Police Advisory & Oversight Board - January 15, 2025 Brown Bag Minutes
MINUTES
Meeting: Police Advisory & Oversight Board Brown Bag Meeting
Date: 01.15.2025
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Location: Fargo Police Department Gateway Commons
The Brown Bag Meeting of the Police Advisory & Oversight Board of Fargo Police Department was held in the Gateway Commons at the Fargo Police Department at 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, January 15, 2025.
The Police Advisory & Oversight Board members present or absent were as follows:
Present: Scott Paul, David Hogenson, Joanna Johnson, Tonya Greywind, Lucrachia King (by video call).
Absent: Conrad Thomas, Todd Spellerberg.
Chair Greywind called to order the brown bag meeting.
The previous brown bag meeting brought up the structure of the board if it became a citizen’s advisory board. Chief Zibolski had brought up the fact that the board could be independent, not held to Roberts Rules and open records. Member Hogenson brought up the name of the board doesn’t clarify what they are. The possibility of an independent board came up when discussing the board member terms. The group can do more stuff and be more flexible if not an official board ordained by the city. Can also get more out into the city. Member Paul asked if the city of Fargo has any other informal advisory boards. Chief Zibolski pointed out that, if the board went independent, it wouldn’t be a part of the city, so that’s unknown. Member Johnson asked if it changes any responsibility to the community. Chief Zibolski said it does not, it’s just an informal way of accomplishing the same thing that the board was established to accomplish. It allows for greater flexibility. A recap of the citizen’s advisory board discussion to this point was provided for Member King, who joined late by video call. Member Johnson asked if it changed any of the accountability dynamic. Chief Zibolski said that it doesn’t change any of the discussions or anything, everything would still be open, it would just be less formal. Could get a lot more mileage out of going to different areas in the community, as different areas have different primary concerns. Member Paul commented that he thinks the board has been best when it’s been out in the public. Chief Zibolski pointed out that an informal group would allow for the same people to continue on, rather than rotating people out after a certain time period, and people could always be added. Chair Greywind asked if they would want to develop a process to add people to such a group. Member Hogenson asked if there would still be rules like having a chair or agenda setting. Member Paul commented that some structure could be helpful, but it wouldn’t have the same constraints. Member Hogenson asked if publicizing the meetings via media would change. Chief Zibolski answered that they could still be publicized, because they would want the community to show up. Member Paul thinks it would open up communication. Member Hogenson asked about unintended consequences or possible pushback. Chief Zibolski doesn’t think there are real downsides, but there’s a belief that the structure of a city board has more authority. Member Paul commented that it’s about perception. Member Hogenson said it might come down to messaging; putting out something about what the board has accomplished in the past three years and what hurdles its encountered. Chief Zibolski said the board has the benefit of all the knowledge gained and the experience to know if the informal board would be better able to accomplish what it wants to accomplish. Member Paul commented that there has been a lot of change in the past three years among the board, the department, and the community, and that changes perceptions. Member Hogenson asked how the implementation of changing to an informal board would go. Chief Zibolski said it would be the rescinding of a city ordinance. Member Hogenson asked if it would need to be an action item for the board to vote on. Chief Zibolski thinks that would be a good idea, for the board to put forward what they’re thinking and the reasons why they think this would be more beneficial and vote on it. Member Johnson asked what it would look like for major events when the board was more active; she wondered what it would have looked like in the community without the board. Chief Zibolski doesn’t think it would look necessarily any different, but it would allow for more dialogue. For more contentious meetings, guidelines would need to be put forward to ensure some measure of decorum. Member Hogenson asked what’s different now from when Chief Zibolski originally approached the city about an informal format. Chief Zibolski commented that the difference is that there are now people, as board members, who can say from experience that the formal format does not allow for much communication with the community. Member Paul commented that they don’t have to get rid of the formal format if there is a big issue. Chief Zibolski agreed that they would still have the availability to use a city facility if necessary. Member Hogenson asked if Chief Zibolski thought there would be any pushback with the city. Chief Zibolski does not think there would be much pushback. Member Hogenson asked, if they get criticized by somebody who thinks then it won’t be as transparent, how would they respond. Member Paul pointed out that they could respond individually, which is the point. Chief Zibolski thinks that you would actually get more people for face-to-face interaction because this formal setting just might not be comfortable for them. Member Johnson commented that they could point out that they could actually have conversations with community members, so it could actually be more transparency. Chief Zibolski pointed out that online communication loses things like tone, tenor, body language, etc. A face-to-face interaction can be more likely to bring about a resolution, or at least an agreement to disagree. Member Johnson pointed out that meetings out in the community have been better attended. Chair Greywind is worried about the structure piece, that there could be some individuals to come in and run the board over. She thinks maybe the board could help provide some structure. Member Johnson added maybe some rules somewhat like public comment: no profanity, etc. Member Paul said it would be a trial and error thing, learning from mistakes just like with the formal board. Member Johnson thinks one of the biggest challenges that the board faced was the loss of Shane Netterville, and she wonders how meetings such as that would work without the board structure. She pointed out that public comment only allowed for three minutes for a person to be verbally upset, and there couldn’t be a response. Chair Greywind asked if Chief Zibolski would still be able to set up the meetings and locations and such. Chief Zibolski said yes, it would be a team thing. Member Johnson asked if the group would still be able to do things like recommend things like when they recommended the COPS thing. Chief Zibolski said that part wouldn’t change and there were some good suggestions that were followed up on. Member Hogenson would like to see a template to put together a structure, because while they don’t like all the formality, some structure would be good. Member Paul said there could be some kind of public comment portion, but they wouldn’t need to limit the time and they could actually have a conversation about it. Member Johnson agreed that they could then engage with the public about their comments. Member Paul agreed with Member Hogenson that there should be some basic structure. Member Hogenson commented he wouldn’t be opposed to have this as a topic at the next agenda meeting. In the meantime, the Chief will have some discussions with city Admin and the City Attorney to have some heads up on it. Chair Greywind asked if it would be appropriate to talk about some of the successes that the board has had and some of the challenges that they’ve faced. Member Hogenson asked what the sequence is; does there have to be the blessing from the city before this can be discussed at the meeting. Chief Zibolski doesn’t foresee any issues there. Member Johnson asked if it could be on the next agenda. Chair Greywind asked if it would just be a discussion or a vote. Member Paul suggested a vote. Member Johnson asked how the agenda would go, how would they know what the next meeting would be about. Chief Zibolski said they could talk about agenda setting and how to set meeting dates, there would be a lot more flexibility, such as the ability to use different times of the week instead of a set day and time. Member Johnson asked how it would go to send suggestions to the chief. Chief Zibolski said it would be more flexible, it could even just be a meeting for coffee and a discussion. Member Hogenson asked if it would be premature to ask about when it could happen. Chief Zibolski doesn’t think so; if there is both Board and Chief support, it could just be one or two commission meetings to rescind the ordinance. He thinks it would probably be done on the March 3rd commission meeting, and it could possibly be done in the one meeting. Member Johnson asked what are the risks. Chief Zibolski doesn’t think there’s any more risk than anything else that they do, as long as there’s a level of understanding for mutual respect and having discussions. Chief Zibolski said a benefit of an informal setting is growing relationships with community members. Member Johnson asked about other potential agenda items at the next meeting. She expressed her disappointment that there wasn’t the regular January meeting.
Member Hogenson asked about safety in Downtown versus perception of safety in Downtown now that camping is illegal on public property. Chief Zibolski said the camping will be illegal in the end of March; it was extended to when it would be a bit warmer. Chief Zibolski said addressing homelessness is going to be a long-term project, due to all the different pieces of it. He commented that fear of crime is more impactful than actual crime. Part of the process is getting the right services to the right people. There’s a huge gap there. He said there’s a lot of down trends in crime, according to the December presentation (which had numbers through November), particularly in the beat including Downtown, though not in all areas. Chief Zibolski also spoke of some of the challenges of not having enough officers to meet beat integrity (having enough people to fully cover the beat). Member Hogenson asked how short the department is now. Chief Zibolski said the upcoming academy class will fully fill vacancies and also overfill a bit to cover retirements later in the year; however, new positions are needed. Member Johnson asked if they’ll have enough people, but by the time they had enough people they’d need more. Chief Zibolski clarified that even with no vacancies, the department needs more people.
Member Hogenson thinks of the Fargo street fair coming up in July and then what happened in New Orleans. Is that looked at, analyzed, does that influence the department’s response? Chief Zibolski agreed that it does, as did the July 14th event from last year. He said they put in a grant in 2023 for better barriers (modular vehicle barriers) to stop vehicles. They didn’t get the grant, so they’re working on funding. He added that with filling the vacancies, they can also fill out the Community Engagement Team, and the Real Time Crime Center is also phenomenal. Lieutenant Moser added that a lot of planning goes into the street fair, such as estimating attendance and how many officers are needed for that, as well as major event possibilities and contingencies.
Member Hogenson asked if there’s any legislation that’s going to help the department. Chief Zibolski said the owner liability bill for fleeing vehicles is a house bill, HB-1229.
Member Johnson asked if the COPS report has been finalized. Chief Zibolski said it has not, but maybe within the next 90 days.
Member Johnson asked about car accidents and when police are dispatched. Lieutenant Moser explained the difference between a reportable accident ($4,000 in damage and/or injury) and a short form (a much abbreviated report). Chief Greywind asked about hit and runs. Lieutenant Moser said in North Dakota, a hit and run on a moving car can be as little as a B misdemeanor (depending on level of injury), whereas a hit and run on a parked car is an A misdemeanor.
Member Hogenson asked about what kind of pushback they’re getting on the speeding fine increase. Chief Zibolski said it’s things like wording and different parts of the state worrying about different parts of it.
The time at adjournment was 6:50 p.m.