CC MIN 06212022 - Laserfiche WebLink

conversations and engage children than through equipment designed for a violent situation. He noted the City of Oakland has a limitation on using its ARVs at community events. Henry Vogt expressed disappointment the current version of the ordinance has not changed much relative to the PPD's ability to use the ARV at community events. He added data does not show the equipment makes people safer and stated the equipment is disproportionately used against communities of color and can make people feel less safe. He encouraged the Council to oppose the ordinance. Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. Councilmember Balch stated many items on the PPD list are the less-lethal tool and it is necessary to provide officers with a less-lethal option while still maintaining their safety. He stated he is bothered by AB 481 inference that the less-lethal equipment is inappropriate, noting a shotgun shooting bean bags is deemed militaristic but a shotgun shooting live rounds is not. Councilmember Balch reported seeing the PPD's robot and questioned how a non-weaponized robot cannot be considered a good conversation starter in a robotics class. He expressed his support for allowing the PPD to display its robots at the Chief's discretion. He added the Council cannot foresee every community engagement opportunity where the ARV and robots would be requested so it should be left to the discretion of the Chief what is appropriate. In response to Councilmember Balch, City Attorney Dan Sodergren suggested language for a motion would be to allow the display of the ARV and robots at community and City-sponsored events at the discretion of the Chief of Police. Councilmember Balch moved to adopt the ordinance with an amendment to allow for the display of the ARV and robots at community and City-sponsored events at the discretion of the Chief of Police. Councilmember Narum seconded the motion. Councilmember Arkin thanked Chief Swing and Captain Larry Cox for showing her the equipment in person. She acknowledged she brought up the issue at the last meeting about exposing children to certain items. She added, that after seeing the equipment, her only concern is with the ARV. She stated she does not have an issue with the robots and knows the PPD is not showing guns to children. She noted the unanimous vote to move the item forward at the first reading was done with the understanding language about the ARV's community outreach use around children would be presented at this second reading. Councilmember Arkin stated the PPD has many opportunities for positive community engagement and expressed support for using patrol cars, robots, K-9s, and other items with young children. She stated the ARV is not necessary. She expressed confidence in the PPD's annual reports. In response to Councilmember Narum, City Attorney Sodergren noted places where relevant provisions from AB 481 have been added to the PPD's policies as per discussions at the last meeting. Councilmember Narum thanked the PPD for letting her see the equipment in person. She stated the Chief should have discretion over ARV and robot use at public events. She stated she trusts the Chief's judgment in how to achieve objectives such as recruiting, education, and public relations. She added hiding the equipment from the public is not transparent. She noted the ARV is a tool to keep residents and officers safe. She stated she supports the language in Councilmember Balch's motion and noted it can always be reviewed at the next PPD military equipment usage update. Councilmember Testa thanked the PPD for the equipment tour, noting she was familiar with much of it from participating in the Citizens Police Academy. She reported they have received many emails from City Council Minutes Page 13 of 18 June 21, 2022