powered help
header-left header-center header-right
Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
Meeting Name: COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE COMMISSION - COMMUNITY SURVEY & RESEARCH COMMITTEE Agenda status: Final
Meeting date/time: 6/9/2021 1:00 PM Minutes status: Final  
Meeting location: Virtual
Published agenda: Agenda Agenda Published minutes: Minutes Minutes  
Meeting video: eComment: Not available  
Attachments:
File #Ver.Agenda #TypeTitleActionResultTallyAction DetailsVideo
     Please join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/845841085 You can also dial in using your phone. (For supported devices, tap a one-touch number below to join instantly.) United States: +1 (872) 240-3412 - One-touch: tel:+18722403412,,845841085# Access Code: 845-841-085 Join from a video-conferencing room or system. Dial in or type: 67.217.95.2 or inroomlink.goto.com Meeting ID: 845 841 085 Or dial directly: 845841085@67.217.95.2 or 67.217.95.2##845841085     Not available
   1. Minutes Discussion and Approval

Minutes note: Call to order at 1:00 p.m. Present Steve Jansen, Deborah Blanks and Paul Mozina. Also Present: Jack D. McNally FPC Compliance Auditor, Edgar Mendez Neighborhood News Service. Minutes from the April 28th meeting not available.
    Not available
   2. Discussion of Committee Chair (Volunteer and Appointments)

Minutes note: Steve Jansen explained that Dr. Pam Malone would no longer be the Chair and thanked her for seeing the need for the Committee and getting it started.
    Not available
   3. Choosing a new Committee Chair

Minutes note: Deborah Blanks nominated Paul Mozina to be the Chair. Paul Mozina asked if it was necessary to be a member of the Commission to be a Chair of one of its Committees (he is not a Commissioner). Steve Jansen thought it would be fine and seconded the nomination. Paul Mozina accepted and mentioned that he will endeavor to make a video of the meetings publicly available going forward.
    Not available
   4. Short Discussion of Research Survey Thoughts

Minutes note: Paul asks if everyone can access the spreadsheet we are using to organize and review the survey questions that he shared from Google docs. He explains how the spreadsheet is organized and reminded the Committee of their mandate: “Conduct an annual survey of Milwaukee residents belonging to communities that are statistically more likely to interact with member of the Police department about the resident’s views on police-community relations.” Paul reminded the Committee that Dr. Pam Malone had suggested that we refer to the 2 MPD surveys that were commissioned by the Common Council (available attached to CC File 200315 https://milwaukee.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4576426&GUID=470F90D4-A224-4B00-B9DD-96B5DE83ED4A&Options=&Search=), one in 2017 and the second in 2019 and he listed all of the questions asked in these surveys in the first column. He explained that for every question in the Common Council’s survey, we could list the similar questions submitted by the Committee to see where the overlap was. The spreadsheet can also be used to show the similarities between questions asked by different Committee members.
    Not available
   5. Beginning the process of approving survey questions

Minutes note: Steve asked if Paul had added his questions to the spreadsheet and he confirmed that he had. They are of a slightly different nature seeking to find out what the community knows about the DOJ Collaborative Reform Initiative, the Charles Collins et al., vs., City of Milwaukee et. al. Settlement Agreement and the history of the Community Collaborative Commission. He wondered if they were appropriate questions given the survey mandate. Steve suggested that the survey be divided into themes: background, feelings about police etc... Deborah suggested that we look into hiring or contracting with someone who is very experienced at developing surveys. We could provide short paragraphs providing background information for each category of questions. And she suggested we explain what the purpose of the survey is and make sure all of the questions are aligned and that we get people skilled in performing surveys to review and fine tune what we propose to ask with the goal of making it a credible, valid, reliable tool. Paul agreed with Steve’s suggestion to organize the survey questions into themes and with Deborah’s suggestion to enlist the help of people skilled in formulating and conducting surveys. He asked if the questions he had suggested were legitimately within the scope of the original mandate and both Steve and Deborah confirmed that they were. Regarding the scope of the survey, Steve emphasized the importance of getting it done, and started, by the end of the year, so we cannot stray too far afield. He thought we could accomplish our goal within the current mandate and stressed the urgency of proceeding and beginning to talk to folks on the street. Paul continues the review by reading Deborah’s questions. Deborah reminds us that questions that ask the person to rate something should have a scale by which they can do so. She had in fact included a scale for her first two questions, but Paul did not include them in the spreadsheet (added now). Paul thought Deborah’s 4th and 5th questions were similar: What is one thing law enforcement could do to improve community-police relations? What is a major issue that affects your perception of law enforcement? We concluded that they were both valuable and we proceeded to begin reviewing Dr. Pam Malone’s questions, which also help differentiate them. Paul did not include the scales that Dr. Pam had suggested for her questions and Steve pointed that out. The spreadsheet has been updated to include her suggested scales for responses. We relate Dr. Pam’s first two questions (I am stopped by law enforcement when I do not believe I had broken any laws, including traffic laws. and, A friend or family member was stopped by law enforcement but did not believe any laws were broken.) to the three new questions that Steve added regarding factual information about a person’s encounters with police (Since Jan 1, 2020, have you been stopped and questioned by a city of Milwaukee police officer? If yes, above, were you frisked? If Yes above, did you get a ticket or were you arrested in that stop?) Deborah thought Steve’s questions would provide useful factual information whereas Dr. Pam’s questions were more focused on a person’s perception. Deborah questioned whether we were trying to get to whether every person had a certain perception of police or whether we wanted to know if the respondent was speaking for a larger group. Does the person feel like they were discriminated against or does the person feel like people of color are discriminated against more? Steve reiterates the difference between his questions, which are factual, versus Dr. Pam’s questions, which are more feeling based. He said both the facts and feelings are important. Deborah questioned whether we want to focus on the individual’s experience or their perception of how people of color in general are treated. Steve thought it would be better to focus more on how the individual themselves was treated rather than have them attempt to extrapolate their personal feelings to a broader community. Paul asks Steve about his reasons for asking specific factual questions about people’s experiences with police and Steve explains the importance of gathering more data and refers to a recent discussion at the last full CCC meeting. Paul offers to share some Dashboards he has created based on the data that the MPD has provided to the FPC per the Collins Settlement Agreement which show a huge disparity between how many times Black people are searched during a traffic stop versus white people. The Crime and Justice Institute did mention this in their “City of Milwaukee Settlement Agreement Six-Month Report on Non-Compliant Items March 2021” page 14: “Recently, MPD reported that after a recent internal audit revealed potential bias and disparate treatment in the way some patrol officers used the smell of marijuana to search vehicles in communities of color, members of the Executive Staff took a closer look at the data. As a result, a directive was issued mandating that additional factors must be present beyond the smell of marijuana in order to justify the search of a vehicle. We hope additional proactive measures are taken as a result of this requirement in the Agreement and will continue to track these efforts.” In fact, the Dashboards that Paul shared demonstrate a remarkable reduction in the number of times Black people were stopped and searched and nothing was found that coincides with the timing of the MPD Executive Staff’s directive. See (https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/paul.mozina/viz/2019Q3-4and2020TrafficStopsWithSearchesResultingInWarningandNoContrabandFound/2019Q3-4and2020TrafficStopsWithSearchesResultingInWarningandNoContrabandFoundDashboard) Meeting adjourned: 2:05 P.M. Minutes provided by Paul Mozina.
    Not available