Public Safety Committee Meeting Summary - November 14, 2025

The Cleveland City Council Public Safety Committee convened to deliberate on two primary items: Ordinance 1380-25, which seeks to amend city code to increase penalties for menacing health care workers, and an independent evaluation of the ShotSpotter gunshot detection technology. The committee heard testimony from legal staff, Cleveland Clinic representatives, and Cleveland State University researchers, followed by extensive questioning regarding legislative definitions, potential biases, community trust, resource allocation, and the necessity of the technology given current police staffing levels.

Consent Calendar

• Ordinance 1214 and Ordinance 1250 (towing) were temporarily held without a vote pending additional information.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Cleveland Clinic Representatives (Dallas Moyer, Chief Dion McCauley): Expressed full support for the legislation to protect caregivers, citing that health care workers are five times more likely to experience workplace violence than any other industry. They noted a 34% increase in reported violence events at Cleveland Clinic in 2025 and stated they wholeheartedly support the increase in penalties to deter violence and ensure accountability. They confirmed the clinic has compliance programs, de-escalation training for police, and victim advocacy support.
• Councilwoman Stephanie House Jones: Expressed strong opposition to the menacing ordinance without further data assurance regarding bias. She articulated concerns that the legislation could disproportionately impact Black and Brown individuals, particularly those under the influence of anesthesia or experiencing trauma, noting a lack of data on first-time offenders versus repeat offenders. She emphasized that without clear standards to remove bias from police discretion, she could not support the legislation in its current form.
• Councilman Rick Slife: Expressed concerns about the over-applicability of the law, citing an incident where a resident assisting with traffic directions was threatened with arrest. He supported an amendment to clarify that the definition of "indirect" health care workers is non-exhaustive to ensure coverage for roles like speech-language pathologists.
• Councilman Richard Starr: Raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of ShotSpotter compared to staffing, noting that Cleveland has lost a significant portion of its police force and asking if the technology is statistically significant given the decline in response capabilities. He also questioned the lack of an RFP for the proposed Flock contract.
• Councilwoman Rebecca Moore: Expressed deep discomfort with mass surveillance and the use of technologies like ShotSpotter and Flock, noting the potential for the state to use such technology against marginalized communities. She challenged the administration on the lack of an RFP process for the Flock contract following the departure of a former council member.
• Councilman Harsh: Stated that the committee's inability to effectively use ShotSpotter due to severe police understaffing is a more significant safety issue than the technology itself. He argued that residents prioritize increased officer presence over new surveillance tools.

Discussion Items

• Ordinance 1380-25 (Menacing a Health Care Worker):

  • Legislative Purpose: Attorney Jennifer O'Malley explained the ordinance aims to make menacing a health care worker a first-degree misdemeanor with a minimum mandatory sentence of three days in jail and a $1,000 fine, aiming to discourage workplace violence.
  • Definitions and Scope: Councilman Slife proposed and the committee passed amendments to add the phrase "but not limited to" after "indirectly as" and "such as" in the definition of health care workers. This ensures the law covers non-exhaustive lists of both indirect staff (e.g., lab techs) and direct professionals (e.g., speech therapists), clarifying the jurisdiction is limited to the City of Cleveland.
  • Bias and Discretion: Councilwoman House Jones challenged the reliance on police officer discretion to decide on arrests, fearing it would lead to discriminatory enforcement. The Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety responded that officers undergo bias-free training, are Caliaccredited, and have discretion based on probable cause and circumstances (e.g., a patient under anesthesia may be treated differently). The committee requested demographic and statistical data on prior incidents and first-time offenders to be provided to the Finance Committee.
  • Outcome: Due to the request for additional data and unresolved concerns regarding bias and data transparency, the ordinance did not pass a roll call vote in the committee and was returned.

• ShotSpotter Evaluation (CSU Report):

  • Effectiveness: Cleveland State University researchers presented a report finding ShotSpotter is generally accurate, improves response times to gunfire not reported by 911 callers, and aids in evidence collection (shell casings). However, they found the technology does not directly reduce crime, serves as an after-the-fact tool, and strains resources by generating many priority-one calls that do not lead to arrests.
  • Community Trust: The report found mixed community perception, with 54% of residents dissatisfied with the police response to preventing gun violence and concerns over surveillance.
  • Staffing Constraints: Committee members highlighted that the technology is less effective due to the Cleveland Division of Police being understaffed (1,151 officers vs. 1,350 budgeted), leading to delayed responses for other crimes when officers are dispatched to ShotSpotter alerts.
  • Future Technology (Flock): The committee discussed an administration-sponsored ordinance (1367-2025) to contract with Flock for gunshot detection. Council members questioned the lack of a competitive RFP process and the potential conflict of interest, as a former council member has recently joined Flock. The administration stated the contract is sole-source due to state-term pricing.
  • Data Accuracy: Councilwoman Moore challenged the claim of "50 lives saved," noting the CSU report could not medically confirm that the two-to-four-minute time difference guaranteed survival, urging precision in communication.

Key Outcomes

• Ordinance 1380-25: The ordinance did not pass the committee vote due to concerns over bias, lack of demographic data, and the need for further study on the impact of mandatory minimums on trauma-affected individuals. The Committee requested data on prior menacing incidents and demographic breakdowns be provided to the Finance Committee before the ordinance is revisited.
• Amendments Passed: Two amendments were passed to Ordinance 1380-25 to expand the definition of "health care worker" to include both indirect roles and non-exhaustive lists of direct providers via the insertion of "but not limited to" language.
• ShotSpotter Status: The contract with Sound Thinking (ShotSpotter) expires November 2, 2025, though Phase 2 (covering 10 square miles) remains active through April 2026. The Committee agreed to conduct a deep dive into the proposed Flock contract (1367-2025), expressing concern over the lack of an RFP and the need to ensure fiscal responsibility and community trust in future surveillance technologies.
• Data Requests: The Committee formally requested staff obtain specific data on:
  • Demographic breakdowns of individuals charged with menacing and ShotSpotter incidents (race, age, first-time vs. repeat offenses).
  • Data from other health facilities (UH, Metro, VA) regarding workplace violence.
  • Documentation regarding the original Flock license plate reader contract and RFP process.