HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 041-2013RESOLUTION NO. - 41-2013
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING
RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT:
"CAN WE TALK? LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OUR MULTILINGUAL COUNTY"
WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled, "Can We Talk?
Law Enforcement and Our Multilingual County" in March 2013; and
WHEREAS, the report provides a summary of how the twenty cities and towns in San Mateo
County and the County's Sheriff's Office deal with communication obstacles that might prevent police
officers from effectively doing their jobs and concludes with a set of findings and recommendations
specific to San Mateo County Law Enforcement agencies, including the City of Burlingame Police
Department, and
WHEREAS, The County has requested that each agency respond to the findings and
recommendations and to submit such responses to the County by June 18, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed draft response letter attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the letter in response to
the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, "Can We Talk? Law Enforcement and Our Multilingual
County", is hereby approved, and the Mayor is authorized to sign and convey said letter on behalf of the
City. 7
Vi tz-Vk 6-�r
Mayor
I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of
MAY, 2013, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:BAYLOCK, BROWNRIGG, DEAL, NAGEL
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:KEIGHRAN /
City Clerk
ANN KEIGHRAN, MAYOR
MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, VICE MAYOR
CATHY BAYLOCK
TERRY NAGEL
JERRY DEAL
May 6, 2013
T U C41 q 9"-P4"
CITY HALL -501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
The Honorable Richard C. Livermore
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Charlene Kresevich
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; tad Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
TEL: (650) 558-7200
FAX: (650) 342-8386
w .budingame.org
Re: Response to San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report titled; "Can We Talk? Law
Enforcement and Our Multilingual County"
Dear Judge Livermore:
The Burlingame City Council received the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report titled "Can We
Talk? Law Enforcement and Our Multilingual County," on March 22, 2013. The report contained
several "findings" and "recommendations."
The City Council was requested to submit comments in regards to the findings and recommendations
within 90 days, and no later than June 18, 2013.
For the "findings," the City Council was to indicate one of the following:
1. The City Council agrees with the finding.
2. The City Council disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response
shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed, and shall include an explanation of
the reasons therefore.
Additionally, for the Grand Jury's "recommendations," the City Council was requested to report one
of the following actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented
action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
with a time frame for implementation.
The Honorable Richard C. Livermore
May 6, 2013
Page 2
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time
frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with
an explanation therefore.
The Burlingame City Council, at its meeting on Monday, May 6, 2013, approved the attached
responses to the findings and recommendations.
On behalf of the City of Burlingame, I would like to thank the Grand Jury for their work on this
report.
Sincerely,
chael Brownrigg
Vice Mayor 77
❖ Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org -0-
Findings:
1. The law enforcement agencies in the County are aware of the linguistic issues presented by
the County's non-English speaking population and, in general, have responded well by
implementing written policies for language access and instituting hiring procedures designed
to recruit multilingual personnel.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with the fording.
2. The 911 Service does a good job.for the non-English speakers in the communities serviced by
the San Mateo Sheriff
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with the finding.
3. Written policies and procedures, such as those adopted by Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame,
Foster City, Menlo Park, City of San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the Sheriffs Office,
are useful in guiding law enforcement during encounters with non-English speakers.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with the finding.
1. Language Line is helpful in reducing communication difficulties between the immigrant
population and law enforcement.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with the finding.
5. Alternative language translation services such as Google Translate, accessible by smart
phones in the field, are useful in multilingual law enforcement situations.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with the finding.
6. It would be beneficial for law enforcement agencies to take advantage of low cost Spanish
education available through the POST Program.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with the finding.
Recommendations:
1. The cities of Atherton, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Pacifica, Redwood
City, and San Bruno develop a written policy/procedure for language access based on the
guidelines setforth by the United States Department ofJustice and customized for California
Law by Lexipol in Policy 368.
Response: This recommendation was not directed at the City of Burlingame.
2. The cities of Brisbane and Hillsborough subscribe to a telephonic translation service that
provides immediate access for dispatchers and officers in the field
Response: This recommendation was not directed at the City of Burlingame.
3. Every County policing agency examine the feasibility ofproviding smart phones to patrol
officers so that they can access free translation services such as Google Translate.
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or
reasonable. The City of Burlingame provides a computer in each patrol car that has access to the
internet and Google Translate and other free translation services.
4. Every County policing agency encourage and financially support participation in POST
language skills classes.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented.