Loading...
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.