All right.

Welcome everybody to this meeting of the City of Somerville's Legislative Matters Committee of the City Council.

It is Tuesday, April 28th at 6 p.m.

I'm the chair of this evening, Ward 2 Counselor JT Scott.

And we are live and in person here in City Hall.

Thank you to my colleagues.

And we are joined by a number of city staff to help us answer the questions.

We will be conducting this meeting also via remote participation.

Two of our colleagues are logged in online.

And a copy of this recording will be posted shortly after the conclusion of the meeting.

This is roll call.

Counselor Davis.

Here.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Present.

Councilor Young Campin.

Here.

Councilor Shrezo.

Present.

Counselor Scott.

Present.

With all counselors present, we have quorum.

All right.

Thank you very much.

So we have first the committee minutes from approval minutes of our last meeting on March 17th.

Seeing no comment on those meetings meeting minutes, we'll go ahead and lay them on the table for approval in a single vote later on tonight.

This evening we have uh three substantive items before us.

Um and then a series of public communications uh that were submitted to the city council uh related to each of those.

Uh just for reference this evening, my intention is to go in the order we have listed on the agenda.

And uh I will just give a little bit of framing for what each one of these things is and what our uh responsibilities as a council committee are relating to them, and then uh move into an introduction from the administration and then discussion by counselors.

Uh it is my hope this evening to wrap it up by eight o'clock.

Um, but if we need to go to 8 30, I guess we could.

So with that said, uh we'll go ahead and take up item uh item number two on the agenda that's 260302 conveying uh the 2025 surveillance technology annual report.

Now this is a document that uh includes uh an update on all of the surveillance technology that has been previously approved by the city council.

Uh it is a report that's required by our surveillance technology ordinance.

And uh our procedure this evening, according to ordinance 10-66, is that um first the city has to provide the surveillance technology annual report, and that has to include any new agreements made in the past 12 months for any surveillance data sharing or obviously any new technologies that were uh adopted.

Uh having provided that, it is our role this evening uh to hold this meeting.

It's required to happen before May 31st to review that star uh and then subsequently we will release a report that includes a summary of all surveillance tech requests this year and whether or not we approve them.

Uh the council must determine whether the benefits to the community outweigh the financial and operational costs and whether reasonable safeguards exist according to the ordinance.

Now if the council has concerns or does not find um that the benefits outweigh the financial and up and operational costs.

Uh the council may recommend modifications to the mayor.

Uh and the uh council may also request a report back from the mayor about uh what is being done to address those concerns.

Um that said, uh if we do wish to eliminate the use of an accepted technology, uh, we would have to pass an ordinance specifically prohibiting it.

And uh and presumably if that was if that was not supported by the mayor, if it was supported by the mayor, the mayor could simply remove it from the surveillance technology uh report.

But uh if that removal was opposed by the mayor, it would then need to be passed um to survive a veto.

So with a supermajority.

So with that said, uh, we did receive this star in advance, uh, and we have all had time to review it.

Before we get into counselor questions, I would like to invite somebody from the administration to come up and give a brief introduction to it and uh any comments that the administration may have.

Yes, we hasn't read I see, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, uh, for the record, Yasmin Rodasi Legislative Liaison with the mayor's office.

Um I don't really have much prepared in the way of introductory remarks.

Uh we're happy to keep partnering with the city council and submitting these annual reports each year.

Um and we're here to answer any questions.

Uh I know uh we're joined by members of the Somerville Police Department since a large number of the reports in the annual report document are related to the police department, and I'm here to take notes um and relay back any information to the other departments that also have reports included in the document.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Well, I know I certainly have some questions, uh, but I would rather than firing off from the chair, I'm looking to my colleagues to see if anybody has any questions or concerns about the annual report.

Check in online too.

Uh Counselor Ewan Campen, I see you first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I actually don't have a question, but I just want to say to the public who is interested in what surveillance technology the city has uses.

Any question you might have, this is a really, really helpful document that goes through each one by name, talks about whether there are complaints, um, talks about whether they have been effective.

You know, I we, for example, get a lot of questions about ShotSpotter.

Members of the public have questions about Somerville's use of ShotSpotter.

This is a very helpful place to look for basic statistics.

How many times was it used, how many shell casings were recovered, were there complaints, et cetera.

Um so I want to recognize this is obviously a lot of work for city staff, and I'm grateful for that.

Um I just wanted to acknowledge all the work that went into this and that I think it's extremely beneficial for the public.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Councilor Ewan Campen.

Uh looking for any other questions from members of the committee.

Does anybody have their hand raised online?

All right.

Well, seeing none, I do have a few.

Um, so I guess I'll just ask a few of these.

Um I was really impressed with um one of the communications that we received from uh Digital Fourth.

And uh it actually did uh remind me that there were some things that did seem a little bit off to me.

Uh in the surveillance technology annual report here on Gray Key, uh, for example, uh item number seven, there is an estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs uh and what sources of funding will fund the technology in the coming year.

This is on page 24.

Uh so I guess uh probably somebody from the department can uh could address this, but uh is there any ongoing training or uh is there any training to use the gray key system that uh officers in the department undertake during the year uh Mr.

Chair, Captain Sean Chin with Summerville Police Department.

There are currently two officers, one a supervisor, another a detective who uh their duties are to uh administer K Grey Key.

Uh they are trained.

Um from my understanding, uh the training took place during their work hours.

Uh I don't think it's very extensive training, like a week training.

I think it's most of it's done online, but I can find out exactly how many training hours they had, whether they have recurring training during the year.

Find out exactly what you need.

Okay.

Well, um, you know, recently we approved a grant uh for crisis interven and crisis intervention team training uh that was specifically intended to cover overtime costs that were incurred um by training.

And that could be that the officer themselves getting trained was getting paid overtime to do that, but it was also uh that that officer was being taken out of rotation and another officer was brought in to backfill for their responsibilities.

Um was another officer brought in on overtime to backfill for their responsibilities when they were getting trained?

No, these are not backfill positions.

Okay.

So uh the detective and the superior officer just took a few hours out of their D to do the training.

Okay.

Correct.

Yes.

All right.

Um do we have access to that training to uh get a sense of what that training is.

Uh I I imagine we do.

I do not personally have it.

I can speak with the supervisor who's assigned to Gray Key and find out what training they have.

Yeah.

Um I I believe it is uh something that we should be able to get access to.

So uh I I'll just formally request uh that you can provide that training data to me.

Appreciate that.

Uh yeah, I appreciate the the impact report or the annual report uh documenting the number of investigations that uh that were used on this.

Um let's see here.

I was curious about uh ShotSpotter as well.

Uh you know, we are I was looking at uh reports from Cambridge's uh shot spotter in their technology report, they showed that uh basically they were getting uh like 60 percent false negatives or and 60 percent false positives.

Um it was only accurately reporting an event about 40 percent of the time.

Um I I don't see that kind of data here.

Uh is that is that data that we do have that we could report on.

Uh well, yes, we can.

We can report on the the number of shot spotter uh alerts we've received.

Um but I also want to know that um just because if if we have a shot spotter and we don't find any ballistic evidence, or there are no physical witnesses, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was uh a uh false alarm.

But I will get the statistics for you uh that we have.

Um like I said, just because there isn't any ballistic evidence doesn't necessarily mean it's a false alarm uh yep.

All right.

Well, I I can appreciate that.

Maybe people are cleaning up their shell casings after themselves.

Well, some uh you know, although most firearms today are automatics, we do have some revolvers out there that do not eject their shell casings.

That's true.

Haven't seen one of those in a minute.

Um so uh I guess the one one question I did get uh because recently the data was published on where the shot spotter devices are installed.

Uh and in Somerville, it's very clear that there's a pattern of where these devices are installed.

Um one of the questions on the technology annual report is about uh whether or not any communities uh or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the technology.

Uh it says here none.

Um I'm wondering if maybe you can give a little context given that quite obviously these shots are uh listening devices are over the mystics.

Uh I unfortunately I can't.

Uh all I can tell you is is that when we uh from my understanding, when we initially placed these devices, uh we use the data that was available to us for shots shots fired calls to place the uh the listening devices.

Um as far as that question, uh I have no context for you.

Um there's we haven't had any reported um instances of that.

All right.

And uh, you know, again, this is one of those where it says the total annual costs are are none.

Uh but ShotSpotter is an ongoing service, correct?

I I'm sorry, what's that?

It's a shot spotter is an active service, right?

It's a subscription we have to pay for every year.

We do not pay for it, no.

Uh who pays for it?

Uh UASC pays for it.

Uh directly.

Uh through I I don't I do not know exactly how the the um the how it's paid, what but it's not paid by us.

It's paid by UASI by Homeless Security, not homeless security, by um uh the I believe it's funneled through the brick.

All right.

I can find out a exact answer for you.

How the invoices are paid and by who I I appreciate that.

I'm just uh trying to understand because the question here is what are the total annual costs for the technology uh including uh what the source of the funding is for funding those.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I would just add uh in in support of the captain's response is that the uh the one square mile of coverage that we have uh in the city of Somerville is paid through uh the annual UASE grant as part of the commitment of the region.

So there are a number of uh jurisdictions and communities that have shot spotter coverage that is covered through the UASE grant.

Um I believe when you look at the response um and I defer it to the captain and author in the report, but when we say uh no cost, I think we were the spirit of that was no operational cost, but the cost, there is a cost for the service, and it is borne by the UASC grant through the MBHSR.

Okay.

Uh well I just uh by my Oh yes, uh sorry, Chief.

Uh my apologies, yeah.

If you could just uh introduce yourself for the correct sure, my apologies.

She may have been for chief of the Somerville Police Department.

All right.

Um the ordinance uh doesn't say, you know, uh operational costs, right?

I mean, there's uh so I'm I guess I'm I think the uh report should show what what this uh technology is costing and where that money is coming from, right?

It could be just as simple as hey, sure.

Chair that is certainly something that uh we could uh share as part of the report and the amendment okay I think I think that would be really helpful and obviously this isn't the only technology that applies to there uh up and down there if we could if we could get that visibility I appreciate I appreciate it uh counselor strezzo I saw you put your hand up there thank you if we're gonna get into talking about shot spotter um uh and I I do want to have this conversation about it but what I do know is um and I've mentioned this to colleagues before in the past I I know that we always want to check the data we want to make sure we're getting Somerville data not Cambridge not Boston Somerville because this is Somerville and also um for the the counselors that uh have wards for Ward 7 and the areas where uh shot spotter is typically placed or where some of either the the gunshots are mostly coming from like Wardsboard and Ward 7 um it does matter and I always check in every year or so whenever this conversation comes up and I check with actual residents who live in the neighborhood where shot spotter is and what I have heard in a large majority is that with shot spotter those that actually live in the neighborhood prefer it be there because they do want to know if there is gunshots and most of the time actually if uh you have lived in the neighborhood or live nearby the neighborhood you know that you do hear gunshots and I implore any colleagues that uh have questions about shot suppoder to actually pull out a tent so you have them and camp out all weekend long in the summertime in the most uh crime uh crime driven parts of the city I have not ever seen that happen to any my uh that all any of my colleagues have done it I have not heard um them even consider it uh thank you counselor should this is simply a meeting to review the surveillance technology uh annual report and request for uh uh further detail where uh I understood there's further detail so these are us yeah I understand Mr.

Chair but if there are um if there are going to be facts presented we want actual facts presented and we want to be talking about this especially when it's affecting the most uh poorest and the most uh disparate uh disparaged neighborhood neighborhoods in the city absolutely that's why I'm requesting this information all right uh you know there the memo provided by uh Digital Fourth was uh uh was extensive uh and had uh a great many requests I guess um my question is did anybody from the administration uh review that communication that was sent from Digital Forth I I see nodding from the legislative liaison was it reviewed by uh the police department when preparing the annual report no okay uh so you've you've never seen this communication from Digital Fourth I saw today oh okay uh did you did you have any response to it uh no none no all right uh well I hope we can get those updated cost numbers across all the different uses of the technology and uh and like as was requested earlier the uh the additional information about uh shot spotter and the uh ones that we can document were in fact uh incidents because of shell casings being covered at the scene so absolutely I appreciate that uh just putting it out for any other colleagues I see counselor mba counselor you have the floor thank thank you chairman Scott um no I just want to you know echo the sentiment of uh counselor you and come and I think this is a pretty detailed report and I really encourage you know folks to review it because it's it's uh it's a lot of uh lifting I guess um one of the one question I had you know was just kind of like broadly you know just to figure out you know if there were any measurable outcomes you know that demonstrate that the existence of the surveillance you know technologies are improving public safety without disproportionately impacting marginalized communities you know just kind of like because it's uh I think I appreciate the way it's been structured and also um kind of like any instance of

You know, just kind of like because it's uh I think I appreciate the way it's been structured, and also um kind of like any instance of misuse or policy violations, you know.

And how they addressed it in some fashion.

All right, Councilor Mba.

Uh maybe we can go with the second part of that question first.

Uh, have there been any policy violations during the course of last year?

Yes.

All right.

Uh I'm not sure if you could hear the answer.

The answer there was no, Councilor Mba.

And then uh your first question was about um making a determination about the value uh uh to public safety that's being gained by these technologies.

Is that is that what we're asking?

Yes, without disproportionately impacting marginalized communities.

All right.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

Uh the question was about what is what is the benefit to public safety that's being gained by uh by use of these surveillance technologies.

Well, I believe it it assists the department in solving crimes uh specifically for shots butter.

It gives us an alert that some of these some of these calls that we receive uh for gunshots uh through shot spotter, we don't receive phone calls from individuals.

Um so I I think it's very helpful.

All right.

Um well, maybe one uh another way to ask that.

Uh you know, in the report it says gray key was used in 27 criminal investigations on uh 30 different devices.

Um are those uh prosecutions complete.

I'm sorry.

Are those prosecutions complete for prosecutions for uh in the in the two uh uh in the annual report for Grey Key, it says that 27 criminal investigations that was used to recover evidence in 27 criminal investigations on a total of 30 devices.

Uh and in 20 of those, it was shared with the Middlesex District Attorney's Office to assist in prosecution.

Um are those I do not know the answer to that question.

That that would be I'd have to follow with with with each and just individual detective specifically to find out if the case has been completed.

All right.

Uh councilman Ba, is there more detail or more exploration you'd like to undertake along that line?

Uh no, I just wanted to just follow up and we got the mention short spotter.

I I I mean say that that is, you know, I can see that in the report, you know, that it's doing its intended purpose.

It says during the calendar year last year, they received nine, you know, short spotter alerts and a total of 24 share casting were recovered.

So that wasn't, I wasn't like trying to laser focus on one.

I was just asking broadly.

But thank you, Chairman Scott.

All right, thank you, Council Baha.

Leo Z and Rodassi.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you, I think uh Councilor Mbaugh just alluded to this, but one of the questions in the reports number five says uh whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose and then outlines how it's been effective.

So just wanted to flag that.

Thank you.

Indeed.

Um just asking for maybe a little bit more detail on the uh outcomes and the on the grade key cases.

So uh I appreciate that.

Um I think I'm at the end of my questions that I have for this.

So I'm gonna look to my colleagues online and in the chambers to see if anybody else has anything else.

All right, going twice.

Uh given that, this is an item that is being sent for discussion uh to the committee.

So the appropriate disposition for this would be to mark this item as work complete.

And unless the administration has a different interpretation of the uh surveillance technology ordinance, I would anticipate that the report of this committee given to the council would uh serve to satisfy the requirements of the city council to produce a report of their review of the annual report.

Um, Mr.

Chair, I think that in the past what we've done is taken some of the feedback from the counselors and incorporated into the annual report and then resubmitted an updated one that reflects those changes, but all right.

It might be mistaken as well.

Yep.

Well then uh we can keep this one in committee until the amended one comes back and then we can place that one on file and um mark the other one we're completed as the final submission.

All right.

Then that brings us to uh item number three on our agenda this is uh the administration requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report uh for uh that is an odd order uh I had originally submitted this in order to have the body worn cameras next um so it is my intention to take that up uh next so uh we'll take up item number four that's 260484 uh requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report for body worn cameras uh so we also have that before us and we have a number of public communications um we'll take up those public communications as well I believe Helen yep six through eight sure I mean all right would anybody from the administration like to give an introduction to the uh oh before I get to that just to lay out the process here for everybody because I know that the uh surveillance technology ordinance can be a little bit of dense reading uh thanks to uh the liaison and city staff for helping to uh peel this apart procedurally uh but what we have before us is a surveillance technology impact review um impact report uh being initially submitted to the city council uh our action on this uh can be to accept that impact report which gives our approval for the city to use that technology uh or it can be rejected if the city council does not want that technology to be used uh or we can hold it now uh there is also a grant before the body um and technically the technology impact report must be accepted before any grant can be accepted uh there is also a requirement for a use policy a specific use policy uh that will need to be submitted to the council for acceptance or rejection and my understanding is that that specific use policy is being uh negotiated as part of collective bargaining so we do not have that before us the ordinance does have a 60 day timer for acceptance or rejection of uh the surveillance technology impact report and use policy but my understanding is that timer does not start until the use policy the specific use policy is presented to the council just looking for confirmation on that all right I'm seeing nodding from staff thank you sir Mr.

Chair uh yes counselor Davis thank you Mr.

Chair if I may just one uh slight clarification or or um calling out of nuance um the the use policy is a policy that's required under the surveillance technology ordinance and and it's it shall be that um the uh collective bargaining agreement is a collective bargaining agreement um whether or not that the the collective bargaining agreement includes terms related to this policy is not while it's effectively relevant it's not technically relevant um I I one would reasonably assume that the use policy would be consistent with whatever is or may be agreed to in in uh in the bargain agreement but it's um they they are two different documents and they may contain you know some differences based on or at least um there they're you know they're they're hypothetically for example could be uh terms or conditions or or or um language in the use policy that isn't relevant to collective bargaining and therefore wouldn't necessarily be included in that so I just wanted to to to sort of make that distinction so that folks who are sort of following along understand that it's a lot of moving parts but um you know we expect the use policy to be a clear um uh concise and and comprehensive um policy to to to um you know to govern the use of this technology if it's approved um and uh that is a different thing from the from what is we it would for for from anything that may be being discussed with the uh relevant associations all right thank you for the clarification as always counselor davis so uh with that procedure uh laid out um once that 60 day timer uh starts we have 60 days to either accept or reject that item if the council fails to act in 60 days uh the item is automatically accepted uh my understanding is that this is a somewhat incomplete uh surveillance technology impact report that the administration is requesting that we consider and accept uh with their intention to submit a further detailed one uh after the uh technology is implemented uh so with that said uh who from the administration would like to introduce welcome chief thank you mr chair again shame ben for chief of the somerville uh police department uh want to thank the committee uh as well as my colleagues here from the police department city colleagues uh and community partners uh this evening um i'll be very brief with uh my comments but i do want to recognize uh some of the clear um

Uh so with that said, uh who from the administration would like to introduce Welcome, Chief.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Again, Shemey Benford Chief of the Somerville uh police department.

Uh I want to thank the committee uh as well as my colleagues here from the police department, city colleagues uh and community partners uh this evening.

Um I'll be very brief with uh my comments, but I do want to recognize uh some of the clear uh conven uh the uh clear contributions and benefits of the body one camera program.

Um we are very much committed to and a part of this community that is progressive and very values itself around the equity equity equitability um and support of all members of our community.

And to that end, uh we value accountability, trust building, and transparency and believe that uh body one cameras would help us uh in that mission and our commitment.

Um I also believe um and we believe that uh body one cameras as a tool and a resource for helping us uh be an integrated part of our community uh would help to reaffirm uh the overwhelmingly positive experience between the police and our community members.

I would point out uh that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts uh made a substantial commitment to body one cameras and has assisted uh over 144 police departments uh across the Commonwealth with instituting uh and standing up body one camera programs.

Uh some of our immediate neighbors uh that do uh partake uh in the program include Medford, Cambridge, the Somerville Housing Police, as well as the City of Boston.

Um I would also like to highlight uh the community process uh and recommendations and discussion in the public safety for all studies as well as the staffing study and its recommendation uh around body one cameras uh for the Somerville Police Department.

I would uh also like to point to the president's commission on 21st century policing, um, where it talks about uh building trust and legitimacy uh with the community through technology uh and office of safety and wellness in a multitude of different other uh tenants that support uh that particular pill uh pillar and building the necessary uh quality uh relationships that we have with our community for policing in the 21st century.

That report report was reaffirmed in 2023.

Um and in that report, it talked about transformational uh policing and again uh pointed to whole of community uh as well as um a legit and sustaining uh open and transparent process for policing uh within respective communities.

Uh in closing, Mr.

Chair, uh I would like to put out uh point out that as we discuss party one cameras um and we know the sensitivity around enforcement uh by ICE and the federal government, uh the everyhanded tactics that we've seen in our city, um and we know that this is uh going on not just in our city, our region and our country, and very proud to be a part of this community in standing up for uh, as the counselor pointed out, some of the most marginalized uh members of our community that are impacted by this behavior.

And I would just highlight uh that one of the technologies that is consistent with uh the debate uh going on in Capitol Hill is around not only removing masks uh from these agents that are doing this work, but also to employ the use of body one cameras to help us document and hold those agents accountable as they go into our communities.

Um so I would keep my comments uh again very brief in that space.

Uh thank the committee uh for its work, thank the committee, uh the community for its partnership, and uh I've humbly request and ask that as we round out the debate and the discussion uh that this proposal um and the report be accepted and allow us to move forward with this tremendous benefit for the community.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Chief.

Uh anything to add, Liaison?

No.

All right.

Uh well, we have also received uh several communications from the public, including recently a uh an extensive letter that was signed by uh a great many people.

So uh Councilor Strasbourg.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um we're on the same committee in um finance as well.

And uh Mr.

Ben Stroll also wanted to speak tonight.

Um so when we do get into the discussion, I would like to sponsor a speaker.

So wanted to put that on your radar.

Sure.

Um and the speaker's name again.

The speaker's name again.

Ben Struel.

Uh you heard he it was a member, actually the chair of the public task uh public safety for all task force.

Uh some one of the Somerville residents, numerous Somerville residents that spent what, like a year and a half to two years examining um policy and and best police policy that uh serves the community.

And uh and they had the report with the racial and social justice department.

So I'd like to speak, allow him to speak again tonight.

All right.

Um he is not uh an employee in the city of Somerville, correct?

No, he is one of the members of the public safety for all task force that spent the last two years with the Racial and Social Justice Committee.

Uh I'm sorry, uh department uh that unveiled and discussed uh the again uh public safety for all police uh conversation and they had a presentation and report, and some of the people in this room uh heard that as well.

So he uh has extensive research on this and wanted to speak.

Actually, all right.

Um looking for any objection, barring any objection there.

Uh Madam Clerk, can you unmute uh Mr.

Stroll?

All right.

Uh can you try speaking, Mr.

Stroll?

Uh thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Um, well, thank you, everyone.

I really appreciate um uh you know being sponsored to speak here and you giving me a little bit of my of time.

Um I'm not a City of Somerville employee.

Um just give you a brief background, maybe important to understand where I'm coming from.

I run the crime and justice policy lab at the University of Pennsylvania, but I'm also really fortunate that UPen allows me to do this job as a resident of Somerville.

I've lived here since 2011.

Um city mayors.

For example, my largest project in the last few years has been helping Baltimore mayor Branded Scott develop his city's violence reduction plan based on public health principles.

But beyond the work with elected officials, I think my work as a university leader is only possible through close partnership with community groups and citizens, which is where a lot of my thinking comes from.

So my research lab partners with the Black Ministerial Alliance in Boston, the Urban Affairs Coalition in Philadelphia.

We've worked with the ACLU to analyze and publicize racial disparities in Boston Police Department and the NYPD.

I've also worked with alternative public safety responders, and I'm currently developing a plan for cities to adopt new alternative public safety response systems.

And I think this is important because you know some people were disappointed we didn't have that in the public safety for all report.

But really, we were trying to find what are important things that the government is actually capable in the short term, sort of in mind of what what the facts on the ground were at the moment.

And uh it's something I'm always interested in talking to the council about more and how we can actually make some of that happen.

I first uh became interested in body worn cameras when colleagues at the NAACP and ACLU were interested in implementing the program in Boston.

And basically there was a lot of resistance from the Boston Police Union and uh worked with the Institute for Race and Justice to get that program and an evaluation going in Boston.

Our uh evaluation, the Boston Body Worn Camera program found that the cameras reduced citizen complaints and reduced officer use of force.

Uh and my colleagues at the Institute of Race and Justice also interviewed people.

He used the cameras in court.

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys said they believe the cameras led to more just legal outcomes.

Uh so following this research, Boston adopted the body worn cameras.

Um, but there's some elements of body worn cameras that aren't straightforward.

Um this is a technology that you know it needs some good policy uh with it to be effective.

So I want to just give you a little snapshot of all the research.

There are so many research papers on this, but um they're pretty consistent.

Um there are two big problems with the cameras.

First, it's hard to measure what the cameras are doing.

So uh for instance, if I'm hanging out with counselor mba somewhere, and I'm wearing a body worn camera and he isn't.

Um, you know, I think we can all agree we would both probably be acting differently because of the camera, but in a study, uh counselor mba might be in the control group, there wouldn't be an apparent difference between us.

So that's one sort of challenge.

And the second complication is there have been jurisdictions that have adopted these camera programs and then put in place policies that have undermined any chance the cameras are effective.

So, you know, think about policies that allow officers to turn the cameras off at will or policies that make it difficult to access or review the footage.

Despite these complications, we have to look at all of the studies done.

We don't want to do any cherry picking.

So we look at all of them, the range of outcomes.

And we do find this very consistent finding.

My colleague, Professor Cynthia Lum did this meta-analysis of every study of body worn cameras.

She found despite all the complications I mentioned, cameras have a very consistent effect in reducing citizen complaints against the police.

And like I said, in Boston, we found a reduction in officer use of force.

My colleague Morgan Williams, who's an economist who studies uh racial inequality in the police, did a cost benefit analysis of the cameras.

So we actually have a lot of ideas about sort of what is the cost of these and what we might get out of them.

And he found the cameras have on average $5 in benefit for every $1 of cost spent.

And when you look at all those benefits, there's a lot of different types of benefits he looked at, but he said about as much of a quarter of the benefit could come back to city budgets directly, meaning the cameras could pay for themselves in the average city budget.

So I think it's important to think about the benefits, even as the cost feels very tangible and real as we consider this additional expense in the city.

I've talked to a lot of cities and towns that have been reluctant to implement programs in their jurisdiction because of the ongoing cost, but I haven't talked to any cities that have considered getting rid of the cameras out of after adopting them despite the expense.

And then just briefly on a more personal citizen lens, I've spent many, many months, you know, multiple years really dragged out to working on the public safety for all committee.

And that was a lot of talking to my neighbors.

They had a lot of different opinions on policing, as you might imagine.

But I didn't speak to a single person who said they were against body worn cameras.

Um there are probably some out there who are, you know, very uh very um, you know, um libertarian, but uh the ones I spoke to were sometimes cynical.

Sometimes they express the belief, well, I don't think they'll change much, but everyone seemed to be on a similar common sense wavelength that cameras could enable some things to get better.

And in following that intuition, I think, you know, there's some things that are just harder to measure.

Technology alone can't bring accountability and transparency, but it can enable it.

And these two values we are in desperate need of building in our civic communities.

And the fact that the cameras are likely leading to more just outcomes for defendants in the courtroom is also uh hard to study, but seems undeniably important.

Um and then last, you know, Cambridge had this experience with the police shooting of Syed Faisal.

There was no camera footage.

And our neighbors in Cambridge, like I saw, they were just racked with uh really extensive grief, confusion about what happened and the uncertainty created these big rifts in the community.

And the cost of that is really impossible to measure.

So I think there's just a lot to consider here.

It's it's not a straightforward issue, but the evidence really is clear that these cameras in general uh have some positive benefits uh across all the jurisdictions they've been studied in.

Thank you, Mr.

Strull.

This is a meeting to discuss the surveillance technology impact report of um that's being proposed.

Do you have any comments directly addressing any of the content of the surveillance technology impact report?

My understanding was there was some uh, you know, interest in the council to understand uh whether or not to approve the use of the cameras uh as a committee uh so that the grant might be considered uh additionally.

I will say that I have spoken to a number of departments about this really ongoing um concern about how technology could be used for uh surveillance, particularly by the federal government.

And we have seen an unprecedented level of the federal government illegally accessing databases, uh, even in things such as education and finance that we thought they would be unable to access previously.

Um, even amongst all these concerns, I've seen very uh very um limited concerns, just given the the high degree of difficulty and the barriers uh inherent about that technology being used by uh ICE in any way.

And so I think that's another important thing for the council to consider.

Okay, Mr.

School, so you don't have any comments on the content of the surveillance technology impact report before us.

Um I really have come here just to talk about what I know about the evidence on cameras.

If you had any questions on the report, I'd be happy to answer them.

But yeah, yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Schuel.

I appreciate it.

Councilor Ewan Campen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you, thank you very much, Mr.

Struel.

Um the the question I have, and it definitely pertains to the um the impact report has to do with cost.

So through you, Mr.

Chair, the uh can you help me understand what you said about one dollar spent towards cameras is five dollars of public benefit?

Can you walk me?

I I don't understand that.

Can you help me?

Yeah, I'm sorry, it's a little bit complicated.

So uh my colleague Morgan Williams, uh, who's at Barnard, uh, did an analysis of these and he said, well, look, okay, these cameras have definite costs, right?

It takes people to uh, you know, manage the footage, the cameras themselves have ongoing costs.

So uh we should put those on one side of the ledger, and then we should look at all of the the benefits of the cameras themselves, right?

And some of those benefits are uh, you know, benefits to the community and in things that can be measured and costed.

Um, you know, and other things are direct economic benefit to the city budget, right?

So this would be saving the city budget money because um they don't have to adjudicate uh civilian complaint, or saving uh the city money because an officer is not using force at an inappropriate time, which could cost the city if that were to happen, uh millions of dollars.

Um and I would gather, although probably the least important thing about the event, the uh shooting of Sayad Faisal was incredibly costly um in dollar terms to the city of Cambridge, right?

And so the point uh that um Morgan's analysis was, and and this is a great paper, um, which I'd be happy to provide the committee because it is publicly accessible, unlike many camera many papers are sort of behind paywalls.

Uh but uh he found that you know there is uh benefits of about five dollars, and then um about a dollar twenty-five for every dollar was direct benefit on average to um to uh uh sit government budgets directly.

Now, I will put in the important caveat that that benefit will be lower the fewer complaints that a city has, right?

Uh, or the fewer incidents the city uh is averting because um if those incidents aren't happening, you're averting lesson.

Mr.

Chair, through you, thank you very much.

Thank you for all the work you've done uh on the task force for the city and for your testimony tonight.

I guess Mr.

Chair, I'm just reflecting on this.

I I don't have the exact number of the expected costs here, but it's a 2% salary increase on all the superior officers and everyone who's worked on the force for eight years or more.

It's significant, right?

It's I I've seen numbers above 400,000, something like that.

So if that's 5x, you know, that's something like $2 million of benefit a year.

I I'll just be frank, I'm having a hard time seeing that in the Somerville context.

Um I would I would love to see the the research on this.

Um, but I'm I'm having a hard time exactly with that.

Um I just wanted to raise that now.

Thank you very much for the testimony.

I appreciate it.

Yeah, if if I could respond through the chair, I I think it's a reasonable uh thing to sort of question because you know, this analysis is talking about the um the cost of cameras and uh the benefits, and there are other things that go into these negotiations uh such as you know pay increases for uh officers, which you know are sort of a separate item, right?

So I think um, you know, I was looking at the overall cost of the program, which is something like uh with all the uh proposals, uh 2.5% increase to the police budget overall.

And um that you know is a cost that the council needs to weigh one way or another.

Um, you know, I think it's just important to note that these cameras do have a really consistent track record of benefits and could save the mone the city money, how that stacks up to, for instance, increases in salary uh is is worthy of questioning um and uh is a valid realm for debate.

Uh all right, seeing no further questions here, uh thank you, Mr.

Struel.

Uh I have also been contacted by a member of the community who uh put together a letter that was signed by over 20 other community members and organizations in Somerville who requested a short uh amount of our time this evening uh and prepared some slides.

Uh uh Derek Rice.

Mr.

Rice, I trust your presentation will be about the terms of the surveillance technology impact report.

Yes.

All right.

Well, if we can if we can assure that it will be on topic, I would love to hear from you.

Uh let's see.

Slide is available on screen.

Um, seeing no objection.

Uh Mr.

Rice, please.

Thank you, Chair Scott.

Thanks to the committee for the opportunity to speak.

Uh my name is Derek Rice.

I'm a community organizer and spent much of my focus on a broad range of public safety issues affecting our neighbors.

I'm here to share a perspective on body worn camera policy.

Um, uh first and foremost, I want to emphasize that this perspective is not my independent perspective.

Um, please.

Um, but the uh what I'm presenting is informed by Somerville's own work and the work of highly regarded expert organizations such as the American Bar Association, the ACLU, and the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Body Camera Task Force.

Uh, you also have in front of you a letter that I delivered last Friday, authored by myself and three other community members, co-signed by 22 community leaders, experts, and organizations, uh, which were the signatures we collected in one short week of trying to get in touch with people.

Uh, it addresses the substance of the Bali body worn camera policy as well as um some process concerns around transparency and public engagement.

And it is much more detailed than I will be, and I imagine any of us will be this evening.

Uh, and is itself only a summary of the expert information available.

Uh, for your convenience, the letter has an appendix of collated references, providing citations to the various sources for each component of policy that it advocates for.

Next slide.

Uh both the American Bar Association and ACLU, and indeed I heard elements of this from uh my neighbor Stroll, uh, tells us that body worn cameras without good policy don't just fail to help, they can hurt.

Uh, any hopeful effectiveness of body worn cameras depend entirely on the policy framework around them and the public's trust in that policy.

If we adopt them before we get the policy right, we seriously risk making things worse.

Um, from what we in the public are able to see, there is a real cause for concern in this moment, which has motivated this letter and me being here.

We have six years of task forces studies in this council's past deliberations, have converged on a clear answer to the question of how body worn cameras should be governed if adopted, yet we don't see elements of that adequately represented in the uh stir presented by the city.

The city's own studies and past commitments have led us to expect community transparency and input on this policy, yet we're being caught off guard by the mayor's request for funding and stir approval prior to any public engagement.

Um I am one of many people appealing to you to use your authority over the STER to help ensure we meet these held standards of transparent policy and public engagement.

Next slide, please.

Um I will go through this more quickly than I had planned.

Uh given the audience in front of me that you are understanding much more detail than I do this surveillance technology use ordinance, but I did find that it was very important to center the purpose of this ordinance that it is to allow for public discussion before deploying surveillance technology and to allow a balanced decision about whether the technology will be useful.

Um I think this is our opportunity to develop that policy carefully.

Uh, once this is approved, once equipment is procured, once policy terms are written into collective bargaining agreements.

This council's ability to shape the technology shrinks dramatically.

Hope this is not an opportunity to waste our rush through.

I understand that delay may mean we miss our opportunity, income grant funding.

Uh nearly 250,000, but hopefully our commitment to good policy development is worth more than that.

Next slide.

This is an overview of the policy points that are outlined in the letter, and I will not be reading them, although I'm happy to take questions on any of them and answer to the best of my ability.

But again, I'm trying to act as a conduit of experts who are not in the room today.

Uh, but they are what the city has through its own work and its own cited authorities already said that the policy should include.

Uh, I want to acknowledge that this is not the end all of policy considerations and concerns.

This is sort of that middle of the then diagram where there's just very broad agreement on these policy points being important.

I'm gonna touch on a few of them, but first just a quick illustration from our attempt to understand next slide.

Uh, how these compare to what we were able to find in the body worn camera stir.

Uh, there are two strong conflicts where the STIR states or strongly implies something to the direct conflict and contrary of what is advised by these expert bodies.

Five omissions where the STIR does not establish the recommended policies, and three items in the recommended policy that are only partially adjust.

Uh so it is clear to us and the public that the STIR is not in clear and full alignment with the recommended policy on any of these points.

And I'll touch on a few of them.

Next slide.

The policy should prohibit any officer from accessing, viewing, or receiving an account of any footage before completing any required reports, statements, or testimony.

The American Bar Association is the most direct and comprehensive on this point.

And I there's no substitute for reading their arguments and their evidence.

All other sources are in green in agreement, often leaning on the recommendation of the American Bar Association.

Notably, this includes the city's own paid staffing and operation study, as well as the public safety for all task force.

They all point at this or point at the American Bar Association as the guidance.

Reviewing footage before reporting undermines the accuracy of reports.

While the STIR states that body one cameras, quote, serve to enhance the accuracy of officer reports.

Experts say that reviewing footage prior to providing reports does the opposite.

Officers may even unconsciously conform their written reports to what they say in video, including in cases with what they remember and what the video shows could differ in ways that matter.

Next slide.

If that is incompatible with the collective bargaining agreement, I would hope that that would mean a violation of the STIR, which therefore prohibits the use of the technology.

The only mention in the STIR on this point is the final bullet of purpose, which says will be used to build trust and transparency with the community, which candidly falls short of saying that they will be used for police accountability.

Next slide.

Exceptions are frequently invoked.

So it is difficult to get even simple things through public records requests.

Next slide.

While we seem to be very quickly rushing to adopt body warrant cameras, we haven't seen any concrete action towards civilian oversight.

Various sources agree that civilian oversight being responsible for the management footage helps to reduce some of the risks and the distrust of body worn cameras.

While I'd love to see civilian oversight happen first.

And for your edification, Nicole is the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.

And this is one of their 13 principles for effective oversight.

Finally, on some other points, promise I am wrapping up.

Next slide.

These are just three other points where the STIR, as we are able to understand it, is falling short of recommended policy points.

Again, expert recommended policy points from a number of different perspectives.

Dimension of retention only talks about the requirement to keep footage for a certain amount of time based on the state retention laws.

And one of the stated sort of concerns from these expert bodies is body cameras being used as sort of passive surveillance technology for First Amendment protected assemblies, protests, gatherings, marches.

Next slide, please, there are process considerations, including sequencing of policy development, body worn camera adoption and police union negotiation.

The city's own report is direct on the sequence, as quoted here.

Policy first based on community priorities and best practices, then negotiation.

Doing it in any other order creates the impression that these principles are negotiable.

All the sources of guidance I've drawn from are consistent in emphasizing the importance of effective policies for any hope of body worn cameras to provide transparency and police accountability.

Adopting body worn cameras with anything less would be ineffective at best and potentially harmful.

Next slide.

Several sources emphasize the importance of public engagement.

So regardless of what policy terms may or may not be happening behind closed doors, I would like to argue that the public engagement process and transparency matters on its own merits.

The city's own paid study provides clear guidance on what that might look like.

Just want to emphasize things.

Listening sessions open to the public, direct engagement with community groups, opportunities for individuals to submit comments online.

This is referring to body worn camera policy, not do we or do we not want body worn cameras.

This is the recommendation from the staffing operations and analysis, which is from the year right if I'm going to speak cleanly.

Largely skip this, except to mention that I have concerns about the ability and city council's authority over what is there isn't in the STIR when the STER delegates out to other documents that define policy.

It is unclear to me that we retain the purpose and authority of the surveillance technology ordinance.

Those documents can be changed without modifying the STIR.

And I don't know if that under if that means that they can be changed without city council's oversight.

You cannot demand changes.

So the sources I've drawn upon, the Bar Association, ACLU, the state of Massachusetts, city paid studies, city task forces, and the city council itself.

They clearly support a course of act course of action, prioritizing even the policy right public engagement before considering approval.

First, withholding approval of the STER until it directly contains the minimum policy requirements, I would argue not by delegation, but within itself.

Second, requiring or conducting a genuine public engagement process of the kind the SBD operation report explicitly calls for, either jointly by the city and council, uh by jointly by city council and the administration or by either, and then only then considering approval of the STER, and then finally urge the administration to recognise reconcile collective bargaining based on the policy.

Um I would argue that if the police unions will not accept a community-defined policy, then we should not be adopting them.

And it would be in the public's interest to know that that is the position of the police unions.

Um, I want to end on a point of unity.

Next slide.

Um while I was playing my small part in organizing a response to these fireworks camera items, I had the incredible privilege of reconnecting with and drawing on a vibrant network of community members and organizations that are deeply committed to community safety.

We're lucky to have six years of careful work to draw upon a council that's built a tool specifically for moments like this one and a community that wants to see both the work and the tool used well.

I understand that this requires a lot of labor uh view.

Um we see it and we're grateful for it.

Um thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Rice.

Uh are there questions for Mr.

Rice from members of the community or for of the committee?

Sorry.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you, thank you so much, Mr.

Rice, for all the work that's gone into this.

Um this is just on one of the many topics you raised, but I'm trying to think through this.

So my kind of default assumption around this footage is that it's to be treated like a public record, the same way that any public record is, and there's a process for requesting them, the city reviews them on a certain timeline, redacts if legally necessary response.

Um recently done a lot of research on this than I have, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, so feel free to say do you don't want to answer right now.

What what is the argument that it should be something other than a standard public record?

Sure.

So briefly the argument is yes and to the public record issue.

Um so subjects of footage I'm doing my best to represent from memory in a little bit of notes of what I have in front of me.

So um forgive any misstatements um to the chair.

Um it's a yes and uh so model ACOU policy, I think is probably the best thing that I would point at.

I actually have put a copy in front of each of you before we started.

Uh it does make sure to assert, not simply to state your presumption, but to make the assertion that videos are public record and therefore subjects, so that there is no later um disagreement on that point, but also to outline much more aggressive timelines and rights to access for individuals who are uh subjects of footage or who um had certain types of interactions with the police.

Um so it is a clearer, more uh cut and dry access policy for um subjects of footage, and the timeline is what has been stressed the most in the material is that it's like within a week, and in the cases of um there are certain cases that were named that it should be within like two days.

Anything else, counselor.

All right.

Uh counselor Mba online, you have to.

Thank you, Chairman Scott.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Rice for your community engagement and your advocacy, I think uh it's very thoughtful, very stimulating.

Again, I have said it many times, you know, I'm a proponent of body warm cameras, but now the more I hear about you know this conversation as also want to make sure that you know those loopholes that you know continue to solve it has to be closed.

We have to do it right.

So I mean, you've really articulated a lot of stuff that is also uh I mean it almost feels like common sense.

If everybody wants public safety, they should be able to accept those things, you know.

It should be able to accept, you know, just to have uh that this is uh all about accountability, they should be able to, you know, it should prohibit you know review of footage before written statement or testimony, like just again, which goes back to tying up accountability, right to access by civilian of our side body, which you know, Chairman Scott, you and I and I think Councillor Davis back in 2020, you know, nothing's really happened, but again, it has to provide provision for that.

And it it I mean, like almost everything that has been spelled out, I just feel like it's pretty straightforward, the right of subject of footage by the general public, also to be able to have access, you know, with clear time.

I also think, you know, even though it's very stringent, but at the same time, you know, if folks are gonna benefit, say, oh, you're doing this for collective bargaining, and then actually you should be able to like accept that this is clearly, you know, you know, we need to clearly, you know, detail the policy with meaningful consequences for non-compliance and uh uh yeah, no, I think you know, everything that I'm seeing, it's something that I would like to see.

At the same time, uh I'm also very you know, very inclined.

Also, I'm not naive to think that oh, we you know, I don't want to also be in that space where you know we are always looking for more loopholes left and right, you know, dragging, you know.

I just but there are key elements that you know you've enumerated that I feel like make so much sense.

And so, Mr.

Rice, one question I have it's uh for you is I know you you know the the there was so many representation on your sign let up by various members of the community, you know.

Um, you know, uh appear to represent certain groups of demographic.

But a question I have for you is have you personally engaged with folks from the public housing and the folks from the mystic.

Uh through the chair, no, I haven't.

Um I I felt compelled to even include a note on the letter.

Uh expressing our regrets on the limitations of our outreach.

Um as I said, we as a community of organizers.

No, no, thank you, Derek Rice.

I think I got the answer.

And yeah, you're an honest man.

I appreciate that response.

Because there are people that look like those demographic, but they're very comfortable with that limited knowledge as well.

So which I just wanted to know if you know you engage with this community and you've answered my question.

But again, I applaud you and your work and and fully endorsed you know your presentation.

Thank you, Chairman Scott.

All right, thank you, Councillor Mba.

Uh, I think I heard at the end there uh a request for the administration to incorporate um these changes in a revised surveillance technology impact report.

Was that your intention or uh did I misunderstand you?

Oh, that was the intention, Chairman Scott.

All right.

Thank you very much, Councilor Mba.

Are there other questions?

Uh I'm happy to keep Councillor Stroussel behind you if you wish.

You if you have questions and uh Councilor Stressor, you have all right, thank you.

Um I actually um well, I think that it's really important that we are completely having a full puzzle of of dialogue about uh and the ins and outs of this and are examining this from every angles and this constituent bringing this forward.

Um it's really important, and I I am grateful that we are talking about the public the police oversight board because that has been uh the committee that's been brought up a lot of times.

And I did want to uh number one, uh ask the the administration about that.

Um because they had to have seen it coming that this would have been in tandem with the concept of body worn cameras.

Um so I did want to ask if there's a commitment for that.

So would you prefer um can I I actually would like to have the the mayor's administration come forward to uh ask about that?

And second, I would like to ask.

So I'm just putting this all out there, and we can organize this step so we wish.

And I would like to ask um the uh uh the uh expert on this, uh Ben Stroll of his thoughts.

Uh Mr.

Chair through you to uh Ben Stroll of his thoughts on on uh this presentation from the constituent tonight.

Okay.

Um I was first looking for anybody who had questions for the presenter here about the content uh the propos uh the presentation related to the terms of the surveillance technical technology impact report.

So I understand you do not have any questions for Mr.

Rice.

Uh yes, I would like to hear from um uh yeah Mr.

Ben Stroll on uh the his impressions through you, uh Mr.

Chair to Ben Struhl about the presentation that was uh sent uh presented by this constituent tonight.

Um respectfully, I believe counselors are able to form their own opinions, and this is a time for discussion of the council about the technology impact report that is before us, not a discussion of the merits of anybody's individual presentations.

Okay, so you are not willing to allow the expert on uh body worn cameras to uh I wanted to hear his thoughts on this presentation as well.

So uh you're not willing as chair to entertain that.

That's that's correct.

He is an expert on policy, not necessarily on the presentation we were given.

Uh oh, my mistake.

Policy presentation.

Uh thought thought they were all kind of the same or similar, but my mistake.

Okay, well then uh I would like to uh have the administration respond about the concept because there is a good point that is brought up about uh the police uh oversight board and where we're gonna be with that.

So, Mr.

Chair, where would you like to put that in in uh my thoughts on this right now?

Sure.

Okay, cool.

Mr.

Chair, through you to the administration who we have uh here to represent that, I guess uh our liaison.

Can we get a commitment or some kind of conversation or the process of something of this?

Because yeah, like I just said.

Yeah, the the administration had to have seen this coming with the body worn cameras talk.

It's it's all the research that I've seen.

And have mentioned that this is an important element to implementation of the body worn cameras, like that we need that oversight board.

So through the chair, um, I also don't want to get too far off topic from the document before us tonight.

I know that there's a public public health public safety meeting next week where our um project manager for public safety for all will cover a variety of implementation steps that are being taken towards the recommendations, including touching on the civilian oversight body.

Um so I'm not really sure that I should speak to it as part of this discussion, given that this is about the impact report.

If you can reassure the counselor about maybe the high point, is you don't have to give the whole presentation that they are giving, but the concern expressed here is how the technology impact report, if I could paraphrase how the terms of the technology impact report uh specifically as they relate to civilian oversight, uh are being accommodated by the administration or being anticipated to be accommodated by the administration.

Well, I know that the mayor has previously said that he is in favor of a civilian oversight body.

Um we will I know that he's also said that in an ideal world, we would have that body first and then be seeking body worn cameras.

Um, but unfortunately, given the nature of the grant, this is the kind of rollout that we have to pursue.

All right.

Uh counselor Ewan Camp.

Unless you have follow-up questions.

Okay.

Counselor Camp.

Thank you, Mr.

Sherry.

Is this a good time to just get into our questions about the document before us?

Uh absolutely.

I mean, I I had a few other questions, but I can go back to uh uh Mr.

Rice.

I'd say please launch us into discussion, sir.

Uh thank you.

So I I kind of have two big picture thoughts about this.

Um first, and I'll just lead with this because this is really what's on my mind.

It has to do with the costs.

Um we did the surveillance oversight ordinance, it was very intentional that one of the questions required in the the impact reports is the cost, because we're we're never having these conversations in a vacuum.

It's we're always balancing priorities.

Um this is really just what's top of mind for me is the significant salary increases um that are a part of this.

And uh this is not news or surprising, right?

This has been this has been the case since this was first um uh agreed upon four or five years ago now.

Um in the STER, it it mentions accurately that it's a two percent salary increase for superior officers and officers with eight or more years.

Um does the administration have like a relatively straightforward dollar number of what that would be annually through the chair, I'm sure you were gonna say this too, but we did submit a memo response for the finance committee.

Uh, can't remember which week, if it was last week or the week before.

Um, and it did have a dollar amount for that number.

I believe it was 215,000, but I may be mistaken, but it should be attached to the meeting page for the finance committee.

It was 430,000 annually when you consider the uh pay raise and the additional personnel that would need to be hired to operate the system.

Through the chair if I may the question is how much the two percent comes out to, correct?

Oh, yeah, my my misunderstanding.

Yes, I think the just the straight pay raises piece was in the 200 and change thousand dollars.

Okay, so through you, Mr.

Cher.

I will certainly review the memo.

Thank you.

Um just so you know, we're discussing it tonight.

It's a little bit over 200,000 salary increase, and then there's an additional something like 200,000 for additional staff.

Is that right, Mr.

Chair, from your memory?

Um I'll see what I can pull up for a citation, sorry.

And yeah, the reason I bring this up is because this this is what's on my mind.

We're, you know, I'm not the first person to say this, um, but this is a very difficult budget year.

I think we would be having, I would certainly be having a different conversation about this four or five years ago um when the city was in a really different financial position.

And I guess the other it's not so much a question, but it's just to kind of name this is different from every other impact report we've done because it's the subject of collective bargaining, which just makes these conversations much more complicated, where you know, this council has an executive session, had conversations about this topic, but the public hasn't seen any of that, right?

Um that it's a very strange and difficult position to be in where we're asked to kind of ask detailed questions about this document that's before us that refers to a document that hopefully will exist publicly in the future.

Um it's and I want to be clear, every I know that everyone from the mayor's office and the police department, everybody's acting in good faith to try to accomplish something that that is a goal for the for the city.

Um but it seems like the process that we're under this kind of frustratingly aggressive time uh time constraint because of this grant.

And I'm just I'm concerned about the kind of putting the cart before the horse, you know, the the it's not coven as a surprise to anyone.

That the use policy is really, really important to me, to my colleagues on the council, to the public.

Um, and to not be able to have a like detailed conversation about it before we're asked to approve it in public, uh, is really, really hard.

Um so I just want to name that.

That's why I'm incredibly apprehensive about this.

I'd say primarily it's the cost.

I I really do think that we could get somewhere that I could support on the policy given enough time.

Um but just given the budget conversations we're having this year, I'm extremely apprehensive about that, and I want to say that on the record.

All right.

Thank you, Counselor Ewan Campen.

Are there other comments from uh colleagues regarding the surveillance technology impact report being requested for approval by the administration?

Uh Counselor Davis.

Thank you.

Um Chair.

Um I you know, I I have the same concerns that Council and Campan expressed.

So I I won't I won't repeat them.

Um I mean aside from all of the sort of concern the the tactical issues that are raised with um trying to review a document that we can't change that relates to a some discussion that may be happening that we can't really materially impact.

Um I guess I will repeat a little bit.

I I just isn't this is a backwards way of doing it, as has been said.

Um I guess I'll leave it at that, because otherwise I'm just gonna be repeating what Council Ewing Campus said.

I I also have significant concerns about the the timing and the process of this.

Right.

Thank you, Councillor Davis.

Seeing no one else uh jumping up on this, uh I guess I I just want to say thank you to Mr.

Rice for um bringing in all of those different sources.

Uh and one of the things that you actually encouraged uh me to do from uh citing uh our colleague uh from Ward 3 uh was to go back and actually read your memo from 2022 again.

And when I do uh read that, uh the number one and two items uh on that are conspicuously absent from the impact report policy that we have here.

Uh namely the right then review policy, uh the uh necessary uh condition that uh viewing the footage before preparing uh a police report or testimony uh is not acceptable.

Uh and then number two was that there needs to be a simply an over oversight organization, and you you put it here explicitly to maintain the footage, control access, and apply enforcement for failure to adhere to policy.

So again, that's more than just access to the footage.

That's more than a public records request.

That is a that is a clear statement of the goal of this policy in this technology is to in fact uh provide oversight and discipline.

And you know, the the surveillance technology ordinance is uh certainly silent on those.

So, or surveillance uh technology impact report.

So as I look at the impact report, I am certainly uh in agreement that there are a few glaring omissions here.

And I understand that there are certain things that may be covered in a detailed use policy on which the impact report would be silent.

Uh right.

Clearly, the impact report is not going to have uh all of the details that would be in a use policy.

Uh however uh the framing of this, including the uh pieces about data retention, about data protection, about access, um, they can be specified explicitly.

And when I review the ordinance, which I have spent far too much time doing, I concur with Council Davis.

The intention here is to establish the baseline uh through conversation until it gets to a point uh where the council can support it in terms of the deployment of the surveillance technology where the council determines to use the language of the ordinance uh that it is uh that it is meeting the need to uh provide sufficient value uh and benefit to the community, outweighing the financial and operations costs and and frankly, privacy costs.

So uh I I am I'm also of the mind that um regardless of my own personal opinions about uh the suitability of the technology.

Um one thing I'm uh absolutely convinced of is that there's no pathway for this to be a um a beneficial technology implementation without meeting at least these baseline requirements uh that have been presented both in the good counselors 2022 memo and uh the legion of sources that was cited there, which I was uh I do want to call out again, including included the COP staffing study that the city paid for in 2022 that was done by an outside consultant that included a chief of police from I think it was Raleigh, North Carolina.

So uh that said, I'm going to return to the procedural piece of this discussion, which is to say uh right now, this is simply a proposal from uh from the mayor's office.

This committee could act on it, could certainly entertain a motion to approve, although I'm not hearing a lot of uh motion towards that.

Uh it could um entertain a motion to recommend against approval.

It can also simply uh leave this policy in committee because until a full body one camera uh use policy arrives before us, uh, it is um the the clock doesn't start on our ordinance for review.

Uh I I did have a question for uh the city about uh about that use policy because uh let's see bargaining.

Right.

And in number eight on the surveillance technology impact report before us, uh that asks for an explanation of how the surveillance use policy will apply to this surveillance technology uh, and if not applicable, a technology-specific surveillance use policy.

So my understanding is there will be a technology surveillance, uh technology-specific surveillance use policy.

Uh Counselor Davis earlier helpfully pointed out that that is going to be its own document and not simply a copy of the police contract.

Uh but when I read the response here, it seems to say something different.

Uh it says the department's current body worn camera policy is contained in the collective bargaining agreement between the city and patrol and superior officers' unions, and any changes to that policy will be subject to the bargaining process.

So is it is it the city's contention that the entirety of the use policy will be the text of the negotiated contract of the union?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I think it's just that there will be significant constraints posed, or not constraints, I guess the uh collective bargaining agreement will set the limits of what can be included in a surveillance use policy.

Um and as you have pointed out, and I think others have alluded to, the document that's before you tonight is based on the current body worn camera policy, given that there are ongoing negotiations.

And so we can't really include in the STER that's presented to you tonight some of the issue, some of the things that will be changed once we know who a vendor might be, or once that collective bargaining agreement has been signed, um, which is why we are intending to resubmit a new stir.

Um and again, making sure that we divorce a little bit the body worn camera policy from the STIR.

Um, and again, those conversations have been having happening in executive session with this council around some of the policy considerations that have been that counselors have raised.

Um and so again, this stir is based on the current body worn camera policy because it's basically the only thing we can debate about in public at the moment.

But yes, the administration does intend to put forward a surveillance use policy for body-worn cameras.

All right.

And I and I think I heard uh I just want to make sure I repeat accurately what you said, that the uh outcome of collective bargaining will serve as a top-end constraint over what could be pursued in terms of uh access and policies in that use policy.

Correct.

And I think as counselor Davis had also pointed out, the surveillance use policy would probably go into a lot more detail than just the what the collective bargaining agreement uh body worn camera policy would outline.

Yeah.

Okay, well, uh from my standpoint, that's uh just entirely backwards of where we should be uh doing this as a city, right?

We have uh this is the city council has a very specific role in this process.

Uh uh in 10.65D.

It says in approving or disapproving any acquisition or use of surveillance technology, the city council shall consider the safeguarding of individuals' right to privacy as well as the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the police department and promoting and ensuring the safety of the and security of the general public.

Right.

We have uh requirement to evaluate what the benefit is of this proposed surveillance technology based on the surveillance technology impact report that's before us.

And speaking as one counselor, I firmly believe that we must have uh surveillance uh civilian oversight body in order for this to be of any positive effect.

And that we are there are certain policies uh that we could place uh into the surveillance technology impact report.

For example, uh the access provisions under, I'm gonna say it is three A.

Um could explicitly call out that uh any civilian oversight committee created would have direct access to all footage or would have custody, would maintain custody of that footage.

Uh right now, the only release of it can be through a public records law or by explicit um uh order of the chief, I believe.

Yeah, access to oh, officer access to footage can only be granted with approval of chief of designee.

Public access is only granted through a public records cost possible process.

So I I for me that is a big gap uh in the surveillance technology impact report presented here and all of those best practices uh that are presented in the ACLU.

So um for myself, I am inclined uh not to support this in its current stance.

I would encourage the city to go back and uh rethink uh re-think their approach to this.

Um I will not say outright that there is absolutely no world where there is a benefit from bodyborne cameras.

I can say in the uh in the bounds that are being created right now, it is not on balance helpful, I believe.

Uh and my my concerns about uh the use of the technology uh prevail.

So uh colleagues, uh I see that we do have uh we do have an item before us.

Uh the actions that we can have, we can uh keep this item in committee.

We could move to disapprove or we can move to approve.

Are there any motions for members of the committee?

Counselor Ewan Campus.

Mr.

Chair, I think.

I don't feel super strongly historically, we've kept these in committee awaiting a future uh submission.

I'm totally fine with that.

Um I'm not at a point where I'm ready to vote one way or the other.

So, you know, whatever we do, I I don't want to.

I would not want to be forced to take a vote tonight.

Um I might vote some way that I don't agree with in the future.

Uh Councilor Davis.

Well, Councilor Davis first and then Councilor Mbak.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, so as I said, uh like Council and Kemp and I I also I do not feel this is ready because of the it's not because of the failure of drafting, it's just because of the decision to do the timing this way.

Um the only other thing I'll note is uh the with the other option that the committee might have if you know if there is a concern of timing, which you know it's not the discussion that we've already had, but um we could uh refer this out without a recommendation, just to complete the list that you gave at the top there, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I would I would imagine it's something I said it would imagine something, you know, when the time comes, I would imagine we'll have a discussion on this.

I have a feeling that the president might agree to uh to enable that discussion at the council level.

Um should it should there be a wish to do so uh well as as president, I suppose that is your uh uh your approval uh you uh your prerogative.

Um I I'm inclined to agree with you that this is it's just not ready.

Uh counselor mba.

Uh thank you, Chairman Scott.

I guess I would not say anything.

All right.

Well then I think it will be nice to put keep it in committee.

Yep.

All right.

Well, sounds like the will of the body here is to keep this item in committee.

So we'll just go ahead and put that one in a desk drawer.

Uh, with a note that uh without acceptance of the surveillance technology impact report, uh, it does gate um the adoption of the technology.

Um, but I suppose we will see more when a uh revised technology impact report is submitted uh and/or a surveillance uh technology specific use policy.

So let's go ahead and mark item four.

That's 260484 as kept in committee.

And that brings us to our final substantive item of the evening, which is the uh mayor requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report for a crime tracer, previously known as Coplink.

Uh so uh is somebody from the administration prepared to introduce uh on this.

Good evening, Chairman.

Uh Kevin Shockworth from the Sunville Police Department.

Oh, go ahead, sir.

Going to read um crime trade, which crime tracer is sir.

This is my first time doing this.

Uh STER report, so if you don't mind bearing with me.

Sure.

Uh so this is a uh this is a documentation of what crime tracer is uh used for and what its purposes are in the city, and presumably also answering all the questions needed here.

Uh in this case, it is serving as a request uh to the city council uh for the police department to be allowed to use crime tracer.

Um so yes, sir.

Crime Trace is a police collaborative software system that links criminal justice data from multiple agencies.

It's police report data that is pushed out of some police department records management system and is used to um but crime traces database.

So we push it out daily through an I automated IT process, and it's used for us to conduct investigations, uh criminal investigation stuff.

All right.

Um before I get to questions uh from colleagues, I I do I will go to you first, uh Counselor Ewan Campen.

But uh there was something you said there, which is uh that this is already implemented and is already updating the city's data, uploading the city's data to the central database every day.

That is correct, sir.

Okay.

Um this ordinance was passed, I believe, in 2020.

Is there a reason why it was not listed prior to this year?

Why there was no surveillance technology impact report related to copling uh before this year.

I don't know what the answer is, sir.

Nice chief.

Mr.

Chair, uh I think again, she made me for the chief of some police.

Um I can't explain why it wasn't included.

Certainly we've had discussion.

Um, and upon uh further discussion, we decided to produce the report uh to disclose uh the use of the technology to the city.

All right.

Seems like a pretty big omission.

Uh Liaison Radasi.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Also, um wanted to flag the technology was in use before the ordinance passed.

Um so again, this was pointed out to us actually by Counselor Link, so like to thank him for flagging this for us.

Um most of the technology that we seek impact or we submit impact reports for are usually like video surveillance or things like that.

So this was just something that slipped beneath our radar, and we're just trying to correct the record here.

Well, I think that's absolutely the appropriate course of action.

So I appreciate the city bringing it forward.

Uh I definitely do have questions based on uh the information in here.

But uh, Counselor Ewan Campin, you have first correct, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And through you, thank you very much to Counselor Link for leading on this and to the administration for bringing this forward.

Um I I know that you know, many of us counselors have submitted questions, and I I have my questions here, but before I get to the specifics one, I just have like a bunch of dumb questions.

What is this software look like?

Is kind of my my my basic question is I'm kind of trying to get a mental picture of is this every police department in Massachusetts has this, it's just default every single time your fingerprinted it goes into Crime Tracer, every single report goes into Crime Tracer.

Is that the nature of what we're talking about?

This is like the first place that every piece of information goes into through you, Mr.

President.

That's my first question.

It is it's a place where all the data every police report is uh answered in 369 cities um agencies that contribute to it, sir.

Through you in Massachusetts.

Correct, sir.

Okay.

Um and uh again, these are like these are not leading questions.

This is me really trying to just understand how this what this is and kind of so let's say I was arrested tomorrow and you wanted to know you know my history, just every single time that my name has been taken by the police would come up and you'd in any city in Massachusetts, is that right?

I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing.

I'm just trying to understand.

Police generated report, sir.

If it's in a police generated report, it would be there, sir.

Okay.

And so that would include I don't know, witnesses through you, Mr.

President.

You know, people who didn't commit crimes, but just their name is in a police report for some reason or other.

I don't I'm not quite sure if it would have witnesses, sir.

I couldn't answer that definitely.

Um I guess what I'm kind of big picture trying to get my mind around is it makes perfect sense to me that there is a database that the police have access to, you know, they they want to have basic access uh information when they're starting an investigation about has this person been arrested before in some other city?

Has they have they been fingerprinted as they're you know, etc.

etc.

That seems totally straightforward to me.

And then I go online and just do some like basic Googling about the capabilities of this software, and they seem quite expansive in a lot of ways, right?

So I read there's facial recognition, there's AI tools that allow you know officers in the field to kind of query all of the information in Massachusetts and and I don't know exactly what happens with that.

And that stuff seems well potentially, like depending on what I learn about it, could be concerning.

So I guess uh maybe I'll just go through my questions to try to get a better sense of that if this is an appropriate time to do that.

Absolutely.

If you did not receive written responses in advance to your questions, then let's by all means let's get them answered here.

Through you, Mr.

President, I guess did I receive written responses that I missed?

Okay.

Um bear with me then, because this I I really really appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions because this is clearly kind of a basic technology that apparently every the city has.

Um I don't kind of question its overall value, but I I have a lot of questions that I just want to understand about it.

How do we so this is all just go in order?

How do we ensure that local police interactions, including you know non-criminal interactions, anything in a police report isn't accessed by the federal government?

Sir, the federal government doesn't have access to these programs to um to crime tracer.

And Mr.

President Chair, through you, forgive me if this is a dumb question.

I I'm glad to hear that, but federal agents might have friends in some local district, right?

And couldn't they call their friend and say, hey, like look into this for me?

Is that crazy?

That'd be a violation of the terms of using crime chasers, sir.

Okay.

Um so there's a contract saying under no circumstances can a federal employee be given access to this.

Correct, sir.

Okay.

Um from what I've read online, Crime Tracer has facial recognition capabilities, which obviously aren't allowed in Somerville.

I I didn't see this mentioned in the impact report.

Is there a reason that this either, you know, wasn't that do we just not use those capabilities?

Is that like an optional thing?

Uh no, so Crime Tracer does not have facial recognition or biometrics.

The prior version of coplink did have a uh segment of that and it's no longer used, it's no longer there.

Okay.

Okay.

Um when I Google this, and this might just be wrong, so correct all of this.

Um when you Google it, there they advertise a lot of built-in AI artificial intelligence capabilities.

Um I was surprised then to not see that in the impact report.

Um not that I can't see any, you know, value in this, but can you describe or you know, if it doesn't have to be tonight, uh, what AI services are a part of Crime Tracer?

Do we opt out of some of those?

Is that is the AI ever involved in decision making?

I you know, I don't even quite know what Dan's questions to ask because I don't fully understand what the AI could do.

No, sorry, it's not involved in decision making.

It's actually has a feature that's designed to support investigative efficiency, uh, such as a search through crime tracer using natural language with AI chat box and AI generated summaries of police reports.

If there's a long report, uh long lengthy report, uh AI will summarize that report.

Okay.

I think so.

I I would really like to see some more detail about this in the impact report, just so I can kind of get my mind around it.

You what this looks like in practice.

Um I apologize.

That was our oversight.

Um we will absolutely resubmit it with that information.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um There's a sentence in the STER that I don't understand.

Um it says the technology allows the police department to obtain nationwide crime data from participating agencies on a daily basis to help effectively solve crime and address crime issues in the community.

I think I just need a lot more information about what that means.

Like what data nationwide crime data is it, you know, pertaining to specific individuals?

Is it a graph of you know arson is up in the East Coast or something?

Is it how general, how specific?

I mean, what I'm concerned about, right, is surveillance.

I'm concerned about like excessive surveillance of people who aren't committing crimes.

Um so I just want to understand more detail about like what information is included in here.

Is it specific to ongoing criminal investigations?

Is it linked to individual people?

I think I need a lot more information on what sort of information comes into crime tracer before I can even kind of form an opinion on this.

Through the chair, sir.

Um the data we have that's goes through crime chasers, arrest reports, incident reports, citations, uh bookings and inform and vehicle information and other stuff based on probation and parole and court information such as warrants.

Okay, so it's not I don't know uh we think there are some disruptive individuals.

We can't pin anything on them, but they're you know might be in your area.

Oh, if there's a police generated report, sir, which would be public record.

Okay.

Okay, and then my last kind of get my mind around this.

So what we have before us now is like a vote on whether we can use crime tracer or not.

To me, just based on my understanding of kind of the centrality of this to basically every modern police department.

I don't mean this as a joke question, but like can you describe what would actually happen if we said no?

It's utilize it's actually mandatory through posts and for the hiring practices of the police department.

So sorry to cut you off, please, through the president.

And we use it for investigations, the hiring process, like I said, it's required by post.

Okay.

So the state effectively requires us to be a part of this through post and through various funding opportunities and the hiring process, is that right?

That's correct, sir.

And just hypothetically, if that wasn't the case.

I uh this is not like again, this is not a leading question.

I I don't really understand the day-to-day work of officers in many cases.

Just what would it mean for the work of officers if they couldn't access the software?

It's an investigative tool, sir.

Help with leads and all kinds of investigations that we conduct.

It's really data driven.

Uh to the chair, I would also add uh that this is an extremely helpful tool, uh, particularly as we talk about vetting new candidates coming into the police department.

Um, while individuals uh may be involved um in a criminal justice system and may not have been convicted of a crime in a court, uh, they may have engaged in uh in in activity or behavior that would be averse to the type of officer that we're looking to uh employ here in the city of Somerville.

We wouldn't know that if there was you know if occurred somewhere in Georgia or another state, if by chance we didn't have access to this level to be able to see if by chance their name um was uh recorded in a police report.

Okay, I'll I'll yield there, Mr.

Chair.

Through you, thank you very much for this answers and for everything that's in here.

I I hope that I um was clear in some of the additional information that I'm looking to see in the impact report.

Um and I'm looking forward to hear from my colleagues.

Thank you, Councillor Uncamp.

And just to follow up on that, uh you made an assertion, sir, that this was a requirement of the uh mass post commission.

Uh I can't find that requirement anywhere.

Is there documentation you can provide on that?

Uh we'll provide you the documentation once we have it, sir.

Great.

I love a good citation.

Um I think I think my understanding of uh copling's capabilities, uh, most of it comes from a uh presentation that was uh released inadvertently unredacted uh a few years back back when it was cop lake.

Uh a copy of that presentation has actually been presented to the city council in the past.

Um and uh the facial recognition capabilities are very widely reported.

Uh so I guess I'm curious as to how our version of Crime Tracer doesn't include that facial recognition and image processing back end.

I I know Crime Tracer does not have facial recognition, sir capabilities.

Okay.

Uh and uh to the point that uh uh I believe your uh question, Counselor Ewan Campen, uh related to uh uh would be found in uh 3A or in three uh answer three there.

Uh data contained in crime tracer includes in addition to all those uh arrest reports, booking photos, uh vehicle information, warrants.

Uh it also includes field interviews and observations, uh, which would be you know, if they took the names down of everybody who was at uh rowdy party that they had to break up at 4 a.m.

Uh those would be included in the report and would therefore be uh an association in crime tracer with that address uh and with the other people at that party.

Uh that is correct, right, sir?

Because it generated report, sir, it will be there.

Okay.

All right.

Uh I'm gonna yield to Councilor Mba.

Counselor Mba, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman Scott.

Um yeah, I just you know this is also like another tough one, especially when I'm looking at this the rise of fascism, you know.

And we are also a city that is committed, you know, uh to municipal freedom.

So um like it's about access to this data and for what purpose, because I think uh we all got a memo.

It's even in one of those comments from the public, you know, that kids were adopted, you know.

So can you imagine this is isn't this the technology that like inadvertently created like consequences for like something that I can somebody speak to that?

Like because again, for me it's just a worry about like wrapped up, you know, ingo with it within the you know a government that doesn't respect any policies.

We might have our own policy, but as long as you're exposed to a bunch of other folks, you know, you're connected to Boston Boston, gives your data here.

It's just I I'm not I haven't really wrapped my head in terms of like the guard race.

That's I'm not hearing a lot of that from this convention.

So especially if we call ourselves a sanctuary city.

And yet, you know, we are all good.

People that don't have the same policy as us.

I'm not sure about how our values will be preserved by having this open access, you know, to data sharing consequences that will come with that.

Yes, yeah, I can see they said this technology, the use of civilian, like giving sharing database to kidnap and deport our neighbors.

Chelsea, a community that shares some of its commitment to centralizing, has seen firsthand how data sharing can lead to devastating outcome.

Last year, three boys were kidnapped by ICE after being brought into the police department and fingerprinted because they allegedly had a pellet gun.

Can somebody give me, you know, uh uh uh can the chief comment to that.

Chief Andrew.

Thank you very much.

And counselor, I want to make sure I understand the context of uh uh of your question and comment.

Um certainly we don't, you know, our engagement and our activity with our community is overwhelmingly positive.

And as the Lieutenant reported does not result in uh a generated uh report uh for which is used to um submit to uh crime tracer.

Um with res with respect to that, um when we talk about FIO reports, generally that are those are individuals that are of some type of unlawful design, whether it be a 911 call or whether um, you know, we're investigating them for articulable suspicious uh facts.

With regards to the federal government, I think that they have engaged in a multitude of actions that we all find abhorrent um and uh indefensible.

Um I you know, we don't work for the federal agencies, we've been assured by the state that they don't share this information.

Um, so it'd be extremely difficult for us to uh to respond in that particular fashion.

When we think about local law enforcement, um it's just it's not within the purview, just as uh, you know, here in Somerville, that I would be able to afford officers to uh peruse uh and go through uh crime data uh and crime tracer indiscriminately and dispatch them to other jurisdictions to arrest persons on low-level warrants and or engage them in other ways.

So it just it it's not practical that we use it in that way.

It certainly uh wouldn't arrive to a level of efficiency in the use of police resources.

Um and we too have a committed mission to ensuring that people are not needlessly uh captured in police reports um and exposed to uh the criminal justice system.

So we use all of our resources around alternative uh responses in their space, um, as well as ensuring that um we don't capture needlessly again, persons uh information uh and generated police reports.

The uh the overwhelming majority of our responses are positive um and they do not uh result in a police report.

No, thank you, Chief.

No, I believe you, and I believe what you're saying, I it's when it's out of your hands.

Again, my main point is I don't want to empower criminal legal system, you know, because if it's out of all, I just kind of like sometimes you read this stuff, you're like, wow, I I cannot believe what I'm reading.

Again, it's for me is about access, who has access, you know, to the crime tracer data, the database, it's if it's restricted now, it's one thing, you know.

If let's say, you know, who has access to the past, maybe the past has its own, you know, federal government probably had access to the past, but if it doesn't have access now, it's just something to know, just so that we know that okay, there's been, you know, maybe in the past there was something, maybe now new policies have come, you know, they are more I'm more interested in guard race and making sure that you know we do things right as much as possible to the best of our abilities and understanding.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate your comments and uh as always, um, we we have effective policy, and certainly the men and women of uh the Somerville police every day um uphold uh those same values.

Um so we appreciate it and we'll continue to do that work to ensure that our community and our community members are not needlessly exposed in that uh in that space, particularly uh to um um uh you know service providers that don't submit to um our value set and how we go about uh the discharge of law enforcement duties.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Chair Mask.

Uh thank you.

I'm just looking to see if there are any other hands.

Uh not seeing any at the moment.

Uh just one question.

Uh the instance of crime tracer uh that Somerville is currently using, is that Gen 2 or Gen 3.

I do have it somewhere here in my paperwork, sir.

I believe it's we believe that it's Gen believable confirming basically.

I believe it's Gen 3, sir, but we will confirm that for sure.

Okay.

Uh I think that'd be helpful.

Uh just to understand the different capabilities that are that are within uh cop link.

Um Crime Tracer.

Um, the Sound Thinking uh website, the company that owns Crime Tracer is possibly one of the absolutely slowest websites I've ever been on.

Uh but uh it does have a lot of documentation about uh the use of the the AI chat bot uh in crime tracer Gen 3.

Um the example given is that an officer could just say uh I need to find uh a John Smith uh with a red truck, and that then crime tracer would go and look at all information in the in the area uh to identify who who that individual that the officer thought he saw might be and where to find him.

Is is that is that a functionality you've seen?

It'd be a functionality if there was a police report generated with those those specific topics, yes.

Uh well, fortunately, uh Crime Tracer has access to the I think you said 389 uh agencies.

369, sir.

369 agencies worth of data.

Uh so if there was any interaction with a John Smith with a red truck in uh the Commonwealth, it would be would pop up there.

Yes, sir.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Um I I think the the capabilities in Crime Tracer are uh truly extraordinary.

And I say that uh just in a um the scope is hard to believe.

Um I would love to have uh more information about because uh in here it says that there's no training needed for this.

Um I would really like to understand uh what the full capabilities of crime tracer are.

Uh secondly, I like as you said, I would love to get documentation on I would love to get documentation on when uh ICE was excluded why when the Department of Homeland Security lost their access to Crime Tracer and what action uh created that.

So was that a uh an act of the governor, or was that a law passed at the state level, or was that simply an internal policy?

Um so if I could if I could get that information and uh my brain's putting Putin, it's the hour is late.

I asked for one other thing.

Can you remember what it was?

I don't, sir.

Oh well, it's a good thing we got it on camera.

I'll have to go back and look it up and maybe we can both take notes.

Um yeah, I I think those are important things to understand.

Um, so that you know, the the main purpose of the surveillance technology impact reports are so that people in the city of Summerville can uh look at it and understand what the system is, what the system does, uh, and that there are guidelines here about you know data retention, public access, all of those things that we've been considering.

In the case of a technology that's already been implemented, uh, it would require a ordinance of the city council uh to prohibit the use of a specific technology.

Um as we said at the top of the meeting.

So this is just uh trying to get a fuller picture available in the spirit of transparency.

Oh, uh that was uh man I had it and then I lost it.

Counselor Davis, you and I share a brain.

Do you recall?

Right.

Yeah, say that I do, Mr.

Chair.

Sorry.

All right.

Uh so I I think there is a long way to go in this.

So I look forward to uh some of those questions that Counselor Young Campen uh asked getting answered.

Uh it seems like the appropriate thing to do with this is to also keep it in committee and await uh resubmission.

So thank you to uh Liaison Radasi and the folks from the police department who are here tonight to answer some questions, and hopefully uh this will guide the production of uh a little more information and a more thorough technology impact report.

So we will mark that one as being kept in committee as well.

Thank you, sir.

Thanks.

All right.

And that brings us to the end of our agenda at six minutes behind target on our time here.

I apologize.

That was my fault.

Uh so we only have one item to take a vote of approval on.

I believe that it would be item number one, the uh approval of the minutes.

Uh all the other three are being kept in committee, correct?

Yes, Chair Three.

Can I just confirm we're gonna keep in committee agenda item two, three, and four and mark work completed agenda items five, six, seven, and eight, the public comments.

Um that sounds great.

Okay, then yes, we need one roll call for the committee minutes, and we can do that with adjournment.

All right.

Well, then on the auspicious occasion of my 50th birthday.

Uh, I will move for adjournment.

All right, and on approval of agenda item one, approval of the minutes of legislative matters committee meeting of March 17th, 2026, and on adjournment.

Counselor Davis.

Happy birthday.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Yes, and happy budget chairman Scott.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

Happy birthday.

Counselor Streso.

Um yes, and yeah, sure.

Happy birthday, Mr.

Chair.

Counselor Scott.

Uh yes, please.

And thank you to all of my colleagues and city staff who are here tonight, as well as members of the public who contributed to the discussion.

Uh for our next meeting, the agenda has already been posted.

That will be on May 5th.

So just as a procedural matter, we are getting an extra meeting in thanks to the uh calendar.

Uh that legislative matters committee meeting will be covering a uh variety of uh a variety of uh responses to the topics that have been requested here.

Uh I believe we have a set of rules that are going to be before legislative matters committee at our next meeting uh and the second hand uh ordinance.

We also have anticipated for the following meeting, the one in the middle of May, to be the uh rental registry ordinance coming before us.

And I know folks inside the administration are working hard on that.

And it is my anticipation that at the end of May, we will be bringing up the welcoming communities ordinance, which was recently uh the updates and modifications to welcoming communities ordinance.

So we do have a pretty full plate.

Uh, but I look forward to a productive May.

Thank you, everybody.

We are adjourned.