CC_Minutes_2016_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 Page 14 comment prior to enactment of PRS policies as required by State law before de- partment use of PRS devices. Chief Mathwig referenced information on the proposed use of body worn camer- as, considered portable recording systems, and the purpose of tonight’s public hearing to solicit public input. Chief Mathwig advised that after this public hear- ing, it was expected that a policy will be in place by mid-January of 2017. Chief Mathwig noted the city could not test models already available to the department without this public hearing and a policy in place resulting from this process. Chief Mathwig noted future decision-making by the City Council would be re- quested, with those additional details pending until choosing a vendor. Chief Mathwig further noted, even though yet to be vetted, a future proposal would in- clude a ½ time staff person to follow-through on the mandates. Chief Mathwig reported that the department had solicited public input to-date on the city website via Survey Monkey, and referenced attachments to the RCA that included a draft of the proposed Roseville policy, a model policy provided by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) for reference, and a copy of the State Statute mandating the policy. To-date, Chief Mathwig reported sixteen responses from attached hereto and made a the website, and introduced them into the record; part hereof. In his review of the model policy from the LMC, Mayor Roe asked if the pro- posed Roseville policy generally followed that model, specifically seeking which options had been chosen for the draft Roseville policy when more than one option had been included in the LMC model policy. Chief Mathwig advised that the proposed Roseville policy followed the model policy in general as per mandate, with the red font in Attachment A reflecting those mandatory items and the more discretionary language available. Councilmember McGehee sought clarification in differences in the acronym “PRS” and “BWC;” with Chief Mathwig explaining the LMC may have produced their model prior to the issuing of the State mandate. Councilmember McGehee sought further clarification in the LMC model the compliance issue (page 3 of 6 of Roseville draft policy). Chief Mathwig clarified that that clause (page 3, line 122, Attachment A) was re- flected in numerous city policies and in this case took into consideration internal affairs, investigatory and labor union contract policies. Chief Mathwig advised that these separate policies were necessary in deviating from the model policy and allowed for progressive discipline follow-through.