Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-2000 Meeting I I I PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE CO~IMlITEE ROOM - August 7, 2000 -." PRESENT: L. Beard, Chairman, J. Brigham, W. Mays, S. Shepard, members, R. Colclough, M. Williams, H. Brigham, A. Cheek, U. Bridges, Commissioners, R. Oliver, Administrator, i. Wall, Attorney, ChiefC. Scott and Chief Rogers, Fire Dept., J. Long, Attorney, L. Bonner, Clerk of Commission. MEDIA: S. Eidson, Metro Spirit; D.L. McIntyre, Channel 6; H. Coryell, Augusta Chronicle. Discuss law Department. Mr. Beard: [wanted to update you on the progress of the Law Department from Ms. Sumner. However, I have not gotten all that information together but [ will do it at a later time. But there were two things that were really disturbing me in relationship to all of this. One was to update you. The other is [ thought we had a gotten things together and made a decision on the direction that we were going and what we were going to do on this. Ms. Sumner called me because she had gotten a couple ofletters from attorneys here. One attorney was an attorney in the private sector so it didn't bother me too much. But when she received a letter from Mr. Shepard to her that bothered me. [thought we had agreed to do what we were going to do and let her put this together. It was voted on by the body that it would be put together. My point is that the indication from his letter was that is was not a total agreement, which it wasn't a total agreement but it does become a total agreement when we get six votes together and pass something. It doesn't. seem to me like it's ethical for someone to divert something in that manner. Ifhe's . talking in a private conversation with her that's fine but to go on record and indicate that something was wrong with what we did. And we had two proposals, one from Mr. Shepard and one from Ms. S umner. We voted on both and agreed on her proposal. [ thought that would be the end of it. But ifhe wanted to change that [thought that he should have brought it back to the body. [fwe change it that would be fine but not to change it through a letter to her because that's disturbing. We're sending mixed signals and [ don't think we should do that at this time. And this is for information purposes only. iVIr. Shepard: NIr. Chairman, [ appreciate the opportunity to serve with you on all committees including the Law Department Committee. I was under the idea that we were to move in the form ofa hybrid model and quite frankly [don't think it's unethical and we may have differing opinions on that but I certainly don't accept your opinion that it is unethical. [think [ have the first amendment constitutional right to express myself as a public official on public business and I have done so in this body. I will do so in letters as [see fit. I certainly wanted to apprise Ms. Sumner of the hard work and many hours that I had put in this body and in this specific individual issue and my letter speaks for .. itself. I simply transmitted her a copy of the work that I had done to this regard and I stand by it. [do not think there is a thing wrong with it and I wiil stand on my tiTst amendment constitutional rights fuexpre5smyself in the appropriate manner as 1'see fit . ~ Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. ' it'!."'" ,:', ~c' Mr. Beard: As I said this is for information only. And I don't think it needs to go any further. ' ' . I Motion to approve indemnity agreement to allow construction' of convenience store ' without connecting to City water. " 1:" ,x-, . Mr. Oliver. Our current rules and regulations require that it be contiected. The bond issue that is up coming provides for the construction of this line, however it will not be there in time to facilitate this store. They plan on putting in a well or wells to meet their needs until the time city water becomes available at which time the agreement would require them to connect to city water and there would be a fire hydrant. But I want it known that there is no fire hydrant there, there will be no successful meanS, in our opinion to fight a fire if there is any sufficient fire at the structure and it could do substantial damage. Mr. Beard: Where is this located? Mr. Oliver. This is located on the corner of U.S. Highway 1 and Bath-Edie Road. Mr. Brigham: I would like to make a motion' that we approve. I Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Beard: Any discussion? Mr. Shepard: Jim, if there is a fire out there would the fire department respond but if the structure is consumed, I assume there will be gasoline sold on the premises since this is a convenience store? i'vIr. Allen: Yes, sir. But I was assured actually by Chief Rogers that the functionality of the Fire Department in fighting ~Ir, Shepard: So, they would respond but because of the lack of water pressure in the area there would be no legal problems. Mr. Oliver: They would have a pump truck and it's a matter of coordinating getting it there but there would be no source of water from the property so consequently your response time maybe delayed and also if you run out of water. So, we just want everybody to be well aware including the property owner that there is some additional risk but in about a year or so we will have a line coming across and will have a fire hydrant there. But at this point in time we cannot acco=odate the schedule. We reco=end approval as long as everybody realizes the risk. . NIr. Williams: What is the responsibility of the government if there were a serious fire out there? Are we liable at any time? I I I I Mr. Wall: In my opinion we have sovereign immunity but this agreement sets .: c forth the fact that one the property owner .tgrees to indemnify, so in my opinion we would have no liability under that scenario. But recognizing from the standpoint that the Fire Department is being asked to sign off on it is a waiver of our rules in so far as having: a commercial structure where you do not have a fire hydrant within 500 feet. I think we need the waiver and indemnity agreement and that's the reason its in there. But itdoes obligate the property owner at such time as water is located in the area he will connect to it. Mr. Mays: I think that sovereign immunity is a tool that government uses to hide, . - behind itself. The question I would ask is do we have a line of protection that protects the general public in a public place if we waive that rule? Mr. Allen; As a commercial business owner I have a complete commercial liability coverage program that would take any of that in to account through my personal insurance. This is considered such a minute problem that my insurance rates will not even be affected by it. Mr. Mays: My only response to that would be, that the insurance company also knows that a government has to issue that waiver. They may feel that the government is a little bit bigger than they are in terms of answering that claim. So if you get sued and your insurance company pays and if it is not enough to deal with the damage then I presume we will be looked at then we would hide behind that skirt of sovereign immunity. But if there are 8 to 10 folk in that store that get involved in ifand we've set back and waived those restrictions then I think we hide behind sovereign immunity. YoUr company pays but then those that we have left in that line of liability have not been protected. Mr. Wall: If this were a nursing home or an apartment complex then I think those considerations need to weigh heavily in favor of possibly not granting the waiver. A convenience store, where you have a limited number of people that will be in there and it will be freely accessible to get out of there. Yes, a catastrophe could happen. But, in my opinion the potential of any kind of liability coming to the government, the potential of any claim being asserted by an individual as a result of a fire occurring there and any inadequacies on the Fire Department for this type of convenience store recognizing that water is close at hand, in my opinion justifies approving the agreement. But it's a policy decision for you all to make. !vIr. Beard: We have a motion on the floor, any other questions or discussion on that motion? All in favor of that motion let it be known by the usual sign of votiilg. Motion carries unanimously. Discuss appoinrment ofInterim Fire Chief. Mr. Beard: I feel that it is necessary for there to be someone in charge of these departments when there is no permanent department head. I Mr. Williams: I would like to make a motion that we appoint Chief Carl Scott as the Interim Fire Chief until we can do appoint a chief for this department. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Shepard: My question for the Administrator and for the department is on what basis has the department been running on a day-to-day basis? Is there some contingency plan for an acting chief? I would like to know the progress on the search for a new chief? Mr. Oliver. The chain of conn and when the Chief was out of town was that Chief Scott was in charge_ As it relates to the schedule, the application closing date is August 31. It will take a week of so after that to screen it down to the most qualified candidates. At which point the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and myself will go thrOugh it and screen it down to three individuals for you all to consider. I would expect candidly that that will be the end of September the first part of October and assuming you make a selection after that typically it would be thirty to sixty days before someone would be in a position to start So I think we're talking sometime in November at the earliest. Mr. Shepard: So he is the acting Chief under existing protocol now, is that correct? Mr. Oliver. He is the acting Chief currently. I think it is incumbent upon me to, point out that based on the current requirements that neither one of the two Deputy Chiefs meet the qualifications to become the Chief. I Mr. Shepard: So you're saying the Interim Chief could not succeed to the Fire Chief? Mr. Oliver: As the rules are currently set, that's correct. Mr. Beard: I must iterate again that there is a need for someone to be in charge. I know that basically when someone is out of town someone is always in charge but we're talking about several months here and it is necessary for the fire service people to know that there is a person in charge and that person would be the acting person. I have no problem with the motion because Chief Scott is the acting person already and this is just making it official from this Committee and hopefully from the Commission. Mr. Mayor: Would there be any adjustment in his compensation during this period? Mr. Oliver: Under policy he would go up to the gre:lter of either i5 percent or to the bottom of :he ::mge tor 'he Fire Chief that' 3 :lccording to policy, I I I I Motiou fails 2-2 with Mr. Willlams and Mr. Beard voting yes and Mr. Brigham and Mr. Shepard'voting no. . . ~;;. .. Consider rental of space on the fourth floor of Bay Street for Indigent Defense and approve funding for additional office furniture in the amount of $4,000. (Funded from General Contingency) Mr. Long: I serve as a volunteer and I have been elected as Chairman of the Indigent Care Committee. You all approved the hiring of additional personnel as a request from the State Court of Richmond County to be able to provide additional " lawyers so that they could handle the cases as provided by the Constitution. As a result, we have hired and additional eight people. We need additional space because the building, we're in is on a month- to-month lease, the floor is caving in and we don't have. enough space for the additional persomi.el. This additional space will enable us to do ....,' that. The good news is we have received a $16,000 grant from the State and I was notified today that we received another $35,000 from the State for video conferencing which will allow us to interview people in jail by video to determine if they qualify. We would like for you all to approve this. The Bay Street building is vacant. You're already bringing engineering people over there and for the interim until we have additional county space available we will be satisfied with this. Mr. Beard: Randy, can we get an update on the Bay Street building. Mr. Oliver. I can give you an update on the financial part. The amount that will be needed from General Fund Contingency'to cover the rent and the furniture that is requested is $12,000. The new lease amount is $35,423 annually. The current rental amount is $8,100 so based upon this, this will create a budget short fall in next years budget of about $20,000 which ,viU have to be accounted for and budgeted for if you approve this action. Mr. Long: We are currently paying our own utilities. So it won't be that much. Mr. Shepard: Jack, I can remember sometime ago when I was dealing with the probation office before it was moved to Greene Street that it was at the Hale Street facility. It has come to my attention that the Hale Street facility, and correct me ifI'm wrong, is unoccupied and available at no cost to your budget. It's close to the Law Enforcement Center where the new personnel are working in State Court, which is the exclusive venue of State Court. In addition, Room 119 is utilized by Sup'erior Court for arraignment and sentencing. Why has the alternative and I ask this question to you and to Randy, why has the Hale Street alternative been placed in front of us to consider? Mr. Long: The Indigent Defense Committee unanimously rejected that based on safety factors. The fact that we have a number ofwomen who are there most of the time , and we have no means of security is the main concern. When the Probation Officers occupy the building they have to put bars on the "vindow, Therefore. we feel that this is not a safe place for our personnel. If we added additional security personnel it would be self-defeating. I Mr. Shepard: Do you currently have facilities in the Bay Street building? Mr. Long: No, we do not. ~Ir. Oliver: We previously reco=ended that the Hale Street option we looked at but it was turned down. Mr. Long: The current facility we have right now is on a month-to-month rental. We have basically three offices and use the file room that is not efficient. It will not acco=odate the personnel that we have nor the new equipment Mr. Oliver: One of the things we would be looking at with the new judicial aenter would be that Indigent Defense would be located within the judicial building when the building. Mr. Brigham: I'm going to make a motion that we offer the Hale Street facility to Indigent Defense and let them turn it down again since it is free space. I am uot going to see us waste $30,000 paying for rent when we own a building that is vacant. Mr. Williams: Second. I Mr. Cheek: It seems to me that if the Hale Street which is two blocks from the JLEC is unsafe for your occupants it's probably unsafe for the citizens there and this is a case where we need to retake our streets. I would like to see our Sheriff's Dept. make a consertive effort to make it safe for not only your employees but for everyone. Mr. Williams: My concern is the safety of the people for sure but with our law enforcement as many people as we have we need to take those protective measures to try and make it safe. Ifwe have' a building that's there and the building itself is ok I think we need to look at that and not spend any excess money, Mr. Colclough: Did probation have a problem when they occupied that buildingry Mr. Long: I think they had a problem until they put up bars also Probation is a little bit different from us they all carry guns. We have no one to provide security for the females. The Columbia County members, the Burke County members unanimouslv - . - voted not to move to that building when it was made available because of safety, They inspected the building it was an adequate. This is not just Richmond County's money even though Richmond County is paying the majority of the money, With the type of people that we have the type of people that come in, it is just not safe. It was unanimously voted on by the comminee members not to move to this building. I I I I After further discussion, Mr. Shepard: I would like to make a substitute motion that we hold' this in Committee to determine the viability of the Hale Street option versus the rental space. Mr. Beard: Second. , . ~. Motion carried unanimously. Discuss complaint - Sheriff's DepartmeDt. Mr. Mays: I had a complaint and I regarded it as any complaint that a citizen ' might have whether it was within response to anyone of the departments that we either manage directly or indirectly. I wanted to make sure that it followed through the channels. I also told the camp raining party in reference to where we had a budgetary performance that we dealt with the Sheriff's Department but that in terms of our direct performance that was not there. However, I would not deny access to a citizen who might have a complaint. Mr. Matthew Turner, complainant: On July 20 at approximately I :30 p.m. a Sheriff's Deputy pulled up in my yard and asked me to stop right there don't take your (profanity) in the house. He ran up on my porch took his foot and pushed my door closed. I asked him what was the problem? He tells me that I need to stay in the house unti14:00. I told him I had to pick up my kids at 3 :00 so can I get your card? He tells me that I was a smart (profanity). The other officer ran up with the same verbal and racial ' remarks. I told him since he did not have a card that ifhe would move his foot off my door that I would go inside and get some paper and pencil to take his name and number. He then tells me that I didn't need any paper because (profanity) was under arrest. At this point, I told him that ifhe moved his foot I would go inside and get some shoes and be right with you. ivIr. Beard: Can you hold it right there I think our attorney wants to say something. Mr. Wall: NIr. Chairman, this obviously needs to be investigated by Internal Affairs. I think that you're dealing with a situation that may result in a liability claim against the Sheriff's Department. While I appreciate the citizens right to come before -the Commission and address his concerns I think that there is a process through Internal Affairs within the Sheriff's Department and the Risk Management Department. My recom1i1endation would be that this matter be referred to Internal Affairs as well as Risk Management to look into the matter and investigate it and handle it as appropriate. NIr. Matthew: That has been done and they have not gotten back to me so I figured the Commissioners could do a little more, Mr. Wall: NIr, Chairman, again my response would is that there is a process in place. I don't think it is prudent for this Commission or for this Committee to get involved in giving everyone who has a claim against the city the opportunity to come before and publicly air those complaints. That is the reason for a courtroom. In extent I am going to reco=end that you not respond to the allegations. Which means that he gives a one-sided presentation. If this is going to be involved in litigation, if there is going to be a claim made. then it needs to be dealt with as a part of the legal process and not in a public forum. The courtroom is a public forum and that's the forum that is set aside to address grievances such as this. I Mr. Beard: Mr. Turner, you have taken this to Internal Affairs and you have not received a response. We have Chief Sid Hatfield here today what is the procedure for . responding to that? Maybe you can give him some idea of your response time. Chief Hatfield: I will begin and I will end by saying simply this is an internal investigation. It is an open and on going case. I challenge it gently yet politely as I can to the gentleman standing in front of you. He has in fact been interviewed and we have taken his statement. We have been given four names by this particular gentleman as wimesses and have been able to contact one of the four whom we have interviewed and taken a statement. We have not been able at this point in time been able to find the other three. That's not to say that they won't be found. But we are well aware of the complaint. Weare working on the complaint and in fact he has been in the Sheriff's office. We are still working that complaint. We will continue to work that complaint. And may I say if the Council chooses to force these matters or not, we will not make a co=ent to anybody in this room without this investigation. The law dictates that. As, a matter of fact, ten days after this investigation is complete the accused party will be ' notified. The law permits us to then and only then to discuss that. But I can only tell this board, this group that it is being held as a complaint. It is an active and on going investigation and we are conducting it. And I'm really surprised to see what I see here today, I Mr. Beard: The whole point Chief Hatfield is that I thought that since the young man has been given this opporruniry he should also understand that you are doing something, Normally when people feel that you are responding to them no maner what the outcome is it makes them feel better than to just not respond at all. And I think that he could be given that information that somebody is working on it or that the department is working on it. Chief Hatfield: Let me assure you he has been given that information. Mr. Turner: No, I have not. iVIr, Beard: We are not going to get into a debate here over this. I I I I Chief Hatfield: Let me say that I have not personally talked to the complainant or any member this is being done by Internal Affairs.' My current most recent briefing of that situation is exactly what I shared with YOIL . Mr. Beard: Another person that you can talk to is Mr. Thomas in the Human Relations Department. There are other avenues that you can go to too seek whatever grievances you may have. We have given you an opportunity to explain things here. We had Chief Hatfield here to indicate that something is being done. Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I thank lVIr. Thomas for sitting in on the meeting and Chief Hatfield for being here in a professional capacity representing the Sheriff's Department. What I have a little bit of a problem with is the fact that we're stating that the youngman has been given the opportunity to come before us and to address us. What, I do differ with and somewhat resent a little bit and I say this in the form ofa Commissioner and as a resident is that one the gentlemen was stopped by the attorney. Now I thought maybe the attorney was going to ask him to put, if there was foul language made to make that in a written comment and not deal with it in that manner or something. The person was stopped on behalf of the Attorney because this might go into litigation. Now how often have we sat here as a Commission and heard people who have threatened about water who threatened about other departments: Threatened to sue make every other allegation and they have said basically what they said. Now I don't think we should send mixed messages, Mr. Chairman. Because it maybe one department or another to say something may go into litigation. That's always a persons right even if it's a frivolous law suit to deal with it in t=s of litigation. But I think it that's going to be the.message that we send to the general public, we have not turned off any persons who wish to come and address this Commission about departments about issues, particularly that we fund and that we deal with their budgets. Obviously, if no law suit has been filed or declared and that's where with Mr. Wall. Now if we want to change the rules of the game Jim, and say that we're going to deal with those that we pay and that we govern. And that Mr. Thomas and the Sheriff's Department handle things that way or we refer all complaints to be heard through HRC that relate to law enforcement. But I think we're walking a forked path that speaks with a forked tongue to a point to sax that a person can't apply through the normal char.nels be it through the Clerk's office. and to ask that they be placed on or if a Commissioner ask that they hear a complaint under normal entities. I've been threatened more times to a point of people coming here and whether we have met them in other settings or whether they have done it here in these Chambers. It would not be the first time that accusations have been made against the government. But, I disagree with that lVIT. Mayor and NIT. Chairman to a point that we either need to change that rule, totally abolish it or we need to allow the departments that we want addresses made to or about to say that some things are off limits we are not going to hear because they deal with constitutional officers. But I think we need to be clear about. As long as those rules are out, as long as a law suit has not been filed then I think that we need to determine that. Because we have heard enough of them to a point that I'm bringing my lawyer, I'm suing. We've dealt with litigation we've even taken a point recently where :vIr. Wall guided us in a siruarion of dealing with public nuisances on behalf of private property owners to deal with litigation. So I differ with that and I also resent it. I Mr. Wall: NIr. Mays, I could stand to be corrected, but my recollection is that approximately two years ago as a result of a similar episode where a lawyer brought his client down here and made a public plea. In legal session an agreement was made that we would not bring such matters to the floor of the Commission. Because it is a one sided argument. Because my advice to you as the potential defendants in the law suit that " you have to stand mute listen to the allegations that are made against you or made against various departments. The Sheriff's Department is here in a situation where to a large extent they have to stand mute. We have turned down similar request where individuals have asked to bring complaints to a public forum so I respectfully disagree with you. I think allowing this individual to bring forth his claim in this public forum would be contrary to the rules that we adopted approximately two years ago. After further discussion, Mr. Beard: I want to conclude here. I think we have the gist of what is going on here. I hope that we have pointed out some avenues here that you can continue to follow and follow up on. I hope you understand that we are not turning you offwe're going by the legal ramifications that we have here. I hope that Chief Hatfield and NIr. Thomas have heard some of these allegations that you'll be getting and I hope that they will follow up on those. To Chief Hatfield there is a lot of this going on in the co=unity. You as a top person in the Sheriff's Department I hope that you will bring this to the attention of the Sheriff and other personnel in your department so that they can work On this because it looks like every week we're having some type of allegation in the community concerning similar events as this young man has stated here. I'm sure even you don't want your department to have that negative response to exist in our community, I think that the training be necessary for the young deputies out there to understand how they should talk to people. I Mr. Mayor: If! may make one suggestion. As Chief Hatfield has indicated under state law once the investigation is complete that investigation report is to be made public within ten days. If we could ask him to supply the Commission with a copy of that report. Chief Hatfield: I will be delighted to relay that request to the Sheriff. But I will come back only when he instructs me too, Legai Meeting. - Discus potential litigation. "'[r. Shepard: So move to postpone to the next meeting. 'vIr. 'Niiliams: Se~:md, I I I I ChiefHattield: Let me say that I have not personally talked to the complainant or any member this is being done by Internal Affairs. My current most recent briefing of that situation is exactly what I shared with you. Mr. Beard: Another person that you can talk to is Mr. Thomas in the Human Relations Department. There are other avenues that you can go to too seek whatever grievances you may have. We have given you an opportunity to explain things here. We had Chief Hattield here to indicate that something is being done. Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I thank lVIr. Thomas for sitting in on the meeting and ChiefHattield for being here in a professional capacity representing the Sheriff's Department. What I have a little bit of a problem with is the fact that we're stating that the young man has been given the opportunity to come before us and to address us. What., I do differ with and somewhat resent a little bit and I say this in the form of a ' Commissioner and as a resident is that one the gentlemen was stopped by the attorney. Now I thought maybe the attorney was going to ask him to put, if there was foul language made to make that in a written connent and not deal with it in that manner or something. The person was stopped on behalf of the Attorney because this might go into litigation. Now how often have we sat here as a Commission and heard people who have threatened about water who threatened about other departments. Threatened to sue make every other allegation and they have said basically what they said. Now I don't think we should send mixed messages, NIr. Chairman. Because it maybe one department or another to say something may go into litigation. That's always a persons right even if it's a frivolous law suit to deal with it in terms of litigation. But I think it that's going to be the, message that we send to the general public, we have not turned off any persons who wish to come and address this Commission about departments about issues, particularly that we fund and that we deal with their budgets. Obviously, if no law suit has been filed or declared and that's where with NIr. Wall. Now if we want to change the rules of the game Jim., and say that we're going to deal with those that we pay and that we govern. And that NIr. Thomas and the Sheriff's Department handle things that way or we refer all complaints to be heard through HRC that relate to law enforcement. But I think we're walking a forked path that speaks with a forked tongue to a point to say that a person can't apply through the itormal char.nels be it through the Clerk's office and to ask that they be placed on or if a Commissioner ask that they hear a complaint under normal entities. I've been threatened more times to a point of people coming here and whether we have met them in other settings or whether they have done it here in these Chambers. It would not be the first time that accusations have been made against the government. But, I disagree with that Mr. Mayor and lVIr. Chairman to a point that we either need to change that rule. totally abolish it or we need to allow the departments that we want addresses made to or about to say that some things are off limits we are not going to hear because they deal with constitutional officers. But I think we need to be clear about. As long as those rules are out, as long as a law suit has not been filed then I think that we need to determine that. Because we have heard enough of them to a point that I'm bringing my lawyer, I'm suing. We've dealt with litigation we've even taken a point recently where :VIr. Wall guided us in a situation of dealing '.vith public nuisances on behalf of private property owners to deal with litigation. So I differ with that and I also resent it. I Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays, I could stand to be corrected, but my recollection is that approximately two years ago as a result of a similar episode where a lawyer brought his client down here and made a public plea. In legal session an agreement was made that we would not bring such matters to the floor of the Commission. Because it is a one sided argument. Because my advice to you as the potential defendants in the law suit that you have to stand mute listen to the allegations that are made against you or made against various departments. The Sheriff's Department is here in a situation where to a large extent they have to stand mute. We have turned down similar request where individuals have asked to bring complaints to a public forum so I respectfully disagree with you. I think allowing this individual to bring forth his claim in.this public forum would be contrary to the rules that we adopted approximately two years ago, After further discussion, Mr, Beard: I want to conclude here. I think we have the gist of what is going on here. I hope that we have pointed out some avenues here that you can continue to follow and follow up on. I hope you understand that we are not turning you offwe're going by the legal ramifications thatwe have here. I hope that Chief Hatfield and Mr. Thomas have heard some of these allegations that you'll be getting and I hope that they will follow up on those. To Chief Hatfield there is a lot of this going on in the community. You as a top person in the Sheriff s Department I hope that you will bring this to the attention of the Sheriff and other personnel in your department so that they can work on this because it looks like every week we're having some type of allegation in the community concerning similar events as this young man has stated here. I'm sure even you don't want your department to have that negative response to exist in our community. I think that the training be necessary for the young deputies out there to understand how they should talk to people. I lvIr, Mayor: If! may make one suggestion. As Chief Hatfield has indicated under state law once the investigation is complete that investigation report is to be made public within ten days. Ifwe could ask him to supply the Commission with a copy of that report. Chief Hatfield: I will be delighted to relay that request to the Sheriff. But I will come back only when he instructs me too. Legal Meeting. - Discus poten tiallitigation. Mr. Shepard: So move to postpone to the next meeting. 'vIr. Williams: Second, I Motion carried unanimously. With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission PUBLIC SAFETY AGENDA COMMITIEE ROOM - August 7, 2000 3:30 P. M. I. Discuss Law Department. 2. Motion to approve indemnity agreement to allow construction of convenience store without connecting to City water. 3. Discuss appointment of Interim Fire Chief. 4. Consider rental of space on the fourth floor of Bay Street for Indigent Defense and approve funding for additional office furniture in the amount of $4,000. (Funded from General Fund Contingency) 5. Discuss complaint - Sheriffs Department. 6. Legal Meeting. - Discuss potential litigation.