Burbank Police Commission narrows independent-monitor review, adds surveillance-technology oversight

The Burbank Police Commission on March 18 recommended narrowing and clarifying the scope of work for an independent monitor that the city attorney will include in an upcoming RFP, voting to require review of all the department's most serious use‑of‑force incidents and to add explicit language calling for review of surveillance technologies.

The commission unanimously approved a motion to change the monitor’s sampling rule so that every "Type One" use‑of‑force review would be covered by the monitor, while Type Two and Three incidents would be sampled at a rate of one in four. Commissioners said Type One incidents — which include deadly‑force cases and other highest‑severity events — merit consistent outside scrutiny.

Commissioner Narvaez, who moved the change to the A6 sampling language, said the adjustment would ensure the monitor reviews the rare but most consequential incidents. "It makes sense to capture all Type Ones and then sample the rest," Narvaez said during the meeting.

The commission also unanimously added a clause to the scope stating that "the independent monitor shall review the use of surveillance technology by the department including but not limited to public safety cameras, automated license plate readers, unmanned aircraft systems, marketplace data tracking tools, real‑time information systems, and biometric recognition to prevent misuse and ensure privacy protection of the public." Commissioner Norby read that suggested wording into the record as a recommended addition to the scope and several commissioners endorsed it as a timely safeguard given rapid changes in technology.

Gina (staff member) clarified the difference between the draft scope being reviewed by the commission and the RFP procurement process the city attorney will run. She also reminded commissioners that while the commission can make recommendations on scope, the city attorney and city manager control the final RFP language and contracting decisions.

A proposal by Commissioner James to add language allowing the Police Commission to be included "as deemed appropriate by the city manager, city attorney, and/or police chief or their representative" in separate briefings about matters of high significance also passed. James said the amendment was intended as a transparency measure, not a mandate, and staff agreed the language would give the city flexibility to invite the commission when appropriate.

By contrast, a follow‑up motion to add identical language to the section of the scope that governs "real‑time review and guidance on significant cases" (item H) — effectively allowing the commission to be included in immediate operational consultations — failed after extended debate about logistics, Brown Act constraints and whether the commission could practically participate in real‑time operational guidance.

Votes at a glance: • Approval of February 18, 2026 minutes — motion carried (recorded votes: Commissioner Chapman Yes; Commissioner Coons Yes; Commissioner Elman Yes; Commissioner Hartunian Yes; Chair Hakobian Yes; Commissioner McKenna Yes; Commissioner Wenzel Yes). • Motion to require all Type One use‑of‑force reviews and sample Type Two/Three at 1‑in‑4 (replace item A6) — passed unanimously (recorded yes votes as above with motion moved/seconded). • Motion to add surveillance‑technology review to scope — passed unanimously. • Motion to add Police Commission "may be included" language to item G (separate briefings) — passed (recorded yes votes: Chapman Yes; Koontz/Coons Yes; Elman Yes; Chair Hakobian Yes; Hartunian/Artunian Yes; McKenna Yes; Winslow/ Wenzel Yes). • Motion to add Police Commission "may be included" language to item H (real‑time review) — failed (recorded: Chapman Yes; Coombs/Coons Yes; Elman No; Chair Hakobian No; Hartunian No; McKenna No; Wenzel No).

Why it matters: The changes tighten the monitor's responsibility for the city’s most serious force incidents and explicitly require independent review of surveillance tools the department uses — a move commissioners framed as both accountability and privacy protection. Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted that the RFP is an open procurement administered by the city attorney and that the final contract will depend on proposals received.

What's next: The city attorney will issue the RFP using the recommended scope; the contract and budget will require city council approval. Commissioners also asked staff to emphasize in outreach that the solicitation is open to any qualified firms, noting that the prior RFP attracted a single proposal (from OIR). The commission agendized related review topics for future meetings, including an April item on Flock safety cameras.

Provenance: Discussion and motions on the monitor scope and surveillance review appear in the meeting transcript beginning with the item introduction (SEG 143) through the close of that agenda item (SEG 2131).