Good evening.

This is your chair, JT Scott, Summerville Ward II Counselor.

And this is a meeting of the legislative matters committee of the City Council.

This Tuesday, June 30th at 6 p.m.

on the button.

Pursuant chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote participation.

And an audio video recording will be posted as soon as possible after this meeting to the city of Somerville website, local access channels.

We will go ahead and start tonight with a roll call to establish a quorum.

If you don't mind, Clerk will tell you.

This is roll call, Counselor Davis.

Here.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Counselor Ewan Campin.

Here.

Counselor Streso?

Present.

Counselor Scott.

Present.

Before counselors present, we have quorum.

All right, wonderful.

We have a very long agenda tonight, folks.

Apologies for everything coming in, but uh our other legislative matters meeting during budget season was uh overtaken by public hearing that needed to be rescheduled.

Uh please let the record reflect that councillor Mbaugh has joined us as well.

Uh so I'm hoping to keep this crisp and move through our move through our items in order, gather any questions, concerns, or feedback, and uh anything can be voted on tonight.

Okay, and anything that needs uh to have that work taken back and done over the summer so that we can get right on the fall.

So be it.

Uh with that said, our first item is approval of the minutes of the legislative matters committee meeting of May 19, 2026.

Seeing no comment on that matter, we will go ahead and lay that item on the table for approval in a single vote at the conclusion of the meeting.

Uh then let's go to our next item.

This is 260797 requesting approval of a home rule petition to authorize the city of Somerville to regulate leases and tenancy at will agreements.

This is something uh coming out of the Office of Housing Stability, and I know we are joined already by Director Schechter who would be willing to say a few words about this.

There was also a memo that is attached to the agenda that hopefully we've all had a chance to review.

So uh Director Shachter, uh, why don't you go ahead and give us a brief introduction?

Thank you very much uh to the chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for giving me the time to speak with you tonight.

Um I am very excited to be here before you with a piece of legislation that is somewhat unusual because for the first time since I've been at the Office of Housing Stability, a number of residents came to me with an issue that was really um plaguing them and came to me seeking some kind of legislative um answer.

So at the end of my testimony, if the chair sees fit, we have um one of the students who brought this issue to my attention here that would also love to say just a few words about this issue and this problem.

And we can later, if you're open to doing that, um, chair, we would love to have that.

I think pretty pretty quick comments.

Um this ordinance, the what we call the early leasing ordinance.

That's sort of the the parlance that people can understand.

It has a more formal title.

Um, but we are seeking obviously the recommendation of this committee to recommend for the full city council approval of this home rule petition.

And if approved, as you know, it would go on to the state legislature to try to seek approval at that level.

So, what is the issue that I'm here to talk about?

Pretty simply.

The issue is that now more and more we are seeing landlords requiring tenants to make decisions about releasing, renewing their leases six months, eight months, nine months, ten months prior to the end of lease termination.

And this causes two different sets of complications that I wanted to discuss.

First, um, as you know, I more and more roommate situations, co-housing situations are happening in the city of Somerville because rents are so high.

So, what this does is create a problem where there are a number of different roommates in a housing situation that, frankly, 10 months in advance do not simply do not necessarily know if they want to re-sign a lease.

Um, and what happens in that case is one of two things happen.

One, the tenants decide that they cannot make that kind of decision 10 months in advance.

The landlord then often says, fine, no renewal.

I'm gonna show your start showing your rooms, and that lease is then there is not renewed.

Those tenants can't remain in place, and the landlord is seeking new tenants um way, way in advance of that renewal.

That's one outcome.

The second outcome is where tenants feel that they really don't want to lose their housing, and they all sign on a lease.

Let's say we have five roommates signing on one lease, and then towards the end of that lease, one or two of those tenants realize that they cannot remain in place.

They get a job that's somewhere else.

They decide to go a semester abroad.

And then what happens is we have this really complicated legal situation and factual situation where we have a group of tenants jointly and severally liable for a lease.

One or two of those tenants leave, are no longer paying rent.

They're no longer in the city or they're doing something else.

And now the rest of the tenants on that lease are jointly and severally liable for the full amount of that rent, often which they simply cannot afford.

So what this home rule petition seeks to do is really simple.

And I did just want to say, but before I get into actually the substance, the students conducted some of their own research and came to us with some examples of other ordinances from Ann Arbor, Michigan, from if from Ithaca New York.

And we also did some of our own factual research.

I was concerned as I was evaluating this.

Is this solely a problem in the student community?

Is this a problem that exists more broadly in the city of Somerville?

And we did two things to try to determine if this was a broader issue.

First, we reached out to all of the different housing agencies, social service people to see if they've been seeing this raised as an issue.

We also, you know, see about over a thousand uh requests from tenants for services, so have a sense from OHS.

And then we also put out a survey to all the people on our newsletter link, which is now over a thousand.

And we did get 44 survey responses, and we got anecdotal information from reaching out to other agencies to really tell us while this isn't an everyday problem, it is growing.

And the reason this problem appears to be growing is because more and more national companies with different kinds of practices come into Somerville and then they want to employ the same type of practices they do elsewhere here and here in Somerville.

Um so we believed after conducting this research and seeing from the survey that almost everybody who responded said that they were being required to sign their leases between four and 10 months prior, now prior to the end of their lease.

Granted, the people who responded to us are going to be the ones that have that experience, but it was enough to convince us that this isn't a once in a blue moon uh situation.

And I think you'll hear from the students that it is that they are seeing it growing significantly as well.

We also did meet with their um the Tufts housing department, and they told us separately that they'd also been seeing a lot of this with tenants, and it's just causing a lot of havoc.

So we did then come together with um with Brendan Salisbury, the legal department, OHS, and um drafted the home rule petition that is before you, which essentially does three things.

One, it requires landlords to notify tenants under lease whether the landlord will renew the lease and at what rent at least three months in advance of the termination date.

I do want to note this was not the specific problem that was brought to us by the tenants, but being in our position, we thought this was a great opportunity if we're gonna do a home rule petition to try to get some notice, especially for lower income folks of what any requested rent increase is gonna be at least three months in advance so they can figure out how they want to handle the situation and act accordingly.

The second thing that it does is it prohibits owners from requiring a decision on releasing prior to 90 days before lease termination.

So again, they couldn't be asked nine months in advance to make this decision.

And third, it prohibits an owner from showing units to prospective tenants more than 90 days in advance.

So it lines up when they can bring people in with this 90-day framework so that they're not marketing and showing the apartment earlier in the process to other tenants and essentially having them sign a new lease.

Um, so these are the substantive things.

It's fairly simple that this does.

Um, in terms of enforcement, there's a $300 ticket, civil enforcement.

For the first time, OHS would have agreed to be the enforcing entity, um, not wanting to throw a whole lot more responsibility on ISD that has a lot of enforcement obligations.

We're gonna see how this goes and do our best.

We had a little bit of conflict with it just because we want to maintain good relationships with landlords because we really need landlords to rent to our tenants, but decided on on the whole that this was a good thing for us to do to try to be in that position and try to do it in a way that felt right and fair to us.

And then last, the only other thing that this home rule petition really really um says is that it gives tenants the right of enforcement.

So the city can either enforce through a civil fine, the city can go to court, or tenants can enforce the ordinance themselves.

And they can force the ordinance in court, and it will be heard under the Consumer Protection Act, Mass Journal Law Chapter 93A, or what we call the breach of quiet enjoyment, chapter 18614, um, that a tenant can bring in action either for injunctive relief or money damages for a landlord's failure to comply with the ordinance.

Um that is really the content of what this was.

I'm happy to answer any questions, or if the chair was so inclined to let David Van Ripper speak, have him share a few words about why they brought this to us, and then of course, to answer any other questions.

I will also say that in terms of the legal aspects of this.

I did just want to say we did consult with the law department.

We did believe, based on our own research and the law department's conclusion that we would need to do a home rule petition in order to do something that would regulate leases so that we would need approval from the state legislature and could not just pass this and enforce it on our own.

So it is brought to you in the form of a home rule petition.

And that's it.

You're you're muted, Chair.

Just thank you.

That was quite an introduction, Director Schachter.

Um if there are other uh speakers that are requested to be sponsored this evening, I would ask that uh people inform the chair uh in advance.

That'd be very much appreciated.

Uh you said you had a um a speaker that you were hoping we would sponsor.

That's uh David Van Riper.

Correct.

Yes.

And he has is here um on the panelists link if you were to allow him to speak.

Let's uh please, Mr.

Van Riper.

We can keep it brief.

That would be appreciated.

Yeah.

Um hi everybody.

I'm David and Riper.

I just graduated from Tufts.

I live on 46 Sunset um in East Somerville.

Um West Somerville.

And uh I was one of three students that brought this.

I'll just briefly say kind of what's happening.

Um basically the perspective from a tough student is you get back from freshman year and you start sophomore year and you immediately have to go sign a lease.

Um like a friend groups start to uh coalesce and sign these leases for the next year, and it's stressful.

You know, I don't know if you guys, if you went to college or have the experience, the people who are your friends at the beginning of sophomore year are not always gonna be the people um that are friends at the end or junior year.

Um and I was lucky enough that um the people I lived with, I I'm still good friends with.

One of them is Zach who also helped sponsor this.

But um we I basically had to sign a lease nine months before um a June 1st lease, nine months before the we would get into the house.

It's really it's a problem, it's stressful.

Um, and then the next big issue, which this ordinance does a lot to solve is renewals.

So obviously it's a huge pain to move.

You like your roommates, you like your house.

Um, but you've basically just gotten there, and you're asked in September or sometimes August of the year before to sign another lease starting June 1st.

Um, and this is basically a universal practice in the housing around Tufts.

And it's it's stressful.

Sometimes I have a friend who's watching right now, Jack Wylan, who's landlord increased his rent by like 200.

And he wanted to sign his lease because um that was you know his friends, but it's also a big financial stress stressor, and people just don't know what they're gonna be doing in nine or ten months.

So ultimately, I think this legislation would be really impactful and setting a clear standard that um the leasing process is gonna happen three months in advance.

Um I I think it's gonna lead people to have better roommates, better houses.

Uh people are gonna know what their financial situation looks like.

Um, and I think it'll create a more consistent market for uh definitely for tough students, and I think it'll benefit Somerville residents at large.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, I will turn to my colleagues for uh questions, comments, or uh motions.

I see Counselor Ewan Campen, you're up first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um first of all, through you, I just want to say a huge thank you to Director Shachter and to David.

Um when we set up the Office of Housing Stability, we knew that there was going to be one big part of the office that was direct services and support.

We also knew another part of it was going to be a policy shop, right?

And this is exactly the kind of thing we're hoping for, right?

Where people who are experiencing an issue come to the Office of Housing Stability and out the other end of that machine comes an ordinance or home rule petition.

Um so that is excellent.

Um I my question um is not it's not really about the mechanics of the home rule petition.

It's it's more about um prioritizing, right, at the state house.

So this is a conversation we've had many times.

I just I'm interested to hear the director or whoever wants to speak to it.

Um it's obviously it's a big lift to do a home rule petition.

It takes resources that we wouldn't be putting towards other petitions or other state right at statewide advocacy.

So I'm just interested to hear your thoughts on uh obviously I would love to do this, but why should we do this as opposed to all the other home roles we might be putting our energy into.

Thank you.

If I can answer that question, um, thank you, counselor and through the chair, if that's okay.

Um of the reasons that I'm a little bit just encouraged.

I mean, I obviously understand the problem.

It's incredibly hard.

I have talked to IGA.

I would love us to be thinking more systemically about if there's a better way to be pushing HRPs forward.

Um I think we do a great job through the hearing, and we usually get a great favorable recommendation.

And you all as counselors have been so helpful in testifying, but I I do think that we could be a little bit more systematic on how we're pushing HRPs forward.

I think there's two reasons why I think we should go forward with this.

One, I did want to note there is already legislation pending.

We didn't know about this until we drafted the home rule petition.

But um, Representative Chan from Quincy has essentially the same legislation.

It only deals with you can't require the renewal three months.

It doesn't have the other pieces.

But I did see that it got a favorable recommendation.

Anytime you file a home rule petition, what we know is it gives political power to the movement to try to get something done.

Whether or not in the end we do, you could see with you know rent stabilization going forward with transfer fee.

We haven't gotten all the way there, but the more cities or towns we have, you know, recognizing that an issue is important, the more possibility there is that it will be heard at the state house.

I also think this isn't a a big intrusion on landlord tenant law.

Um it's a relatively small ask, and I'm hopeful for that reason and the fact that there's already legislation that was um favorably, you know, was got a favorable recommendation, although it's still in third reading and it hasn't passed, that this might be something that is attractive to the legislature.

Um and I, you know, I in some senses leave to you all the wisdom of having and to IGA of having so many home rule petitions.

I do know that that's been an issue.

Um, and when the students and I came to Mayor Wilson, you know, we discussed it as well.

But I really feel like this is an issue that's important to raise.

It does there's not a lot of awareness about it in the state right now.

And I think we could be on the leading edge of just letting people know that this practice is a problem.

So I hope we go forward and do this, and I hope we can think systemically a little bit later in the session about what else we can do to move our HRP, our home rule petitions forward.

But I'd like to see us give it a try.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you, I I appreciate that.

And I also was unaware that there was pending statewide legislation that that makes sense to me.

Um so I'll leave it there.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

I see Councilor Mbaugh.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

You know, I just wanted to say that this was also a relatively small ask.

I don't think that this was like a huge, you know, stuff.

But I I guess what I was curious is whether this only applies to students.

Because I mean, like broadly and some of you haven't heard a lot about this.

Can you speak to that?

You're muted.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Through the chair.

Um, I will answer this question if that's okay.

And as I said, we did do some research and from the answers that we did get from our survey, it was clear that it is not only a student issue.

We have seen that where legislation is passed.

They've tended to be some college communities, right?

I went to school in Ann Arbor and Urban Michigan was one of the first to pass this.

So I do think that it has a core uh that comes out of there being a lot of students around, but it is not limited to students.

There are people in the community now, as especially as these bigger, like I said, corporate rel corporate entities and LLC entities that just have really like strict prices that really have very little to do with local market conditions.

Um so I do think it it goes beyond this, and I think it would help not only the students but also Somerville residents, um, obviously not as broadly as something like rent stabilization or some other things, but um, I am convinced that it is beyond the student community, or I would not have agreed to sponsor this home road petition, because I think it's really important that when we do take these actions, we're doing doing it on behalf of the broader community.

And I will just say the piece of this that I think really impacts low-income people that I just wanted to share is that piece that says the landlord has to give them 90 days notice of renewal and a rent increase, because what I have seen from the many people that come into the Office of Housing Stability is that many of them don't know till the last minute what the rent's gonna be, and then they're facing a really big conundrum often and very little time to adjust.

So I'm trying I tried through that issue to also bring in the other tenants um and residents of Somerville a little bit beyond the issue of the early releasing.

Yeah, no, thank you.

Uh I want to thank you and thank David.

I mean, like students are the ones that I've been taken advantage of, you know, a lot of the time.

So that is stressful.

But students who do, you know, stats who and then you already and most of the uh laws protect landlaws, and uh, you know, was in Sidney Student.

It's like what's yeah, students like the last category, they're all awful loss in that shuffle, you know.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Mbaugh.

I see Councillor Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, through you to Director Shachter.

Um, thank you for this and for everyone else who puts the work into it.

Um I I don't need to hear any more.

I was convinced when I read it uh you know prior to the meeting, the couple of the couple little tweaks that I saw in the draft appear to have been fixed already.

Um in the draft that's now currently attached.

So um just typos and such.

So um yeah, I'm I'm ready to move to recommend approval, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you.

I I will take that motion in just a moment.

Um, but before we before we do, I did just want to ask uh real quickly, Director Shacker.

Um I appreciated, I really appreciated seeing the uh private cause of action being put in here.

Um I'm uh always uh looking for ways that you know uh folks can have a path to advocate for themselves.

Uh that said, I was also a little bit uh eyebrow raised when I saw that it was gonna be enforced by the director of OHS.

Uh so this is uh this will be the first time for something like this, correct?

You know what I am going to say to you, because I think that um I messed that up, and this is not enforceable by which the second one I'm gonna talk to you about.

The other ordinance notice of sale is is being enforced by OHS.

So I apologize for that confusion.

Um the early leasing ordinance is essentially um is essentially enforced by hold on a second.

All right.

So thank you.

That that's the I was a little confused when you said it right here in the meeting.

So sorry.

So the private course, the private cause of action is the only enforcement mechanism here because the tenant is uh aggrieved by not by being either coursed into an early signature of a lease or not being provided with the uh amount of the increase.

Um the appropriate time frame, correct?

Well, Chair Scott, there's actually two ways.

There's the city can enforce it again, because this is a home rule petition.

I have to be honest to you that we have not even talked to ISD or anybody else about enforcement of this ordinance, but it does allow for a civil ticket of 300, and it also allows the city to enforce, so it gives enforcing rights both to the city and the individual.

Um, and that's where we are so far with it.

We have not talked further about it to inspectional services or anybody else about enforcement of this.

We wanted to wait and see if we got that home rule petition authorization before taking it to that stage.

Um other thing I wanted to tell you is there is one error we we would like to correct that the law department has has recommended, um, which is just in section, there are three substantive sections.

And in section two, which has those, uh, let me make sure I'm saying this right.

Tendency for sorry.

Um, so in section, my apologies.

Here it is, section one.

The paragraph uh in section one, there's a little one, two, and three.

Um, in section one, there's a definition of premises that makes it clear this is only residential lease premises.

We used that term in section two, and then in section three, we use the word property instead of premises, though it doesn't have that same definition.

So if it was um to, you know, if you agreed, we would suggest changing the word property to premises in the little three of section one.

And that's the only other the only change that we are bringing to your attention that we are aware of since this was filed.

Okay.

So the request here is to uh amend section one three from prohibiting the owner from entering the property.

Yeah.

To prohibiting any owner from entering the premises for specificity.

Yes.

That sounds like a good amendment from myself.

Uh, I'm happy to move to uh uh amend the ordinance before us as such.

Is there any discussion on that motion to amend?

All right, then let's go ahead and take a roll call on that motion to amend by substituting the word premises for property in section one subsection three.

I'm just writing it out, just one moment.

And while our clerk is writing that out, it's also a good uh good time for me to remind other folks who are bringing ordinances that if you do have amendments that you'd like to be proposing on the floor tonight, it would be helpful to our clerks, uh, aside from the chair uh to provide that uh in advance if you can in writing.

Thank you.

Chair, I am ready to read out into the roll call when you want.

All right.

So counselor Scott moves to amend the ordinance to substitute the word premise for property in section one, subsection three.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor and Baugh.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campin.

Yes.

Counselor Shoza, yes.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

That motion is approved.

All right.

Uh so now the uh homeworld petition as amended is before us.

Uh I want to give anybody else a crack uh before if anybody has anything else they'd like to say, but then again, you can always speak on the motion as well.

So uh I heard counselor Davis uh with a motion uh to approve this item to recommend approval on this item.

Uh so that motion is now before us.

Does anybody wish to speak on that motion?

All right, seeing none, let's go ahead with a roll call on this one as well, just so we can get it off the table.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Councilor and Baugh.

Yes.

Councilor Ewan Campin?

Yes.

Councilor Strozco, yes.

Yes.

Item is recommended to be approved as amended.

Thank you very much to the chair and to all the committee members.

I really appreciate your support.

Thank you, Director Shachter.

Although don't go anywhere.

I think you're still needed pretty soon here.

Uh all right, that will take us to our next agenda item, which I am uh trying to find in all of my windows.

Here we go.

Uh, our next gender item is 26082, uh, requesting ordainment of an amendment chapter seven and section one eleven B of the code of ordinances to require property owners to provide a notice of business sale to our building sale to tenants.

Uh, we do have 14 items on the agenda tonight, and that one took us a half hour.

So let's see how we do on this.

Okay, if through the chair, if I may address um the council and the committee members.

So again, I am really excited to bring this before you because it's something we can actually do as a city without needing approval from the state that I think is important.

Um, so I just wanted to to um also just to say that if you had any questions of the law department, um, Joseph Field, attorney from housing division and the law department is here.

Um, he has concurred and the the law department has concurred that we can do this as a um as an ordinance without authority from the state.

So um you may remember that we had an anti-displacement task force that convened starting at the end of 2023.

Um the report was written from the residential committee in 2025.

Um, counselor Ewan Campen was part of the residential committee, former counselor umeda neuf was part of this committee.

And one of the recommendations that was made in the anti-displacement task force was to draft an ordinance on notice of building sale.

Um, and essentially what this is um what this relates to, and there's a couple of reasons I'll explain for why why we think this is this is important.

But oftentimes we see tenants that literally have no notice that their building is being sold until after it's been sold, and someone tells them there's a new landlord.

And this can cause problems in a number of respects.

And that notice would be drafted by the Office of Housing Stability, which would include some important information that tells them a little bit about the building, about the sale price, number of units that it's going on the market, and importantly, it would have the information for how they can reach out to the Office of Housing Stability.

Because the two reasons we really do this, one to give tenants just more time to plan for their housing stability so they know if a building's being sold, they can make, you know, they can make decisions accordingly.

And the second and probably most important piece of this is that it gives us time at OHS at tenant associations at CAS to reach out to nonprofits to have them vet the possibility of purchasing a building before it is sold on the speculative market.

And that is the main reason for this ordinance.

What I will say is there are many um notice of building sale ordinances around the country.

Some are embedded in broader TOPA-like legislation, because those cities can do that type of legislation on their own.

Um that we believed that we could do as a city because it would only have a de minimis impact on the landlord-tenant relationship.

And that's essentially what the legal standard is for when you can regulate landlord-tenant, uh landlord-tenant relationships and not have to get authority from the state.

So it's kind of narrow and what it can do.

It's not, it's not gonna solve all the world's problems, but we think it is really important piece of the puzzle in trying to encourage nonprofit land trust, other types of purchases of properties before people are displaced.

And this is the bill that for enforcement would be a civil ticket with OHS doing the enforcement.

And what I will say is um, you know, ISD has been pretty clear with us in the past that things like the Housing Stability Notification Act, that they have a lot of enforcement obligations on their plate.

And we really just believed that this had a better chance of happening if we were enforcing it.

And also um, you know, we did want to make sure we were doing it fairly.

Um, you know, while this has a $300 ticket, we did get um assurance from the law department and from Brendan that if there was a landlord, for example, that was a non-English speaking, low income, had no idea about the ordinance, we could, if we chose to opt to give a warning the first time to such landlord.

Um, so it would allow us to still consider some of those circumstances, but authorize us to issue that the civil infraction.

And um, and that's really it.

The only other piece, sorry, is that in addition to the individual notice that would go to each tenant, there would be have to be a notice posted in the public areas of the building with the same information for OHS and the same information about the building sale.

So that's it.

It's pretty simple.

Um, and I think it's it's an important piece of our landscape anti-displacement landscape.

And here to answer any questions you might have.

All right, thank you for that.

I'll go to my colleagues first.

I see counselor.

Thank you, Chairman Scott.

No, just uh, you know, to read to it first of all, grid director, grid department doing grid work, you know.

The men highlight, you know, that is like the key takeaway for this legislation.

We all like this is something that isn't it with so many people when you terminate, you know, tenancy termination of tenancy to eat us uh or deliver the building vacant or allow the purchase uh to do so quickly after they purchase the buildings because this is is a whole you know, this is like the to me to get displacement related impacts.

So I think this is huge, and also like when you purchase the owner, most owners don't always want to, you know, uh uh move to evict tenants or rents uh often dramatically increase to cover the cost of purchase in the market.

So it's like it's a whole visual cycle.

So thank you, Director Shackl.

Thank you, Chairman.

All right, thank you.

Looking for other colleagues.

Uh since somebody's got their hand up right now, I did just want to ask about that uh enforcement piece.

So uh why is there no private cause of action included on this, Director Shacher?

Um that's a good question.

I I think I would ask Joe Theo from the law department if he has an opinion about whether that would be something that we could do or whether that would be sort of beyond a de minimis impact.

Um I honestly don't know the answer to that question, and it's a good one.

Um we have anybody from legal to answer that.

Sure.

Uh uh through you, Chair uh Joe Field Housing Council um worked on this uh ordinance with Director Shachter.

I think you know, we can certainly come back in writing if that's something that the committee would like an opinion on.

It did not come up during our discussions of the working group, and I think you know, the perspective of the enforcement section was to model closely to other city ordinances.

So I think it it in effect, Alan, correct me if I'm wrong, uh, mirrors the um housing uh stabilization notification act.

So I think similar to the HSNA, and I do see um uh attorney Amara also has our hand up.

All right, City Solicitor Amara Thank you, Chair.

Um I also believe the difference is in the fact that the first one is a home rule amendment, so you're seeking authority from the legislature to give you the ability to have a um private enforcement.

The other one is not a home rule petition, and we do not have independent authority to require a private right of action.

Huh.

So uh we as a city don't have the ability to create a private course of action for uh for somebody whose you know rights or uh expectations uh underneath this ordinance.

There, so there's we just we can't create a private cause of action.

In a nutshell, basically, yes, but the answer is more complicated than that, and we'd be happy to get back to you with a more detailed um explanation.

But basically, we need the authority from the state to do something because we are seeking legislative permission in the previous item.

We are asking the state to say yes, municipality, you have the same right as a state as the state to institute legislation with a private right of action.

As a municipality, we don't generally have the ability to give people the right to go to court unless we get that authority from something else.

Like zoning will often give people a right of action, but you have to go through a process, and that's set out in a state statute.

I hope that's somewhat helpful.

No, it it is.

It is.

It's uh just a new one for me.

I'm glad I can still learn things 10 years in on this job.

Director Shacker.

Thank you.

I just wanted to share one other thing.

In the early leasing um home rule petition, what we essentially did was state state statutes that we thought there would be a cause of action under.

And this is just making me think that having the state in primature of saying yes, we think this could be a violation of our consumer protection act under 93A, in that case, the state is interpreting its own statute to some extent by giving us authorization to say, yes, we agree that this can be included in the number of things that are protected under that consumer protection act.

I don't know if that how much that does or doesn't make a difference, but it did just strike me that we are in the early leasing ordinance, specifically saying that violation of this ordinance is a violation of those state statutes.

Yeah, I mean, which I mean to my mind just raises the question again, but why could we not include that same language here since we're fitting underneath the umbrella of 93A?

Yeah, I don't know.

I honestly I think it would be maybe we can get back to you with that in the law department to to do some research on it.

I because I don't think I'm I can answer myself whether we could do that now without a home rule petition.

I don't know.

And I'm glad you raised it because honestly, we had been mirroring it on other local ordinances and it hadn't come up.

All right.

Uh looking to my colleagues, if there's any more follow-up or question, Councilor Ewan Campen.

Um, Mr.

Sher, I don't have a question.

I I just want to say it is uh, you know, stunning to me that you would have people selling buildings out from under tenants without even telling them.

Um it is sad that we have to pass an ordinance like this, but I certainly hope that we do.

Um I um I'm interested to hear from colleagues if they have language questions, um, but I'm extremely in support of this.

Uh yeah, thank you, Councilor Ewan Camp.

And I'm also extremely in support of it.

Uh the only question I have right now is uh I get the sense that folks are uh supportive of this and would be willing to pass this out of committee tonight.

Um my question is whether or not my uh desire to give uh tenants the the right to file in their own uh on their own behalf uh is worth pausing for a moment.

Oh, Mr.

Chair, sorry, I did not mean to imply that I wanted to do this before getting an answer to your question.

Um I I have no problem, you know, waiting to make sure that we're making this as strong as humanly possible.

Um I just wanted to state my general support.

Okay, all right, all right.

Uh Director Shachter.

Just one more thing to add um to this question, because I think it's a good one, and I guess a little bit of my hoping we can move this along quickly, but I think it's highly unlikely that a tenant in this circumstance will go into court to seek at least to they wouldn't be seeking injunctive relief because they would already know by the time that they went into court that the building's being sold.

And just based on my experience with other statutes like the Housing Stability Notification Act, getting tenants in all but the most serious of circumstances to actually go into court to seek a remedy against a landlord or a potential new landlord is very challenging because people are very reliant on those landlords still to give them time before they move to not evict them to all this other stuff.

So while I think it is an important issue, my sense is it would not that that opportunity would not be used frequently.

That doesn't mean never, and I can't say to you all of you whether it's worth it or not to hold this up, but I will say I think it would be few and far between that you would see people actually going to court on this.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, Director Shachter.

You know, this is the part of the difficulty with tenant organizing and tenants' rights in general, is that 98 out of a hundred times people are just trying to have a place to live.

And nobody wants to be in court uh if they don't have to be.

But two out of every hundred times, maybe three here in Somerville, the tenants a lawyer.

Uh and and those are the ones that we end up winning on uh and setting a lot of good precedent on.

So uh, you know, I I'm curious if Counselor Davis has any thoughts on this, but um perhaps it is something there's certainly no reason we can't revisit this to add a private uh uh to add that later.

Um we could certainly move to get this on the books.

Uh it doesn't take effect for 90 days after passage, which uh if we're gonna be passing it at our July 9th meeting, already puts it past the September 1 uh deadline.

Uh so but we can get it in as soon as we can uh and then come back and uh update it in the fall.

So perhaps perhaps uh that that'll be my ask is uh solicitor Amara, could you could you and I have a talk and maybe you provide me um let's have a talk first and then maybe we can get a written opinion uh about uh providing that uh private right of action.

Uh is that something you can we can set up a meeting on?

Sure.

And I would bring Joe in as well.

All right.

Counselor Streza.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I was going to suggest what you had proposed, Mr.

Chair, that it it first off, working with Ellen Jack or uh in numerous housing policies over the year.

She knows her stuff.

She's she's going in there uh and and with with the best of of knowledge intentions and strategy.

So I trust that and I support this.

I think it's I think it's good and is going to make a positive impact on our residents.

And with that, um, I think we can always like I would call for move to approve it.

And then we can amend it later down the line uh in the season.

I I feel confident that there's space for both.

Yeah, um I as I said I'm inclined to agree, Councilor Streso.

So with that, uh I've heard Councilor Strezzo with a motion to recommend approval on this ordinance.

Uh is there any discussion on that motion?

All right.

Uh hearing none, then let's go ahead and take a roll call on this.

I love taking roll calls on ordinances.

And roll call on agenda item three, 26-0882.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Yes.

Councilor Ewan Campan.

Yes.

Councilor Strazo?

Yes.

Councilor Scott.

Yes.

All counselors in favor of that item is recommended to be.

And thank you so much to the chair and council.

Greatly appreciated.

All right.

Thank you, Director Shachter.

And uh Solicitor Mara, uh, if you could just remind me, uh, because this close to recess, my brain has turned completely.

Um I will do my best.

All right, thank you.

Uh let's see here.

That brings us to number four.

That's item 26-1023.

Uh that chapter two, Article 8, Division 1 of the coordinate code of ordinances, be amended as detailed within.

This is uh the submission of Counselor Ewan Campen, co-sponsored by counselors Wheeler, Mbaugh and Link.

Uh colloquially known as the ethical procurement ordinance.

Uh, just as a reminder, my intention bringing this in tonight is to have an introduction from Counselor Ewan Campen and a uh first round of questions from counselors so that the law office can take those back and chew on those over the summer.

That's not my anticipation that this is going to be recommended out either way.

Uh and I did receive a communication, I believe today uh on a petition for a public hearing.

So uh we'll figure out the future course of action on this uh in the future.

Um this is how ordinances and actions of the legislative matters committee take their time.

Uh the wheel turns slowly, but it turns.

Uh so with that said, uh, I guess counselor Ewen Campen, would you like to give a brief introduction to this, and then I'll look for discussion and questions.

Certainly.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

And thank you.

I my goal also here tonight is to hear feedback from colleagues, um, questions.

And I I thought it would be helpful for me to walk through the ordinance.

It's short.

I think you know, parts of it are straightforward.

Um, but um, I can I'm also happy to kind of address some of the the big picture feedback that I've I've certainly received, and I'm sure other counselors have, and how I'm thinking about that.

Um so the the ordinance starts there are two sections that are sort of the the core of the ordinance.

This is sections A and B.

Section A relates to procurement.

So this is the city paying vendors for goods or services, contracting, and B, it's very similar, but it relates to investment.

So the city of Somerville does not hold on to big piles of money and just invest them for profit.

But um there is a particular account, it's called OPEB, other post-employment benefits, which is is basically certain retirement benefits.

Um the city has some some amount of discretion and control over that.

So the intent for these two sections is to the extent that we have discretion for procurement for investment.

The city will not procure or invest with companies that play an active role and a knowing role, but we refer in the ordinance as material support for activities including illegal occupation, apartheid, genocide, violations of international humanitarian law.

Um so I I just want to state I I've heard from a number of people who who have reached out who believe that the intent is to have a full boycott of any company company, individual entity that contracts with the Israeli government, and they think this is all a pretext to do that.

Um or other foreign governments.

Um so I just want to be very clear.

I know I'm speaking for Councillor Wheeler and myself when I say that that is not the intent.

So the intent is to capture companies that play a direct role in enabling and furthering the activities I just mentioned, not to capture any company that does business with a specific foreign government.

And if the language is not clear, then obviously that is on me and my co-sponsor, and I would be more than happy to spend the coming months clarifying that language.

That that is the intent.

The reason, um, the primary reason that I felt it was important to mention um uh as examples of parts of the world that we're thinking about as Israel and Palestine, um, is because we just had this ballot question in Somerville directing us to address the issue.

And and I thought it would honestly be disingenuous.

Um, it would be read as being disingenuous um to fail to mention that.

Um so to to be clear, this is not meant solely to apply to Israel and Palestine or solely to any country.

They're they're included um as part of a non-exhaustive list.

Um that that's really the meat of the ordinance, but I do just want to mention the other sections.

So section C, and I think this is relevant.

I've also gotten questions about this.

It directs the mayor to create a policy to enact these sections.

And the idea here is we're talking about an ordinance as a general matter.

Um we we, when we're passing ordinances, we expect that the execution of the ordinance is done by city departments under the mayor.

You know, we we just talked about some ordinances, home rule petitions proposed by the Office of Housing Stability, and you know, you'll you'll see this in many ordinances we pass.

It says on a form, you know, landlords will do XYZ on a form to be created by the Office of Housing Stability.

Um the idea is these departments actually execute.

We we set the the intention, the guidelines, and then the execution is up to the executive branch.

And part of that is because policies evolve, they change, and then you don't need to come back for an ordinance change.

Um but in this section, we also want to set some basic guidelines about what this policy looks like, because I I fully acknowledge this is not a simple question.

I I know that.

Um so what we do is we list international bodies that address these issues.

Um, and that includes the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the United Nations Office of the High Comp Commissioner of Human Rights, commissions of inquiry established by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Um, and we note one specific example of a report that was you know investigating companies actively engaged in uh the occupied territories in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the Golan Heights.

That is an example of one of these commissions of inquiry reports.

Uh and the idea is we're turning to these organizations that have investigative methods that are uh widely respected.

Um and we want to have a policy where companies that play active roles in what we're talking about here that are identified by organizations such as these as violating international human rights, we want to avoid supporting these companies financially.

Um we then have a section on exceptions, and so this are for cases where the city identifies it's unavoidable the need to contract or purchase with a specific company, you know, regardless of what our intent is here tonight.

Um then we empower the chief procurement officer to require documentation if necessary, if there's any question, ambiguity.

Um and lastly, we include a severability clause.

I you know, this this committee doesn't need to tell me that we sometimes consider these redundant.

We have a blanket severability clause, but we don't see a downside to including it here.

Um so Mr.

Chair, I'll leave it there.

I'm I have no doubt that my question, my colleagues have questions, comments.

Um, as you mentioned, we've had a request for a public hearing, which I'm fully in support of.

Um, and I'll leave it there.

All right, thank you, Councillor Ewan Campen.

Uh Councilor Streso, I recognize you.

You're all right.

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh, I'm going to address uh our colleague first, and then through you.

And then I will be uh asking some questions and we'll start from there because I do want to do some fact checking uh and some honesty checking here uh best based on that uh through you to counselor you and campen.

I think it's best that we do not gaslight our community and use double speak because very clearly if you're saying that it isn't related to any uh that it's just generally the world and the council, but you very clearly uh target uh and use uh Israel and use uh territories as a as a point, and that's very clearly in that.

So with the public, I wanted to uh fact check and clarify that uh no disingenuous um double speak is being put forward.

And as I said before, very clearly that uh I do not support this ordinance.

I think it's discriminatory, and there have been numerous conversations throughout plural years at this point, uh community members feeling unsafe, uh, beside the fact that this before us is discriminatory and illegal.

Um we'll start with that.

And I guess I'll start right away by um as we talk uh through our country to address uh our our colleagues point that uh of the ballot question.

I wanted to quickly read one of the numerous, numerous, numerous, numerous um emails and calls we received on this to the council um from one of our uh members of our community, just one.

I'm gonna say that.

And then I do have additional questions, but I I want to have his conversation first, because very, very important that we are being honest with our community and truthful truthfulness matters.

This is a member of our community has lived for 18 years here.

He says he wishes to express his opposition to the ordinance.

And he wants to say that the people voted for a non-binding resolution in a very low turnout election.

So that whole uh double speak that this was this landslide.

Um and he says, when I spoke with the members of the group pushing this resolution, I was told the purpose was to have I'm gonna have my moment.

Councilor Streso, this is I'm going to I'm going to finish this, and then I will get to our questions.

We are going to have a public hearing.

That's correct.

And I have the floor, and I'm going to finish this paragraph, and then I'm going to ask questions, Mr.

Chair, if I may.

If we can just get to I'm going to go back and repeat that sentence because I was interrupted.

So then respectfully, Mr.

Chair.

When I spoke with the members of this group, this is what uh the uh one of the emails that we received.

When I spoke to the members of the group pushing this resolution, that would be question three of last year.

I was told the purpose was to have their voices heard.

The people did not vote for a binding ordinance.

And that is what you are pushing for.

You have no right to do this.

As this is not the will of the people you represent.

This is a tactic.

I would expect to see from well, they may they say the Trump administration, we should do better than that, what whatever your political leanings are.

But there's a very clearly uh to use uh our colleagues' words, disingenuousness in this.

So we'll go to that.

So would you prefer I uh begin to ask the questions uh to uh whatever staff is here tonight, or what do you prefer, Mr.

Chair?

Uh I if there are questions you have about the ordinance, this is the right time to get them.

You got it.

Thank you.

Uh so who do we have uh from the legal department to speak on this?

If I may.

Uh we have solicitor Amara, we have attorney Sirigu, we have Dirty Peaks, we have a whole host of folks from the law department.

Mr.

Chair, what do they do?

Do they do like rock, paper, scissors?

How do we how do we set one into bat?

Uh why don't we start with the questions and then we'll see maybe there's an answer tonight, maybe there's not.

Maybe they can go research it.

That sounds yeah, okay, great.

So I guess through you, well, you know what?

Let's just let's just uh start with our uh city solicitor.

Uh so through you, Mr.

Chair, to our city solicitor.

Um did the city uh before this uh ordinance was put forward, did the city uh provide an opinion of the past of the legality of this and uh the uh city opinion of uh what implementation of this would look like potentially I know the answer to that, solicitor Mara, go ahead though.

Question was directed to you.

Um I'm not sure I quite understand the question.

So if you have an answer, I might be able to say yes, that's my understanding or not.

Um in terms of this particular ordinance as drafted, um, I would say we had issued opinions previously, and we had issued a subsequent opinion, and we did not believe anything in this changed our previous opinions.

But if you want to have more detail about the process that we went through to come to that conclusion, I would defer to um assistant solid solicitor peaks because he was more in the trenches um on the actual process of what we went through, if that's your question.

Through you, Mr.

Chair, to City Solicitor Amara.

Um I'm happy to hear from uh uh Mr.

Peaks.

Uh but also uh on your point of what uh you said was the uh opinion.

What what was the opinion you're speaking about?

There was an opinion issued on a similar topic by assistant attorney David Shapiro, and then there was a subsequent opinion that was issued, I believe.

I'm gonna defer to assistant city attorney peaks for the date.

Um I want to say April from I believe David and myself confirming that we did not believe that such um a petition would be that would likely be challenged.

And those opinions are have been before the council, and you should all have them.

And through you uh cities, uh Mr.

Chair, and your previous uh uh memos on this state that this is illegal, correct?

They bel they state that we think it would be challenged and is like would likely be found unlawful.

Was it on this exact language?

No.

Do we think there's anything in this language changing our result?

We do not.

But I the opinions we issued were on topic, but not on the specific language before you.

Okay, uh thank you.

And uh well, with that.

Uh really quick, wanted to uh ask a quick question to uh the the person who put forward this or a colleague who put this uh ordinance forward, uh Councilor Ewan Campen, given that this ordinance, uh Mr.

Chair, through you, given that this ordinance has uh significant legal issues from what it sounds like.

Uh have you budgeted uh for uh what what this is going to cost for our city?

Mr.

Chair, through you, shall I respond?

I suppose so, although it is not the job at City Council to prepare the budget, but if you'd like to.

So, Mr.

Chair, through you, let me say I understand and respect that my colleague and I strongly disagree about this.

That that's not a mystery to anyone who's followed our meetings.

It's not a mystery to anyone who's seen us in other committees.

Um this is an issue that we disagree with one another about.

I I don't accuse my colleagues of disingenuousness.

Uh you know, I'm not being disingenuous.

I think I'm being extremely straightforward with my views are.

Um on the question here, I'll just say the solicitor's office advises us on legal risks.

I have read both of those opinions carefully.

I have tried to update to to write uh an ordinance that responds to both of those opinions, both of which were prepared for documents that I did not write, had nothing to do with the writing of, and both of which focus on foreign policy.

It is my view, it is my belief that this is about conduct.

This is about ethics.

It is not about foreign policy.

That is my view.

Um, I personally believe that that is correct.

I believe that the reason this is even really a controversial question is is because of the the nature of that Israel plays in American politics.

You know, I think that I'm not an idiot about that.

Um, but uh but I think just on the on the facts and on the merits, this is about preventing public dollars from going to activities that are described by respected international bodies as genocidal.

That that's what we're talking about.

Um that those are the facts.

So I don't think public dollars should be spent on those things.

And to me, that's not an issue of foreign policy deciding which countries we like.

That it's about conduct, specific conduct.

Um I've read both memos.

I obviously respect our solicitor's office uh with a great deal.

Um that's my view.

And to the question of whether it will be challenged.

You know, I've been on this council nine years.

We've been challenged many, many, many times on many ordinances, some of which I was the lead sponsor of.

Um, you know, that that certainly does happen.

It's it's we've received public comment that that's going to happen here.

I understand it.

I respect it.

I think our solicitor um has defended us in the past in court and will do so again.

Were this to pass?

Thank you for the question.

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr.

Chair.

And yes, we uh to that uh we have uh definite uh differences.

And uh when I hear from members of my community that feel unsafe, then I think that is in best ethical practices as well to consider that.

In addition to that, I would like to make a motion.

Uh well, first let me ask, because speaking of budget, which we are the safeguards and stewards of, uh with that, uh, in our roles of city councillors, we have some changed some of uh the titles of our departments.

So I guess this is a uh quick question to our clerk, Mr.

Chair, if I may, um, of we we don't call it economic development any longer, correct?

I uh I guess the clerk would answer this or someone uh who we're not OSPCD anymore, I understand, and we want to have the most updated of information possible.

So your point is what we're calling the former OSPCD or the economic.

Correct.

My question, as I see um our director of uh IGA raising her hand.

Um, yes, uh want to make sure as I am about to put forward this motion that I am using the correct language.

And since I am asking a point uh uh uh question on this point of uh what the proper department would be called in uh uh the last day of June of 2026 in the city of Somerville.

That is now uh economic development.

So, Mr.

Chair, may we allow her to speak on that of what we should call this department so I can go forward with my motion.

Uh with as I said at the outset, this is a night for questions or gathering initial questions and feedback.

So motions are not in order at the moment.

Uh happy to get that, uh happy to get that answer for you.

Um I okay, well then let me go ahead.

I am going, I think it is within my purview to be able to put forward a motion at this moment.

And I am putting for I am requesting to put it forward in motion right now.

Uh Director Naja Williams, would you like to answer the counselor's question?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh through you, Mr.

Chair, uh, it will be the Office of Strategy and Development.

Office of Strategy and Development.

Okay, with that, Mr.

Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion that the Office of Strategy and Development, in addition to all proper city departments, conduct an economic analysis on the potential impact of the city's finances and the cost in enforcing this ordinance before us, which is chapter two.

I'm sorry, uh proposed uh ordinance, article uh chapter two, article five, six, seven, division of the code of ordinances.

And uh including investigating all potential service providers in relation to this proposed ordinance.

Um I'm gonna reiterate, counselor, that that motion is not in order tonight.

It is a great item.

I recommend you submit it for the city council meeting on July 9th.

So you are not permitting me to put forward an economic analysis on this ordinance with the discussion.

We are discussing the language of this ordinance.

That sounds like a very relevant item for the finance committee, Councillor Streso.

Counselor Davis.

Uh Mr.

Chair, respectfully, uh I strikes me that with an ordinance before us, uh question about the financial impact is entirely in order.

And in fact, strikes me as kind of a page out of your book.

Something I often respect that you you have your eye on the on that ball oftentimes.

I I'm not gonna I'm not gonna move to overrule the the uh sitting of the chair here, but thought I'd thought I'd weigh in and say that seems like a fair question.

All right, well, if we always respect your your opinion on these matters, Counselor Davis.

I'm just trying to keep us within scope and all right, so counselor strezzo, that was a lot of words.

Do you have that reduced to writing for the clerk?

I will repeat myself because I did write it out.

But we might have to go back and remember the name of that silly department now again.

Uh the Office of Strategy and uh goodness.

So yeah, let's let's start.

Let's start over.

I did I did say it in completion, but I'll start over again.

Uh uh, Mr.

Chair, through you to uh director uh Naggin Williams.

Can you please uh repeat the name of that uh department change again?

Strategy and development.

Thank you.

Strategy and development.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh that a resolution, uh motion to resolution uh that the uh strategy the uh departments of strategy and development and all see uh all city departments conduct an economic analysis on the potential impact to the city's finances and the cost of enforcing the ordinance, including investigating all potential service providers in relation to the proposed amendment, chapter two, article seven, division one of the code of ordinances.

I'm gonna need you to say it way slower.

Um I apologize.

No problem.

I have counselor shows I made a motion that the office of strategy and development and all city departments conduct an economic analysis on the potential impact of the city finances and the cost to the city.

Please continue.

Thank you.

You know what?

And let's include the bond uh rating as well, uh, while we're here.

Uh so uh just uh slip that in with uh so let's see, where were we?

Where should we slip that in?

More wordsmithing here.

So let's see, uh the ordinance including investigating all potential service providers.

So conduct an economic analysis on the potential impact to the city finances and the cost to the city.

Uh thank you.

The cost of the city of enforcing enforcing the ordinance, including investigating all potential service providers, comma.

The impact of the city's bond rating in relation to the proposed ordinance amendment, chapter two, article seven, division one of the code of ordinances.

Is that the end?

Yes, thank you.

Can you please read it back one more time?

And thank you.

That the Office of Strategy and Development and all city departments conduct an economic analysis on the potential impact of the city finances and the cost to the city of enforcing the ordinance, including investigating all potential service providers, the impact of the city's bond rating in relation to the proposed ordinance amendment in chapter two, article seven, division one of the code of ordinances.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

All right.

On the motion before us, is there any discussion?

All right.

But if we see no objection or no other comment, call a roll call vote on that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And on the motion, Councillor Davis.

Yes.

Councillor Mbaugh.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

No.

Counselor Strazo?

Yes.

Councilor Scott.

Nope.

With three counselors in favor, that motion is accepted.

All right.

Do you have further questions tonight, Councilor Strason?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I will hop back in line and uh let my colleagues go right forward.

All right.

Counselor Mba, I see you.

Thank you, Chairman Scott.

Uh I'm mostly you know interested in giving comment as one of the co-sponsors of this ordinance.

Um I just want to make it clear again that you know we know our city is small, but our voices still matters, you know, because through our history, local communities have often led on questions of justice before national governments.

Have so why we cannot dictate foreign policy, we can express the values that we want our leaders to up.

And it is very clear that if some of this speaks clearly, perhaps, you know, we know that you know other cities will do the same.

And I want to be clear that calling, you know, for a government to stop killing civilians is not anti-Semitic.

Criticizing the actions of a government is different from expressing prejudice against Jewish people.

I just want to make that clear.

Because anti-Semitism is real and must be condemned wherever they exist.

Just as anti-Palestinian hatred must also be rejected, because it's something that you know, and understand how emotional charges issues have been, you know.

I've always supported the right, you know, Israel's right to exist in peace and security.

I also believe that Palestinians deserve the same rights, dignity, safety, and self-determination.

That is just simple as equal rights, equal humanity must be the foundation of any lasting peace.

So I recognize again that I'm not naive to know that they're extremists on all sides.

You know, some Palestinians reject Israel's right to exist, and I reject that position.

Likewise, I also reject those who deny Palestinians their basic rights and humanity.

So when we continue to see the scale of civilian suffering in Gaza, you know, it has become impossible to ignore.

That is why this ordinance, you know, is put forward.

Thousands of lives, you know, have been lost, an enormous you know, share of population has been killed, injured, or even displaced.

So at the point, you know, like I ask myself all the time, like at what point do we as a people of conscience say enough is enough?

You know, so that is the way that is how I see this thing.

At what point do we insist that the killing stop, that humanitarian aid flow freely, and that series negotiations begin.

You know, so this is the message that I hope, you know, people live with that.

I hope our city is trying to send that every human life has equal value, peace and justice, and equal rights must be the goal for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

So that is why this ordinance, you know, is put forward.

So I don't want it to be you know triggered on that.

We'll get all the necessary, you know, uh questions, answers, whatever that you know everybody needs, but this is the goal.

This is where this is my position.

This is where I stand, and that is why you know I co-sponsor this ordinance.

All right, thank you, Councillor Mbaugh.

Do you have any uh questions or concerns to pose the city?

Uh I mean, since you said there's still gonna be a public hearing, so again, we have time to kind of like uh so I don't expect to get into like the weeds.

All right.

Sounds good.

Thank you very much, Councilor Mbaugh.

Uh Counselor Davis, I see you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I will keep my comments brief.

I just have a few sort of high-level things in in the you know, in the spirit of um trying to get some questions out on the uh out on the table here um so that we can advance the discussion uh one way or the other.

Um so my first is through you, Mr.

Chair, to uh council camp and as one of the drafters.

Um and I suspect you probably don't have a specific answer to this, and and that's okay at the moment.

Um, but I think it's it's an it's an area that I think I certainly would want to under uh better understand if before I got before I was comfortable sort of moving forward with this as it's drafted.

Um the question is you know, how how do you foresee the the sort of the the key function piece of this being implemented specifically that um you know two-three seven six Roman uh uh little A.

Um, you know, it it refers to sort of uh it refers to material support to or or receiving material revenue from uh you know the the list of uh of of things there.

Um I think that you know, so it is what do we see as being material and what is not?

Is there any guidance on the standard there?

Um and then and on the topic of standards for the exceptions, the various exceptions at the bottom, sort of, you know, what standards would we anticipate the who whomever is enforcing this in the city to um to implement there sort of the the you know significant financial burden um you know uh uh resulting in inadequate.

I'm just um I'm sort of I'm doing the thing I do, which is I just sort of pick out words that have some ambiguity in them, right?

And kind of throw them out in the and the and the uh into the uh the the table here for uh to to kick around.

Um and then another sort of on this on a similar note, um the the operative language talks to uh refers to you know conduct recognized under international law, but then later in terms of the policy has the list, uh a non-exclusive list as it is of of international organizations.

So I to my ear, I think we need to reconcile those what sound like two different concepts.

Um, so those are sort of the two the two sort of areas of significant ambiguity that I that I see that cause me some concern in terms of feeling like this is something reasonable to put um to put on the on the requirements or a requirement to put on the uh on the shoulders of of the administration.

Um I'll stop and give you a chance to actually answer the question that I started asking was like, you know, how how do you see this being implemented?

You know, is it who's doing the research?

Like I mean, obviously, not what person, but just you know, if if you've had conversations with the administration about that, can you share any of that in terms of how this would actually work in practice?

True, Mr.

Sherry.

So thank you.

Obviously, these are very important questions.

Uh and I don't think that I have an answer, obviously, tonight that is going to you know fully um answer them.

And I in my experience, all this always uh the committee process um helps me um draft things.

So the the idea here, just in terms of let's talk about material support, right?

This is this is an issue that um I don't think it's trivial, and I I want to be really clear about that.

The intention is um that the um the support for these violations has to be knowing, it has to be sustained and it has to be significant.

That that's my um understanding of of that term as it's kind of been used.

And I think all of us could probably come up with some examples that are unambiguous, right?

Selling weapons to an army that is in the process of violating these things.

I think that is extremely straightforward.

I would say, you know, given that this list also includes um illegal occupation companies that are in selling surveillance technology um to you know, checkpoints, things like that.

I to me that that's extremely straightforward.

Um then I think there are also probably very easy to come up with examples where it's more ambiguous.

Um software company that sells to kind of everyone in the world, and that includes um companies or entities or countries that are directly engaged in these.

And and I I don't exactly know.

Um the the goal here is to get us to a place where we are developing a policy.

But I also recognize, you know, someone in my position has to know what the guidelines of that look.

So I think there's a few different ways that we could discuss going.

One is, and I've avoided doing this to this point, is have a list, right?

Um, you know, to our colleague Councilor Streso's point about the burden asking city staff to be making these decisions, even with guidance of what organizations to be looking at.

Another approach is um to say uh there are there are lists, right?

From respected organizations, um, and if that cuts down on risk and administrative burden, then maybe that's the direction we need to go.

Um I think that uh my view is that um coming up with a policy is going to r require some amount of work and research, certainly.

Um and I I can also imagine that there will be things, much like we saw with our um prison labor ordinance where the city will do its best to enforce this, and then you know, instances will come to light that the city was not aware of and will be made aware of them, and then we'll try to rectify it that way.

Um and in terms of the exceptions, um I I guess what the the attempt here, yeah, I don't want to speak for counselor wheeler, but for me is to respect that we don't know exactly what the procurement um office deals with on a daily basis and don't want to prescribe too strictly, you know, yes, this, no, this.

Um I I think they're I've just been humbled too many times.

Um so the the goal is to give them a certain amount of discretion where if there's you know truly like a service that cannot be otherwise provided or can't be provided at any kind of reasonable costs, or it's just an extremely like exigent circumstances, um, then the city you know should not um have to hold up, you know, to to get the schools open at the end of the pandemic, whatever it is.

Um so that's how I'm thinking about it, and I absolutely welcome further input from colleagues from staff.

You know, this is obviously the beginning of the process.

Sure, okay.

Uh certainly, although I guess to your to the the tail end of your question there, I mean, once uh once a policy is promulgated by the mayor, generally how this has worked in other ordinances is simply a requirement that companies that are providing bids have to provide an affidavit saying they don't meet any of XYZ criteria.

And that's that's how the purchasing offices handled things in the past, but uh yeah, again policy to be developed.

Uh please, floor is yours, still.

Um thank you.

So I I have one more question for Councillor Campan, and then just sort of two general sort of comments slash requests for um well, anyways, you categorize it how you like.

Um but uh through you to uh counselor Young Camp.

Um in in in drafting this or in what there was there any discussion, and I'm not suggesting that this is the case.

I'm asking the question.

Um is there was there any discussion of the extent to which the US government may fall into any of these private categories?

Mr.

Chair, yes, absolutely.

So before the drafting of this, you know, I don't want to go into a long discourse here, but you know, the United States government has been bombing people on boats in the Caribbean.

The United States government has been kidnapping and assassinating foreign heads of, you know, I to me are completely unambiguous violations of the laws of war.

And it it is unambiguously my intent that companies knowingly involved in those activities should also not be contractors of the city of Somerville.

I mean, I think those are horrific violations of international law.

Oh, sorry, if I could follow up on that, and I don't really want to get in the weeds here, but I mean I you drew a distinction between companies that are specifically involved with those activities versus companies that you know.

So I I guess so you're saying that that the the wording in in paragraph A of section or the first section there is that the revenue is derived from the act, because it I guess I I read entities to mean governments or non-governmental actors, right?

And so if if I were to take your argument that, and I don't necessarily disagree, that one could argue that the US the US government is involved in conduct recognized under international law to constitute um a systematic systemic violation of international human humanitarian law, systematically blowing up boats without any clear evidence of a crime.

Um even if well we want you you know where I'm going.

But but that if if the company's providing support to the to that entity, that entity being the US government, there's there doesn't need to still be a connection between the the the conduct the way it's drafted.

So is it is it your intent that the the the revenue the material the the revenue derived derived from from the support um is is is specific to the conduct that's listed here because that's not how it rates to me.

And I guess and just to be clear I mean I'm not it's uh I think most folks get what I'm saying here I read this as saying we one could argue we couldn't do business with any company doing business with the US government.

That seems like a problem and it's probably not what you I assume it's not what you intended but maybe not but um that's what I was trying to understand.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you I acknowledge that this ambiguity exists in what I drafted um what counselor and I wheeler and I drafted um I would like the opportunity to draft language that clarifies the the intent is companies that are enabling furthering directly contributing to the actions.

This is not a guilty by association of what country you come from this is conduct.

That is my intent um and I recognize that if someone like you is reading it otherwise I have work to do.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair for allowing that answer two more quick final points then and I'll I'll I'll stop um so a requested law department this is uh sort of goes along the lines of what was discussed earlier but um I I definitely would want to specifically understand the law department's um opinion on on how this this provision or this proposal would interact with procurement law.

I mean I think that's something we should we should definitely have a a very clear specific opinion on what is before us not hypothetical things that weren't before us when other opinions were were provided um and so if I could make that request Mr.

Chair through you to uh to the law department uh please and then um finally I I I hesitate I I I went back and forth as to whether to bring this up tonight or not but I I I kind of I I feel I feel inclined to because look I I I always operate like I try and take people at their work right just at face value I I believe what people tell me in until um you know proven uh otherwise and what I've what I've heard and what I've been told directly is that the intent with this this um sort of this movement we'll say for lack of a better word um I I don't want to I I don't want to put words that I've heard into council human camp's uh pen to to if you know what I mean but um that that the sort of the overall intent here is is not about foreign policy it's not to change um foreign uh uh actors foreign government's actions and and in fact I I'm I I heard the opinion and I don't necessarily disagree that if it were we probably would very clearly be preempted um by state and federal law um and we couldn't do that the that the intent here is specifically to say we can decide where we want to spend our money and we don't want to spend it on on um companies that are that are doing really bad things.

And so if I take that on face value I I'm always willing to be convinced otherwise but I think this is going to be a hard one I I don't see the rationale the value or the necessity of specifically naming Israel and Palestine here.

I think that I understand why someone might see that as an argument to include that as as disingenuous when coupled with the the overall arguments we've heard for the the the goal that is to be achieved here.

To me it's hard to reconcile those two those two statements that that the goal isn't is to not to change foreign policy it's to decide that we're not going to spend our tax dollars on people doing bad stuff but yet we have to call out these just one example of one area in the world where bad stuff is happening that's really hard for me to recognise and I know it's a real trigger point and so I you know I'm just gonna leave that as a statement for the moment we're all still listening I read every email that I've gotten up until today uh on I'm on this issue um and and I will continue to read them and I look forward to hearing if there's going to be a public hearing I I will look forward to that as well but um that's all I have at the moment um sort of trying to keep it to relatively high level at least for me at least I guess um thank you Mr.

Chair for allowing me the time.

Chair for allowing me the time no thank you uh appreciate the questions um uh before we go into the second round I guess I'll get some of my questions uh out there um you know it it as always counselor Davis uh you know you and I think in in similar lines here I guess in terms of companies supporting the entities engaged in conduct I think there is probably something there in the language that could get cleaned up um like I I think I can say that if anthropic or XAI is providing targeting solutions for strikes on boats in the Caribbean by all means I don't think Somerville should be in our in contracts with them um and so making it clear that the uh it's not just supporting the entity that is engaged but uh supporting directly supporting that entities activities which violate international law uh right it's it's not just uh can't sell um wheat to Russia uh you know maybe maybe Cisco has food service contracts in Russia I don't know right but obviously uh Russia's engaged in uh in the illegal occupation right now and I would certainly hope that this would fall uh under the same category so so I I'm interested in in going to work to clean up that language as well um one question that I had was about the uh non-inclusive list um because I you know and I apologize for having Ukraine on the brain uh but like UN General Assembly resolution ES11 slash four is another resolution that one in particular declared uh Russia's occupation of Ukraine being an illegal occupation and uh violating its territorial integrity and sovereignty um so that that would seem to me to be a similar uh a similar relevant piece to draw you know but given that this is a not conclusive list uh it is perhaps uh a gesture of legislative intent of the the items that we are directing the mayor to uh take into account when developing that policy um would would the addition of uh other like other resolutions is there is there any way in which that makes our position worse or less defensible I guess I'm directing this to uh solicitor amara uh and you don't have to have an answer on the spot um but if you do have a link right would you mind refer restating the question please I apologize sure so uh including in that non-inclusive list uh and section C there uh policy shall include consideration of findings including without limitation uh if we listed a number six uh United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-11 slash four which uh specifically references uh Russia's occupation of Ukraine uh would that put us in any worse uh situation in terms of having a defensible ordinance I reserve the right to think about this and answer it down the road but I don't see how anything that says a list is non-inclusive and includes some examples but not all whether you have one or two doesn't to me change the issue as I sit here right now it's still a non-defined subjective list in my opinion.

Okay well uh I appreciate that um it's actually reassuring but uh I yeah I have noted that you have reserved the right to issue a different opinion um right I I guess I had another question um and I guess this is one uh for IGA I suppose to take back to purchasing um and and to director bean I suppose uh in the exception provisions uh I think it's absolutely uh uh absolutely correct to provide the freedom of movement that if there's you know a single supply or a single practical supply or there's just no way to get around uh the issue um in a response in a fiscally responsible manner that uh they should have the discretion to do that um but I think similar to our surveillance ordinances having transparency over when that happens uh might be might be useful so to the extent that uh when that exception either the procurement or the investment exception is exercised uh would it would it be practical to include a requirement uh of notification when when those exceptions are uh are exercised and since we don't have purchasing or uh uh director bean here tonight uh that's one that I'm gonna request uh director Najam Williams that you uh that you help me follow up on here over the

So to the extent that uh when that exception, either the procurement or the investment exception is exercised, uh would it would it be practical to include a requirement uh of notification when when those exceptions are uh are exercised.

And since we don't have purchasing or uh uh director bean here tonight, uh that's one that I'm gonna request uh director Najman Williams that you uh that you help me follow up on here over this uh right.

So to that point, um I I guess those are my two biggest questions uh in terms of language or several biggest questions in terms of language uh as we go in go into the summer.

And I appreciate folks who are bringing good faith questions.

Uh I think whether or not we agree with policy or an ordinance, it is uh a responsibility as legislators to uh try to get it right.

So I appreciate it to everybody's good faith efforts there.

Uh I see counselor for a second round, then counselor strezzle, and then counselor you and camp.

Counselor Ba, you have a slide.

Uh thank you, Chairman Scott.

I guess again, I'm just wondering, you know, at what point, you know, because first for me, for example, I would like to see a list, you know.

So when the ordinance drafted, at what point do we make amendments?

Is it like should we wait down the road or should we pour them all out?

I'm not sure.

Like I'm still, you know, and yeah, I don't know.

I I don't want to like be level, you know, the point um it's at your discretion.

Like, I don't know where we are, you know, uh where we are at this phase, you know.

So as I said before, I I intend this to be an introductory conversation, questions, concerns raised tonight.

I I don't particularly think motions to amend the language directly are in order.

I think it's probably more productive if you've got um uh changes that you'd like considered or included.

Let's express that here.

Uh and we've already heard from Councillor Ewan Camp and that he's got some drafting uh to do over the summer on this.

So uh getting those out in the air right now would uh give him the opportunity to include that in a redrafting process and then can bring it.

Gotcha.

Okay, no, thank thank you, Chairman Scott.

Yeah, no, in fact, in terms of like under the the um like uh this C section that the ethical procurement and investment policy, you know, uh we we listed the policy should include consideration of the findings, determinations, listing, and former exclusion, former conclusion of international legal or human rights bodies, including without limitation.

So they listed a few there, you know.

Uh the last one was United Nation Human Rights Uh Council resolutions.

And also like I wanted to add like the American Friends Service Committee, you know, including and especially, you know, like a database entitled companies profiting from Gaza Genocide.

So that is like a whole there's like a whole database in that space, which we need to get that information out there and see, you know, because it's I think that one where from what I saw, it's like it's updated like from time to time.

So it's very easy to see in real time, you know, how what is on that list and how much they apply to it.

And then there's also like the Wu Profits Research Center, including and especially the Wu Profits database, you know, of complicit companies.

That is also something that you know we need to um see that also on that list, because that would inform us comprehensively.

And then also there's the they don't buy into occupation coalition including and especially also like they are done by no occupational report.

That is also like some another new uh uh um uh research that is being updated, like is like yearly.

So do we have valuable information that we can actually get you know like uh um uh data from.

And so like we get a international association for genocide scholar, that's also like something that should you know be out be included for you know, like a robust deliberation.

And and and then if you look at D, like I think there's also D talked about, you know, how to determine that procurement contract, blah, blah, blah.

uh data from and so so like we get a international association for genocide scholar that's also like something that should you know be out be included for you know like a robust deliberation and and and if you look at the like I think there's also the talked about you know how to determine that procurement contract blah blah blah the last piece is to publicly post the reasoning for the procurement contract hiding use or retention of level or services perform or goose produce like it's always good to have like that public transparency and accountability so it's good that procurement you know exception we should we should actually post that data so that everybody sees that it's I think that is something that I feel like we should that also uh as part of the conversation for if we want to have everything out for consideration this is something that I would want you know to be added in all right appreciate you uh bringing that up obviously those suggestions are open to conversation and uh I'm sure counselor you and campan will take them under advisement uh counselor strezo I saw your hand go down yeah I just uh getting ahead of the game because I knew it was next in line uh and it takes a while for me to fumble and and press that button sometimes no thank you thank you all right counselor counselor by you're done uh your hand's still up I just want to make sure oh yes yes thank you okay counselor strezzo you have this thank you Mr.

Chair uh I guess through that through you I I just wanted to uh hearing what uh counselor Mab was saying and I appreciate you hearing your thoughts and and your thought presses on this is your is your interest uh to hold Israel accountable uh for its conduct through this ordinance that's to uh counselor Maba Mr.

Chair through you Councillor Stroza what do you say Mr.

uh Chair through you uh I just on what you had said I just really wanted to hear is this uh for you to elaborate on your thoughts is your intention to hold Israel accountable for its conduct through this ordinance I I think we've heard the intention of the ordinance from the drafter oh no I know but it you know is to uh direct our spending uh in in an ethical but counselor if you would like to answer that differently yeah I think uh uh chairman Scott I think I've expressed you know I gave a whole editorial here about my my comment like my rationale why I support this ordinance and so uh I don't understand where the question is coming from and Mr.

Chair I think I will move to reconsider my you know my initial vote you know that I gave in the beginning because I'm not sure what this debate is all about here.

I I all I'm trying to understand good intention but if I'm noticing that this is I don't this back and forth I don't have the time I don't have the patience I just maybe I even I I was too fast to take a position in good faith but I'm realizing that I probably I made the wrong move so um Mr Chair I think um I'm not sure if I'm you know one I'll probably move to reconsider the vote I I gave in the beginning if that's okay uh so uh right now counselor strezo uh has the floor and have given you the floor for direct response there I think the direct response has been given once counselor strezo is complete I'm happy to return to you for a motion to reconsider okay thank you all right counselor strezo thank you yes uh so if that I guess I would also want to know uh through uh the I guess to the city um solicitor um if if the consideration has been uh what the employee time uh is needed to vet uh every single bidder for city contracts if this has been discussed in the law department as well through you Mr.

Chair to the city solicitor through the chair to you um we have not done a real in-depth analysis of this um those questions are i believe questions that cannot be answered without input and discussion with procurement and that's my position on that we haven't done a financial analysis if that's your question yeah procurement's best uh position answer that so maybe we can uh ask director Najam Williams to relay that question to purchase and okay well if with that I'll uh I'll head back in line all right counselor you and camp thank you Mr.

Um so I think I I it's informed for one thing by the fact that several other communities have taken similar actions and have not named Israel is one of the examples.

Um and uh to my knowledge, they've all been sued anyway, and they've all been accused of the same, you know, kind of discriminatory intent and anti Semitism, even without naming Israel Palestine.

And my view, maybe this is wrong.

I guess two things I'll say.

One is if this does go before a judge at some point.

My sense is that they don't they're not fooled, right?

Like if the context for this was a ballot question passed in the summer bill and then the city council takes it up pursuant to that.

I I think it's quite clear that that was one of the motivating factors.

And you know, that that's one piece of it.

And the other piece, and this maybe is just more personal for me, um, and I think for a lot of our constituents, you know, in my adult life, um, it has been quite clear that our government, and I I I'd argue, you know, our society has a really strange double standard of what we accept from the the behavior of you know our country's ally in Israel, and uh things that would be completely non-controversial to say about other, you know, um international violations of human rights are just you're not you're not you're you're heavily disincentivized to talk about them publicly.

That's been my experience my entire adult life um as someone you know who's been incredibly critical of the Israeli government.

I've just basically been told it's not really a safe thing for you to talk about it at your job and your family and your you know community.

Um I've never agreed with that, I've never understood it.

It doesn't make sense to me.

Um I don't think it's a neutral stance either.

So you know, for my perspective, it's to be clear that we are not going to have a double standard, right?

Like I think if in my view, this would be non-controversial if we were talking about basically any other country in the world, but we want to be clear we're trying to be even handed here.

So, you know, others may not agree with that.

I I understand, you know, um colleagues may not be convinced by that, but that that is how I've thought about this.

Um, why that was important to me.

And I'll just, you know, it also matters a lot that that was an ask of voters in our city.

And you know, our colleague mentioned it was a low turnout election.

I don't know.

It it was, you know, it elected us as well.

It's been said before.

All right.

Thank you, Counselor Ewan Campen.

Uh I think this has been a good uh a good round.

That's right.

I'm sorry, Counselor Mba.

You were seeking to uh move for a reconsideration on the motion uh that was approved earlier, correct?

Yes.

All right.

So counselor uh moves for reconsideration on that motion.

I believe in uh in hopes that reconsideration succeeds, which is different than we usually do.

So uh on reconsideration, uh, would anybody uh uh yes wish to open this for reconsideration uh and discussion on the motion.

Um Mr.

Chair, no, uh I so uh I I through on a discussion on this motion.

I would like to hear from Council Mabaugh why the choice to uh of reconsideration.

Mr.

Chip, if I may.

Uh you certainly may.

You as but you know, my I know uh cost um, I for one, always take you know, people for fair's value.

Everybody means well, you know, so this is my approach that I've always governed, you know.

I guess you know, maybe it served me right, maybe it served me wrong, but I guess for me to be a question about and I I give a whole editorial about my rationale, and then I'm being questioned about the same to repeat what I just said.

I just cannot you know think that everybody is thinking in good feed, you know, behind these audience.

So that's why I wanted to consider that vote.

All right.

Well, let's let's try to refrain from once again accusing colleagues of whether it's disingenuousness or bad faith, but understood.

Yes, or or using terms of blood libel and hate speech and discriminatory terms as well.

We definitely want to make sure, Mr.

Chair, that none of that is happening.

We don't want any of that in here.

Accusations.

Mr.

Chair, can you please so before us, please read the motion that uh counselor Maba is planning on uh to to uh discuss as a reconsideration that he wishes to do.

And also, if you may, please, uh, what one vote looks like on this direction and what one vote looks like on the other for all of us, colleagues, because this vote can be confusing.

Uh this is a motion to reconsider uh the motion that was made by Councillor Strezow earlier, requesting, among other things, uh a thorough financial review of the impacts of this ordinance, uh potential impacts of this ordinance.

Uh and the first roll call vote will be whether or not to reconsider that item, which means basically to bring it back up for us for a new vote.

So a yes vote uh is to support uh councillor's motion uh to reconsider.

So and also if uh so to reconsider a resolution, if I may.

Uh is that correct?

And can you uh can the clerk uh repeat uh the the motion in full before the vote?

Uh if that if the dis if the votes um uh sway to move to reconsider or no.

Certainly, madam clerk.

Uh could you please call for a roll call vote in the form of a motion to reconsider and then text.

Yeah, I'm I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Usually you're very thorough and you don't mind uh going explaining exactly in precise methods.

And as I've known you throughout the years, it's fairly consensus.

So I'm I'm confused as to why this is so hard at this moment to do.

So please I I think it is a fair request that the complete motion before us is read in its entirety so that everybody is fully aware on their yay or nay vote.

I think it's a pretty basic request.

I don't believe anybody's confused, but I'm certainly happy to have it spelled out by the clerk.

Thank you.

If you allow the clerk to read the roll call.

And roll call on the motion made to reconsider the vote on the motion requesting the potential financial impacts to the city related to the ordinance, and that motion language in full was that the Office of Strategy and Development and all city departments conduct an economic analysis on the potential impacts to the city finances and the cost to the city of enforcing the ordinance, including investigating all potential service providers, the impact of the city's bond rating in relation to the proposed ordinance amendment to chapter two, Article 7, Division 1 of the Code of Ordinances.

Counselor Davis.

No counselor Mbaugh.

Yes, Counselor Ewan Campen.

Yes.

Counselor Streso.

No.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

With three votes in favor, that motion is now in front of us again for a roll call vote.

All right.

So that motion to reconsider has passed, which places the item back before us again.

Uh let us call the roll once again on that motion.

Would you like the motion read once again, Councilor Streso?

Yes.

And uh for the audience and all listening, uh, what a yes or no vote means.

Thank you.

Uh the yes or no vote is on the approval of the motion.

Um, madam chair.

And on the motion that the Office of Strategy and Development and all city departments conduct an economic analysis on the potential impact to the city finances and the cost to the city of enforcing the ordinance, including investigating all potential service providers, the impact of the city's bond rating in relation to the proposed ordinance amendment in chapter two, article seven, division one of the code of ordinances.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor Mbaugh?

No.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

No.

Councilor Strezo.

Yes.

Counselor Scott.

No.

With two in favor and three opposed, that motion fails.

Okay, on reconsideration, that motion fails.

Uh we have now been on this ordinance for about an hour and 10 minutes.

I appreciate everybody's thorough questions.

If there are any last questions or concerns, uh, I'm willing to make room for that.

Uh otherwise, I'm going to recommend we take a short five-minute recess because we have been at this now for two hours before taking up the other uh 10 items on our agenda.

Uh all right.

Seeing no objections, we will go ahead and keep this item in committee for further discussion.

I appreciate it.

And we will uh go on a recess until eight PM.

Thank you.

All right.

It is 8 p.m.

I don't see Councilor Davis back yet.

But we may have a quorum otherwise.

I'd request the counselors, if you are present, just turn on your camera so I can know if we have enough to continue.

All right.

I see three.

So that that is enough to uh have a quorum and return from recess in order to do so here at 8 p.m.

Madam Clerk, could you uh call the role to establish a quorum?

Mrs.

Roll call to re-establish quorum.

Counselor Davis?

Here.

Counselor Mbaugh?

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campan?

Here.

Counselor Shrezo.

And Counselor Scott.

Present.

Four counselors present.

Yeah, for him.

All right, thank you.

I know I am personally very relieved at getting to save that little break there.

And uh appreciate everyone's tolerance with my eagerness uh to get to a brief recess.

Uh with that said, uh let's take up items five and six together.

That's two six oh three oh two and two six oh nine three six, the two mayors communications, one conveying the initial uh 2025 surveillance technology annual report, and uh second, a submission uh from uh June 11th, uh just a few weeks ago with a revised surveillance technology annual report.

Um I believe we have already discussed the previous item, and there were some requests back in March uh for updates there.

Uh Director Najem Williams, are you here to speak on this item?

Through you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Captain Sheehan has joined us to speak on these two items.

Okay.

Uh well, there are definitely other departments than just uh the police department in this document, but probably the the questions will be for the police department.

So understood.

Um so colleagues, we have the revised item before us.

Uh as I said, it came in during budget season.

Does anybody have any questions uh or comments on the revised submission?

All right.

Well, while I'm waiting for that, I guess I'll I'll go with my first uh with mine.

I you know, I appreciate the discussion we had last time this was here.

Um I asked at the time for the training materials for the gray key technology so that I could understand uh what was in there.

The submission from Digital Fourth I found to be very compelling uh concerning uh you know what it what it is that happens when somebody uh uses gray key on a device, uh, is the entire device image.

Uh how much of that information is retained, how long is that uh information retained for uh who makes a determination about what what information is relevant uh to the search uh warrant that has been uh approved by a judge?

Uh and as uh in the intervening time that request has been made, the police department, police department uh, I believe uh correct me if I'm wrong, uh, told me that they don't keep those training materials, those training materials are online.

Uh and then when Gray Key was requested to provide those training materials, uh great he uh declined.

Uh Director Najem Williams, am I am I correct in that recounting?

Or would you prefer would you prefer uh Captain Sheehan to speak to that?

Uh through you, Mr.

Chair.

I will uh defer to Captain Sheehan, but also Attorney Peaks uh could also speak to this um as he was involved in the request uh to the vendor as well.

Okay, attorney peace then thank you, Chair uh Scott.

Please make one up here.

Uh counselor Strazo is with us.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, and to the members of the committee.

Um I cannot speak to necessarily to the retention policy of the police department.

I I will say that I was involved in requesting that information from uh look, someone correct me from wrong.

I think it's Magnet is the parent company of this.

Um and my recollection is is yeah, the one when we when that information was requested from them, um they told us they would not provide us um with with our training materials.

Uh all right, and uh why would they not provide us with that training material?

I'm happy to uh thank you, uh Chair Scott.

I'm happy to go back and look at the actual email and make sure I'm not missing any text.

Um that explains why, but I I would it would call me to kind of to guess, you know, as I'm sitting right now as to why why they would not all right.

Uh well uh so I personally find that concerning.

Um the purpose of this uh ordinance is transparency, uh and to be you know, were this a uh City of Somerville uh training document uh for officers and how to utilize this technology and utilize it responsibly and to uh how to comply with all of our uh internal policies on the management data, you know, this is something that would be a public record.

Um the in this event, it sounds uh it it sounds uh to pardon the the comparison a little bit like the Salvadoran Privy Prison Dodge uh saying, well, it's a it's a vendor, we can't control the vendor.

Uh and so I am I am concerned by that response.

Uh and it makes me wonder if we should be engaging uh with a vendor that that won't comply with that kind of basic transparency.

So uh that is my that is my only concern with the uh surveillance technology annual report resubmission here uh that has not been addressed since uh our previous conversation on it.

Uh I don't know if any of my colleagues share that concern uh but yeah, counselor you and can.

Mr.

Chair, I I very much appreciate you tracking this down.

I certainly agree it's concerning.

I mean, the the the reason, speaking for myself that I was comfortable with this is because as it was outlined to us, the policies and procedures were very clear and straightforward, pursuant to a warrant.

Um if there's any kind of question or ambiguity about that, uh that's that's concerning, right?

Um so the training material certainly would be helpful, um, and I'll be paying attention to this.

Well, that then just uh raises the question what to do with the surveillance technology annual report that has been resubmitted to us.

Uh Councilor Davis, I I rely on your encyclopedic and uh authorial knowledge uh of the ordinance.

This is uh simply an acceptance.

Uh the action taken by the council uh by the committee here would be to recommend acceptance of this report, correct?

That is correct.

All right.

Uh well, I am I'm uncomfortable with it uh with this absence of information myself, uh, but I understand uh others may not.

So uh I'm open to motions at this time.

Uh we will go ahead and uh place item uh the item from March 260302.

We can place that one on file.

Uh I'm open to motions uh on the second item.

Uh councilor Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, and I I share Council Union Campins' uh gratitude for your um diligence on the questions here.

You know, I I think that uh particularly given that where we are on the calendar year, and as I I believe you reminded me one time when I misspoke, the the the next step if if the council felt there was a concern with a particular sequence technology would be to entertain an ordinance, um uh uh you know, uh specifically uh prohibiting it, not to suggest that's that would be the next step in in your not that that would be your intent.

Um, but you know, I I think my thought would be um given that this is substantively uh consistent with uh uh in a report that we've accepted in the past, um that I I for one am not particularly surprised that uh private entity uh is hesitant to share its proprietary training materials.

Um, if there's specific questions, I I hopefully I would hope they would be willing to follow up and have a conversation that and um you know if if you wanted to pursue that um and and try and get those concerns addressed.

And if uh you know, then if if there was still concern, then we do have that option of trying to put an ordinance in place.

Um, or I guess coming back to the administration and you know, having further conversation, whether it's through committee or or just um you know on the side.

But I my inclination, my inclination for this submission would be to go ahead and accept it.

I I think that as you said, that's sort of down to that last one point, and uh perhaps as we are now halfway through the year.

Um we're gonna get another one of these in six months.

Maybe we can in the you use those six months to try and dig in a little bit, get a little more uh view into that training and hopefully answer some of your concerns and then if uh you know see where we are whether or not we get that clarification.

Thank you, Councilor Davis.

Uh I am I am inclined to agree with you.

Uh I certainly hope it doesn't come to uh the point of needing to bring forth an ordinance to grab the use of Greek key in the city, but uh I don't want to be contracting with bad actors here.

Uh counselor Mbath, I recognize you.

Thank you, Chairman's card.

No, just to echo the sentiment of Council UN Captain.

Thank you for your work on this.

You know, you've always been like a city hawk.

Yeah, indeed, so I appreciate it.

And uh yeah, I'm um I'm confident with cities.

All right.

Well then uh is that a motion to approve counselor and baugh.

All right.

We have a motion to recommend approval on this item uh number 260936.

Uh let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

This is roll call for Gen M629-0936.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Yes.

Counter UN Campan.

Yes.

Councilor Shreza.

Yes.

Counselor Scott.

Oh, yes.

With all counselors in favor, that's recommended to be approved.

And chair scotch through number five.

We can mark that as work completed as it was sent for discussion.

Work completed.

Thank you.

All right.

One of these days, uh we'll figure out why some of these are communicated as a sent for discussion versus requesting approval.

Uh then that brings us to item number seven, that's 260878 requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report for the smart tree inventory.

Uh there was a presentation that was submitted uh very late in the day, I think.

Uh, and I believe we have Dr.

Bukiley here to speak to this submission.

Dr.

Bukile, would you like to speak to the slides or just give an introduction?

Oh, looks like we got slides.

There's only four of them.

Yeah.

Thank you very much, Counselor and Chair.

Um, I appreciate you taking the time to review this.

I can give an update or a quick introduction of what the technology is for.

And I thought some pictures would help um speak a thousand words.

So this stir is presented for our smart tree inventory as a one-time assessment of the public trees in the city.

Um it is used to create a comprehensive inventory based on vehicle mounted LIDAR GPS and photography.

Um this is then processed with AI and provides information about the location, size, and various other features of each public tree.

Um the information is presented in a digital inventory and um also uh 3D digital model of each tree is created.

The technology um is used solely to improve the city's management of public trees.

It includes um maintenance planning, risk assessing, and um is used to provide long-term asset management.

There's no intention to identify or monitor individual people, just individual trees.

Um, but there is the incidental um possibility that when the vehicle was driving through the area, people um on the street or in adjacent properties may have been captured in select images.

Um the access to those images will only be provided to authorized users, and the images are really tree focused, so they're only used for urban forestry purposes.

Um I just provided a few slides here.

If we can move to the second slide.

Um the inventory shows each tree as a diamond here.

Um there's nearly 16,000 trees in the inventory.

This is currently only accessible internally, it's not publicly accessible.

Um, and the next slide.

Thank you.

Um, this is just showing you what the pictures and digital image digital twin images, so the 3D models of each tree is like.

So there is a pop out here of the digital image.

You can um open up the window and actually sort of twirl it around so you can see it from different angles.

You can see that the focus is on the tree and not the anything else.

You can see there's sort of a light poll, so there's some view of infrastructure, but it's the tree is really pulled out.

And then the last slide shows the each tree has five images.

So this is just um an example tree with um the view of this tree from different angles.

So occasionally there may be someone walking down the street that would be captured in one of these photos.

And that is all.

I will happily take any questions.

You were muted, Chair, if you were speaking.

Oh, uh, I thank you.

I see Counselor Davis first.

Counselor Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you, Dr.

McKeyley.

Um I I have a bunch of questions about this, but pretty much none of them have to do with the actual surveillance aspect of the tech.

I I have lots of I'm very skeptical about a lot of this stuff, but in terms of how it works and the functionality, but that has nothing to do with what why we're here.

And so I will put my full faith and trust in your uh expertise and ability to use this and and under and understand any limitations and and work around and work through and um sort of I guess model through and around any limitations that the particularly the AI features of this might have.

And I'm always speaking from personal experience with AI assessment of vegetation, with which we're quite negative for my personal uh experience.

Um, but uh that has nothing to do with the surveillance part of it.

Um so I'll my one question will be to the to the one piece that that does, and you you did mention this, but um, so in the event that there's a uh you know an incidental and accident, and I said I given as densely populated as the city is, I imagine it was probably wouldn't be very uncommon at all for for folks to be happened to end up being in these pictures.

And you mentioned that the photographs themselves are only um accessible to you know city staff that that are that you know required.

Um is that the extent of the uh of the sort of the sort of limitation of there because I you know I we I'm sure we've all seen you know Google Maps where there's a blurred image, you know, people's faces blurred out or whatever.

I'm laughing because I'm thinking of like the funny poses people go into, and sometimes when the car comes by.

Um is there anything like that, or is it really just like, hey, look, these are um no different than the photos we might take in any other um uh you know enforcement of trash, for example, or or whatever, and it's they're not accessible to the public, and therefore we think that that's enough.

I'm not saying it's not, I'm just asking the question.

Thanks for the question through the chair.

Um I did ask that um the photos are hosted on the on um Davy Resources group um Davy Resource Group's um website and their um system, and they don't have the ability to do that.

If each tree, there's a you know, nearly around 16,000 and there's five images per tree, so that's 80,000 pictures.

We maybe could get AI involved to try to figure out which ones have people and not, but that that's not something they do, so it would be beyond the scope of their day-to-day operations, and it's difficult as a human to know which pictures to go blur.

So it's not super feasible at this juncture.

Okay, yeah, Mr.

Chair, if I made a quick follow-up.

So thank you for that.

I I'm fine with that.

I think I'm you know, uh getting AI involved, I would imagine that would start with sort of a facial recognition type or some aspect of that, which we already would obviously have be a problem given our ordinance.

So um as long as there's yeah, you know, uh uh no potential access to the public, um I then I think I'm I'm comfortable with that.

And I hope this is really helpful.

This technology, not my questions.

They're next.

All right.

Uh, Counselor Ewan Camp, and I see you next.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you.

I I apologize if I just missed something.

Um has this already happened?

Are we we're retroactively approving this?

Through the chair, yes.

Um the scans happened in 2024.

I was unaware of this ordinance, but became aware of it and I was advised to do this.

The as I mentioned, the information is not at all accessible to the public at the moment.

I've held off once I realized that was approval would be um uh important that I you know did not proceed with putting this up making this publicly available.

So got it.

Mr.

Chair, let me let me be clear.

I'm not this is not a gotcha by any means.

No, I I I appreciate it.

I it is not surprising to me that there are things the city does, and then after the fact they learn, oh, that actually is surveillance, isn't it?

I I totally understand and respect that.

I'm very grateful that that you came to the council.

I think it um I think it's personally really helpful for the public to see that the city respects this ordinance and you know, even things that are quote unquote non-controversial.

Um, you know, are are reviewed.

Um I think this is amazing.

You know, I I get so many questions about trees um from constituents, and this is just kind of jaw dropping the the level of information and detail that you have.

Um, so uh you know what can I say?

I think it's really amazing.

Uh thank you.

I see counselor mbah.

Thank you, Chairman Scott.

You know, I'll never miss a good opportunity to thank Dr.

Bukele for her work.

So thank you.

You know, like when I see a walk around the city, it makes us proud because we were treeless city, but at least we are not there yet.

But you know, I can see you know the impact of what you're doing.

So thank you.

Through the chair, thank you.

All right.

Uh well, Councilor Davis, as always, uh, you and I sharing a brain there.

Um and yeah, I guess my only concern was really about who would have access to the photos and uh for what purposes that's actually spelled out in the document in terms of uh, you know, the be provided logins.

Uh I believe in yeah, it is it is hosted off site and uh staff contractors uh at the discretion of the administrators uh will be given access to the tree inventory.

So uh I appreciate it.

I also want to congratulate uh Director Bukile for a hell of a job filling out this form.

This is far more comprehensive than other far more invasive surveillance technologies that we have seen uh presented under this ordinance.

So uh I just want to congratulate you for doing it right and to echo my colleagues uh in saying that I think it sets a great example for how the city of Somerville and the dedicated public servants within it uh take this ordinance seriously.

So uh with that, then uh I'm uh comfortable seeing no further discussion.

I'm gonna uh go ahead and move to recommend approval of uh item seven.

That's 260878.

Is there any discussion on that motion?

All right.

Well, uh seeing none, let's go ahead and take a roll call on that one too.

Why not?

Roll call on agenda item seven, 260878.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor Mba.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campan?

Yes.

Counselor Shrezo, yes.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

My counselors in favor of the items recommended to you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh that brings us to the next item on the agenda.

That's item 26-0830, item number eight, requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report for crime tracer.

Uh this one is a resubmission that came in on uh May 14th.

Uh so just before budget season.

Uh I believe we have Sergeant or uh Captain Sheehan uh before us to answer any questions about this.

Uh we've already had an introduction to this.

So I'll open up to colleagues for questions on the surveillance technology impact reports.

Counselor Ewan Camp.

I see you first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh the the big question that I have still have is uh are we legally bound to have crime trace?

Like is this actually discretionary?

Um I I don't feel like I understood that after our last meeting.

Um what would be the consequence if hypothetically we were to vote against crime tracer.

All right.

Uh Captain Sheehan.

Uh Mr.

Sheehan, Mr.

Chair, I'm gonna defer to uh Captain Perone.

He's in charge of the uh criminal investigation division here.

He uh he wrote most of the uh impact report.

All right, Captain Perome.

Really quick.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Uh sure, Councilor Strazo.

While we're trying to dig up uh Captain Perome.

What's up?

I know I I'm I'm with you.

I hear you.

Thank you.

But uh we have a long laundry list of uh orders similar to this.

Can we get a quick summary of Crime Tracer?

Because some of you have been on this legislative matters committee for quite some time.

And uh know a lot of the backstory.

Not everyone does.

So can we get a really quick summary if if from either uh Captain Perone or someone or you, whatever uh wish, but I am requesting that.

Thank you.

Sure.

Uh so I'll give the the brief summary, which is that uh crime tracer is the evolution of uh software formerly known as Coplink.

It is something that is provided and funded through uh the executive office of public safety and security in Massachusetts, and it integrates uh with the regional uh uh regional intelligence center, the Commonwealth Fusion Center.

Um it can only be accessed on networks authorized by the Commonwealth Fusion Center.

Uh what Crime Tracer does uh is multifold uh in its uh top level as an information gathering source.

Every police report uh that is filed uh that documents an interaction with a member of the public uh is automatically uploaded nightly to uh crime tracer.

Uh crime tracer can then be queried and searched later.

Uh so for example, if there was a uh stop, uh if there was a noise complaint and the officer documented names of people who are present at the apartment for the noise complaint, uh then that would be those names would then be associated, uh listed as associates.

Uh what that uh data gets used for, the crime tracer has a long list of capabilities, uh, some of which are captured uh in entry one of the attached surveillance impact report.

Is that sufficient, Councilor Shrozo?

Yes, it is.

Uh I I appreciate that.

Uh yes, all right.

Welcome to proceed.

All right.

Have we found Captain Perone yet?

Yes, sir, I'm here.

All right, Captain Perone.

Glad to have you here.

Uh I believe the question from Councillor Ewan Campen was uh, are we mandated uh to use crime tracer?

Is uh uh and what would be the consequence to the city uh by withdrawing from crime tracer.

For the chair, uh so that's a tough question.

And the reason I say that is because if you look at uh post-certification, and I believe uh one of the counselors did ask a question about this.

It does appear on there that um there is a query uh that we do run when an office when a new officer applies for certification.

Um and that is actually some I that is actually something that we have to do in a list um of different items when we do a background investigation on new police officers.

Um that being said, uh that's the only area that I can think of that would actually potentially be mandated because that is on there.

That um I do see it as a valuable investigative tool.

It's a way that we are able to access information during investigations.

Uh, for example, I am I head up the criminal investigation division.

Um, and we have when we are looking for information on a variety of things, not just suspect information.

Uh, it does make those records a lot easier to get.

Um, but in terms of being mandated to have it, I don't believe that there is a mandate other than the fact that um it's my interpretation that we are required to run a query in crime tracer when we do um a a background investigation, if you will, for those purposes of the post commission.

Uh all right.

Interesting, interesting.

Mr.

Chair, can I just follow up quickly?

Sure.

Although I do have some more detail on the post certification that he just mentioned if you'd like it.

Please.

So I appreciate Captain Perome for bringing it to my attention.

The peace officer standards and trainings commission does have a form, a long form, uh labeled agency officials attestation regarding candidate for certification as a law enforcement officer.

Item four on that is a background check, uh pursuant to MGL, blah, blah, blah.

A state and national background check must be conducted on the above-named candidate.

Please individually check off each action or query that was completed.

Uh it includes things like uh mass driver's license, uh criminal history check through APIs, uh, mass firearms ownership check, uh license to carry or firearms ID card, out-of-state driver's license, mass sex offender list.

Uh, I believe in total one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen different items, of which one is copling.

Um, but the form does not indicate that any one of these is mandatory or that the absence of any one of those would constitute an insufficient background check.

It's more of a list of uh items to be reviewed.

So I I don't know, I don't have the answer on whether all of those are mandatory or not.

Um that said, I guess uh if I could follow up, um, would you would you allow me to follow up on that, Counselor Young Campen?

Sure thing.

Uh so uh Ken Perone, given that this is uh, you know, through the regional fusion center, uh, we could request uh that our partners at the regional fusion center run a coupling query on any applicant, correct?

Um in theory, yes.

I don't I don't want to say yes without checking with them, counselor.

Okay.

All right.

So that that answers my question.

Counselor Young Camp and I apologize for the diversion.

No, I appreciate it, Mr.

Chair.

I I guess here's where I'm struggling, because I think the as I understand it, not really understanding what what officers do all day.

This is a really kind of central function of investigations.

It's a it's a really basic tool that correct me if I'm wrong.

Almost every police department in the state has, or something very similar to it.

Um it doesn't strike me as something that is kind of like a nice gizmo to have, like some of the other things we've considered.

Um it is definitely, you know, I was sort of left our last meeting.

I think it was said that it's a requirement of post certification, so this is helpful clarification.

I there are aspects of it that give me a lot of concern.

You know, that they do.

Like I think that it's very clear to me that there are kind of the the potential for widespread kind of uh the surveillance activities here, given that every single police report in the state goes into it, as I understand it.

Um and given, you know, I'm certainly not confident that uh federal agents don't easily get access to it, whether or not they're technically allowed to.

Um but I I yeah, I don't know.

This is not a decision I'm gonna take lightly.

I'm certainly not in a position to come down on it tonight.

Um, you know, I'll defer to my colleagues if a vote gets called.

But I have a lot of issues with it.

I also recognize that this is like a really fundamental um tool that you know it's only before us now, I think because one of our colleagues, Counselor Link, uh asked, isn't that surveillance?

And I think that's a very good point.

So I'm glad that we're considering it.

Um I hope that this information is helpful for the public.

And I'm kind of marinating on uh how I want to proceed.

All right.

Thank you, Councillor Young Camp and Councillor Stresso, I see you next.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and I did want to just uh circle back on this because uh I'm gonna think out loud a little bit on what we have before us when we talk about crime tracer.

So when we talk about uh different databases throughout the community, well, we know that sometimes people travel around in certain one town to the next.

And when we talk about the concept of say violent crime or rape or repeated rape, or for instance, child molestation cases, child rape cases.

These are terrible things that happen.

Um we know that there's supposed to be a sex offender list that is posted.

But if if uh that is a and and there are incidences of this happening in our community and other communities, um there are a lot of situations that are a little more intricate and raise concern that uh I don't want to just broadscape and be like, well, do we really need this?

That's kind of important.

Um so I want to bring that forward and and on noise complaint issues.

A lot of times with domestic violence, noise complaint issues when when those when those are calls come in, noise complaints are sometimes actually domestic violence cases where the abuser turns the music up very, very loud while they're beating the hell out of their spouse or loved one, and many times there's children in that home.

So it's a little more nuanced, and we have to be really thoughtful and careful of how this affects our community when we make decisions of this or how casually we want to be and and how that can impact families, people, and our constituents as an entirety, no matter how we feel about the police.

That's all.

All right, thank you, Councilor Strazo.

Counselor Mbai, I see you next.

Thank you, Chairman Scott.

Uh good to see you, Captain Perron.

Are you like on your phone or the chair?

I apologize.

We actually have the annual fireworks event tonight, so I'm working uh remotely at the W tonight.

No, I don't know what I if I it's unnecessary.

I guess one of the things I'm curious about as I'm looking at this, you know, uh part of stuff.

I'm still kind of trying to understand, you know, the safeguards that exist to prevent any misuse, you know, or on authorized access or discriminatory impacts associated with the technology.

I'm still kind of like grappling with that.

For the chair, so counselor, just to be clear, you're asking um essentially about accountability surrounding the system and how that works.

Yes.

Okay, so um the the system does have an auditing function.

Um we are um there is an auditing function and um you know there's oversight by super this by supervisors.

Uh if anything is brought to our attention, the fusion center is able to monitor uh the different types of transactions that we make within the system.

Um if if there is some sort of a violation, um there would be sanctions through the depart at the department level.

Um, they would likely lose their access to the system as well.

And to your chair, have we had any incidences of those?

Uh no, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

All right, thank you, Councilor Ba.

Uh you know, not seeing anybody else at the moment.

Speaking of myself, I have had a lot of concerns about this since uh learning about the existence coupling through uh through some investigative reporting and the ACL U's involvement a number of years ago.

Uh it is nearly ubiquitous now, but that has been part of an ongoing uh effort by the regional center to get um all the regional communities uh plugged into the system.

Um definitely do have my uh reservations about our use of this and uh uh would have opposed our entering into the system in the first place.

Uh were I on the council when that happened.

Um I don't think we were asked back then, mind you, but uh so I I also share uh deep concerns about this.

Um I'm not prepared necessarily to uh to move against uh to recommend against approval this evening.

Um I I would I would like to know um more just in terms of our operational requirements for certification uh if for example we were to elect to leave the system uh if the regional center uh would be willing to run uh that query for us so that we could uh have a fully qualified background check.

Um is that an answer you could get for us, uh Captain Current.

I'm sorry, I couldn't be muted.

Sorry, sir.

Yes, uh yes, Council Scott, I believe I can do that for you.

All right, I appreciate it.

Um colleagues, I leave it to you uh on how to how to proceed here.

Um we could certainly leave the item in committee uh or a motion uh to recommend approval could be made uh depending on everybody's level of comfort with the uh technology, counselor and bah.

Yeah, given the fact that you know you and Councillor U and Camp and you know have some concern that we can keep it to kind of like really unravel that is there any rush moving to approve this?

I don't think so.

So I'll move to keep it in committee.

Uh all right.

Well, yeah, given the fact that this has been uh in use by the city for a number of years, uh, I don't believe there is particular time sensitivity in it.

Uh just looking at my colleagues to see if there's any objection.

Uh otherwise, then uh yes, we will go ahead and keep this item in committee and uh come back to it after the recess.

And Captain Perome, maybe you and I can uh need to have conversation about it, and I can come down to the stations.

Absolutely, sir, that'd be great.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you very much.

Then let's move on from there to the next item on our agenda.

Uh the fireworks were mentioned.

Uh we do have uh a few more items still before us.

Hopefully, we can get through and give you time to get up there to hear the mayor's speech and see the see the fireworks.

Uh, let's take up uh let's take up the following four items all together here.

That's uh item nine through twelve, two six-1006, eighty-nine register voters submitting a petition to request a public hearing regarding police body worn cameras pursuant to Section 211 and City Charter.

Item 261034, Chief of Police conveying information regarding item 260378, a request of the mayor for acceptance of a grant of a body worn camera program.

That's a memo from the chief of police.

Uh 26-0999, uh, mayor's request requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report for body worn cameras.

Uh, and then uh 26-1000 requesting approval of the technology specific surveillance use policy for body worn cameras.

Uh so as by way of introduction, I just included the first two items on the agenda so that they could be available for reference and tied into it.

Uh, one is the request for the public hearing, which uh I will be scheduling for September, uh, hopefully early in September, so that we can get that done and be prepared to move forward.

Uh, and also the Chiefs officer communication, uh, which addresses uh some of the questions that counselors had had last time.

Uh this item came up.

So with that said, and some of those questions came from the finance committee, of course.

Uh with that said, we have the two documents before us.

That is the uh technology specific surveillance use policy and uh the surveillance technology impact report.

Uh I had provided a list of questions uh in advance.

Um I'm not sure if it we it wasn't a ton of time in advance, it was yesterday.

Uh so I didn't know if Captain Perron or Captain Sheehan would like to address any of those, or if my colleagues would like to uh get off the bat first uh with questions.

I'm happy to leave mine until a little bit later on.

Uh Director Najam Williams.

Uh through you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh for items 26099 and 261000.

So that is the surveillance technology impact report and the technology specific surveillance use policy for body worn cameras.

Attorney Syracuse would be speaking to those items.

Uh all right.

Uh Attorney Cyrogue, would you like to give an introduction on themselves?

Uh yes, I'd be happy to.

Um, so these uh chair, through you.

Um so these two reports are being submitted to the committee for consideration as part of the administration's overall efforts to implement a body worn camera program.

As the the committee and the councils aware in the summer uh a couple of weeks ago, we ratified a contract with the superior officers union that uh included substantial revisions to the body worn camera uh policy that was attached to the superior officers contract.

Those revisions were uh collectively bargained, of course, uh but taken in uh uh negotiated with with input from the council and through substantial comment we've received from the public uh through the public safety for all task force through various recommendations we've received uh from counselor Ewan Camben in the past, from uh reviewing peer communities, body worn camera policies, uh, and really trying to modernize and fill out the policy in a much more progressive and proactive way.

The policy now includes more clearly articulated goals related to police accountability, statements regarding time public records and public access to the footage, more detail and rules around police officer access to footage following officer involved incidences, records retention schedules and provisions concerning protections for individuals in private locations and places where they have reasonable expectations of privacy that might not be home the home and around First Amendment protected activity in public.

So those are some of the high level changes to the policy that have been made.

And so what we're doing here tonight is submitting uh surveillance technology impact report and a tech use specific uh specific tech use policy report uh that would uh are are required under the surveillance ordinance and would permit the administration to go forward with this program uh if approved, of course.

All right, thank you.

I see Council Davis at first.

Council Davis.

Oh, I see Council Davis has banished.

Uh council, you and campus.

Am I not here anymore?

Oh, no, there you go.

You came back.

Sorry, I'm sorry.

Ask me to do that again.

You have the thank you, Ms.

Chair.

Um, so a few uh a few just sort of or a little bit of an introductory comment, I guess, and then I just have a few like high level uh bits of feedback on this.

Um this is uh you know, as much for members of the public who are watching uh or who might watch this later.

Um, we the council has been having these conversations as attorney Saragou noted um through the the collective bargaining process um in executive session for literally months.

Um we've been very much um you know immersed in this um attorney Sarago and I have had uh hours and hours of meetings uh one on one uh to go through the language of this and and make um changes and um uh you know for me to suggest changes and and talk about sort of the rationales and kind of go back and forth.

Um we did at one point sit down with the uh printed out uh some of the printed out feedback from the public that the council received um uh and go kind of point by point through those to try and address everything that that uh was you know, sort of uh flagged from some of those members of the public in a memo that was provided.

Um and I think the end result in the in the in the collective bargaining agreement, um, the one that was signed is is a is a significant improvement over the existing surveillance technology terms in in the old um uh collective bargaining agreement.

Um so first off, just thank you to um attorney sergo and everyone else who who put so much time into that.

It was um it was a a collaboration between the administration and the council um that has no precedent, at least in my experience.

And I I think it needs it's important just to call that out and and note uh how much the council was involved early on and um you know, and how much of an opportunity we have and and and an opportunity that we took to um to really provide impact uh uh input and feedback on these terms.

Um that all said, you know, what we were talking about there was terms in a collective bargaining agreement.

It's it's what we you know what what the public now has for the superior officers and and can now see um the result of those negotiations.

Um hopefully people will agree that it was it's it's a significant improvement over what was there before.

Um I know uh we, I assume mostly we, and maybe just I received a whole bunch of uh emails in the last couple of days from folks on this.

I I've read them all in anticipation of this conversation, or actually anticipation of going back looking through this again to kind of cross-check my own thoughts.

Um, and there were folks who who do agree that this is, you know, uh this is a uh the the terms that are in this collective bargaining agreement constitute um, you know, uh uh a pretty darn good uh surveillance technology policy.

The problem is that that throughout that conversation, you know, we were reminded that that the only thing we were talking about at the time were terms that were subject to collective bargaining.

There were some examples where where things came up, and uh the attorney sergo would remind us that's probably not something that that would be subject to collective bargaining.

That's something that could be you know in the policy.

And and we we we you know, we talked about the existence of a of a uh uh impact report and a technology specific use policy um throughout that.

And we're reminded that uh and as I have said subsequently in in public meetings that that you know the actual end all be all policy for how this surveillance technology will be used if it is approved by the council, um, is the you know the impact report and the underlying um uh technology specific use policy that sits under the surveillance technology ordinance.

that that would be subject to collective bargaining that's something that could be you know in in the policy and and we we we you know we talked about the existence of a of a uh uh impact report and a technology specific use policy um throughout that and we're reminded that uh and as i have said since subsequently in in in public meetings that that you know the actual end all be all policy for how this surveillance technology will be used if it is approved by the council um it is the you know the impact report and the underlying um uh technology specific use policy that sits under the surveillance technology ordinance it it can't contradict the terms in the collective bargaining agreement because otherwise because if it did we would have a we we'd have to go back and bargain those um but there you know there certainly are areas where um where that uh you know where there there may be um things that aren't subject to bargaining um but at the very least my expectation and my understanding was that this thing this is the technology specific use policy will be the one place we can look for the definitive complete statement of how this technology is allowed to be used um and the conditions and and terms and conditions under which it it would be used if approved in the city um and my my concern or my my feedback I guess it's the first you know this is this is the the first real submission we've had since the collective bargaining agreement was signed that the the prior submission of this was effectively a placeholder um you know so as has been the case and and this is one of if not the first technology specific use policy we've had under the surveillance technology ordinance so we're also in a little bit of a new area here even with a STER with the impact report um it's far more often the case that we see the first draft provide some ask some questions provide some feedback see another draft you know sort of work it through um and I I you know my expectation was that was that this would be no different um the request came from the administration as folks will know if they um um saw the the our last city council meeting that you know the mayor asked us to effectively try and see if we can get this done um before the recess because there's some there's some free money on on the line right um and and you know whether or not that free money will still be there it's a grant from the state uh after the recess I I'm not exactly clear on whether it is or not that that but um I I you know for me what's most important is that we have to get this right because what we've said going back literally years is that if this technology is going to be beneficial uh in the city and I I'm where I sit right now I I'm convinced that it that it it is it it will be a good thing although I'll I'll continue to read the emails and hear other opinions and maybe I'll be convinced that I was wrong and I I'm never been too big to change my mind.

But you know we have to get the the policy right it's every conversation about uh body more cameras has been as long as there's a good policy right as long as the policy is is there and clear and precise and and appropriate and and I think we're really close to having that in in the terms of of the the collective bargain agreement but that's not what this that's not what's in this policy um in in you know this really reads a sort of a a summary sometimes kind of a restatement of the terms that are in the collective bargaining agreement and in fact it it references in several places that um the use of the technology falls under the guidelines um established in in um in the ordinance and the Somerville police department's BWC policy on usage well my comment there is what is that because that feels to me like well now here's this other document that is actually the end all be all um and so maybe there's a bit of a disconnect or maybe it was just um a misunderstanding or this maybe this means something else but um you know I I I'll confess I I stopped I my intent was to go through these documents with a fine tooth comb in the in the you know good faith effort to see if they're if they're good to go right if they're good to go and we've I felt comfortable voting them uh recommending them out tonight I'd be willing to do that because I think we've got a lot of feedback we incorporated a ton of feedback um and and you know and we and even though the public up until a month or so ago couldn't see a lot of that work um we all did that work right um and it there's now been you know several weeks of of that transparency where the public has been able to see what we've done in looking at and reviewing the um the uh uh um collective bargain agreement etc the problem is you know for me i need this this technology specific use policy to be clear concise and the final word you know and i i feel like it should at least it should start with pretty much everything i mean we spent a lot of time getting the wording right in the in the collective bargaining agreement we should use that wording right it shouldn't it shouldn't restate things in in a in a less specific and detailed way it should have every bit of as detail and then more where we can include more um you know i i have some questions that that were questions that we raised during this process like about um about access for subjects of the recordings this is it happens to also be something that that was raised in some of the emails that were that were that were sent but it's a question that I raised months ago um I'd like to understand to what extent can we you know can we tweak that provision to um to to make it a little more clear for folks who are subject of the videos as opposed to um just yeah it's a public record and and we have to go and you know the answer may ultimately be that no no no we just there's just no

This is it happens to also be something that was raised in some of the emails that were that were that were sent, but it's a question that I raised months ago.

Um I'd like to understand to what extent can we know, can we tweak that provision to um to make it a little more clear for folks who are subject of the videos as opposed to um just yeah, it's a public record and we have to go and you know the answer may ultimately be that no no no, we just there's just no better way of doing it, but I don't feel like we fully had that conversation um in the context of the policy rather than the collective bargaining agreement.

So all my way of saying my feedback is I I you know I I I put my pen down after a few pages because I felt like I just kept saying I kept going back to uh doing a uh a line by line of of of the the policy versus the this collective bargaining agreement and saying, well, this this isn't as clear, and this seems to contradict, and this isn't said the same way.

It's like I I think it's probably a a redo and and and starting with what we worked on, um, because we really spent a lot of time trying to get that get those terms clear, and I think they need to be clear in this document.

And I think this document should should not contain any ambiguity as to it the the you know it being the the final statement of uh of this the policy on the city's usage.

Um, you know, as always, I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong and that there is some reason to have a police department body one camera policy that is somehow different and referenced here, but that doesn't sound right to me, and that doesn't sound like what we talked about.

So I understand the folks that have written to us and and expressed their significant um interest in seeing this move forward.

Um I I respect the the those folks' opinions.

I I I I agree that it seems like this is this this will be a benefit overall for transparency, for accountability, um for a future civilian oversight commission to have this this uh you know this resource.

Um but all of that was sort of assuming that we have a policy that's that that is in the right place.

And to me, that's the most important point, and I don't think we're there yet.

Um so in sort of spirit of yeah, I know we we knew at the outset this was a really short time frame, a really short turnaround, and we tried our butts off to get to that point, but we said at the beginning it's probably not gonna be possible before the end of June.

And we tried our darndest, but I I just don't think I think we it turns out we were right.

It it's just not possible to get ever all the final pieces in place um to have a policy that's approved before we um before we get to our final meeting here.

So that's my big picture high-level sort of thoughts on the matter, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for uh allowing me the time.

All right, thank you, Council Davis.

If I could just get clarification, it sounds like you gave yourself a heck of a homework assignment for the summer.

Is that is that what I just heard?

Well, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, I I don't intend to undertake to rewrite this thing.

Um I'm happy to to help, but um, you know, I I did my homework going into this, and I think that my request would be to the administration to to provide us a technology specific use policy that includes all of the specifics and detail that we worked so hard on as a starting point, and and then we can talk about if it you know if and where there are areas that we can add to that uh for things that weren't covered because they really weren't specific to you know issues of collective bargaining.

For example, some of this, you know, some of the specifics of the of the devices themselves, for example, and that kind of stuff.

All right.

I appreciate that, Council Davis.

Uh counselor you and camp and I see you next, followed by Counselor Strasil and Bach.

Thank you, Mr.

Share, and through you, thank you very much to my colleague, Counselor Davis.

I always appreciate this feedback.

I think it's really on point.

I have a specific question about the costs.

So this is part of the stir question seven.

I legitimately don't think I fully understand the the cost that they're described here.

And so I just want to kind of walk through my understanding.

As I read this, it's it I believe that it is saying there are kind of three buckets of annual costs.

So there's there's the grant.

Ignore that for now.

It says the subsequent annual cost is estimated at 95,833.

Um, and then it says there's additional personnel cost that is being estimated at 117,000 annually, plus a one-time 18,000 batteries.

So that's 95k, 170, 117 K.

And then there's a final paragraph that says in addition, there's the salary increase, 105.

So just round numbers, say that's 300K.

It's actually a little more, but it's right.

According to this STER, it's looking to me like the annual cost were this to be approved is 300K.

Through you, Mr.

Chair, is that right?

Is that wrong?

Am I am I reading this correctly?

Is that number different?

Uh sounds right to me, but maybe uh director wisdom is the finance director of the police department.

Could answer that question.

Good evening.

Um the chair.

So when we were so when we originally applied for the grant, um, you know, we we were at the beginning of the process.

And so we were trying to uh identify any costs that could um be associated with implementing a program such as this.

Um so the ideal if we were able to build out the program fully, have both uh unions agree.

Um so uh that's kind of where some of the disconnect has come in because at this time um both both unions have not not agreed to the um to the policy and have vote you know voted.

So at this time, the um superior association has um has settled.

So that 105,000 that you're speaking of would be associated with the cost of um the raises that they would get at um as a result of implementing the the body worn camera to be uh to be very clear, if it was both unions that agreed to the policy, um agreed to the body worn camera implementation, um it would be more around 215,000 because you'd have to uh take into consideration that both unions, not just one.

So 105 represents 105,000 um represents what the superiors would cost if the uh officer association also settled, that would be about 215,000 total.

So um that is that number.

So then each year after if you take the grant aside, um the grant.

So what the grant is but let's let me back up.

Before I take the grant aside, the grant will give us the initial amount to it's 231,000 and some change.

It would give us the um the ability to implement first year costs, as well as about $50,000 in year two towards renewal costs.

So if you take that out, we would have to pay for full implementation costs in year one if you if we don't have the grant.

Um so uh that's just under 200,000.

Um, you know, that's the implementation cost.

So then you would have the if both unions agreed, you'd have the 215,000.

And then um the uh there was originally discussion of the body worn camera um a coordinator position, because with all of this um technology, someone would have to manage um the all the data, I guess, and managing the cameras and and things like that, making sure they get back where they're supposed to be, you the administrative uh tasks related with that.

And so we originally were going to put that in the budget for FY27.

However, uh since both green unions did not come to a consensus, only one did.

We removed the cost of the body worn camera coordinator out of the out of the budget overall.

So there are multiple levels of cost associated with the implementation.

So you do you you you would have the cost of the cameras themselves, you would have the costs of the officers and superiors, and then you would also have the cost if the program was implemented of a uh coordinator position that would manage the um manage the the program.

So um does that is that is that thorough?

Yes, Mr.

Chair, through you.

So just to summarize as I understand it.

And again, this is the stir that's before us.

So, you know, like this is this is the document the public sees, it's what I've read.

Um so the bottom paragraph is very clear.

That's a 2% increase for the superior officers.

That's estimated 105.

Totally understand.

Yep.

There's an additional personnel cost estimated 117.

That is that's an extra person that would get hired to handle the data, maybe not necessary if it's just superior officers, but okay, so that's another 117.

But okay, so that's another 117.

But before that, in the middle of the paragraph, it says the subsequent annual cost is estimated at 95,833.

That is correct.

Um, after the first year of implementation, so we would pay the company the first year.

Um, ideally with the grant if we had it.

Uh, if not, you know, that would have to come out of the uh general funds.

But each year after the first year of implementation, it's estimated that it would cost us around 100,000 per year, 95,000 and some change um to continue the program year over year to maintain the cameras and all of the the docs and everything that goes with it.

Um there there are a couple of models um that are available.

There's basically kind of like every other technology, there's kind of two uh two methodologies that you can um pursue.

One, you buy all the the equipment outright and you own it, and you're in charge of replacing the infrastructure when it ages, versus um uh there's a uh more of a subscription style model um that many people are favoring, where you pay the implementation fee and then a subsequent fee um of about 100,000 every year, and um over and that keeps you with new technology.

Um, if if a camera is broken or is not working, then they take on the cost of that managing those things.

So um I believe we're at this time um because of the infrastructure that it would take to purchase the cameras outright.

Uh the model that we've been looking at has been a subscription-based model.

And so um after the implementation cost that first year um that would be covered by the grant, each subsequent year would would be about 100,000.

Got it.

Okay, so Mr.

Chair, through you, thank you very much.

Um, that's that's really helpful.

I appreciate your your knowledge on this.

So I I just wanna just state really clearly it's the cost for me.

Let's say that counselor Davis had already signed off and the report was perfect.

At our last finance meeting, we were passing the budget.

I gave a speech about why I was not gonna support the school committee's recommendation to raise 600k for additional educator positions.

And the reason I gave was because this year we just laid off a bunch of people.

If we have extra money lying around, we should be not laying those people off.

I can't, you know, go look at them in the face and tell them just kidding, you know, we had money lying around.

Um I I know that's an oversimplification, you know.

The city has a lot of different priorities.

I I understand that, but for me, that that's the issue this year.

300k is not a joke.

Um, you know, that that that's just where I am on this.

I I I want to see body one cameras in Somerville.

I I actually also am convinced that it's a it's a net positive, but I think we should do it in a year where we have the money to to fund it.

And it that's really is as simple as it is for me.

So, you know, I I don't want to like lead the administration on that I'm I I do want to see all the corrections to the stir because I do think eventually this is gonna pass, but um, you know, for me it's it's not we're not like a tweak away.

It's it's a it's a significant financial concern for me.

All right, thank you, Counselor Ewan Campen.

Uh I see Counselor Mba.

Thank you, Chairman Scott.

Um, wow, I've been listening at um in addition to the email that came, you know, it's like yeah, I'm still trying to make sense, but I also have my assuming, but the emails are also pretty compelling for some reason.

It's like Ben Straw's email, laid down like all the different layers, and this are people that's not on the task force, but keeping those emails aside, I just want to get also like some clarity on uh on some busy stuff.

So um is this the last true chance?

Is this the last chance we have to apply for is dead ground for body one cameras?

Well, that's a that's a good question.

Uh the answer is this was originally brought to us as a grant with an expiration date of April.

Um that expiration date is pushed back again and again.

Um I have to say my personal experience, there is no shortage of uh willingness of the state to fund uh more police technology.

See the crime tracer discussion we just had, but uh perhaps director Najam Williams has a more precise through you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Um to counselor Mba.

Um, so the contracted uh date for which these funds would expire has always been the same.

It is uh August 38th, I believe is what is mentioned in the memo.

Um we have been in constant communication with the state to inform them of our progress um in the city to let them understand that we have to go through the council um and keep them updated as to our efforts.

Um counselor Mbati your point of is this the last year?

That is what has been communicated to us.

This particular grant um has existed in previous years, it has been communicated that this grant will not be available again in the future.

Interesting.

Um thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Niggins, and thank you, Chairman Scoffer and Dodging.

Um, so if we may back on that a little bit, so if we accept the grant, you know, are we kind of like implicitly agreeing to a body one, you know, camera, you know, like pilot with superior officers.

Uh to be clear, we're we're not talking about the grant tonight necessarily.

We're talking about the technology impact report.

Um but I guess the question still stands.

Uh we if we accept and approve this, your question to the administration is are we saying yes to the pilot program?

Exactly.

Uh Director Najem Williams.

Uh three Mr.

Chair, happy to take the question.

Um is the understanding of the administration that we would not be able to implement a uh body one camera um program without approval of the um STIR that would accompany that.

So um even if the grant was accepted, uh, we would not be able to deploy use of those cameras um uh until unless and until approval by the council came through for the STIR and the tech-specific use policy.

Okay, so if I understand, you know, the answer is no, because so which means that they will have to still uh um establish metrics, you know, for how to measure the success of the pilot.

Okay, but so what happened through your chairman's code?

What happened if the patrol officers don't agree to the same, you know, uh uh policy as the superior officers.

I think it's a great question.

It's one I also had posed earlier to uh attorney Sirigu.

Attorney Sirigu, uh, if I can maybe uh tack on my my context to the question uh there when you're which is this that you know, Councilor Davis mentioned the improvement in language from the superior officer's previous contract to the one that was recently ratified.

The patrol officers still haven't ratified that new language, so does that mean that the patrol officers are still bound by previous language that might be in conflict with this language?

How does that all work?

Uh yes, Chair, through you.

Um the city could only implement a new technology such as this after collectively bargaining it, and and uh based on the terms of the policy or those the results of those negotiations with the patrol union and the superior officers union.

So, yes, the the old policy is still applicable to the patrol union.

The city, however, as management has the right to determine which officers are deployed with patrol with body worn camera with body worn cameras, and uh also the city cannot deploy a surveillance technology contrary to the surveillance technology ordinance.

And so where we have a STER report uh based upon the terms of the superior officers' policy, uh, we would only be legally authorized to implement body worn cameras based upon the terms of the approved STIR report, which would be consistent with the superior officers' policy.

Uh the patrol officers do not have an updated policy, so they would not have a stir approved their their usage, they cannot use the cameras contrary to an approved STER or tech use uh policy, and it would not be the intent of the police administration or the mayor's administration to uh implement uh a parallel or a second body worn camera program based on the terms of the patrol officer body worn camera policy, but that is still the policy that subject is applicable to the terms and conditions of the patrol officer's employment.

Okay, I think I will to your chair on the on the on the subject of policy, you know.

Uh uh Attorney, you know, Circuit.

So you're telling me that we there's you know would be an opportunity to strengthen the policy, you know, with the superior officer to make it more aligned with maybe civilize best practices.

Is that what you're saying?

But chair, through you.

Um, I I think that's the process we we we undertook over the last couple months.

You know, we we negotiated the superior officer's policy pretty exhaustively.

Uh that said, there is always another contract to negotiate with every union.

This is uh part of both unions collective bargaining agreement.

It's not uh some side policy that is negotiated on a separate track, it is in their contracts.

So uh right now the superior officers have an expired contract.

Uh the patrol officers have an expired contract, so there are opportunities to negotiate further with each of them.

Um the only instance would be if we were ahead of the game in both of their contracts, then we would have to request permission for midterm bargaining, but that's not really necessary right now, Chair.

I'm just trying to make sure that the public hearing doesn't become a theater.

You know, if it's it's um you know, that's I think you know, most of you have said I think there's probably a lot still going on that needs to be you know, like address.

Uh at the same time.

Yeah, I think there's still work to be done for sure.

I mean, thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you.

Uh Councilor Ma, Councilor Strozzo.

I see you uh thank you.

All right.

Um I'm listening to the conversations back and forth on this, and we have been for months, for months and months.

We've had numerous, numerous, numerous, numerous meetings on this.

Um I've done my my research on this.

I want to make sure this is really the best, most transparent policy and uh with a policy, and if we accept this money or not, what if at this point?

Whatever at this point, because it seems like you know, I I feel and I'm grateful that we have all the the I I've learned a lot about this experience because some of some of you counselors, like this is like this is your issue, and I I really love learning new things about this.

I do.

Um, I I always learn some new angle I didn't know about before, and uh I love that.

I love uh watching some of you shine and just like get into these points that that's uh like I said, I learned from and and I saved that.

Um we have talked extensively about this, and I feel like we're at a point where um, you know, I've done my own research on this again.

I've talked to experts, I've talked to the oversight advocates, I've talked to the NAACP uh and and uh they support this uh body cams.

Uh I think we're at this this point.

Um, and and city staff first off, and city staff is they they make all these they take back our feedback and our questions, and I've seen a lot of intentional efforts, whatever they are, however you feel about that, a lot of intentional efforts of of answering all these questions very thoroughly.

Numerous departments, too.

Um I I feel like we're all really focused on making sure that this is a benefit to our community to use counselor Davis's words, which are really really important, and um I feel like at the same time there's there's like this angle of moving the the limbo stick every single time we come with back with this new batch of paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs of answers to questions that numerous questions we've had over this, and whatever it is, I'm at a point where like I just want to take it before the full council and just see what they have to say about this, and and and and move on with it.

We could still have our answers, questions, answers, etc.

So whatever is I'm gonna move to just uh to put before this council because you know what to move this out of committee and have the full council talk about it.

No more foreplay, folks.

No more foreplay.

Let's get down to it.

Um, so I'm gonna move to just get it out of out of committee either way.

If you guys don't want it that way, if you do, whatever.

Want to hear what other counselors on the other end of this are full council has to say with this, but let's go.

Council has to say with this, but let's go.

I'm gonna put forward the motion.

And if it fails, it fails.

If it wins, it wins, whatever.

Just let's move on.

Okay, so procedurally, what is your motion?

My motion is move to approve.

Uh all right, councillor Strazzo would like to move to recommend approval.

Counselor Davis.

Uh you're muted, Councilor Davis.

Sorry.

Thought I clicked.

Um thank you, Ms.

Chair.

Uh, on the motion, um, I will I don't support the motion um for the reasons I stated, the most uh the most specific being that um what while uh uh you know one could completely agree that the technology is uh and the use of it will be good.

Um what purports to be the actual policy is significantly lacking and incomplete, not through any you know fault or bad intent or anything, it's just these things take time.

So in my opinion, um it would be rash and uh ill-advised to move forward with uh technology like this without a clear policy in place for its use.

Um and that's what this process is for.

That's what we haven't completed yet.

Um so while I won't be here next Thursday, um, if this does go before uh the council, then uh let the uh the chair should should feel free in the reports to express my strong uh um uh um preference for this to be sent back to committee.

All right.

Uh looking for other discussion on the motion.

Okay, well, seeing none, I will just uh put in my two cents because generally I would have spoken to the item, uh, but now uh the motion is before us, so I'll speak to the motion.

Um I I really share a lot of the concerns that uh Councilor Davis has expressed.

Uh I submitted a list of seven very technical questions uh about the the language here, uh noting some of those uh subtle differences uh where just things just don't line up.

Uh I also have some uh fairly strong policy uh concerns and oppositions, but I think uh everybody on this council who has watched me work over the last nine years uh knows that my primary dedication, yeah, even when faced with a policy that I disagree with uh is to get the drafting correct uh to make the policy as good as it can possibly be.

I think uh my conduct on the Charter Commission, uh chairing that process indicates my devotion to that principle.

So uh I'm committed to turning the crank of this committee and uh getting the policy as uh buttoned up as it can possibly be uh before passing it on.

Uh so from that standpoint, uh I will uh be opposing uh a motion uh for approval of this language as it stands because I share my colleagues' uh impression.

That said, uh, you know, I did have those questions, um, and I'd just to make sure that they are on the public record in addition to having sent them to law and IgA.

Uh it was a question about that difference between the patrol officers contract and the superior officers.

I appreciate that answer.

Uh there was a question about uh why the language in the stir was different than the language in the superior officers' contract when it came to officers' access to footage.

Uh asking with relation specifically to the use of deadly force versus use as deadly force that results in fatality.

Uh I asked for some guidance from legal on how to assess uh whether any given change in these documents would be considered a conflict with the contract or a non-conflicting expansion.

Uh specifically would strengthen a notice requirement uh be considered a conflict.

Uh I'd asked whether uh you know, body warm camera recording of a public assembly is allowed by the policy, uh, but how will members of the public present at an assembly be informed that they're being recorded?

Because there is a notification requirement, uh, but does that fall under a whenever practical exemption is being impractical?

Uh I'd asked uh why the right to access footage by subjects of the footage is still not um providing a clear timeline for access requests.

Uh I am dubious about the use of public records or law as our uh sole process there, which has infamously poor enforcement and time minutes.

That sounds like predictive surveillance as opposed to accountability.

And then finally, I had a question about the SPSOA contract says that officers must inform individuals they're being recorded whenever practical, but the technology impact report uh says something more stringent.

It says officers are required to manually activate their cameras, the beginning of all interactions and notify the community member they are recording.

So which one prevails?

Does the technology impact uh report language prevail?

Or does the more lenient language in the SPSOA contract prevail?

Um and I'm I I don't have answers to those questions yet.

Uh I think they're all questions that are worth uh discussing and getting right, no matter how you feel about the implementation of body one cameras uh in the aggregate.

So um that's why I will be opposing this.

I will uh remind my colleague that the motion that was made is for this committee's recommendation on whether or not to approve this item.

So if that motion fails, this item will be returning to the council with a recommendation against its approval.

I just uh yeah, thank you for the uh uh that uh Mr.

Chair.

What I want is I just uh either way to get it like let's just move move it before the regular full council.

I want to hear the other thoughts on this.

All right.

Uh just as a reminder for those procedurally that if this is recommended against approval and the committee report is accepted, this item will have been deemed rejected by the council and will not be uh up for review again for six months.

Whatever the conversation is, it's just it's I feel like we're just kind of spinning in circles at this point.

Like uh just time to Counselor Davis is recognized.

Fair, fair, fine.

Thank you, Ms.

Mr.

Chair.

As you probably anticipate, I was going to note that another uh procedural option uh should the good counselor at large care to uh pursue it would be to withdraw the motion and in its place move that the item be referred uh would be uh be discharged from committee without a recommendation.

Um at that point the council, the ten of you that are there can do whatever you want with it, including um without limitation, sending it back to committee.

Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Madam Counselor, on that, thank you.

Yeah, absolutely.

And thank you for the catch on that.

Uh counts uh Mr.

Chair and uh language on that.

I just I think we're talking in circles, and I think that that is what I would like to do.

I'd like to withdraw that and uh and exactly what uh counselors counselor uh Davis, I missed my fireworks, so I'm kind of like bummed right now, but um that's okay.

Um so yes, I uh my my thoughts are elsewhere.

But yes, let's uh uh withdraw the motion, put forward uh the the language that counselor Davis said, and as we were let the cards fall where they may.

All right, so the motion is withdrawn.

Councilor Strazo makes a new motion uh to discharge this item without recommendation.

On that motion is their discussion.

All right.

Well, then uh seeing no discussion on that, I will simply say I believe it is the work of the legislative matters committee to get the language right on these things.

Uh I believe that is the process that we undertake.

Uh and so uh I'll be opposing the motion to discharge without recommendation.

Uh certainly within the context of the committee report, uh, our colleagues at the uh council level are welcomed to express their opinions, their preferences, their concerns, and their feedback on uh both the item uh and the committee's work.

Uh so that's why I'll be opposing the motion to discharge.

Uh I see Councilor Davis, is your hand still up because you had something to say about the motion?

All right, then counselor Ewan Campen on the motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

It's it's it's not dirty, so I don't particularly care which motion goes, but for the record, I I would have preferred voting on the motion itself because I I'm opposed to the item as it stands.

That's how I I recommend against approving it.

Um I'll just say that on Thursday.

You know, I'm not gonna block this motion.

Um, but for the record, that that is the state of things.

That's uh I'm not talking in circles.

I'm opposing this.

Um, I'm doing that clearly.

Um, and uh, you know, everyone on the committee is welcome to uh state clearly what they view.

I don't I don't view that as I'm not gonna repeat the uh metaphor that was used previously.

Um we are deliberating here.

All right, thank you, Councilor Young Campen.

Uh Counselor Mbaugh on the motion to discharge without recommendation.

Yeah, thank you, uh Chairman Scott again in good faith.

You know, it's fine for the council else to have uh uh uh conversation have input, you know.

Uh so I will be, you know, right now see how my consent.

So it may see as well, make it back to your chairman Scott.

So you know, it's good that it I mean we'll be discussing about this since February.

So it's it will be nice for the counselor to kind of win, and then if it didn't, you know, uh uh uh uh send it back to committee, it will come back to committee.

So you know, I will, you know, I will support the motion on my card.

All right.

Oh, director wisdom, we are discussing a motion to discharge the item without recommendation.

I am loathe to uh guess what the finance director's input could be on a procedural motion.

Absolutely not.

I am happy to wait till after the vote.

Uh all right.

Uh so with that said, uh, let us call the roll on the motion to discharge the item without recommendation.

Mr.

Chair, just to confirm we did take excuse me, four items up together, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve.

I would like to confirm that you're referring to agenda item 12 regarding the use policy, and I will read that out before I call the role call.

Well, let's let's get clarification from the good counselor at large.

Uh good counselor at large, we do have four items before us.

Hold on, let me get you that is correct, and I appreciate that because it is important to be thorough.

I do appreciate that.

Yes, that is item 260.

I'm sorry, 26103.

Correct.

So we would need to sever that.

I don't believe we do that, it have to do that in committee.

We'd not have to separate that.

No, just to confirm agenda item 1226-1000.

I was gonna say, Councilor Strezzo, you were referring to an officer's communication.

You want to to I don't think we want to remove memo from no, uh, it's item number 11 on the agenda, correct?

That's 26099.

0999.

That is that is a correct all right.

All right, what do I say?

Oh, did I uh no, no?

Okay, okay, okay.

Requesting approval.

All right.

No, that's it.

No, that's not it.

It is okay.

If I may, in my defense, counselor, Mr.

That's right.

Thank you.

And post fireworks, counselor, Mr.

Chair.

I did my best to get us out before that.

So on that, let's let's take a look.

Um it's not nine, it's not.

Yeah, it would be uh well, the officer communication, then and then that so I guess Madam Clerk, uh, which when are we talking about?

Do you want to just collectively take them all out of committee and then they can be some of them can be sent back if necessary as a as a whole, or what are our thoughts on this?

Uh uh Council Strezzo, you're you're making the motion.

You can make whatever motion you like.

Uh director Najam Williams.

Uh-huh.

Can I ask what what's your input would be here?

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you to Councilor Streso.

Um, it would be the administration's uh preference that it would be items 11 and 12, so 26099 um requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report for body worn cameras, as well as 261000 requesting approval of the technology specific surveillance use policy for body worn cameras um to be uh discharged.

See, Mr.

Chair, I was 50% right.

Uh, really?

Come on, that's pretty funny.

Uh not even not even a smile.

All right, fine.

Have you?

Uh thank you.

All the roll, please.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

I believe the uh saying I have the floor, dear counselor.

Um so yes, then it would be um so let's be respectful.

Um so then that would be uh to move to uh uh discharge from committee 11 and 12 260999 and 26100 without recommendation discussion further discussion on that motion.

All right, then let us call the roll on discharging those items without recommendation.

And this is roll call on agenda items 11 and 12 to be discharged without a recommendation.

Counselor Davis.

No counselor and baugh.

Yes, please.

Counselor Ewan Campin.

Yes, Counselor Shrezo, yes, counselor Scott.

No with three counselors in favor, two opposed that is approved to be discharged without a recommendation.

All right.

Councilor Davis, I will relay your uh your sentiments in the committee report.

Well, then let us having disposed of those items, uh, let us keep items nine and ten in committee.

Uh moving on to our next item, that's item 1326-0522.

This was uh an initial submission to the welcoming community's ordinance.

That submission was then later supplanted by a new uh submission and uh new language there.

So this one uh is to be placed on file.

Uh Director Wisdom, right?

You are waiting for uh something not on the procedural matter.

Yes, I apologize.

Um I just would like to clarify for the record if you would let uh allow me um about a statement I made earlier.

Sure.

Um so I just want to make sure that I didn't confuse anyone.

Um if we were to accept the grant um and it would fund the first year of um startup costs, the only cost to the FY27 budget at this time would be the 105,000 that is associated with the body worn cameras and the superiors for the first year.

It would not be $300,000 as we did not include um the body worn coordinator um camera coordinator position in the budget.

It would just be the 105,000 for FY27.

And we would not need to hire a body worn camera coordinator because the superior officers can supervise themselves at this time.

It was told me that by with the if we piloted the program and everything was approved as as appropriate, that they would use the resources we have now until the full implementation of the body worn cameras for both the superiors and the um both the superiors and the officers, as um it would require an extensive more amount of cameras to be managed.

All right.

Well, thank you for the clarification.

Thank you for allowing.

Moving on, we have uh item 14, 251762.

This is the last one.

This is the uh code of ordinances be amended to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for self-motion.

Councilor Davis is your baby.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Um had several.

So the last time we talked about this in committee, so just as a reminder, this is uh an ordinance submitted by myself and um now Mayor Wilson, uh, then counselor Wilson, um, to effectively stop plastering the mayor's name all over everything everywhere.

Um the good news is that has to a very large degree already happened.

The the the plastering of the name has stopped.

If folks have noticed, there's differences in the signs, and and uh goes to show that you know Mayor Wilson was on board with this uh all along.

Um we just wanted to get uh uh an ordinance on the books so that when we've all won the lottery and move to Bora Bora, um, other folks won't revert back to uh all the the bad habits.

So um, but in the last time this was a committee, um the legislative liaison requested that it stayed committee so that um communications could have a conversation.

Um just to make sure that we're sort of on the same page.

Excuse me, got something I'm gonna throw.

Um they were sort of on the same page because there is the more you talk about this, the more you realize there's some there's some gray area there.

Um I have had a conversation with the director of communications um and we are on the same page.

Um I I think that there still is some gray area, and I I want to make sure that I make clear.

Um certainly my intent, and uh to the extent that that can be reflected in the legislative record, my intent is not that any time something slips through um that you know it's a gotcha and and the we counselors um you know uh uh haul the some member of the administration before us to wag our fingers.

Um I fully anticipate there will be oversights, there will be different departments that are just sort of used to doing it some way, and we didn't think about oh yeah, we forgot that they do it that it's gonna happen.

It's okay.

This is gonna be a uh a learning process, but as I said, the most egregious instances of this have already been uh practices have already been changed.

Um so you know, let the record reflect that um you know, as we go forward, if and and when there are some oversights, it's okay.

No one's doing it intentionally.

Um it'll be a learning learning experience, and and uh we'll eventually sort of get get it dialed in to that end.

Um I did have some conversations about maybe um uh putting a policy in place with more detail, sort of a little bit more clear guidance.

I thought about wrapping that into the ordinance itself, decided that would probably be a little too much, too much words and effort for an ordinance of this nature.

But um, I did talk to both um director Najim Williams today, um uh director uh Taylor in communications a while back, and then the mayor also today.

Um, and and we uh all feel it would be helpful to uh you know over over the next sort of you know near term, near to meet to medium term, uh, talk about uh a little bit more detailed kind of policy on this so that there's some sort of collective um you know understanding and and clear guidance so that we don't trip over ourselves uh inadvertently.

So that's where we are, Mr.

Chair.

Um, all by way of saying I would like to move to recommend approval of this item as submitted.

All right.

Uh that is a motion that is now before us to recommend approval.

Uh Councilor Strozo on the motion.

Um I had I know that I wasn't expecting our colleague to go right for the motion, but I had a quick quick question on this that is not on the motion, but on this item.

I happen to be on the last item, so I understand how that goes.

Mm-hmm.

All right.

Well, uh, really quick, if I may.

Um wanted to ask uh because by the way, I support this.

I think this is really cool.

I think this is interesting, and I think it's it's useful.

And it also uh prevents us from buying a bunch of plastic garbage that's no good in two or four years.

That do we really need all that?

Um, but on that, was there uh refresh my memory if there was conversation on the First Amendment issues on this of uh speech?

Counselor Davis, would you like to address that?

I can't remember if there was or not.

I don't recall there being a discussion on First Amendment issues, but I may be forgetting that.

I think you know that just to be clear that this is about using taxpayer funds for self-promotion.

Um and while certainly our nation's Supreme Court has a um broad interpretation of what constitutes speech, I don't think they've quite yet said using taxpayer money is uh is your own free speech.

So maybe they will in the next term.

Um, but I I think we still get there.

I apologize, I'm not trying to make light of your question, uh Council Chazo, uh, but I'm not remembering.

Was there something was there a specific uh concern that was raised that I'm just forgetting?

Um Mr.

Chair to uh Counselor Davis, no, not specifically, but as we're tightening up our loose ends and and preparing to send this off to launch, um want to make sure sometimes these odd curve you know curveballs happen, and it it could it be perceived as I'm not trying to, I'm in no way trying to block it or anything.

That's not at all the point, but this could be could this be perceived as a first amendment amendment uh snag as it is discussing actual objects.

I hear what you're saying, it like names involved and and speech.

So I would that be worthy of if we if we do uh if we do uh recommend this for approval out of committee and and bring it before the regular council, would something as simple as like a law opinion on that before it's on the regular agenda Thursday.

What do you think of that, Mr.

Chair through you to counselor Davis?

Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair.

Counselor Davis.

Thank you.

Um to the question posed by the good counselor at large.

Um to the first party question, I I'm not a constitutional lawyer, um, nor am I serving as a lawyer in any way in this in this uh in this role.

Um, but I I'm I'm not I'm not aware of any limitation, any application of the First Amendment on um how one spends tax how an elected official spends taxpayer dollars.

I I could see where there might be an issue where an elected official is spending their own money or perhaps their their uh campaign uh funds, but this is this is taxpayer funds.

Um but that said, uh, we do have attorney Amara on on the call still, and I think um I would agree with you.

If if you know if there is an issue, then perhaps if if uh the law department could uh you know let somebody know prior to next Thursday.

Um then or is it is it yeah, next Thursday?

Um that then uh you know that that issue could be raised.

I I I would wager I don't I'm not a betting man, so I I wouldn't expect that to be the case, but you never know.

Um I I would I certainly am comfortable moving this forward um uh you know even prior to here and confirmation of that, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, again, I support uh through you to Counselor Davis.

Like I said, I I support this.

I think it's good.

Um are names considered First Amendment protected speech.

I don't know.

Um I think I a paragraph from the law department would be helpful to just answer that question to the best of their knowledge.

I'm still going to vote yes and support it, but to make sure again to make sure we're super duper safe on this, and sometimes First Amendment uh conversations get really into directions that we wouldn't necessarily anticipate.

I think it's good to have a a thorough understanding of that before we place it, uh place it into the the ether and and onward.

Uh thank you, Councilor Shot.

Solicitor Mara, perhaps you can uh would you be willing to do something to satisfy Counselor Strezzo on this matter?

Yes, we will do our best to come up with something.

Um I my gut reaction and I my usual caveat, I will have resort the right to change my mind is I don't see a First Amendment issue as I sit here now, but we will be happy to look at it a little more deeply for you.

All right, is that satisfactory, Councilor Stresso?

It sure is.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

We still have a motion before us to approve seeing no further or to recommend approval, seeing no further discussion on the motion, Madam Clerk.

Can we call the role in that item?

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor and Baugh.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campin?

Yes.

Counselor Shazel?

Yes.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

Counselor's in favor of the item is recommended to be approved.

All right.

I believe, madam clerk, that is the end of our agenda.

I believe all items on the agenda have a disposition except for the committee minutes.

Is that uh your record as well?

Correct.

All right.

Well then I will move to approve those committee minutes and to adjourn in a single roll call vote.

On the motion, I will simply say thank you to all the city staff that stuck with us.

Uh my apologies uh to my colleagues.

I was endeavoring to get you out of here at uh before nine o'clock, so we could all see the fireworks.

But uh, as we have been reminded many times before, uh, we determine how long our meetings go.

So uh thank you for the careful deliberation and uh yeah, let's call the roll on our uh approval of minutes and adjournment, if you don't mind, madam clerk.

And approval of agenda item one 26 0940 and adjournment, counselor Davis.

Yes, please.

Counselor and Baugh.

Yes, please, Counselor Ewan Campin.

Yes, indeed.

Counselor Scho.

Yes, Counselor Scott.

Yes, please.

The item is approved and we are adjourned.

Thank you all, and I'll see you soon.

We are adjourned.