303.  At the September, 2017, Status Conference the parties addressed six issues:

  1. Dr. Ginger's 6th IMR is on schedule to be filed by November 2, 2017.  The public hearing will be held on November 16.
  2. An "update on City's outreach to Amici and CASA Stakeholders" reveals little. Ms. Martinez has not been invited to participate in the meetings. 
  3. A "joint recommendation by Parties and Monitor re addressing communications from members of community" was proposed. The parties have conferred and recommended to the Court; Ms. Hernandez, Mr. D'Amato, and Dr. Ginger concur.
  4. A Proposed Motion for Protective Order re IPRA Requests" is waiting for the position by Government. Mr. Schmehl comments; Mr. Killebrew addresses Court. Mr. D'Amato and Dr. Ginger have nothing to add. 
  5. A Memorandum of Understanding will be sent to the parties regarding mediation.
  6. Discussions are ongoing regarding "change in supervisory review use of force levels." 

 

D-303-Status-Conf-9-8-17

The minutes of the telephone status conference are available within a few days after the conference. The transcript of the conference is not released to the public for 90 days; it will be posted here as soon as possible.

Please like, comment, and share...:

Doc. 285: June 8, 2017, Status Conference (Transcript)

June 8, 2017 Status Conference

Document 285 is the transcript of the telephonic status conference held on June 8, 2017. 

The first topic for discussion was the status of the Monitor's "Paragraph 298 Outcome Assessment."  Dr. Ginger states that the data being provided by the City is neither accurate nor valid.  

But City Attorney Hernandez described an entirely different scenario, in which Dr. Ginger was technologically challenged and responsible for his inability to access the City's new "Data Warehouse," which Hernandez describes as "essentially an interface where the user can enter a query that will access data directly realtime from these 10 to 15 different databases that store all of the information relevant to paragraph 298. 

I believe that in March of 2017 the parties decided that it would help if he had a new laptop . . . that would give him access to all the information . . .

Hernandez contends that "the data in the data warehouse is accurate."  She promised to give Dr. Ginger whatever technical support he needed to access the data.

APD's Promotional Policy

John D'Amato, representing the Police Union, agreed with Assistant City Attorney Samantha Hults that the parties "are kind of at an impasse at this point. . . ." Judge Brack commented that "I'm glad for dialogue to continue so long as it's moving in a positive direction, but if there's an impasse, get it in front of me and we'll deal with it by motions practice."

The City attorneys told the Judge that the promotional policy, a City Human Resources policy, "does have to go to public hearing and comments." Judge Brack said he was inclined to "let you all work through your process, and if it makes more sense for me to address whatever impasse you've got prior to going public for comment that works fine for me.

Policy Review Process

The DOJ and City attorneys described a new process that would present just three policies for review each week to the policy review boards. Judge Brack noted that "in this instance everyone's working together to really solid result."

Public Records Requests

City Attorney Jessica Hernandez stated that the City is in a "difficult position" with respect to IPRA requests for CASA related communications and asks for guidance by the Court. Mr. Killebrew suggests a Rule 26(c) protective order and Dr. Ginger stated that he has "not come across this issue before in other cases." Mr. D'Amato stated on behalf of the APOA that he would "join in motion" and Judge Brack said he would "consider the motion." 

Hernandez described the documents requested as 1) communications among the parties and the monitor; 2) communications between the parties and the Court; and 3) drafts of the monitor's reports. She stated that "the State Inspection of Public Records Act is very broad and provides for pretty significant sanctions against a governmental entity, including daily fines, $100 per day if we do not produce records that we are obligated to produce."

Judge Brack responded that the IPRA requests present "an interesting question, obviously, about my interpretation of our responsibilities under the CASA and State law. "

Please like, comment, and share...: