All right.

Welcome everybody this evening to uh this meeting of the City of Somerville City Council uh Committee on Legislative Matters.

I'm JT Scott, your Ward II counselor and your chair for legislative matters this session.

We are meeting here on this Tuesday, May 19th at uh 6.03 p.m.

Uh pursuant chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting is being uh conducted via remote participation and the video and audio recording of it will be posted to the city's website shortly after the conclusion of the meeting.

Uh we I want to thank everybody for joining us this evening on a delightful uh summer thunderstorm evening.

If you do hear uh delighted squeals outside, I promise that's just my kids losing their mind running around in the rain.

Uh to go ahead and begin.

I know we are joined tonight by Clerk Fisher Cassial.

If you could start us off with a uh roll call to establish a quorum, please madam.

Glad I can.

Counselor Davis.

Here.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

Here.

Counselor Strezzo.

Chair Scott.

Present.

All right.

With that, we have four members here, so we do have a quorum.

Oh, wonderful, wonderful.

Uh, our first two items are approval of minutes.

We had two meetings in our uh in our last batch, although this does say April 5th, I believe this is the approval of the meetings of May 5th.

Uh, and the approval of the minutes of the April 28th uh meetings.

So a little bit of an error on the agenda here.

But if we could uh are there any discussion on those two sets of minutes?

All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and lay those on the table for uh approval.

And uh yeah, there it is, May 5th.

Excellent.

All right.

So uh we will go ahead.

It's just a scrivener's error.

I'm pretty sure we don't need to amend anything.

Uh we have two substantive items before us tonight.

One is a uh welcome update to our welcoming communities ordinance, and one is a discussion on the uh establishment of the rental registry and energy disclosure ordinance, which was uh submitted by the previous administration uh just prior to their conclusion.

So we'll go ahead by picking up item number three first, that is ordinance 260522, proposing an amendment to section 2-6 of the code of ordinances, the welcoming community ordinance to further enhance civil rights protections in Somerville.

Now, Counselor Ewan Campen, you were, I believe, lead sponsor on this.

Uh and so if you'd like to give an introduction and sponsor any members of the public to introduce the changes that you are uh proposing tonight, I give you the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Um I I want to just dig into this and hear from colleagues and from staff.

Um, but before we do so, I was hoping to sponsor a member of the public, Gideon Epstein, who's in the audience, who is counsel with the ACLU of Massachusetts, who aided us in the drafting of this.

Have him give some very brief introductory remarks.

That sounds like a splendid idea to me.

Um, Madam Clerk Fisher Cassiol, could you uh promote him up or unmute him so that he can uh give us a brief introduction?

I'm here.

Oh, all right, already here.

Uh well then, Mr.

Epstein.

Why don't you watch go ahead?

Um yeah, well, appreciate Counselor Ewan Campen for inviting me to give uh just some introductory remarks and to the other co-sponsors of these amendments.

Uh I had the chance to address the full city council about a month ago.

And one of the things I said at that meeting is that these amendments uh represent some of the most consequential things that uh local lawmakers can take at the municipal level uh to safeguard immigrant immigrants' rights and more broadly the civil liberties of the broader community in Somerville.

And I think uh one particular area of these amendments that I want to highlight and it connects so much with uh the other work that I do at the ACLU of Massachusetts is uh these amendments requirement that uh city lawyers review uh ongoing um city contracts uh or uh new city contracts that come about and review existing uh city contracts when they come up for renewal.

Um, and in particular, you know, that area is uh so important right now because we are seeing uh municipal surveillance technology contracts, for example, uh contracts between about 80 Massachusetts municipalities, Somerville not included, uh, and uh a company like Flock Safety that we know uh and we have clear evidence that you know they are uh directly contributing to civil immigration enforcement, um, whether that's providing data to ICE or providing uh you know licensed plate reader information that reflects uh driver's location information uh to other local law enforcement.

Um and I think it you know speaks to Somerville's values and leadership that Somerville's not engaged in uh this data sharing network that Flock has going on, like so many other municipalities are.

Uh, but the language in the amendment in these amendments would uh make sure that the actions that Somerville has taken to safeguard immigrants' rights in the past are now uh reflected in law and um you know we'll have thorough review and um I think that uh contract review provision.

Uh it's it's uh you know building on other provisions in these amendments that would more explicitly prevent uh information sharing with federal immigration enforcement authorities and other law enforcement engaged in several immigration enforcement efforts uh and would also uh build on other provisions that safeguard safeguard Somerville residents' First Amendment rights, which are so often under attack um in today's day and age.

So I just want to thank um Counselor Ewan Campen again for your work on this and on these amendments and look for looking forward to you know answering any questions that um members of the committee might have about these amendments drafting.

All right, thank you for that.

And uh, Madam Clerk, if you could have the record reflect that we are joined by Councillor Strauss.

Um Wonderful.

So uh Counselor Ewan Campin, how would you like to go through this?

I've obviously reviewed this and have some uh thoughts myself, but mostly quite laudatory.

Uh, did you want to step through this uh item by item, change by change?

Mr.

Chair, why don't I just very big picture kind of introduce what I see as the most substantive parts of this, um, which is basically two sections of the proposed amendments, and then I'm sure that staff and members will have their own thoughts.

That sound good.

Sounds great.

And then I will go to uh IGA and then to colleagues.

Excellent.

Well, first of all, let me just emphasize that this was uh very collaborative approach with called Counselor Link, Counselor Hart, and with the administration.

Um thanks to all of them.

Um so I just want to draw everyone's attention first to the new section three.

So a bunch of red texts in the draft.

And this is role of city staff in law enforcement action.

Um, and it you know, basically says in plain language, no one from the city, unless they are required to do so by federal or state law can assist, cooperate, or allow time, money, facilities, property equipment personnel, or other resources to be used to facilitate an operation by federal or out-of-state agencies seeking to arrest or otherwise penalize uh people for engaging in protected First Amendment rights or uh Massachusetts uh declared rights, um, including assembly petitioning speech.

This is, you know, file this under like ordinances that we never thought we'd have to file.

Um, but this is just saying we're we're not going to participate in any of the federal overreach that we are, you know, all seeing with our own eyes.

Um the other kind of large substantive section is 13.

Um, and this is what Mr.

Epstein was just referring to.

It has to do with reviewing um contracts, uh grants, etc.

And it requires the city solicitor's office to review these and to make sure that they do not um conscript the city into violating the constitution, put simply.

Um so those are there, there are other changes, and I'm I'm happy to get into the details on any of those, but these substantively are the two main sections of the ordinance that we're posing amendments to.

Um and I'm happy to you know open it up to staff, colleagues that have questions, thoughts.

All right.

Well, let me start by sending it to uh Liaz and Rugdasy, representing the mayor's office here this evening, and then uh obviously happy to hear from our colleagues.

Uh Leah Zen Radassi.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I just wanted to thank the sponsors for introducing this and working alongside the administration to produce these amendments over several months and make sure that the ordinance reflects the shared values of the city.

Um, and if it's all right with you, I was hoping to give Director Nagel the if if you're all right with it, um, the floor to talk about some of the work that Soya has been doing and share some of the steps that have been taken to implement the mayor's executive order, which this these amendments um are generally reflect.

All right.

That sounds great.

Always a big fan of Director Teresa Nagel's work and that of her staff.

So uh Director Teresa Nagel, please.

Thank you very much.

And uh through you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, starting with some of the things that we've been doing in compliance with the executive order that Mayor Wilson signed earlier this year, we have been working with economic development and our law department to ensure that we can get out the necessary signage, both for um businesses as well as for private property owners so that they can loudly and clearly say that they understand their rights and they understand that without a judicial warrant, um ICE federal agents of any kind cannot violate and and trespass uh private property, and that business owners also have the right to deny access into their business or organizations have the right to deny access to business um within this idea of like Fourth Amendment places.

Um we have also been continuing to provide know your rights trainings to the community, but have also now trained city staff on their rights and very importantly their responsibilities as city staff in Somerville.

And within this, something that I really wanted to highlight, particularly within um section E order number three, is that we have been very clear with city staff that employee safety is paramount, and the guidance that we are providing is they need to comply with our current regulation, our ordinances, and the values that we have in the city, and let's be quite frank, the law, because it is still the law federally, state, and municipally.

Um, and also that we understand that if any employee feels threatened or fears for their safety, that they have to ensure their safety first and foremost.

So really being very clear that every individual's safety, be that of our employees or be that of our community members, it supersedes requirements that we are putting forth um through whether it be the trainings that we are giving folks and the clarity of what the processes are if we are to have federal agents come in city property to conduct their operations, um, but that we would not expect for them to put their lives on the line or put themselves in harm's way um if not complying with the um demands of these agents where to put them or our residents at risk.

Um, in addition to this, we continue to answer questions and work along with our wonderful police department to ensure that not only are we complying with the law and ensuring that there is safety and security in our communities, which also mean res means respecting civil liberties and rights and human rights, um, but that our community members know this and understand this.

And so we we continue to to try and serve uh as a bridge, a trusted bridge to help folks understand that when they see police on jackets or the gear that some of our federal agents tend to wear, that they should not conflate that with our local police.

Um yeah, I'll I'll keep it there and brief and answer any questions that anyone might have.

Thank you.

All right, sounds good.

Uh let's see, I'll start with Councillor Mbaugh.

Councillor Mba, you are first up in the chess card.

I just wanted to echo your sentiment in the beginning.

I'm a big fan of uh Director Nagel as well.

Good to see you.

I was I'm surprised that you're back, you know.

I thought you should be taking a sick leave or something, but good to see you.

Um, this is and also I want to thank Councillor Uin Campaign, you know, for leading this.

I'm glad that you know uh mentioned like in the beginning when uh um sometimes it's always good to uh the fact that we have this open communication is so helpful, so we don't duplicate efforts.

I'm glad that you know uh mentioned like in the beginning when when uh um like sometimes it's always good to uh the fact that we have this open communication is so helpful so we don't duplicate like effort so this has been really this has been great I guess this is I've this is really nice and I can see like you know several provisions you know now expand you know protections around like data sharing you know ice access to facilities and participation and all what I guess my my I just want to get more clarity in terms of like the kind of oversight you know like I just want to make sure that we keep having honey in in terms of like oversight.

And so I guess what oversight or accountability and training mechanism again that you know I'm sure Dr Neger spoke about that but we'll be put again continually to ensure that employees and officers consistently you see I'm using keyword you know uh that is understand and follow you know kind of like these new requirements like you can see that they've been optimized but again there's been you know some we have some laws in the books but now that everything has been revised like how do what is that oversight mechanism you know that is being that you're planning to institute to create the accountability and training you know that will be put in place to ensure that you know city employees and officers consistently understand and follow these new requirements.

Would like to give an answer to that.

Lia Zen Radasi thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um through you I'll let uh Director Nagel speak a little bit more to the training but uh just did want to flag the provisions of this ordinance are consistent with our existing policies um and the mayor and the administration share a lot of the values that went into these amendments.

So just wanted to highlight that and um and again this isn't like a divergence from past procedure or anything we're very much reinforcing existing policies and positions that we've already had.

That's understandable but uh I think the question of what are the accountability mechanisms to ensure that uh these policies get followed is a relevant one.

I mean there was just another story today about uh a local police department providing uh surveillance camera footage to ICE without uh against town policy so uh I think the question is still a relevant one uh I see Chief Benbert would like to speak to that and then uh go to Director Dreyson.

Uh Chief Benford does not want to speak to that.

Oh Mr.

Chair my apologies um I I would uh I I would uh defer to uh Director Nagel and I and I will follow her up I know she was recognized and I will follow her.

I think uh until we actually have any civilian oversight in the city of Somerville which is something we are still lacking you are still the uh primary oversight for the police department I think it'd be relevant.

Yeah I'm happy to respond to it I was just uh out of courtesy her name was mentioned uh prior to mine um but I'm I'm happy to jump in um thank you very much uh for the question greatly appreciated uh certainly uh for the police department we've done a number of different things uh to recognize uh to uh recognize uh this value set and the importance of this ordinance um and how not only uh we police uh but how we operate uh as a city and there are a number of different things that we've done and put in place to ensure that we are responsive uh to not only uh our community but to our department members ensuring that they get the most important up to and up-to-date information partnering and working with Sawyer and other city partners to ensure that uh as uh Director Nagel so aptly uh mentioned uh serving as a bridge uh where by virtue of the very discipline that we represent uh there are natural barriers uh over time through policy and practice uh that has kept us separated from our community so she's been a welcomed and very much appreciated partner in that work uh within the police department um I have identified Deputy Chief Dunovan who was unable to be here tonight uh he is the point of contact at the executive level uh for ensuring uh that we're in compliance uh with all the provisions of this ordinance as well as the different steps that we've taken uh within department to ensure that our officers are informed um and what the expectations are uh for them under uh under the law as well as uh under our rules additionally uh newly appointed uh captain de Oliveira uh in the community relations division has been working closely with Sawyer uh and is really part of our operational lead and ensuring that the information and the expectations of executive management are really transcending down the organization to our uh operational practitioners and our police officers and frontline supervisors.

Lastly, I would mention the good counselor asked about training.

We do in-service training annually.

And as part of in-service training, we would visit our welcoming ordinance annually to talk about the provisions and the expectations.

We've put together helpful tips for our officers so that they have information in an expedited fashion if presented with a call for service.

It's extremely difficult and not to get tunnel visioned on these calls.

So we try and provide it at a high level so that it's immediately reflective and accessible for the officers and they have access to the information.

And then lastly, I would mention our training documents that we share during in service, which occurs daily.

We've done this consistently for the last year and a half since this administration's taken office.

We've used that as an opportunity and a quick opportunity to share updates and consistently remind officers again of the uh of the uh provision of uh the city ordinance as well as our department rules.

So I will pause there and just at a high level.

Those are some of the things that we've done internally to apply accountability and oversight, but also to ensure that our officers are getting access to the relevant information as they go about doing their work.

All right.

Uh Councilor Mba, is that uh do you have any follow-up on that before I go to uh other follow-ups on this question?

Um, chair, I think I think the director also probably has some needed to substantiate.

So I think thank you, Chief, for that.

You know.

All right.

Uh, Counselor Strezzo, is this uh directed to the chief's response?

No.

We're doing both.

No, Mr.

Chair, getting in line for next question.

Great.

Then I will uh I will then uh invite Director Teresa Nagel to provide any additional context.

Yes, thank you through you, Mr.

Chair.

Um of the most important ways that we are ensuring that there is accountability and follow-up and that what we are doing is practicable, is by ensuring that it is in fact able to be practiced.

And part of that is providing very clear guidance to staff about what it is that they are supposed to do and what is just not part of their role, what is part not part of their responsibility.

We have found this to be incredibly effective because obviously this is this can be so overwhelming when we are talking about federal agents showing up in our city and taking our neighbors, our community members from us, and also risking them taking our staff, like this is all the same community.

And it is something that is uh incredibly emotional.

We're talking about people's lives here and their ability to remain within Somerville and within the United States.

And it because of the emotional nature of it, it is easy to get overwhelmed by what we're asking people to do.

So we have ensured that the procedures that we have when any event occurs are very clear, and that the majority of the responsibility lies on leadership and not on frontline staff who may themselves be at risk.

So that is one way that we are ensuring that that folks are able to follow with every single one of the guidelines that are being put forth, whether it be um within our welcoming community ordinance or within any of the different steps that we've taken, uh, particularly since this new administration took office.

Um this new federal administration took office.

Um additionally, I would add that we are we at Soya are regularly available for trainings.

We continue to provide trainings, whether that be for staff.

Uh, we've actually been adapting the original training to particular needs of particular groups of staff, given the the sensitivity or type of work that they might do to really equip folks with the necessary tools.

Um and we plan to be offering these regularly and just make ourselves available to really adapt in whatever way is needed.

I think that oftentimes when we're thinking about accountability and oversight, it is easy to just look at, you know, is there a body, is there a person that is ensuring that people are following the rules?

And what I have seen happen time and time again in different organizations and in different contexts is that most of the attention goes to that and not in ensuring that these are rules that can be in fact followed that are in line with the law, that are in line with our commitment and our values to our community, and that are in line with what we're reasonably asking of humans in situations of duress to act upon.

That is where we have really focused the bulk of our work and are finding it to be quite fruitful.

Um and I have to add on on a personal note, it has been so rewarding to be with my fellow colleagues and hear their um thought processes, their concerns, because overwhelmingly it's about how do we how do we show up?

Um and I think that that's just also very important to recognize.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Uh Councilor Mbade, did you have any conclusion or uh follow-ups there?

No, uh Chairman Scott, I'm telling you that Negro never disappoints me.

You know, she went above and beyond.

Thank you, Director Nago.

All right, wonderful.

Then Chairman Scott, can I just take this moment to also appreciate Gid Young X team as well for the work that is put in, you know, just to say thank you, you know, for everything that you know is put in to strengthen this ordinance.

Yeah, wonderful, of course.

Uh Counselor Stresso, I believe you have the floor now.

Thank you.

Are we ready for um well?

Um ready to introduce a new thought on this.

Are we ready to go?

Yeah, all right, and go.

Uh I would I am interested in suggesting an amendment to section 13.

13 uh two and including places of worship, because as we know, and as Soya has known that um a lot of not only are members of our community afraid to show up to their places of business and their favorite restaurant, but also places of worship, and there are numerous cases of vice targeting places of worship for that uh here uh throughout the nation, but closer.

So I think that makes sense to me, but want to hear from our from my colleagues on that.

Okay, uh, if I could just get a clarification.

So in 13 B1, it's a protection against engaging uh against you know targeting people for engaging activities protected by the First Amendment, which would include assembly and religion.

Uh religion specifically.

I see provision of food, medicine, clothing, shelter, transportation, health services, legal advice, or representation by or under the direct supervision of an attorney.

And that goes on to talk about that, but it does not mention houses of worship.

And I know uh that's why I'm asking uh your thoughts on this, but I do think that's a valuable thing to include.

Yeah, right.

Then I think uh, you know, I would why don't we defer to uh let's see, I see Annalyst Salisbury has a drafting thought about that, and then I'd uh see if uh attorney Epstein uh had a thought about its inclusion or right because I know that it is a religion, and I know that uh or or that religion and where that falls under first day, which can uh I can be argued either way.

So please continue.

Uh uh Annalith Salisbury.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair for the record, Brendan Salisbury legislative and policy analyst for the city council.

Um I would say that the the there's no I don't think that there's a particular need to call that out here because these are about specific actions regardless of where they take place.

Um the the location of them, I think would actually limit this, including a specific location like houses of worship, um, because as it stands, this is regardless of where these actions take place, they are protected actions under this ordinance.

Uh, and if we were to start adding in specific locations, we would it would behoove us to add in every location that we think would be appropriate to be covered by this.

We could certainly do including at, you know, X place, but I think that the inclusion of a specific one and calling that out in particular actually does do us a disservice.

All right.

Uh Counselor Davis, did you have something on this point in particular?

Chair, my hand was raised just uh to generally get in the queue, but I but since you asked, I I I agree with Anna Salisbury.

Um I'm gonna reference the Starbucks rule in in my list of points to make, but I think it applies here as well.

Um better not to say one thing because then it's interpreted that you include it elsewhere.

All right.

Are there any other thoughts on that?

Um consideration from Counselor Strasbo.

Yeah, that's and I and Mr.

Chair, I'd like to hear uh from Sawyer on this as well.

Uh all right.

Uh Director Teresa Nagel, your opinion's been requested here.

Um absolutely I for the record, I am not an attorney.

Um, but in terms of the targeting of places of worship, yes, of course.

Um not only are places of worship targets, but people's personal religions are target.

I would say that because of the inclusion of the First Amendment in the first point, that is likely to cover for all of this.

Um and I would also add not that we should be only focusing on you know what already pre-exists in at the state level, but with the state's executive order that explicitly calls out places of worship as places where um there cannot be uh these types of detentions, um, and where I should consider them places that are safe for our community, that we also have that additional backing.

Um so not to say uh through you, Mr.

Chair, uh Counselor Straso, that the point that you're not bringing up is isn't absolutely salient.

Agree with you 100%.

It just seems like it would already be covered under the first part.

Thank you, uh Director Frays and Engel for saying what I was trying to say much more eloquently.

And I do see Solicitor Amara also has hand raised.

So since we're getting lawyer opinions, solicitor Amara.

Well, I figured you might as well get one from a lawyer, right?

Um, I agree with everything that's been said, and I question and would not want to act on whether what negative implications it could have to do that and arguments that might be problematic, but I do believe that the behaviors are what we are targeting, and wherever they occur is where they are protected.

And there is no question, but that houses of worship, like a whole host of places are being targeted and that are supposed to be safe and aren't, but the ordinance goes really far substantively to protect people and their rights without calling into question going too far.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Can I ask a uh the lot of uh the solicitor a question on that point or for whatever wants to address it?

Sure, please.

Thank you.

Um so I I guess you know, to take the substantive intent here, the spirit of Council Streso's um you know thoughts.

The oops, where do we go?

The the language in um sorry, I've in 13 B one, you know, which is what has been cited here is it's you know um activities protected by the first amendment or the cited articles of Massachusetts Declaration of Lights of Rights, you know.

If if I'm gonna if we're gonna quibble about the drafting, right?

And we're gonna say that that would uh as uh stated include um you know exercise of religion.

Um the phrasing here says in including assembly existing outside petitioning and speech, right?

Um and elsewhere in the document we use including without limitation.

Um the one place where we had said that and it's now deleted, which is gonna be a question we're gonna have later.

Um I'm looking at a document, I always worry that if we say including that that that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as an ex as an exhaustive list, and and that it is therefore excluding anything other than the things that follow the word including.

Um if I had the pen here, I would write the words without limitation in between including and assembly.

Um so I guess my question would be was it you know, is that intentionally not uh the way it's it's phrased, or is there you know, is there and if so, why?

Um and if not, then could we just add that to make sure it's you know clear that we're including the concerns that were raised by Council Treasure and anything else that might be uh deemed to be to fall into the first amendment or the referenced sections or the message that question of rights.

Uh wonderful question.

Uh see, analyst Salisbury, I saw your hand shoot up there.

Maybe you have a drafting comment.

Mr.

Chair, you know that I do.

Um count uh Mr.

Chair, through you to Counselor Davis.

I will admit that the reason that it is struck in one place and not in another is simply because we did not touch uh the complaints section.

Um, but I would be inclined to strike without limitation there, in keeping with the drafting manual that uh was produced, um, which does very clearly state that our intent when using the word including is a non-exhaustive list.

Um that document is of course something that you uh as a body have accepted and have stated is is part of your intent um when drafting ordinances.

Um so my inclination would be not to add without limitation in because that would be in conflict with other ordinances that are uh that have been drafted, but rather to remove without limitation from subsection F all right.

I love a good style guide discussion and uh fortunately uh Councilor Davis, the pen is in fact in your hand.

We are the legislative matters committee.

Uh solicitor, if you if you don't mind, uh would you like to hear Solicitor Mara or would you have more to address it?

I I'd like to just respond, if I if I may, to that as chair, um and you know, uh start by you know expressing my again my gratitude to uh to analyst salesbury for his work in um helping us to find um best best practices for drafting.

Um as I'm sure he will recall, I uh specifically objected to uh to that point and expressed my disagreement with it.

And it and and I believe also stated my intent to continue um advocating for drafting with clarity, uh, which I think this discussion um quite perfectly crystallizes the the need for uh for that type of a drafting approach.

Um you know, and so if if if an offshoot of this is that we need to go back to the drafting guide and and have that conversation again, um I I'm happy to engage in that discussion.

Um but as the point has been raised, and as as the language I think um one could objectively say uh you know has been interpreted a way that that uh raised the concern that something is not included um in that uh the the look the ordinance as it stands um does use the phrase uh elsewhere.

Um I'm inclined, and and as it is also on my list of things to raise, like why did you take that out in another section?

I I think it's more clear with that.

I think it the the reader better understands uh what we're talking about, and and uh you know, I I guess I would defer it to um to attorney Amara as to how a court might interpret that, but I don't I I I suspect that a court might look more to uh judicial precedent, um, you know, the jurisprudence that's out there rather than our style guide as as the uh the deciding factor, uh though I I suspect it it may be um informative as to legislative intent.

Um, but uh you know that's not necessarily I I wouldn't necessarily want to hang my hat on that, Mr.

Chairs, is I guess what I'm what I'm trying to say.

All right.

Uh I guess I will go to Solicitor Amara and then uh we'll return to Councillor Strezzo, who led this off.

Solicitor Amara.

I I wish I could say that in my experience, every piece of legislation has been consistent throughout in its use of terms.

Um I cannot.

This is no exception, and it's not uncommon, particularly when you're working off one draft and focusing on changes.

I also believe that in terms of clarity and conciseness is the trend.

And I have absolutely no question in my mind about our ability to adequately defend including is not exclusive.

Because if you mean exclusive, you better say exclusive, right?

Because you will always have an argument when people want to broaden something.

So if you do not want to broader, you make it perfectly clear that it's not, and I agree with um legislative liaison Salisbury that this is in keeping with the more current way of drafting.

And I do not think there is any problem with it the way it is drafted in a perfect world.

I also don't have a problem taking it out later, but we really were trying not to go beyond what the changes were.

All right.

Well, I guess that'll be uh will of the committee question for a little bit later.

Uh Councillor Streso, did you have anything further?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And thank you for all the the thoughts on this.

Uh I I love the dialogue.

Um with what Counselor uh Davis says, I support that.

And I I would be interested.

And I I hear what everyone's saying, and I've been listening intently.

Um, but I would feel comfortable um including that.

Uh what uh what counselor Davis is saying.

Oh okay.

Uh all right.

Then uh opening this up to other colleagues.

Do other colleagues have questions, uh thoughts, concerns, or uh amendments to consider.

Mr.

I mean I have other unrelated I'm sure you have a list.

Yeah, directly related to the first one's directly related to this, but uh to this concept.

You are if you are a turn to go, then I will uh work.

Uh uh Mr.

Chair, are you would you uh with your brain process here?

Would you prefer amendments happen now, or would you rather just have the general conversation and then hit amendments after?

What is I'd I'd like to conclude the discussion and then based on uh totality discussion, we can consider amendments uh based on uh the whole context of it.

So I'd I'd like to hear what Councillor Davis has to say.

I hear you and uh through you to Councillor Davis bookmark that conversation we just had.

Um Councilor Davis, you do have the floor, sir.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I am making note of that section as we speak.

Um so my first comment was this exact same point in section uh E four, role of police in immigration enforcement.

And the question was why are we moving removing the words without limitation?

I think I've uh I've heard the answer.

That is uh uh a style decision uh uh a change made to um to align with the uh the aforementioned style guide uh on a point with which I do not agree.

Um so um you know will of the committee will of the council as to um which approach you want to take, just which whatever we do, we ought to be consistent, which we are currently not.

Um so I'll I'll leave that for future uh deliberation.

Um in that same along the same lines, um, and again um citing the the Starbucks rule uh espresso unius excluso alteris uh or something along those lines.

The the addition in both uh section E uh let's see.

Where did it come first?

E3 and then E4, the uh concept of accept as acquired by federal law or a court order.

Um I didn't see that added anywhere else, and I didn't see that we said that anywhere else.

And I note that we do have, and I specifically remember having this discussion in the um in the the last major overhaul of this that that um I led in 2019 or something like whatever year that was, and that would have been 19, well, whatever it was.

Um the uh the existence of section I um to you know, which isn't isn't exactly on point, but it's pretty much on point.

It pretty much says the same thing, I think.

Um so my my question, the drafting question was you know, why in E3 and four add the uh except as required by federal law or court order and not add it to every other section.

Do we do we mean it as it in those sections, but we don't mean that to apply to the other sections?

Are we somehow uh to my eye that that creates some ambiguity as to its relationship as to the applicability of section I to the entire ordinance?

Um so I just want to understand if there was uh and you know, and there may be a really good reason for it.

I just if so, I want to understand what that is.

So to Councilor Young Campin, to Attorney Amara, um to Mr.

Epstein, whoever can address that.

Mr.

Chair, I think I would defer to liaison Salisbury.

I mean, I I think the answers is this is where we made the most substantive changes.

But I I don't have a good answer for uh a substantive reason of why to have it here and not elsewhere.

Mr.

Chair, with due respect to Councilor UN Campan, I don't actually have an answer for this because I do believe that this was added at the insistence of the administration.

You are muted, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Well, we do have representatives administration.

Would anybody like to fess up?

Let's see.

Uh Liaison Redas.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

My understanding is that because these directly pertain to civil immigration and immigration enforcement, we just want it to be really clear about the limitations that exist if it's required by federal law or court order so that we weren't misleading members of the public that might be looking at the ordinance and think that this would do something that it actually cannot do.

All right.

So it sounds like it's for excessive clarity here, Councillor Davis.

So if I may, Mr.

Chair, I mean, I I guess I I go back to my initial question.

Is there a concern that that Section I uh doesn't accomplish this?

And and if so it is there disagreement that uh adding what is purported to be uh clarity actually might um uh create create ambiguity because there's now a question as to whether that concept applies to every other section where it's not mentioned.

Uh Annalyst Salisbury.

Uh Mr.

Chair, if I may answer half of that question, uh I cannot speak to uh I uh and its applicability and whether this goes further than that or if it is um redundant, I will leave that to the city attorney if necessary.

But I will say that I um if it is redundant, um I am inclined to agree, consistent with my penchant for conciseness, uh, that it should not be included.

All right.

Does anybody want to or make a case for arguing why counselor Davis shall not strike this.

All right.

Council Davis, I think you've gotten as much answer as you're gonna get on this.

Yeah.

So Mr.

Chair, I mean, if I may, you know, I I think like I know I think there's a fair argument that could be made that that I maybe isn't isn't as clear as it might be.

And and if if there is a concern in you know in the administration, you know, as to this concept in these two places, I assume they they also would agree that to whatever extent something is required by federal law or a court order, um, that that anywhere else in the document it is, you know, it says we're not gonna do like that that that same um caveat would would apply, you know, perhaps there's uh uh an approvement that could be made to I um so that it does, yes, that it does apply.

I mean, it's one of those, I mean, objectively, like it is what it is, right?

And we we I think I think or at least as one of the the key drafters, one of the main drafters of of the the existing ordinance certainly was my intent that if something is required by federal law or a court order, we'll do it.

That that's we're not saying we're not gonna do that.

That was never you know, it was never sort of my intent to to have this ordinance convey that.

And so I I very much agree.

I just think it's a drafting point.

So um, you know, I I think it might be, and I don't know what your intent was, Mr.

Chair, in terms of moving this forward, but yeah, this seems like it might be an opportunity to if we were to leave this in committee to um maybe follow up and and see if we can a drill down a little bit to what the rationale was and b, maybe improve I so that it it might um capture that intent without um unnecessarily creating unintended ambiguity, if that makes sense.

But again, uh yeah, to my colleagues.

Yeah, I mean, I uh again before we get into amendments, I kind of want to get the totality to discussion.

If you know people are in broad agreement here and there are simply a few drafting uh amendments we made here, I certainly don't have a problem uh uh you know considering those amendments and approving it this evening uh and moving it to the council with a recommendation.

That said, if there is a lot of work that's uh felt that needs to be done, certainly happy to send it back and bring it back for our next uh legislative matters meeting.

Understanding, of course, that our legislative matters schedule is going to be um let's say abbreviated due to the upcoming budget season and recess.

Um Mr.

Chair, I I if you if I may, um I don't disagree.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable take.

And given that we do have a week and a couple of days before our next council meeting, uh, I'd also, if if if you'd like or if our colleagues would like, I'd be happy to um have those conversations in the interim, and if anything comes up between now and then, you know, that is consistent with this discussion, right?

We wouldn't so they certainly wouldn't uh suggest that we should adopt anything um that we haven't fully discussed here in in committee, but you know, if there was language that uh that is consistent with the discussion, that might be in order we you know it's something that we could um you know we could present in uh in a week or a couple days.

Um I've I've said oh, I think you know, I I've shared my thoughts on this one.

If you want, I have one more point, and then I'll just shut up and and we can uh we can have the full list.

Um but I'm also uh happy to shut up now and hold that last point uh as you wish.

Well, I I love getting the full list.

I also uh just want to say that I think that sounds like it could be a very appropriate approach uh in the in the interregnum between here and our next council meeting to take the feedback that's been considered and ensure that consistent with the uh discussion made here that language uh changes get made and then resubmitted.

But uh I do see we've got councilor you and campen, and then uh boy, we've got a bunch of lawyers wanting to jump in here.

So uh council you and camp and I will give you privilege of place as an actual member of this committee.

Uh Mr.

Chair, first of all, I just want to say that I love this.

I am uh, you know, it's funny, like we worked on this for a long time, and I always knew that this was going to come to committee, and we were going to hear a lot of really uh important drafting feedback.

And I just take a great amount of pleasure from this.

This is the first ordinance I put in this term, so I'm enjoying this greatly.

And I think Councillor Davis, you know, I think um I I feel like the argument for including it, as was said, is I think an unusually large segment of the public will be reading this section, right?

I think this is like very live in people's minds, and I think that is why in our discussions it wound up there, right?

To to be clear, because non-lawyers are going to be reading this and we don't want to give them the wrong impression.

I I'm totally compelled by the argument of, yeah, but from a legal drafting perspective, which is what this document actually is.

Um it potentially creates some ambiguity, and I'm not at all you know wedded to to keeping it there.

I I think there's an argument for keeping it there, but you know, as has been mentioned, Counselor Davis kind of led the drafting of this initial ordinance and is extremely familiar with it in totality.

And I think that perspective is really valuable.

And I'll also just say as a as a tag here, um I also have uh maybe a proposal for how to address the concerns raised by Councillor Streso, um, which is just to include um in the list of activities that's enumerated in one there, um to include religious expression.

Um that's something that uh that uh Mr.

Epstein had had suggested to me.

Um I don't I don't know if it's strictly legally necessary.

I don't think that it is as we discussed, it's probably covered, but if we're going to be listing things, I very much understand the the um desire to include religious activities and would be happy to um include it in that way.

Yeah, I think that was what I was getting at uh originally was that it since this is covered by first uh first amendment activity, that probably is where it would need to go.

Um all right.

Well, I saw a whole host of lawyers, although I only see one now.

So Solicitor Amara, and then I will go to Silicon uh Councillor Strezzo, solicitor Amara.

Yes, I think um Jay from my office was going to say pretty much the same thing.

I am as I don't think either of us are opposed to um if there are suggested revisions that are non-really substantive that are more stylistic, that those be um discussed out of this meeting and worked out so that we don't do them on the fly.

I love saving everybody's time.

All right, uh let's see here.

Counselor Streso, did you have uh follow-up?

Yes, on that.

Uh I do support uh counselor you and campen's uh suggestion of adding that.

I think that's it's also helpful for the general public if we do have people afraid of going to mass and worried about an ice rate in there.

That I I think I think that's good for our constituents.

All right.

Uh Councillor Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I uh on that point would have no objection to that addition.

Um I guess I I will note just because I think it's important to say this when um when the issue comes up.

And we said this we repeated this often um several years ago when we were working on the the underlying ordinance which is that um you know nothing that we can do here um you know should be interpreted as as um you know making people feel uh uh you know completely safe or protected from the types of enforcement actions we've seen from the federal government as we know um we there's there's only so much we could do um and you know it's it's part of why we you know moved away and this was not the city's sort of initiation this with the ACLU's recommendation time was to sort of move it away from the word sanctuary um to sort of the walking community because um you know we don't want to give folks the sort of a false oppression uh folks to just fully understand the the the lay of the land and and that um while uh you know we can well well we can decide what we what you know city resources will be used for and and in what manner that we decide yeah that that doesn't necessarily um you know we don't have any legal authority to uh stop the federal government from doing various things and so just worth saying um you know for for better or worse you can agree or disagree with that and I know some folks do uh are out there but uh it that is what it is um Mr.

Chair if I may just uh I'll throw my last point out there it's another drafting point and and I think I I should note that the fact that um you know largely my comments here are are more sort of drafted nits than real big substance points is uh uh it should should certainly be taken as a credit and and um uh to uh counselor campan and to um everyone who we put work into this um you know I I'm in full agreement on on the substance um I'm curious as to why we removed the severability clause um and I'd like to hear the rationale for that so that's the very last sentence in J.

All right I saw analyst salesbury very quick on the draw here uh Ann Let Salisbury Counselor I am or Mr.

Chair through you to counselor Davis I am so excited to answer this uh that is because there is a global separability clause in our code of ordinances actually um I don't recall the section off the top of my head but it is in chapter one of the code of ordinances and it does cover every single section of the code of ordinances and so at every opportunity when we are making amendments to the code of ordinances you will see me removing separability clauses.

Ms.

Chair through you um to Anna Salisbury thank you uh for that um and I I understand the the rationale and and I don't necessarily disagree with that I just want to note to my colleagues that we very much had this discussion uh when we were drafting this ordinance and and we're very much aware that that uh that that provision existed and decided to keep it here anyways um sort of on the same philosophy of uh that uh I think was just made for including the um you know except it's required by federal law in a few sections here and not the other so um you know it sort of puts me on the opposite side of the argument not that I'm making the argument I just sort of pointing out the uh the discussion at the time so um it's uh it it it will require me to agree that that we should change the decision we made a few years ago um and and I'm not I'm not I'm not opposed to doing that but I'm not quite there yet so I'll I'll I'll leave it at that for the moment Mr.

Chair.

Thank you Counselor Davis uh as always my esteem for you as an attorney uh includes your ability to argue both sides at any given point uh uh noting that of course I'm not acting as an attorney in this role in any way shape or form.

Of course uh solicitor married you still have your hand up was it uh relevant to this point no I apologize I just failed to lower it okay all right uh well let's see here then uh I guess I'm the only one who hasn't spoken yet but I can see counselor Mba and Counselor Yuan Camp and halfhand raised so uh counselor Mba uh thank you Chairman Scott you know I think um the more I hear about like all this you know like how to like you know uh tighten the knots you know I one big thing that I'm you know uh looking at this the I mean there's like a few stuff that you know it wasn't really like a stickler but uh if you look at like you know section F in it you know it rely heavily you know on antenna enforcement and reporting by the administration and police department so we could as well amend this section you know to establish an independent you know civilian of a side body uh you know and also an annual public hearings you know before the city council like they there could be a number of stuff that we can add you know uh and mandatory you know audits for all eyes interactions and timelines for investigating complaints and all what not all right so if I'm hearing you correct you're you're thinking there is uh room for the addition of more uh texts that uh explicitly creates a structure for uh over

Uh, you know, and also an annual public hearings, you know, before the city council, like they there could be a number of stuff that we can add, you know, uh and mandatory, you know, audits for all eyes interactions and timelines for investigating complaints and all whatnot.

All right.

So if I'm hearing you correct, you're you're thinking there is uh room for the addition of more uh text that uh explicitly creates a structure for uh oversight and reporting.

Yes, and also disciplinary consequences for employees will violate, you know, the ordinance, you know, that could be you know, I mean, if we are going down you know, this space, we may as well just kind of like really put in stuff that you know would actually make it have you know uh uh more like more beef, you know, to the boon.

Mr.

Sherry, on this point, do you mind if I respond?

Please, Councilor Ewan Camp.

Um, so through you, thank you very much to my colleague.

I I just want to note a lot of work and thought went into the enforcement section based on pretty extensive conversations internally.

Um happy to go into the details, but I would just say that this was basically copied and pasted from our surveillance oversight ordinance and our facial recognition, both of which I consider to be very successful and have kind of threaded this needle around collective bargaining issues and um how uh violations of ordinance can can be addressed.

So I I'm not particularly in favor of opening this can of worms, but obviously it's up to the will of the committee.

All right.

Uh yeah, I'd say for myself, I think it's an interesting thought, but one that I would given given the work and where this is at right now, I might encourage uh as we are doing here, revisiting the ordinance uh to maybe that seems like a larger set of creation in terms of oversight capacity that might want to be uh might be better addressed in a separate revision.

Um but councillor Mba, you still have a no no, thank you, thank you, Councilor Yuan Campbell.

I appreciate you know the insight.

Thank you, Chair Scott for indulging me.

And then another thing also that I was thinking also when I was reading this ordinance, I just realized like you know, multiple sections, you know, contain like really very broad exceptions, such as I accept as required by federal law or a court order.

If you look at that, like E3, you know, section E3, E4, I think has it.

I think E9 in I think also E11.

And you know, so this provisions, you know, clarify that only criminal judicial warrant, you know, I think we can amend we, I mean, if we like this is just the last one I'm thinking about.

If we can amend it to clarify that only criminal judicial warrants signed by a federal or state judge may authorize you know, corporation.

So that way you explicitly state that you know, it can't it kind of like just make it like one one stop shop.

But again, it's not like honestly, it's not a stickler, but I'll just like the more you look at it, the more you think, you know, say okay, it could be this way.

We lost your audio though, Councilor Mba.

Oh, can you hear me okay?

Maybe am I the only one who lost that audio?

I can hear Councillor Mbah.

Uh one moment, I'm sorry.

I um uh pardon me, my my speaker's died, it was not you, sir.

Please.

No, no, no, no worries, no worries.

You know, again, this is just about like just clear closing loopholes, but I I mean, like, I also don't want us to kind of like get down also like you know, I just it's just a thought, you know, if it's not of a if not um that too much of a big deal that's you know, I mean, I'm happy to also pass.

All right, uh Councilor Ewan Camp, and I saw you had your hand up first, Dr.

That.

Uh Mr.

Sher, I I have a separate question for solicitor Amara when we're done with this.

Uh all right.

Uh yeah, I guess Councilor Mba, I I definitely um just say I'm personally very sympathetic to that uh set of concerns, especially with regard to oversight.

Um what I would say is perhaps we uh perhaps you and I and Counselor Ewan Camp and uh or you and I can work on uh a set of further amendments and strengthening to uh as as part of a ushering in more civilian oversight capacity.

I think uh just given the tightness of our our timeline and how right now we're trying to get something done before uh before we go into a legislative recess, uh I might say let's uh let's punt that to later, but uh I'm very much in in agreement with you in terms of the intent there.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh let's see.

I saw counselor you and campen had a separate set of questions.

Council Strezzo, is this direction or mine is on this.

I don't know who that was speaking.

Uh yeah, so I was also gonna say on.

All right, then I see Councillor Drezzo and Counselor Davis on the direct point we were just addressing, and then we will return to Counselor Ewan Kent.

Okay.

Um, the it's always great to um examine the structure and and really put that forward.

We've had a lot of uh active snags on when that has happened in the past.

And while I I think that's great to suggest, I I couldn't and wouldn't support that where it stands right now.

Uh where this is, I think it's a slippery slope.

I I think what a lot of what's what this already has is pretty good.

And again, we're we're we're we're we're talking about amendments to something that already exists, and and any potential uh structure in place of civilian oversight, etc.

Is assuming that that a structure, a strong structure is already in place to accept that, enact that, and continue to enact that for decades to come, which is still highly uncertain.

So at this point, I would not be willing to support that.

All right.

Uh Councilor Davis.

Um thank you, sir.

Sorry, I couldn't find the uh unmute button for a minute.

Um yeah, uh so just briefly on the uh on the language that I had raised earlier about acceptance required by federal law or court order.

Um Counselor Boz's point question sort of sparked a question in in my head.

Um and this is probably something that we could deal with in the context of uh potentially an improvement to section I, but in the spirit of wanting to make sure we talk about all of the issues, um I I wanted to raise this here.

Um in looking at the definition of administrative warrant, which is a defined term um in this document.

Um I think this Mr.

Chairs would be, I guess, but directed through you to the city attorney.

Um would uh let me rather than question, let me just sort of raise my concern and ask for thoughts.

You know, I as we're thinking about language and and and perhaps using this federal law court order as a starting point.

Um is there would I you know I I have a concern that that maybe a um a court order because we're very specific about defining an administrative warrant and and the handling of administrative warrants, etc.

And then but then we use this concept of a court order, which seems really uh the respect seems a bit a lot more loosey-goosey than sort of the you know the the other language we've used.

Um and I would worry that that maybe administrative warrant could be uh considered a court order.

I think uh what one one might read it that way, or perhaps misread it that way.

Um so I wanted to get the city attorney's thought on that and and uh at least as it relates to potentially um uh rework, we reworking section I to make sure that this concept is is more clear and applies throughout the document.

Um might we be more precise to um uh you know to effectively exclude administrative warrant where where it is our intent to do that.

All right, uh, you know, uh Council Davis, can I hand you the chair for a moment?

I'm having some technical difficulties uh with my audio, so I will uh allow you to follow up on that and uh I'll return shortly.

Well, I met my question through you the chair to the city attorney and uh Vice Chair Strozer.

I assume you can take the chair on the sorry vice chair strezzo.

My apologies would you like me to try to answer uh through through the chair.

Um I would I would value your thoughts.

With all due respect, I'm having a hard time following your question without seeing it in writing.

It's been very clear through everything we've tried to do on this topic, be it in here and every place else, know your rights trainings.

There's a clear distinction between an administrative warrant and a judicial warrant or judicial order.

An administrative order does not come from a court.

And so that I don't see it as being confusing, but I think if we were to have more discussion on the topic, I would prefer to take it up with some of the other things because we've been very clear in everything we've done.

Executive orders, what we've seen other um surrounding cities do has been administrative versus judicial.

Okay, through through the chair.

Thank you, Attorney Amara.

So I guess all right, so you your your point would be that the words, so that the phrase that I'm concerned about what was um or court order in that new language that was added in uh in section E uh three and four.

Um and whether that could be misinterpreted as including an administrative warrant.

Um, but your point is that the definition of an administrative warrant is specifically says that it's it's uh something that is issued by uh uh an executive officer, not or by an officer, not a uh addition, sorry, judicial officer.

In fact, we said a court order is by definition by that definition not uh a court order.

Um so okay, I I'm satisfied with that in in um in it addressing my concern and and as we talk about whether there's whether to roll that concept from from uh the the new proposed language in in e3 and four into a new section I um that's that's what you know we will we will that will inform the the drafting process as we um if if we do present something just so folks understand what that might look like.

Um thank you, uh Madam Chair If I may, Madam Chair, I have a question for Solicitor Amara based on a conversation we were having a while ago about severability.

Um seeing no objection through the chair.

Um I I maybe I just missed it.

Is it the solicitor's opinion that there's a global severability clause?

And this is I'm just interested in this, you know, in all the ordinances we pass, you know, from the perspective of uh do we just never need to include that?

Is that consistent with the solicitor's uh opinion you know I'm going to have a hard time with the use of the word never?

Um, but I will defer to Louis on Salisbury.

My understanding is that you do have that general clause and the ordinances and it covers everything in the ordinances, so we do not need it.

It would be redundant in my opinion.

Would it be harmful?

No, but in an effort to try to create clarity going forward, and because we have these global provisions to make it clear that we don't need to use them when we're making amendments.

I do um agree with Liaison Salisbury that it's not needed.

Okay.

That's all I needed to hear.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

My apologies for that uh minor disruption.

Uh Vice Chair, uh, where were we in the flow of discussion?

Is there somebody still waiting?

Mr.

Chair, I I think the floor is clear.

And we're eager to hear your thoughts.

All right.

Uh so uh just to summarize the conversation here to this point in terms of unless there's something more that needs to be uh discussed on that separability provision.

Um I see the piece about removing the without limitation language in G4.

Uh the question as to why in E3 and 4 including an exemption when it's already uh cited in I and then the suggestion that Council Young Camp had made to include a mention of uh uh exercise of religious freedom in 1A uh in the in the first amendment section.

Uh sorry, uh not a 1A, but of uh B1 13 B1.

So I think those are the outstanding things that would need to have uh some revisitation before I guess a clean resubmittal uh for our next council meeting.

Is there anything else uh in terms of the will of the council that uh we seriously want to have addressed before this comes back to us in a clean resubmission for our next council?

Mr.

Chair.

Councilor Strezzo.

Did we uh had uh a hiccup with the interwebs?

Um did uh we discussed the uh counselor uh counselor Davis's uh proposed proposed uh language changes.

Uh Councilor Trezo, what I'm referring to right now is the process by which uh counselor Davis would work with the drafters and legal department to uh handle all of those uh between now and our next meeting so that a new submission could be provided, which would address all of these concerns rather than have us do it on the fly this evening.

Okay, so you're so your plan is then uh your plan is to have this presented uh at the next regular like are you planning to discharge us from committee tonight uh work on it uh and then uh proposals and then uh discharge from committee with with amendments to be presented in next city council meeting, Mr.

Chair.

Uh this would not strictly speaking having have to be dis uh discharged for that recommendation.

It would be new submission of clean text uh would be my would be my intention.

Uh but that's just my intention.

Uh Counselor Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um happy to defer to to the will of my colleagues.

Um, I I in my thought it it might be it, you know, to the extent that there is agreement um among the committee, uh it might be helpful to particularly if we are going to take up a new submission, you know, the the night it first appears, it might be helpful to have um uh a motion from the committee, uh at least uh on the substance uh to you know, so that there's clarity as to what whether we whether that was what we would intend or not.

Um I think certainly I I would I would very much support um if if counselor intended to make the motion to amend Section Um E13B1 to add religious expression as uh as was noted.

Um I I think I'm gonna keep my mouth shut as it relates to the without limitation, other than to say um the I think it does appear one other place, and if we're gonna if we're gonna not use it, we should not use it, use it.

So I might um uh uh I might move now since I have the floor to um uh that uh the uh that the our our the city council's uh legislative legislative policy analyst um work with the law department in a uh in revising the document to um to remove any other reference uh any other use of without limitation so that it's consistent uh across the document.

Um and I'll stop there and then of course um you want to direct council treasle for that the other motion.

Um but let's take up one at a time, I would assume you want to do, Mr.

Chair.

So I'll put that first motion on the floor just to which is to to remove the remaining use of without limitation in uh in any anywhere else that appears in this document.

I think is only once.

Yeah.

Yeah, uh okay.

So um before entertaining that motion, I guess my inclination would be rather to uh I I haven't heard a lot of disagreement here in the committee.

I think the tone and direction from the conversation is clear, and I think the largest points of disagreement are generally uh style guide disagreements between yourself and the policy analysts.

So my inclination would be rather than a series of specific uh directives or amendments, uh simply a broad directive, uh for the policy analyst and uh uh law department to collaborate with the council uh to uh provide drafted update for the next committee or for the next council meeting.

Um but if you feel you want to get into the weeds here, we certainly can.

Ms.

Chair, I completely appreciate your uh your eye towards efficiency.

Um given that I I by my count, I think we've just got two.

Um I I I'm inclined to to uh leave my the motion that I've made on floor, it's this one, and then I think there's one other, and then there'll be no question as to whether the uh whether the document uh conforms with uh with with this discussion.

As it has been a lengthy one, it's save our colleagues the the chore of watching the whole thing to make sure uh that they did what we asked them to.

God bless.

All right, then uh the motion here before from Counselor Davis is uh requesting that the policy analyst and law department uh go through to remove uh the without limitation languages uh uh in all the places where it appears in the document as it is already covered in section.

Mr.

Chair I just as a procedural note um and for the sake of of your sanity and everyone else's I do just want to note that it would be my preference to receive specific directions as I will be out of office starting on Friday of this week and will not be present for the city council meeting and so a general uh directive will likely not be able to be accomplished by me in the very short amount of time that I have remaining in the office as I believe what this motion is attempting to do by Salisbury.

I was just clarifying that I that would be my preference that's all great uh colleagues is there any further discussion on this motion uh seeing none let's call the role on that motion please all right this is roll call on the motion counselor Davis yes counselor and baugh counselor you and campan yes counselor strezzo yes chair scott yes please all right with that that is all votes in the affirmative all right and then I believe the other motion that was there was uh one from counselor ewen campan to uh include uh exercise religious freedom in the 13b1 clause is that correct was to include religious expression religious expression thank you after assembly all right uh then I will frame that in the uh in a request to the analyst and uh law department to include that language in a clean resubmission uh to the council rather than amending the document before us so uh on that motion is there any further discussion all right seeing none let's call the roll on that motion all right um the second motion for the um religious expression language counselor davis yes counselor and baugh yes counselor you and campan yes counselor strozo yes chair scott yes all right again that is all votes in the affirmative as well counselor davis do I see another motion from you thank you Ms.

Chair um perhaps not a motion but I just want to make sure that uh I ask while we're here in open in open session if you know colleagues have strong feelings one way or the other on the removal of the um the the two specific added instances of acceptance required by federal law or court order um in favor of uh and a perhaps a a revision uh a to be drafted revision to section i to sort of maybe better capture that that concept um i i'm happy to work with with counselor you and campan on that point but uh that would be the only person uh the the the only person with which either of us could could uh have a conversation once this meeting closes so I want to make sure that we're um uh uh you know that I hear others if if there are other opinions on it that I hear it here uh yep that sounds good I certainly don't have a need to be included in that conversation understand the intention clearly and uh if the goal is to clarify the drafting of section I to be able to remove the duplicative uh pieces in E3 and four that's fine by me uh let's see are there uh thoughts on that counselor and bah uh thank you check Scott Councillor David I guess is it um are you following up from my uh uh my initial comment about you know the notice in you know like the the broad exceptions you know that uses such as except as required by federal law or a code order is that and we can admit okay that's good because Mr.

Chair yeah oh sure and thank you as it's since the counselor addressed me directly uh through you Mr.

If if we decide that's the right thing to do.

Um you know, uh having heard the the the argument here, I I want to read through the document more carefully, and as the city attorney noted, uh maybe not do this on the fly, but uh and then you know whatever this what would whatever suggestion is made.

Um I either I or council camp would explain that to the full council um when this comes up uh at the next meeting.

So it doesn't is not directly uh, but it is related there, counselor.

Okay, uh thank you.

So then we can move, you know.

I mean uh to clarify, like you know, we can amend this provision uh to clarify that all criminal judicial warrants signed by a federal or state judge may authorize cooperation.

That way we can close all these other loopholes because it would explicitly state that I detain us, administrative warrants, notices to appear and civil immigration subpoenas are insufficient grounds for detention or information sharing facilities or cooperation.

So you know, if we really want to close the loop loopholes, that would otherwise allow voluntary collaboration with federal immigration enforcement.

We need to clearly, you know, like uh state uh intend to.

I I think the point is well taken and can be uh could be covered in this, but uh open the hearing discussion on it.

Uh liaison Rhodasi uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Sorry, I don't want to add more complication to this.

I just really as um city attorney Amara said, prefer not to start doing amendments on the fly for something like this and really make sure that we're being thoughtful about how we're addressing this.

Um so I'm happy to work with or the lot work with the law department and whoever from the committee would want to have this conversation, but just want to make sure that we're not starting to throw around language without um full consideration.

Yeah, uh thank you.

Liaison Dassie, that is exactly what I'm trying to do, is get this conversation offline so they can be handled before our next council meeting.

Council Davis.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I I I appreciate your uh effort to sort of uh bring this conversation to a close.

And I guess on that point, I I would point out to through you to the good counselor at large that that there is uh a significant language in the document right now that addresses administrative warrants.

I I'm not sure that uh the language that we're talking about here is really relevant to the what I sounds to me is the issue that's concerned about.

Um I I think that um to my eye, the document addresses the concerns that I think I'm hearing, uh, because there is, as I said, uh there is a full definition of administrative warrants, and there are multiple sections specific that explicitly address those.

So uh I'm you know it's not my intent to revise section I as in the way the revisions that we just discussed is my not my intent in any way to address the concern that that that you raised there because I think the document already addresses that.

Um I'll stop there, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, on that point, Chairman Scott.

That's why I see I was quiet when counselor Davis, his the first amendment that he made, and the city attorney said there's other document.

I I mean I still defer to like counselor you and come because they said this documents are copy and pissed.

So uh uh counselor Davis just made an amendment to one section and this duplicated, which is completely different from the other section that is it.

And I'm not sure.

I'm that's why I'm still reading.

I'm trying to like I have like two different uh uh stuff open in front of me.

I'm not sure like what how that the amendment that you made in the beginning, I was still unclear, like how that is in how that isn't be repeated, you know, in other sections.

Councilor Davis, perhaps you can uh help Councilor Mbaugh.

Uh thanks, Ms.

Chair.

Um the the proposed change to language that I've suggested would remove the addition of the uh uh the the two proposed editions of acceptance required by federal law or court order and and more clearly state that concept in section I so that it applies to the entirety of the document wherever it would by by its nature apply.

Um I that's about all I could say, Ms.

Chair.

I think if there's if there's more to it than beyond than that, then I think we probably need to keep this in committee and have that discussion.

But I don't think there is.

uh uh the the two proposed visions of acceptance required by federal law or court order and and more clearly state that concept in section i so that it applies to the entirety of the document where wherever it would by by its nature apply um i that's about all i could say this chair i think if there's if there's more to it than beyond than that that i think we probably need to keep this in committee and and have a discussion but i don't think there is i i i think the document does what we're trying to do other than things that we've specifically uh to take a votes on and then that one change so my my preference mr chair if if you're interested is to um uh you know like uh keep this one in committee uh for a future placing on file uh once we've uh taken a vote on the or if you wanted to have a more cleaner and a deferred of uh uh legislative policy house we could refer it without a recommendation such that it could be uh done away with uh next Thursday um alongside a a a new revision but uh that's an administrative uh preference that I don't really have a strong opinion on just as a procedural matter I'd be inclined uh rather than discharging without recommendation which might lead to some confusion about whether or not we are proposing amendments to the existing text I'd rather keep this in committee uh request a clean resubmittal of the next council meeting and then we can place this on file in a future meeting uh councillor Mba and then Councilor Stress sorry uh Chairman Scott I think my hand I don't know I my hand should have been down I'm just reading some stuff yeah sorry okay great councillor Stress up thank you uh on on uh councillor Davis's suggestions the original suggestions of these two language changes and having our legislative analyst revise that and move forward I would I uh support that I would like to move forward with that and I think again that this is a modification of an already existing ordinance that has been planned thought out considered researched etc and I think it's in a good place where it is at this very second.

I respect my colleagues' opinions and thoughts on this that is where I stand.

All right so I believe we have made uh all the appropriate motions and given the directives to uh to the policy analyst and law department uh there was one final outstanding one uh which was uh a motion from uh councillor Davis I believe for uh for rem for uh considering removal of the exceptions in section uh e3 and four and considering any needed revision to section I to accommodate that is that correct counselor davis uh Ms.

Chair I believe that the um the intent uh uh the discussion that we've just had with in terms of uh proposing a new section I um I uh you know my it wasn't my intent to make a motion on that it was more just to hear the um hear the discussion here certainly if you prefer that that be uh I vote be taken on that I'm happy to make that motion but uh I think then this one probably falls a little more in the uh well let's let's um let's work on it and and include that submission then explain because I think um as I said I I'm actually you know there's a universe where what once I look at this the specific point now hearing the the the answers to my questions maybe maybe we take a different route um and so my my tent is to um put forward what I what what I think you know a collaboration with counselor camp and everyone else is the best response and then explain that uh to folks next Thursday based on our discussion here.

That sounds like a great uh solution Councilor Davis then I propose we stop beating the horse and uh uh place uh keep this item in committee and move on uh there are any further discussion on the item before us before I do that all right well then seeing that in the context of the discussion the motions have been made I look forward to receiving a clean draft at our next council meeting which hopefully uh we can take up and explain to our colleagues and vote on all right with that done let's move on to item number four of our agenda this evening that's uh item number two five one eight two two this is requesting ordainment of an amendment to chapter seven of the code of ordinances to establish a rental registry and energy disclosure uh now in full transparency this is an item that the council had discussed uh for a very long time in terms of the creation of a rental registry this was work that had been undertaken by the previous administration and uh then on the very perhaps the very last meeting uh before going on the way out the door uh this was submitted uh it has been sitting in our box since and there has been uh I have certainly been engaged in some conversations with the administration about uh how they would like to proceed here I know there is still uh desire expressed by many members of the committee and the council at large to move forward with a rental registry ordinance uh so I have placed it on the agenda this evening so that we can hear from the administration

And uh then on the very perhaps the very last meeting uh before going on the way out the door, uh, this was submitted.

Uh it has been sitting in our box since, and there has been uh I have certainly been engaged in some conversations with the administration about uh how they would like to proceed here.

I know there is still uh desire expressed by many members of the committee and the council at large to move forward with a rental registry ordinance.

Uh so I have placed it on the agenda this evening so that we can hear from the administration as to uh their uh feelings and intention regarding this, and to have a conversation with the committee about how we would like to proceed as a legislative body.

So with that said, uh I will uh recognize liaison Radasi, who was a member of both the previous administration and this one.

Liaison Radassi.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so just wanted to say that uh the administration is still fully in support of this um policy and would like to move forward with it.

However, we are not at this time ready to discuss uh tonight.

Uh we recognize a lot of the work that's been done over the past few years, including by the rental registry working group and also counselors and staffers who were previously part of these discussions.

So we are currently working to identify which department will be overseeing and enforcing the elements of the rental registry as this work involves collaboration and coordination of multiple departments, and we'll have more qual clarity around um the outstanding pieces after the budget process, which will outline changes in the current departmental structures.

Um this is really just to make sure that as we're moving this forward and doing this right, that some one department has ownership and is able to enforce the provisions of this ordinance.

So at this time, the administration would like to request that any conversation on this wait until after the reorganization that will be happening as part of the budget process.

All right.

Uh I'm curious to hear my colleagues' thoughts to that particular response.

I will point out that uh at my request, there was a convening of city staff and uh I believe counselor Saeed was also present for that discussion.

Uh where uh the status of the rental registry ordinance that had been submitted was discussed, and that was on April 9th.

So now this has been before us as a council for approximately six months and presumably before the administration as well.

Um and uh so it is the administration's position that there is uh not enough information to proceed at this point.

Mr.

Chair, I think it's it's um a need to dedicate resources by centralizing this in one department to be able to lead this effort, which we are not able to do at this time until the reorganization happens.

Counselor Davis.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

Um you know, I'm thank you for putting this on the agenda.

Um you and I spoke about this, and and I I very much agree that it was uh it's appropriate to have this here because I know there is a lot of interest in the public uh uh to move this forward.

And I think just in the interest of transparency, um, you know, my my opinion was that it it makes there's there's no reason not to at least have checkpoint here.

So let folks know that we haven't forgot about it.

The administration hasn't forgot about it.

Um but it's just not at a place where we can move forward yet.

This is uh you know, you you mentioned that this uh was submitted uh at the end of the last administration.

Of course, as you can know, as chair, this was the first iteration of the rental registry was submitted, I believe, during the Cartiton administration.

This goes back many, many, many, many, many years.

Um, and and there's for whatever reason this concept seems to be one that it's sort of put forward and then, oh, wait a minute.

Um it's complicated, we don't know we can do it right.

And and I will say uh I appreciate the desire to make sure we can get it right and that we can actually enforce it.

Um I'm frustrated that we're here literally years later and still talking about it.

Um I I don't disagree with the administration's uh you know request that um you know we need to to we need to have a plan to enforce it.

And if anyone thinks that that um isn't necessary, I refer I only refer you to the vacant property ordinance as an example of um what happens when the an administration uh isn't isn't on board with moving forward with something and doesn't have a way to enforce it.

Um look forward to that actually the end of the law that's enforced someday.

Um in the meantime though, um I I you know all due respect to the administration.

I I agree, I understand, I'm appreciative that they are looking at this.

I do understand that there's going to be some reorganizational changes in it, and it it strikes me as uh perfectly logical that they ought to get that figured out before we um plow forward with this too much.

So while I restate my frustration uh and and uh as well as my my significant interest in moving this forward, I I trust that the administration uh it also shares that that that view, and I look forward to working with them uh on making it a thing once we've got all the right pieces in place.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh well, thank you for that, Councilor Davis.

Um I appreciate your reference of the vacant property ordinance.

Um I could also reference the um but truck skirt ordinance and the leaf blower ordinance and several others that this council has passed during our shared tenure here, uh, which have never been enforced in many cases simply because the administration disagreed with the policy uh preference being expressed by the city council.

And so that's I'll take an exception to sidewalk ordinance, but we can have that discussion over a glass of whiskey sometime.

That sounds great.

I I will say that we have, I have observed um that there is there has been a clear pattern of the city council, uh, when the city council is advocating for a policy position that the executive of the city disagrees with, the passing of an ordinance uh is mooted by the fact that the administration uh devotes zero resources to actually implementing that policy or enforcing that ordinance.

And while that is frustrating, I think it would it is a mistake uh philosophically speaking, to then abdicate our role in terms of pushing these policy uh proposals and implementing ordinances, because at the point at which the public asks, why hasn't someone does something?

I would much rather be the person who can say, well, as I as a legislator have created the laws, have created the framework, and have uh with the assent of my colleagues established a law.

And the fact that that law is not being enforced is entirely a function of the executive, of the mayor.

Uh, because the only accountability uh in those situations, given that we lack a lawyer and are not in the practice of uh applying for a writ of mandamus.

Um the only recourse we are told is electoral.

So rather than abdicate our responsibility as legislators, uh I do feel it is relevant uh to pass ordinances with however broad a mandate they are, and then uh delegate to the executive, the executive's responsibility for implementing those laws for enforcing those laws, and whether that enforcement sits within one department or two departments, three departments, or a collaboration of departments, or in fact an entirely new department.

That's something that the administration, the executive uh in our current form of government has broad discretion in how to implement.

And in fact, the entire budgetary discretion in how to do so.

So uh my inclination when it comes to these things is not to simply wait until we have convinced the executive, uh, convince the mayor and mayor staff that our uh policy goals are laudable or supportable, um, but rather to uh express the will of the council and then uh rely on our expectation as a society that the executive will faithfully execute the laws that are passed.

Now that's my personal preference, uh although I understand uh the need to defer to uh collaboration when it comes to making things happen.

Um but I do I do believe that is an important uh important piece of our function as legislators.

So uh I am happy to uh if it is the will of this committee to uh place this once more on the sideboard and wait and see what June brings us or July or August.

Um that's that's fine.

But I will say, as one member and as the chair, it will be my inclination uh to bring this up at the beginning of our next legislative session uh in August, or after the recess, I should say, in August uh in September to uh make this conversation move forward.

And if the administration continues to not believe in the implementation of it or not have a path forward and how to implement it, uh I will focus our discussions uh on the desired policy outcomes and in drafting the legislation in the broadest possible way to implement those policy outcomes and uh then rely upon the executive to either implement the will of the council and the laws uh as faithfully passed should be faithfully executed, or to simply not, either by veto or by uh let's say uh executive intrinsics.

So that's that's my thought on Councilor Davis and colleagues.

Uh I'm open to hearing anybody else's thoughts on how to uh proceed on an item that has been sitting fallow for far too long.

Well, I neither hear a clamor of agreement nor disagreement.

Uh does anybody else have any further comment on it?

Well, Mr.

Chair, just do what we do in HCDE and leave it in committee.

See you in August.

Well, there we have it.

Uh hearing a motion to leave this item in committee.

There we have it.

I guess I'll see you all in August.

Uh Mr.

Chair, we will all see each other far earlier than that.

Uh then with that item being left in committee, and hopefully my clear intention uh communicated.

Uh that I believe brings us to the end of our items this evening.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

Mr.

Chair, just don't want to miss the opportunity to say I I appreciate the urgency you're placing on this.

This is something I very strongly support, have supported for many years.

Obviously, understand that you know the the administration has to do some work to get their ducks in a row to take this up.

Um, but I I agree with you wholeheartedly that you know it is part of our job is to make sure that the urgency is understood and that this is prioritized.

I appreciate you doing that.

Thank you, Councilor Ewan Campin.

I appreciate that.

Counselor Mba.

Yeah, thank you, Chisco.

You know, you know, Counselor Ewan Camp is always a tough act to follow.

First, this was even my item that I submitted many years ago.

There was even a press release by the curatuna administration on that, you know.

So you know, I'm just like so many things that you know, sometimes you don't even know where something is until you see you find it again somewhere, you're like, wow, at least I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward and really how many on it.

That's all I just wanted to just you know appreciate you for you know being you know, like the the steady hawk, you know, on this policy conversation and the urgency that we need because this is also in line, not just on our affordability goals, climate goals, like it tied to so many things that we've been trying to address.

So it's not like one piece.

This is it it's about you know making sure that you know um people that have houses yet that dilapidated and there's all these pieces that if they it will help them also constrain them.

Then it's not like we also have grants, you know, that we can also like incentivize people to actually bring their houses up to court.

It's not you know, on to complain.

So they all it's like a win-win.

I don't understand what the problem is.

And then people will be exempted, like because I remember when we're having this conversation, people say, oh, well, I don't want anybody to come to my house.

I'm like, if you leave in your house, you'll be exempt.

You're taking care of your house because you're there, we know that you take care of your tenants.

So it's not, you know, so this is kind of like uh an a small uh uh I don't think that it is like a heavy lift to to cut it this true.

It is like a win-win for everybody.

So uh no, I just want to say thank you.

I mean, uh Council you and Kampek got me going.

I was just like, okay, I'm just gonna just cheer and and the hours late and let's just kind of like let just flow.

But I I guess I just want to say thank you for doing this and for continue to you know put your thumb on the skate on uh relevant uh policy, you know, discussion that we need.

Uh uh thank you, Councilor Mba.

Uh, I think there might be a theme for the second half of this year of 2026 where I bring back all the dead ordinances that have been uh that have been left fallow.

Uh and I also appreciate the reference as a hawk.

I do not have a proper keening call or cry to uh to uh yeah, I'm sure the the hawks of Union Square also are cheering in agreement right now.

So with that said, uh we do have two items for approval.

That's the uh minutes of May 5th and April 28th, and then a motion to adjourn as well.

Uh so let's go ahead.

I will make the motion to adjourn and uh the motion to approve those two items, and I believe we can take a roll call vote to uh approve all three of those at once.

That we can.

Counselor Davis.

Yes, Councilor Mbaugh.

Counselor Ba, you're muted.

Oh yes.

Sorry.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

Yes.

Counselor Streso.

Yes.

Kerascott.

Yes.

All right.

With that, those minutes are approved and it is 753 and we are adjourned.

All right.

Thank you everybody for your attention and effort this evening, including all city staff, and I will see you shortly.

Meeting is directly.

Thank you.