For the record, my name is Henry Santana, at large city counselor, and I am the chair of the Boston City Council Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice.

Today is April seventh, twenty twenty-six, and the exact time is two PM.

It is also being live streamed at Boston.gov slash city dash council dash TV and broadcasted on Finny Channel Eight, RCN Channel Eighty Two, and files channel nine six four.gov and will be made part of the record and available to all counselors.

Public testimony will be taken at the end of this hearing.

Individuals will be called on in the order in which they signed up, and we'll have two minutes to testify.gov for the link, and your name will be added to the list.

Today's hearing is on docket number zero six three eight.

Order for a hearing to examine the Boston police department's protocols for releasing both police body cameras and dashboard camera footage.

Today I am joined by my colleagues in order of arrival, Councillor Murphy, Counselor Flynn, Councilor Fitzgerald, Councilor Culpepper, Councilor Roosie Louis Gen, and Councillor Brian Warrell.

We've also received two letters of absence, one from our city council president, councilor Braden, and District 8 City Councillor, Councillor Durkin.

I'm not going to go turn it over to my colleagues just for a brief opening statements before we go into our first panel.

And we're going to start with the lead sponsors and then we'll go in order of arrival.

So, Councillor Culpepper, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Chair Santana, and to my co-sponsor, Counselor Warrell, my colleagues and panelists and members of the public for being here today.

Before we begin, I want to address something directly.

This hearing was called to examine the Boston Police Department's protocol for releasing body camera and dashboard camera footage, an issue that goes directly to transparency, accountability, and public trust in our city.

So I have to say that it's disappointing that the police leadership is not here today.

Because the core of the hearing are questions that the public is asking over and over.

Questions that deserve answers, not just from legal counsel with all due respect, but from the leadership responsible for setting policy, making decisions, and building trust with our communities.

Now I want to be clear, we respect the role of counsel.

I've been one over 40 years, counselor, and we, with all due respect, and we appreciate your presence here today.

But this hearing was intended to be a conversation about policy, practice, and trust, not just legal positioning.

And so the absence of the leadership from the Boston Police Department raises a broader concern.

If we cannot have these conversations openly in public and with the people responsible for decision making, then it becomes harder to build the very trust that body cameras were meant to strengthen.

With that said, we are still going to do the work.

Boston has made the investment in body warned cameras, and we have done so for the right reasons to strengthen accountability, to build trust, and to create a clear record of interactions between officers and the public.

We have a system that is strong when it comes to recording fullet footage, but far less clear when it comes to releasing it.

Under state law decisions about whether fuller footage is released are largely made on a case-by-case basis.

Under Boston Police Department Rule 405, that authority is centralized within the department with release ultimately requiring the commissioner or his designee approval.

At the same time, there is no defined timeline for release of footage after critical incidents.

There is no public-facing framework that explains how those decisions are made.

And there is no guaranteed access for elected officials or those with oversight.

So what we are left with is a system where transparency often depends on discretion rather than clear policy, and that matters.

And so today, even in the absence of department leadership, we will continue to press for answers.

We will continue to press for clarity and a path forward.

And as we've seen, when the footage is delayed or withheld, especially in moments of crisis, it creates confusion, frustration, and a loss of trust in the very institutions we are working to strengthen.

Because at the end of the day, this is about ensuring that the systems we put in place to promote accountability actually deliver on that promise.

I look forward to hearing from our panelists, especially General Counsel, and working together to ensure that Boston's approach to body footage camera reflects the transparency, accountability, and fairness that our residents deserve.

To quote the Boston Editorial Globe today, who published an article about body camera policies and transparency, the article said the council ought to make sure that police aren't applying the investigatory exemption any more broadly than is really necessary.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Culpepper.

Counselor Warrell, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

And just want to thank everyone who's here today.

Uh earlier this year, after the community-led uh meeting that several councillors attended, uh which was led by uh one of our strong advocates in this space, Jamal Crawford and other advocates, we heard directly from the community about the need to strengthen the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency.

Uh that then led to Council F Counselor Flynn and I to fly file a hearing order back in February to review OPAC to discuss its goals and continue pushing this conversation around transparency and accountability.

Uh so it bears repeating that the point of all of this is transparency and accountability.

When a serious incident occurs involving an officer of the city, it affects more than just the individuals directly involved.

It has implications for public safety, the public trust, and for the sense of security people feel in their communities.

I want to highlight section 2.2 from the Boston Police Commissioner Special Order on Rule 405, the body war and camera, uh, which I will refer to as BWC policy.

Uh section 2.2 outlines rules for camera activation and incidents of use and states that when wearing a BWC officers shall record all in-person law enforcement related encounters with civilians, which includes the following.

Any civilian contact officer reasonably believes should be recorded to enhance policing transparency, increase police trust, public trust, and police community relations, or preserve factual representations of offer officer civilian interactions.

I'm highlighting this because this is exactly in line with why we are here today to see clarity and transparency in the process that govern when and how embody and dash camera footage is released.

This is these are not just ideas, they are written in BPD's code.

We have an office of police accountability and transparency.

We are not using them for the jobs we tax them with.

There has been precedents where briefings and viewings of these videos were viewed.

As the process currently stands, OPAT and O and other oversight bodies are brought in incredibly too late into the game.

We have seen other cities across the country establish clear timelines which help promote transparency and public accountability.

So I'm looking forward to the conversation to make sure that we are establishing those timelines to make sure that we are strengthening public accountability and transparency here in the city.