Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Public and PAC members press to restore RIPA and demand transparency in work-plan ranking
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters and multiple PAC members told the Jan. 21 meeting that the committee's 2026 work plan was shaped opaquely by staff, urged inclusion of RIPA data and asked staff to publish individual ranking sheets and clarify the weighted scoring used to set priorities.
Public commenters and several PAC members used the Jan. 21 meeting to challenge the committee's 2026 work-plan selection process and to demand that RIPA data and pretext-stop analysis be formally included in the PAC's priorities.
Tara Evans told the committee the staff-led selection process was "opaque" and undermined the PAC's independence: "Who's overseeing whom if the committee's work plan is being shaped by those within the same system it's meant to hold accountable?" she asked. Several other public speakers and members said they reviewed the January discussion recording and concluded the ranking or weighted system was applied inconsistently.
Multiple speakers specifically urged adding RIPA — the annual data set used to measure policing activities and disparities — to the work plan. A member of the public and several PAC members said RIPA had been discussed at earlier meetings and that some members had voted unanimously in May to use RIPA data for an annual equity assessment; at the Jan. 21 meeting they said RIPA was missing from the minutes and requested staff to add the member-provided rankings and source materials to the record.
Why it matters: RIPA and pretext-stop data were framed by speakers as the committee's most objective window into enforcement activity and racial disparities. Several public commenters warned omitting the data would prevent city council from fully understanding the PAC's recommendations.
Committee members asked staff to publish individual members' ranking sheets and pledged to review the tape and ranking materials. Staff (Miss Komoda) said members had been asked to compile top-five priorities during a two-hour discussion and offered to hyperlink the raw ranking sheet and meeting materials in the minutes to improve transparency.
Separately, alternate member Locks described running an anonymous Zoom forum for community feedback and urged the PAC to keep multiple feedback channels, noting that some residents fear retaliation and prefer anonymity. Members agreed to coordinate with the city clerk and city attorney to ensure remote engagement complies with the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act; staff referenced Senate Bill 707 (effective July 1, 2026) as the upcoming legislative change that will require new remote participation accommodations.
Next steps: Staff offered to attach the ranking sheets to the minutes and promised written guidance from the city clerk and city attorney about member-hosted outreach and remote participation. Members asked staff to review the January 10 materials and, if necessary, revise the minutes to reflect members' stated priorities.
