January 26, 2016

Honorable Judge John A. West

1. Policy for Guests Participation, Judge West
2. Miscellaneous, Judge West
3. Campus Survey Update, Dr. Robin S. Engel, V.P. for Safety & Reform

1. Process Overview, Dr. Engel
2. Discussion of Finalists, Judge West

*Agenda items not completed at the January meeting will be held over to the February meeting.

• Tuesday, February 16, 2016 from 5:00 – 7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion
• Tuesday, March 22, 2016 from 5:00 – 7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion

CAC Members

• Judge John West, Chairman
• Eric Abercrumbie
• Doug Barge
• Marcus Bethay
• Dejanay Drummonds
• Michael Ealy
• Peg Fox
• Bobby Hilton
• Chara Jackson
• Doloris Learmonth
• Jack Martin
• Janet Moore
• Andrew Naab
• James Schwab
• KZ Smith
• Ennis Tait
• Terri Theetge
• Charlene Ventura

UC Administration

• S. Gregory Baker
• Robin Engel
• Bleuzette Marshall
• James Whalen

CAC Members Not in Attendance

• Aaron Greenlea
  

Judge John West

• Discussed the addition of new members to the CAC group. Judge West reported that he corresponded with: 1) City of Cincinnati Councilmember Christopher Smitherman regarding his request to add additional members to the CAC from UC Black fraternities and sororities; 2) Carol Gibbs from the Mt. Auburn Community Council regarding her request to be added to the CAC; and 3) Al Gerhardstein, attorney for the DuBose family regarding their request to designate a person to be added to the CAC.
• Judge West reported that in all cases, he declined to increase the CAC, as our current members were hand-picked to represent the specific communities as stakeholders in UC Police reform.
• Judge West also clarified comments heard regarding members of the DuBose family having an active role as members of the CAC. The settlement agreement between UC and the DuBose family requires that the family be notified and invited to the CAC meetings, but not to serve on the Council. Judge West noted that the CAC was developed prior to the settlement agreement, and not as a part of that settlement agreement.
• Judge West confirmed that he does not want to increase size or change the dynamics of the membership.
• Discussed Agenda for tonight’s meeting, and noted that agenda items IV and V will not be addressed in this meeting.

Vice President Robin Engel

• 2015 annual crime information has been released; measures are for Part 1 crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft/larceny, auto theft) reported to the Cincinnati Police Department in the approximate one mile surrounding campus (https://uc.edu/content/dam/uc/safety-reform/documents/CSR%20Map.pdf).
• Discussed trends that include a 19% reduction in Part I crime incidents in 2015 compared to the previous year; specifically robberies declined 39.6% compared to last year and 46% reduction compared to the previous three-year average.
  • CAC Member requested graphics be posted on the Safety & Reform website to demonstrate the reductions in 2015 compared to previous years, as discussed by Vice President Engel.
  • Noted reductions in crime occurred despite restriction of the UCPD to conduct traffic stops.
  • Director Jim Whalen commended the tremendous work of the UCPD and thanked CPD for their increased assistance particularly during increased activity on campus, i.e., move-in days, etc.
• Discussed Perceptions of Policing Survey
  • Survey to be released on Feb 15 to all UC students, faculty/staff
  • Survey designed to establish a baseline of experiences with and attitudes towards the UCPD and the CPD (patrolling in the areas surrounding campus)
  • Survey developed by experts form the School of Criminal Justice
  • First comprehensive survey post officer-involved shooting of Samuel DuBose, and the first policing-specific survey administered to the UC community in recent years
  • All UC students, faculty, staff will receive an email to active UC email account; does not get sent via text message or telephone call
  • Goal: On-going assessment across multiple years; use findings to inform reform efforts for the UCPD
  • Discussed ways to encourage participation to ensure the outcome is a true representation of the larger UC community
  • Encouraged student body representatives to share information about the survey with their organization and peers
  • CAC will be presented the survey findings and will have the opportunity to brainstorm recommendations

Vice President Robin Engel

• Provided summary of the timeline for the RFP
  • Oct/Nov: RFP written (with input from CAC)
  • Nov 16: RFP issued
  • Dec 21: RFP responses due (6 proposals received)
  • Dec 23: Selection committee identified / materials sent
• Selection Committee:
  • Bishop Bobby Hilton (CAC Member)
  • Pastor KZ Smith (CAC Member)
  • Andrew Naab (CAC Member)
  • Chara Fisher Jackson (CAC Member)
  • Robert Ambach (Senior VP of Administration & Finance)
  • Kenya Faulkner (VP of Legal Affairs & General Counsel)
  • Bleuzette Marshall (Chief Diversity Officer)
  • S. Gregory Baker (Director of Police-Community Relations)
  • Chair: Vice President Ryan Hays (non-voting member)
  • Subject Matter Expert: Vice President Robin Engel (non-voting member)
  • Subject Matter Expert: Director James Whalen (non-voting member)
• Robin Engel developed a scoring sheet for use by selection committee members as they reviewed the proposals to identify specific criteria and help standardize this process
  • Jan 04: Selection committee conference call
  • Jan 08: Selection committee meeting (2 finalists selected)
  • Jan 13: Finalists contacted & scheduled for interviews
  • Jan 21: Bidder 1 (Kroll) on-campus interview
  • Jan 22: Bidder 2 (Exiger) on-campus interview
    • Both teams met with: President Ono, Robin Engel, members of the Board of Trustees, members of the President’s Cabinet, UCPD command staff and officers, and CAC members.
    • Meeting with CAC was two hours in duration, and included 30 min. presentation, 60 min. structured Q&A, and 30 minute open questions from individual CAC Members
    • Selection Committee identified 15 structured questions (based on suggestions from CAC Members) to ask both teams during formal Q&A interview session
    • Final selection decision will be made by President Santa Ono, Judge John West, and Dr. Robin Engel on January 27, 2016.
  • Tentative Plan:
    • Jan 27 select vendor
    • Feb 01 contract executed
    • Apr 4 Interim Report Due
    • June 1 Final Report Due (date may need to be adjusted based on bidders/ work flow)
• Judge West thanked selection committee and entire CAC for meeting with the two vendors.
• Director Gregory Baker and Robin Engel will hold a community forum with the selected team as soon as possible after their selection.
• Director Baker would like to have open forums to update community groups and other interest parties on the status of the reform efforts. He would specifically like to have a forum with African-American students.
• Robin Engel disclosed that she has worked with both teams in the past as a consultant prior to her current position as Vice President of Safety and Reform, and further that she had worked with or knew (in a professional capacity) members from 5 of the 6 teams that applied. She has withdrawn from all consulting projects since her appointment as Vice President.
• CAC members were concerned about consultants on a single team having multiple other commitments, which may possibly inhibit their ability to work collaboratively on a single report.
• Director Baker discussed the review process based on his involvement as the Compliance Coordinator for the Collaborative Agreement. In his experience, all team members (monitors) prepared recommendations based on their areas of expertise and those recommendations were all compiled into one final report. They split their time and would meet all together when necessary.
• Judge West opened the floor to discussion regarding the two vendors.

• CAC members discussed their preference between the two finalists: Kroll and Exiger.
• At the conclusion of the discussion, the majority of the CAC members indicated a preference for Exiger, although support for both teams was given.
• CAC Members favor a team strong enough to listen to unfavorable statements regarding police and UCPD specifically, and integrate these into recommendations.
• Robin Engel noted that the review team must be concerned with diversity and inclusion issues that incorporate all racial/ethnic, gender, nationality, etc. groups.
• Other members wanted to confirm that while this review may be concerned with the interactions between UCPD and other groups, Black males are the most adversely affected.
• Members shared being pleased with the advancements that have been made thus far, and specifically the work of the CAC.

• Q: Did either team know who the finalists were? A: No, neither team was given the name of the other finalist. All teams who submitted a bid are aware of their competition but neither team was provided information from UC.
• Q: Will all members of the teams be committed to the UCPD? A: Most of the experts on both teams have a full time jobs and act as consultants on projects such as this. Robin Engel confirmed that both teams have indicated they will be fully committed to UCPD and are prepared to spend the proposed number of hours on this project if awarded.
• Q: Is Kroll the same team that performed the investigation for the police officer-involved shooting of Samuel DuBose? A: Yes. The incident was investigated by CPD and results were turned over to Hamilton County for prosecution. UC hired Kroll for an independent investigation of the incident.
• Q: How much experience does each group have with an urban university police force? A: Robin Engel confirmed that during the presentation to President Ono, both teams had reported working with universities specifically located in urban areas. Exiger discussed differences between policing in an open campus versus a closed campus.
• Q: Is Exiger going to be able to commit to UCPD with the various projects they mentioned in different parts of the country? A: Robin Engel explained that while they are contracted for various projects, they commit a specific amount of time to each project. Exiger provided the estimated number of hours for each expert, while Kroll did not provide that information.
• Q: Why did the teams meet in different conference rooms for their presentation to CAC? A: Robin Engel explained that due to the weather forecast, UC closed early and the meeting was moved to earlier in the day, causing the change in the room availability.
• Q: Will either team be committed to go all the way to the top of the university leadership hierarchy if necessary regarding hiring in the UCPD? A: Both teams discussed going as high as possible to work on issues to create a best practice in every area of the review.
• Q: Why weren’t the CAC members provided with the budgets of each team? Was this on purpose? A: Robin Engel answered – Yes, the decision needed to be made based on their ability to perform the review, not for budgetary reasons. Both teams were very similar in costs however. The Selection Committee did have the full costs as part of their initial review for the selection of the two finalists.
• Q: How did everyone feel regarding the community engagement methods of each team? A: Members expressed that Kroll gave excessive and overly broad answers regarding community engagement; others felt that Exiger provided clearer, precise methods to be used.
• Q: Did selection committee members feel that Kroll could be objective since they performed the investigation a few months ago? If not, why did Selection Committee pick them as a finalist? A: It was unanimous among the Selection Committee that these two teams were the best choices, with proposals that exceed the quality of the others received. The Selection Committee did discuss whether Kroll could be objective, and it was decided it would be appropriate to let those questions be asked directly during the on-campus interview process. Some CAC Members noted concerns that Kroll may not be able to make recommendations in areas that they already reviewed in the initial report.

• Robin Engel noted that the final decision will be made on Wednesday, 1/27/16, with President Ono and Judge West. The information will not be disclosed until after a contract is signed, but CAC Members will know within a week of the decision.
• Judge West thanked everyone for their comments and closed this agenda item.

Director Gregory Baker

• State of Ohio released two million dollars in grants funds for police community relations.
• Each police organization can apply for a $30,000 grant.
• Would like ideas/input from CAC for UCPD application.
• Deadline for applications is March 1, 2016.

• The regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 from 5:00 – 7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion has been rescheduled to Tuesday, February 16, 2016 from 5:00 -7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion
• Tuesday, March 22, 2016 from 5:00 – 7:00 PM in 320 University Pavilion