Attachment A - PSJ Minutes March 10 2021.pdf

Phoenix City Council 
Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee 
Summary Minutes 
Wednesday, March 10, 2021 
City Council Chambers  
200 West Washington Street 
Phoenix, Arizona 
Subcommittee Members Present     
 Subcommittee Members Absent 
Councilman Michael Nowakowski, Chair 
Vice Mayor Thelda Williams 
Councilwoman Betty Guardado 
Councilmember Carlos Garcia 
Call to Order 
Chairman Nowakowski called the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee to order at 
9:01 a.m. with Councilwoman Guardado, Councilmember Garcia, and Vice Mayor 
Williams present via WebEx. 
Call to the Public 
Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton introduced Julie Kriegh from the Law Department. 
Ms. Kreigh stated that, during public comment, residents are expected to be civil and 
respectful. Any resident using profane language or expressing personal attacks or 
threats could lose their opportunity to speak. 
Laurel Langmade encouraged the City of Phoenix to update the public on their progress 
around the Human Services campus and expressed concern about community safety.  
Minutes of the Meetings 
1. For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Public Safety and Justice
Subcommittee meeting on February 10, 2021
Chairman Nowakowski asked why the Challenge Coin item was not on the agenda.
Ms. Kriegh stated the Challenge Coin incident was being independently investigated 
and all findings would be made available to the public once the investigation completed. 
Vice Mayor Williams motioned to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2021 Public 
Safety and Justice Subcommittee. Councilwoman Guardado seconded the motion. The 
motion passed unanimously, 4-0.  
Consent Action (Item 2) 
Item 2 was for consent action. No presentations were planned, but staff was available to 
answer questions. 
Attachment A

2. Authorization to Apply for FY 2021 Homeland Security Grant Program Funds 
Vice Mayor moved for approval. 
Assistant City Manager Barton stated 38 e-comments were submitted. 
The chair opened the floor for public comment. 
Hava Derby expressed concern about the transparency of this item and the amount of 
money given to Police. 
Anesia Groves expressed concern about the amount of funds allocated to the Police 
Department. 
Hana Hehman expressed concern about police transparency and the amount of funds 
allocated to the Police Department. 
Kelly Kwok expressed concern about accountability in the Police Department. 
Karen Olson expressed concern about the funds given to the Police Department 
through the Homeland Security Grant. 
Mr. Barton asked all public comments stay on topic per the agenized item.  
Patricia Pagliuca expressed concern about funds given to the Police Department and 
asked all residents who were silenced or skipped over be given permission to speak. 
Brandon Valentin expressed concern about residents not having the chance to speak.  
April McCue expressed concern about police transparency and the funds given to the 
Police Department via the Homeland Security Grant.  
Councilmember Garcia asked that all residents be given the opportunity to provide 
public comments.  
Lola N’sangou expressed concern about increased funds going to the Police 
Department and the ability to provide public comment.  
Vanessa DiCarlo expressed concern about the funds from the Homeland Security Grant 
going to the Police Department.  
Vice Mayor Williams motioned to approve consent item 2. Councilwoman Guardado 
seconded the motion, which passed, 3-1. 
Information Only (Item 3) 
3. Domestic Violence Policy Terms and Conditions in City Contracts 
Information only. No Councilmember requested additional information.

Mr. Barton noted three e-comments were submitted. 
Information and Discussion (Items 4-5) 
4. Rule 15 Disclosure Process (Brady) 
City Attorney Cris Meyer introduced the item and presenters City Prosecutor Bob Smith 
and Elizabeth Ortiz from Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council (APAAC). 
 
Mr. Smith gave an overview of the Rule 15 (Brady) Disclosure Process. He noted 
through the rule, the City was required to disclose defense but not act as an oversight 
for Police. Mr. Smith noted the origin and evolution of Rule 15.  
 
Mr. Smith gave an overview of the Rule of Evidence and Rules of Criminal Procedure 
for Rule 15. He then went over inquiry procedures and reviewed the Rule 15 (Brady) 
process. He noted the City Prosecutor’s Office did not maintain a list but rather a 
database and highlighted the range of criteria that would get an on officer on the Rule 
15 (Brady) database.  
 
Mr. Smith stated the City has an internal committee to review the allegations and 
highlighted the committee review process. He noted a range of criteria that would get an 
officer on the database and the overall intent of fairness and due process. He reiterated 
the database does not allow the City or the prosecutors oversight or discipline.  
 
Mr. Smith stated an officer remains in the Rule 15 (Brady) database if there was any 
chance the officer may be called as a witness to testify. He noted any case with a 
warrant would remain in the database until the case was resolved or if new evidence 
where the witness lied about a Police Officer could be grounds for removal from the 
Rule 15 (Brady) database. 
 
Chairman Nowakaski asked Ms. Kriegh to read the rules for public comment.  
 
Ms. Kriegh read the public comment rules.  
 
Mr. Barton asked Ms. Ortiz to present her presentation. 
 
Ms. Ortiz gave an overview of Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council 
(APAAC) and the organization’s makeup. She noted APAAC’s primary focus was to 
train and assist prosecutors to develop the skills to do their jobs. She stated APAAC 
used best practices to assist prosecution agencies on how to gather and report 
information. Ms. Ortiz noted APAAC was unable to mandate best practices but instead 
made the best practices available on the public APAAC website. She highlighted the 
APAAC’s role to provide a database for Arizona and promote transparency. She stated 
the database was hosted on APAAC website and the data from prosecution offices 
could be added or deleted as needed.  
 
Chairman Nowakaski asked Vice Mayor Williams to take over as Chair at 9:59 a.m.

Ms. Ortiz stated anyone could access the APAAC database. She provided an overview 
of APAAC’s rollout plan using the best practices and noted the database went live on 
Oct. 1, 2020.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked for clarification on the term “Brady List”. 
 
Mr. Smith stated the term “Brady List” had been used for a long time but the information 
was not on a list but stored and maintained on a database.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if other jurisdictions have lists and if the City of Phoenix 
would be opposed to maintaining a list.  
 
Mr. Smith stated he was unsure of what other jurisdictions utilize and further research 
would be needed if a list could be used in the future.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if the City of Phoenix was abiding by the rules and fully 
disclosing all information.  
 
Mr. Smith stated all prosecutors must obey due to duty, ethical obligations, and law 
requirements. He stated the City of Phoenix was in the process of transitioning to a new 
case management system, and the prosecutors were abiding by the rules and fully 
disclosing all information.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked about the process of disclosing information and who 
makes up the internal committee. 
 
Mr. Smith stated three prosecutors were on the internal committee and reviewed reports 
to determine whether an officer’s behavior warranted being placed on the Rule 15 
(Brady) database. He noted three separate committee members review the decision. 
Mr. Smith highlighted an independent appeal process if an officer desired to appeal 
being on the Rule 15 (Brady) database. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked who determined the witnesses on the list and asked if 
there was a conflict of interest. 
 
Mr. Smith stated if an outside or independent agency handled the information the City of 
Phoenix prosecutors would not be abiding by their ethical obligation. He noted no 
concerns for bias or failure to meet the obligation.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked why the prosecutors did not disclose all information and 
about the difference between City of Phoenix prosecutors deciding what was 
appropriate versus a judge. 
 
Mr. Smith stated the judge would not be able to meet ethical obligation. He noted the 
judge’s role was to determine if a case was probative or relevant to a case. He stated

the prosecutor’s role was to determine whether the information met the categories or 
qualified for conduct or behavior for the Rule 15 (Brady) database.  
 
Councilmember Garcia noted perception issues related to prosecutors determining what 
information a judge and others could see and how that could be perceived as a conflict 
of interest. He followed by asking when a defense attorney would have access to the 
Brady List. 
 
Mr. Smith stated Rule 15 (Brady) provided a timeline when a case would be disclosed. 
He stated Rule 15 (Brady) information was disclosed as part of the discovery process 
when a case was set to pre-trial conference.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if there was a problem with over-disclosing information or 
having a list of names. 
 
Mr. Smith noted the list was public with the statewide database. He stated a list would 
not help if it did not provide underlying conduct. He noted the Prosecutor’s Office 
disclosed items on the database and those items were reviewed intently. He noted no 
issue from the defense bar indicating lack of shared information. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked who was on the internal committee reviewing information 
and how members of the committee were held accountable. 
 
Mr. Smith stated any concerns about discourse would go to him as he was on the 
appellate side. He noted the committee uses an odd number to ensure a balance.  
 
Garcia asked if a database or list could be developed to limit officers with credibility 
issues from being called in. 
 
Mr. Smith stated a database or list could be explored. He highlighted special cases 
where the officer on the Brady database was the sole witnesses on a case and without 
a witness the case may not be able to proceed. He stated the cases need to be 
evaluated by a prosecutor. Mr. Smith many individuals on the Brady database had 
severe charges and were not typically called upon unless necessary. He stated no 
functional use of a “do not call” list of officers in the Brady database.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked how a defendant or defense attorney would check the 
database. 
 
Mr. Smith stated per Rule 15 disclosure, the City Prosecutors proactively provided 
information from the Brady Database. He stated the defense attorney was able to ask 
the City Prosecutors for additional information.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if communication between City Prosecutor’s Office and 
police communications were sufficient and if the City was being accountable and 
transparent in disclosing information about City employees.

Mr. Smith clarified Rule 15 was not a vehicle of oversight or discipline. He stated the 
City was participating in the APAAC database to be more accountable and transparent 
to effectively produce a list of names. He stated if the County Attorney notified the City 
of Phoenix with an officer who had charges on the Brady database, the City of Phoenix 
would disclose the information and the same in reverse. Mr. Smith stated the County 
Attorney had their own Brady obligations and maintained their database. He stated a 
public records request could be submitted to obtain information from the City of Phoenix 
Police Department.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked about best practices used in Arizona to compile the 
APAAC statewide database. 
 
Ms. Ortiz stated APAAC had no jurisdiction to mandate or require information. She 
noted the APAAC did not reach out to prosecuting agencies for information on their 
processes, rather the agencies provided information to APAC.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if the participating jurisdictions provided general 
information or followed regulations to share with APAAC.  
 
Ms. Ortiz stated she called prosecutors’ offices to gain information and asked if APAC 
could assist and share information.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked since no qualifying information was requested, if equal 
information was provided by various jurisdictions. 
 
Mrs. Ortiz stated a spreadsheet was given to a database manager and they submitted 
information. The provided information that was standardized by APAAC. She noted the 
database manager shared precise but limited information. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if public defenders were included and could acquire or 
access the information from APAAC. 
 
Ms. Ortiz stated she could not recall any members of the defense bar. She noted the 
process was implemented to share the integrity database information and the 
information would be given to the defense, but the information provided did not have 
ethical obligation for disclosure. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked why information might be deleted. 
 
Ms. Ortiz stated circumstances where the underlying information for a case may have 
changed, such as if an officer was cleared from the alleged conduct. She noted another 
circumstance could be if a person was placed on the integrity database due to medical 
issues that impacted memory and was subsequently resolved. Ms. Ortiz stated 
circumstances could change and stressed the importance of current and accurate 
information.

Councilmember Garcia asked who had the responsibility to release information. 
 
Ms. Ortiz stated disclosure was on each individual prosecutor and agency.  
 
Mr. Meyer noted cases were handled on a case by case basis with the defense attorney 
and the court regarding the disclosed information. He stated the prosecuting offices 
were subject to court and bar licenses and the prosecutor’s ability to practice to law 
could be impacted if they failed to meet their disclosure obligations.  
 
Councilwoman Guardado asked how many years it took for police disciplinary records 
to be purged for the hiring process.  
 
Executive Assistant Police Chief Michael Kurtenbach noted the records were never 
purged from the City of Phoenix Human Resource files and the records would remain 
with Human Resources for the entirety of an officer’s career. He stated the files would 
remain for five years beyond their separation from the Police Department. He noted the 
department files have language to purge in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 
but the file never goes away.  
 
Councilwoman Guardado asked what information comes with a police officer from 
another jurisdiction and if the City of Phoenix would know if the officer was on the Brady 
List. 
 
Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated the hiring review process explicitly asked 
candidates whether they were on the Brady List. He stated officers must be certificated 
through Arizona and each employee undergoes a comprehensive background check, 
including a check on the Brady List to ensure the employee was in good standing.  
 
Councilwoman Guardado asked what happens if an officer lies about their status on the 
Brady List. 
 
Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated the Police Department would not hire the 
individual. 
 
Councilwoman Guardado asked how the Brady List was used in the Human Resources 
Department. 
 
Mr. Smith stated the Brady database was information generated for the Rule 15 
Disclosure process and noted the lack of a list. He stated the Rule 15 information was 
provided to Prosecutor’s Office as an obligation to the court process. He stated the 
Brady List was not shared between departments; the intent for Rule 15 (Brady) was for 
court cases disclosure to the defense.  
 
Councilwoman Guardado asked for a database or list to be used in the hiring process 
as a preventative measure to avoid hiring problematic officers and build community

trust. She thanked everyone for their presentation and highlighted the need to continue 
working on these issues. 
 
Mr. Smith responded that the Phoenix Police Department considered other agencies’ 
Rule 15 (Brady) database when hiring. He noted the importance of assessing the 
underlying conduct on the disclosure information when hiring.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if the Brady List information could be considered for 
officer assignments. 
 
Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stressed the importance of understanding 
behavior and underlying conduct when determining assignments. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked when an officer becomes a liability to the department and 
prosecutors and needs to be reassigned or let go. 
 
Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated of the 1,400 Police Recruits hired since 
March 2015 not one of the officers was on the Brady database. He stated the Brady 
database information was included as part of the Human Resources hiring practices. He 
reiterated the Department assessed the underlying conduct of each officer on the Brady 
database. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked how information was accessed to determine if an officer 
was on the Brady List. 
 
Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated candidates were asked if they are on the 
Brady List, and if the officer lied that would be an automatic disqualifier. He stated the 
City of Phoenix Police Department would reach out to the applicant’s jurisdiction to 
determine whether applicants were included in the Brady database.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if the names on Brady List were shared with other Police 
Departments. 
 
Mr. Smith stated all information was disclosed and information could be requested via 
Public Record. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked what system was used to disclose information about 
Phoenix officers and how the information was shared with other jurisdictions. 
 
Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated all information would be disclosed with the 
agency requesting information. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked what list would be used to share information with other 
jurisdictions.

Mr. Meyer stated the APAAC database could be used to share information with other 
jurisdictions along with the employee personnel file. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if it was easy to determine if an officer was on the Brady 
List. 
 
Mr. Barton stated just being on the Brady List does not mean an officer cannot be hired. 
He reiterated the importance of assessing the reason an officer was on the Brady List. 
He noted the Police Department would conduct a thorough background check. Mr. 
Barton stated the Brady List was a tool used by prosecutor’s offices, not a sharable 
database.  
 
Mr. Smith stated the Brady database was for limited purpose of the court case and was 
not used for oversight or discipline. He stated if any jurisdiction requested information 
regarding an officer, they would assess the underlying conduct and corresponding 
personnel files.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked if the information from the Brady List was automatically 
shared with other jurisdictions. 
 
Mr. Smith stated the requesting jurisdiction would know based on the information 
shared in the Rule 15 (Brady) database. 
 
Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated the Phoenix Police Department reaches 
out to the officer’s former employer to acquire their professional standards file as well as 
the prosecutor’s county and city to gain information from the Rule 15 database. 
 
Chairwoman Williams asked if information from the personnel file or Rule 15 database 
would be provided to jurisdictions when hiring an officer. 
 
Mr. Meyer stated information from the personnel file would be provided. He noted the 
Brady list outlines witness credibility and was a small subset of what an employer would 
want to know about an employee. 
 
Chairwoman Williams asked if information from the Rule 15 (Brady) database would be 
in the personnel file. 
 
Mr. Meyer stated to his knowledge the Rule 15 (Brady) information was included in the 
personnel file. 
 
Matt Heil stated 36 e-comments were submitted. 
 
The chair opened the floor for public comment. 
Hava Derby expressed concerns about the how the Brady List was used and asked for 
police accountability and transparency.

Vanessa DiCarlo asked all charges against protestors be dropped and expressed 
concerns about the members of the Tactical Response Unit being on the Brady List and 
asked for police accountability and transparency. 
 
Anesia Groves expressed concerns about the Brady List presentation and asked for 
police accountability and transparency and all charges on protestors be dropped. 
 
Hana Hehman expressed concerns about how the Brady List was utilized and asked for 
police accountability and transparency.  
 
Chairman Nowakowski re-joined the meeting at 11 a.m. 
 
Patricia Pagliuca shared concerns about the long presentations and expressed 
apprehensions about the Brady List and police accountability and transparency. 
 
Jamarr Williams expressed concerns about the prosecutor’s diligence when disclosing 
information on the Brady List.  
 
Councilwoman Guardado left the meeting at 11:02 a.m. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked Mr. Williams to explain his interactions with the Brady 
List.  
 
Mr. Williams stated prosecutors were not being transparent when using the Brady List. 
 
Councilwoman Guardado re-joined the meeting at 11:05 a.m. 
 
Councilmember Garcia asked who holds prosecutors accountable for not disclosing 
information. 
 
Jamarr Williams stated prosecutors were not disciplined when they did not disclose 
information, and no one was double checking the information.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked what work was done as a defense attorney to find out 
who was on the Brady List.  
 
Jamarr Williams stated he had submitted public record requests on specific officers and 
in some cases the judges ordered the prosecutor to release information.  
 
Councilmember Garcia asked what would happen to prosecutors who did not disclose 
information 
 
Mr. Smith stated there was accountability from the court and state bar. He noted other 
reviews and appeals for cases could be reopened. 
 
5. Land Acquisition Strategy for Future and Replacement Fire Stations

Mr. Barton introduced Assistant Chief Scott Walker for the planned presentation. 
 
Assistant Chief Walker gave an overview of the services the Fire Department provides. 
He noted demand for services were increasing and capacity had lagged. He suggested 
a strategic and proactive approach to assess current and future needs. He gave an 
overview of the strategic station planning list and noted future fire station sites. He 
finished by highlighting the importance of planning fire stations to meet future demands 
to prevent increases in responses times.  
 
Chairman Nowakowski thanked Assistant Chief Walker for the presentation.  
 
Discussion and Possible Action (Item 6) 
6. Fire Department Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus Replacement 
Mr. Barton stated the importance of planned replacements and noted the need to be 
proactive for the upcoming trial budget and five-year forecast.  
 
Assistant Chief Walker gave an overview of the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus 
(SCBA) inventory replacement. He gave an overview the SCBA equipment that allows 
firefighters to go into various environments. Assistant Chief Walker stated the current 
SCBA inventory was dated and built to 2007 National Fire Protection Association 
(NFPA) standards. He noted the replacement of the current SCBAs inventory was 
deferred for two years and requested to replace the entire inventory with an estimated 
cost of $10 million. 
 
Chairman Nowakowski thanked Assistant Chief Walker for the presentation.  
 
Vice Mayor Williams motioned to approve item 6. Councilwoman Guardado seconded 
the motion, which passed unanimously, 4-0. 
Call to the Public 
None. 
 
Future Agenda Items 
Councilwoman Guardado asked for an update on legislation regarding consular cards. 
 
Adjournment 
Chairman Nowakowski adjourned the meeting at 11:42 a.m.