[Nicole Morell]: 22-058 Committee of the Whole meeting Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6 PM is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Present. Councilor Caraviello. Present. Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Unidentified]: Present. Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Tseng present present real present by present to absent meeting is called to order, there will be a meeting of the Metro City Council Committee of the whole on Wednesday, December 7 2022 at 6pm. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed community control over public surveillance ordinance paper 22-058. The city council has invited police chief jack Buckley chief of staff and his area. attorney Janelle Austin from KP law to attend this meeting for further information on aids and accommodations contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, Council President. So this meeting is on, just like I said, the proposed Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance, the Community Safety and Public Health, I think I already swapped it, Public Health and Community Safety Subcommittee I've met a number of times, also with Chief Buckley and other members of the city departments to work through this and I'm actually going to pass it to Subcommittee Chair, Councilor Collins to give us an update on what is before us tonight.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much President Morell. to have a bit of a, I'm really excited to present this to my fellow councilors, the ones who weren't in the public health and community safety subcommittee along with myself and wanted to start by providing some context for the work that we've done over the past seven months on this ordinance. I'm really excited for the chance to, after all of this work, share this draft in this committee of the whole. Today, the public health and community safety subcommittee, like I said, we've been meeting on this draft for a long time. We began in March of this year. And and work and advocacy around this issue predated even my, my time in this office by more than three years. Prior, prior to that, so as chair of this subcommittee. I've had the opportunity to work with constituent advocacy groups such as Medford people power with Chief Buckley with legal counsel. to deepen my understanding of the motivations behind this ordinance, as well as deepen my own understanding of our city partners' interpretation of the draft ordinance, to understand their concerns with the ordinance, and to do some deep work to modify the ordinance to address those concerns. In the seven months that the ordinance has been in the Public Health and Community Safety Subcommittee, we have substantially modified, added to, subtracted from the draft that was proposed initially in March by myself and co-sponsored by Vice President Bears. Councilors can see evidence of those modifications in the quote unquote changes highlighted version of the ordinance that was circulated in our packets for this week and is in front of us today. Based on the feedback from our chief of police we have, among other modifications we have greatly expanded the list of exempted technologies. to further clarify that this ordinance seeks only to approve and require reporting on bona fide surveillance technologies and not routine office tools such as closed caption TV nor email. We have clarified the definition of exigent circumstances to make it more clear the conditions under which a chief of police may act in his or her best judgment without consulting the ordinance in response to an emergency. We have included a provision so that the city may seek grant funding for surveillance technology prior to the approval of that technology so that the city is not cut off from opportunities to pursue good technologies that will be paid for using outside revenues. And we've added language in several locations that further clarifies the intent and the scope of the reporting on these surveillance technologies. That the impact report, the use policy, and the annual surveillance reports called for in the ordinance are to be high level, generalized, non-technical, It clarifies that these reports are not intended to provide a great level of detail into technologies or their use. They are to come nowhere even close to approaching the level of detail that could be seen as sharing sensitive information and certainly not imperiling city security or police procedures. Rather, these reports, in line with the spirit of this ordinance, are to be simple, streamlined overviews that put data to the ongoing discussion of costs and benefits of these technologies. Councilors can review the sample reporting from Cambridge and Somerville that were in our packets this week for examples of reporting from other nearby communities with similar ordinances. We know that this ordinance has been passed and has been implemented without incident or disruption in service in neighboring communities such as Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville. We know that these communities are different than ours in size and in resources. However, we also know that the bandwidth and reporting required by this ordinance is directly commensurate with the amount of surveillance technologies that a community actually has and uses. And we know there's a very large discrepancy from the number of surveillance technologies in use in a city like Cambridge and the number of technologies being considered in our community. Really big difference. Even though we see this ordinance already in use in neighboring communities, of course, we had this draft reviewed multiple times by the legal counsel currently available to us, KP Law, to dot our I's and check our T's. I do have a motion that I'll make later on to adopt one clause suggested by Attorney Austin, just to resolve some conflicting language that accidentally got left into the current draft before us. Thanks to Attorney Austin for that catch. I'll make that motion later on. Overall, what I want to say about this ordinance is that even though it is about surveillance technology, it is not about specific surveillance technologies. This ordinance is about public input. It's about being proactive. because the landscape of surveillance technologies is incredibly rapidly evolving and utterly under-regulated on the state and federal level, which leaves it to us. I'll be clear. This ordinance, most ordinances, are not about current department heads, current staff, nor even surveillance technologies that are currently being considered in this community. It is about setting up a process for the long term for terms and administrations and decades into the future a process by which Medford constituents can have a voice in what surveillance technologies can be used in our community and on what terms. And I'll emphasize for the record that there's not a single surveillance technology currently being considered for Medford that personally myself as one councillor I would be against or have difficulty approving under this ordinance. One of this council's powers is to vet and approve major appropriations to be a forum for the public and to represent the public's views on important matters. Surveillance technology is a big deal. Medford doesn't have a lot of it yet, and that's good. It means that if this ordinance is passed and is implemented, it's not gonna make a very big splash, but it will set up a process by which the acquisition and discussion of surveillance technology in the future will have an open, organized, structured process for city department heads, councillors, and the public to all have a voice in these important decisions that affect all of our safety, privacy, and civil liberties. Thank you to my fellow councillors for their indulgence of my opening salvo.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I wanted to take a second to thank the people who've poured tireless hours into this ordinance, into the advocacy for this ordinance, and to Subcommittee Chair Collins for all the work that she's put into it. And I think it's important to note that because, you know, I think it gives important context for the process that we've taken. to get to this stage in the process. Councilor Collins has worked really hard to engage different stakeholders on this ordinance, working through the language. I believe we first met earlier this year on it, and this has been an idea bouncing around council chamber for a while. And over the last few months, Councilor Collins has spent a lot of time going line by line, making sure that this ordinance is adapted to Medford to Medford's needs that it doesn't hamstring us when it comes to important decisions of public safety, that it empowers. public engagement in the process that empowers transparency and to make sure that a lot of the more detailed concerns are addressed. And I especially appreciate Councilor Collins for providing us with this version of the ordinance in our packets this week, which you can see goes line by line to kind of address the previous concerns that have been put out there. by stakeholders and by legal advice, and we can see that everything is addressed, which I really, really appreciate. Like Councilor Collins said, this is about a long-term vision for our community and how we engage our public when it comes to important matters of surveillance. It's not a retroactive decision. It's something that's forward-looking and guided by what can be better and what can be done better. I think our city has taken a lot of strides towards improving transparency. I think this is another step towards that by engaging by engaging the public, by engaging public input on issues of surveillance, potential surveillance technologies. I think we are more able to be critical of the decisions that we make as a city government, to be more critical with our finances, but also to have a real conversation about what public safety looks like in our community. I think this ordinance gives Empower City Council to do more, to have more of a say in how our city is run. I think that's an issue that I think a lot of councillors have been raising in the last few months on various issues. I think this is, again, one example of a step that we can take as a council to address those qualms that we might have on this side of the rail. But I also appreciate the fact that this doesn't hamstring our city again. Um, you know, this isn't about making sure that, you know, we can't do our jobs or making sure that, you know, technologies that are already acquired. go defunct, this is about the future. And this is about how we engage the public in the future. And so, again, I really appreciate the work that you've put into it. I really appreciate the work that a lot of community members have put into it and different stakeholders as well. So I look forward to this conversation and seeing where we go with this.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I also just wanted to hand over, Councilor Caraviello is the third member of the subcommittee. I didn't know if there's anything you'd like to add as this conversation gets started.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think my two Councilors have more than summed up what has gone on during the subcommittee meeting, Madam President.
[Nicole Morell]: Great, thank you. Point of Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, and whereas I wasn't on the subcommittee, I'll be brief, but just hearing, I wanna thank all the members of the subcommittee and Chair Collins for the work that's been done on this. I think it's clear to me that incredibly detailed discussions with the stakeholders in our city have been had and that residents have been heard and that this is something where we've really built the work product in a really intentional and detailed way to make sure that it's tailored for Medford, that we're meeting the intent that we want to meet, and that we're moving forward collectively, and never gonna have 100% everybody on board with everything, but moving forward with a consensus focus, and I think that's really powerful and important. The only other thing I wanna say right now is that I think You know, as I co-sponsored the initial resolution with you and haven't been involved since then, you know, for me, one of the reasons that I put this forward is about trust and building community. And this is a way that we can have a public process and a participatory and engaging way for residents, community, city staff, city departments, and everyone to come together also with us as a city council and discuss issues so that, you know, if there's someone who has questions or someone, someone who doesn't, you know, understand why we're doing something or why someone may be not, not want us to take on a technology, right. We can have that conversation and we can build, you know, being together and building across difference is how we build trust and build community. And that's what building an intentional process for addressing concerns like this is about. So that's, I think, for me, a real focus here is how can we have the important conversations we need to have so we can hear from everybody, you know, different people who are interested in our, of course, Siri, different people in our community who are interested in this. in the issues of surveillance and civil liberties and civil rights. Because I think sometimes when we don't build and have those intentional forums, we don't hear and we don't know what different people's intent is or the effect of different choices and actions and potential policies is. That's all I have to say for now. I really appreciate the intentional approach. I think this has been a great process, and I look forward to hearing more from everybody who's present tonight. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. I do know we have a number of members of the public who would like to speak, but I'd also like to first hand it off, see if any of our invited members of the administration and police department, either Chief of Police Jack Buckley, Madam Chief of Staff Ian Azarian or Attorney Austin from KP Law, if any of you would like to speak at this time before we continue this conversation.
[Unidentified]: I don't know if the internet at City Hall is bad or does anyone?
[Nicole Morell]: I see Chief Jack Buckley would like to speak.
[Jack Buckley]: Good evening and thank you for once again inviting me here. And at the risk, I do appreciate the praise I receive sometimes from the city council as it relates to all this. I wanna just openly and publicly say that I have some very strong concerns about this ordinance, most specifically surrounding the capacity of this police department to comply with what is going to be asked of us. We keep talking about surveillance impact reports and surveillance use policies that have to be dictated. Well, I've seen these policies in other municipalities, and they're going to require a constant review of technology. And it's going to require personnel to, additional personnel, to keep up with the standards that are Um, push for inside of this ordinance. Um, I'm sure I'll have comments later on, uh, as we move forward in this, but no, I always like to start off by saying was, I think the police department in the city of Medford does a very, very, uh, good job. Um, and my offices work hard in a very, very difficult, um, profession to to uphold the public's trust to operating procedurally just ways. And when we talk about ordinances like this, we constantly talk about, we wanna prevent the violation of civil liberties. We wanna prevent the violation of civil rights. And it is sort of pointed at the police department. I mean, I've made this point before. I'm the only department head who ever gets invited to these meetings, yet we continue to, in our opening remarks, we talk about this isn't about a specific department. This isn't about specific policy. This is very clearly about the police department and more specifically about body-worn cameras. And I can tell you in the last four years that I've been chief of police now that we have worked hard on our policies to ensure accountability to the public. We've updated our ethics and standards policies to ensure that the police officers uphold individual rights. We police in fair and impartial ways. We have a bias-free policing policy and We've tightened up our internal affairs investigations. We have modified our use of force policies. We do a lot of really good work in this police department to ensure that the fears that are sort of being pushed forward, that this ordinance is important because of all these, the fear that the police department is going to, you know, as we heard last week, a police state, if we don't have this ordinance here. And it just doesn't, it doesn't sit well with me in the general, you know, terms of how the city operates. I mean, I was chosen to be police chief and I was chosen to make some changes and we've made those changes in significant ways. And my police officers, I give them all the credit in the world on how they behave and how they operate in this city, because it's not necessarily the same in other municipalities. And that's despite being down in numbers and not having the technology that other police departments, but we also don't have the funds and the personnel and the resources to comply with more and more I don't want to use the term oversight, but more and more like sort of unfunded mandates that are placed upon the police department. Police reform in 2020 was one of the largest changes to policing. And I can tell you this much that the Metro Police Department is way ahead of a lot of other municipalities and jurisdictions when it comes to complying with police reform. And we're still struggling to keep up. And so, well, there's things in here that, yeah, I'm for defending civil liberties and civil rights. And we do that in multiple, multiple different ways within this police department. We're obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This case law is, you know, legal requirements that we follow as a police department and that hold us in check, you know, when we act, and as policing, as police have to do in society. And so sort of in that context, I just wanted to put forward that I actually have a couple of different questions. The first one is, and this is probably to the president, but in the ordinance that we're looking at tonight, the version with tonight, there are several, there have been some modifications, but can I ask who made those modifications and where they were suggested? Because I've attended all of these, and I know we've gotten different versions, but I know that Attorney Austin from KP Law has submitted multiple suggestions and recommendations. I don't see any of those in here. So I'm just wondering where these modifications are coming from and who made them and what was the purpose of some of these? And then what is the status of those other modifications that were put forth by Attorney Austin? because it does leave me with, I'm sorry, I just, I do want to let you answer that question, because it does leave me with the question of the thought that maybe some of this is being ignored, that, you know, some of the concerns that are being pushed forward would be a concern. So I'm sorry, if someone could answer that question.
[Nicole Morell]: I'm happy to go with Councilor Collins, and I think, I wasn't in the meetings, but I can also speak to the fact that KB Law should be providing legal advice and not policy suggestions. So if there were policy suggestions, there's no, Council doesn't have, the subcommittee doesn't have to adopt them, but I'm happy to let Councilor Collins answer more specifically.
[Kit Collins]: Sure, yeah, through you, President Morell, Chief, thank you so much for being with us tonight, and thank you for your comments. A lot to respond to there, but for now, I'll just keep it to the direct question that you asked. So we have a few versions of the ordinance in front of us tonight and along in our council packet I sent along. a key describing what those are. We have the current draft of the ordinance with changes highlighted. We have the same version of the ordinance. Content is exactly the same, just without those highlights for what was new as of October. And then we do have the version that has legal comments added by Attorney Austin. So the draft ordinance that is in front of us tonight Those modifications. I was in power authorized as chair to make modification to the ordinance after our first subcommittee meeting in March, based on conversations that I had with us chief of police and also with Attorney Austin that occurred in the late spring and the summer those changes were presented to the subcommittee. In October, and then in our October subcommittee meeting the ordinance as amended was reported out to this committee of the whole. We did request a legal review by Attorney Austin for that October subcommittee meeting those legal comments were not ready to be presented to subcommittee. members at the October meeting because they arrived too late the week preceding the subcommittee meeting. They arrived after close of business on a Friday. That document couldn't be put into the council packet. And so at our subcommittee meeting in October, one of the motions that we passed was to include the legal review by attorney Austin in the packet of materials for Councilors ahead of this committee of the whole. So those comments added by Attorney Austin in line and in comments, those have not yet been accepted by the committee of the whole by any, you know, subset of this body because this is the first time that this body is seeing them as Nicole as President Morell mentioned, it is now it falls under the purview of this body by a vote on whether to entertain those suggestions, whether to adopt them or not. But the spark notes is the version that is in front of us. I was authorized as chair to make amendments prior to the October subcommittee meeting. Those were accepted by the subcommittee in October, resulting in the draft that is in front of us tonight.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Vice Mayor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. And just to clarify, so in the version where there's red highlights, those were the changes voted on at the March meeting and then presented at the October meeting, and no changes have been made since the October meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Let me clarify, those changes were added actually wait I think what you said is correct. Those changes were made in between the March subcommittee meeting and the October meeting to specifically respond to and accommodate suggestions and concerns heard from our city stakeholders and from legal counsel. Those were new as of October. They were adopted in October. I included them in our council packet today because I wanted to demonstrate in a committee of the whole, the changes that were made from March to October.
[Zac Bears]: No, yeah. And that's the reason I'm asking is because I just wanted to confirm that in the red highlighted version, anything in red highlights are basically the suggestions of KP law or city employees that were adopted and included in the version we're looking at now is the same version that you looked at in October.
[Kit Collins]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And I just want to also say, you know, personally for me, you know, again, thank you to Chief Buckley for being here for other city staff for being here. You know, I for one, you know, I put this resolution forward and have been talking about this concept and issue since long before I was a councillor and I for one see this as not targeted, but an opportunity for the police department or any other city department to come and tell us exactly what Chief Buckley just told us, which is the good story. Like we hear the hard work's gone into policies, hard work's gone into practice, hard work's gone into what the department is doing. And this is a forum and a process and an opportunity for us to discuss that publicly where people are watching and engaging for the police department to discuss it publicly. We're watching you to have a report that someone can hand up and read not to have to go digging and finding or asking questions or potentially go looking for something and find misinformation, but to find the cold hard facts about good work. And that's my intent. We talked about body worn cameras. I have no, no problem with body cameras. That's not in my intent. And I was a co-sponsor of this resolution. You know, I have, all the faith in the world that there's some good intent and folks are going to try to reach the best outcome. And I think the best way that we can validate that is to have a public process where we discuss that openly and talk about good things and talk about trust. So again, I want to thank the chief for the comments and for being so engaged with the process and for all of our city staff who have had so much incorporated into this. I definitely know that this draft has changed a lot since it was initially proposed. And I think that's in good ways and ways to tailor it towards what our city staff have asked for. So at this point I'll pause and maybe I think something we could do tonight is maybe review some of the sample reporting and we could see what it looks like because I think it's really gonna be you know, hearing and having on put into a report, something that, you know, whether it's police department, something they're already doing, something they're already creating and something that, you know, we want to use our voice to amplify and show that we're not just doing the due diligence, but as the chief said, going above and beyond what the state is asking of us, because I think that's what I've heard in public statements as a goal of the chief of police of the city administration of, of the chief of staff, of everybody involved, like this issue of transparency and building community is such a priority. And I think this is a vehicle for us to show that priority. So I'm coming at this from a place of community building and trust and hope, certainly not a place of fear or anything like that. I think this is a way for us to tell a good story and I hope that's how we can move forward. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: I do wanna go back to Chief Buckley. I saw you shaking your head in disagreement. You wanna speak on?
[Jack Buckley]: I'm not necessarily, yeah, sorry, Councilor Morell. I'm not necessarily in disagreement. I want to add that I don't think, I'm not arguing that some of those changes weren't necessary. I just wanted to see where we were with the changes and then modifications that other parties had made. And I'm sure we'll get to that, talk to those points in a little while. But I just want to finally add, just as we start this meeting, that to continue on what I was saying before, but the premise that, you know, the police department surveys people all the time. It's just, just not true and it's not simply just based on the fact that we don't have a lot of technology but We don't do that. And we're bound by, you know, not just the United, as I said before, the United States Constitution and Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, but I mean, there are other laws in place, like facial recognition laws. It's banned the use of facial recognition for police departments in 2020. We don't use that. We can't use certain body, like go back to body-worn cameras. We can't use that technology in certain advances for seeking warrants. We can't violate the wiretap statute. We don't do that. And so I guess my point to the whole thing is that we were already governed strongly by Massachusetts law when it comes to a lot of this. And the use of technology just isn't, well, I understand the premise and the safeguards of civil liberties. I'm telling you that we are doing that. We are complying with law and that the implementation of this policy I'm not quite sure that I have the capacity to fulfill what you're looking for. I just wanted to be clear with that, because it's been the same message that I've put forth since the very beginning. It would be a costly venture for this police department. So thank you for allowing me to speak early in this event.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Chief Buckley. Going back to Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. And through you, Chief, again, I thank you for your candor around this. And I thank you for, I know when you speak up, you're representing the interests of your department and your commitment to making sure that your department can follow through on what it's here to do in our community, in the interest of public safety. And so I thank you for that. I know it's coming from that place. You know, when I heard you say the premise, this ordinance speaks to the premise that the police department is surveilling the community all the time. I don't think that is the premise of this ordinance. I think that the premise of this ordinance is that surveillance technology is a rapidly evolving industry. It's not generated by police departments. It is often marketed to police departments in general. It is a novel sector. I think it is under regulated at the state and federal level though that's not to say it's utterly no no regulations exist I hear that certain constraints exist, is it keeping pace with the rapid evolution of technologies and the technologies that are available. I don't think that it is. That's the premise of this ordinance, is to regulate surveillance technology. You mentioned earlier some of the deep and ongoing work that you're doing around general policing policies, and that's, as Vice President Bears said, that's a great story. I think it's a story that our community benefits to hear, but this ordinance is not about regulating the police in general, and it's not about regulating policing policies in general. It is about regulating the use of surveillance technologies, technologies that are rapidly evolving and have been demonstrated to be engineered in such a way that it is difficult to carry them out the way that we would want to, the way that your department would want to. So I just wanted to note that as we again begin this discussion, because I just think the angle at which we're coming from this, I just think it's a bit of a shift from what you're describing. This ordinance is about taking stock of surveillance technology for what they are, wherever they exist in the city, being clear-headed about where they are, you know, being aware of examples in other communities, not ours, where these have been demonstrated to be harmful and where that cost benefit analysis should have happened first and saying, we share goals of being proactive. We share goals of maintaining civil liberties. These goals are demonstrated every day in our police department and let's proactively set up another department to make sure that we keep making good on these goals. I think that if, you know, I don't know if there are other hands raised on Zoom right now, and I want to be deferential to my fellow Councilors, but transitioning to the capacity piece of this discussion, I wonder if it would be fruitful now to maybe screen share some of the examples of reporting from other communities with the CTOPS ordinance. On that note of, you know, does the police department, your concerns about if the police department has capacity to implement this ordinance, you know, what I've heard from advocates for this ordinance, and I think, you know, what kind of a common sense way to look at it is, if we have the money and the bandwidth to own and manage these surveillance technologies, then surely we have the capacity and the bandwidth to discuss them in a public forum and to do very simple streamlined reporting on them, which really is all that this ordinance is asking for. And I think that that's demonstrated perhaps especially in One of the examples that I included in our packet this week, Cambridge's annual surveillance report. Just for example, I think the sixth item on that list is a surveillance technology owned by the police department. It's less than two pages. I don't see this as... I'd like to hear more about why we think this would require onerous daily tracking by the police department or fundamentally change capacity levels in the police department because I think we've worked hard to make it very clear that we don't want this to add 50 full-time jobs to the police department. We know that's not reasonable and that's not what this ordinance is asking for.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. If I could just speak briefly, I just want to, I want to thank my fellow Councilors, I want to thank Chief Buckley and everyone else who, of course, the people of power and folks who have come out to many meetings on this. I think I see a lot of spirit of, you know, compromise and hearing for folks. And I think this is just really important to have in front of us now, because legislatures at every single level of the government are completely slow and behind the times with regards to technology and how we respond to it and how we legislate around it. So I really applaud folks who are pushing forward with this, regardless how they feel, you know, coming around the table to have these talks, because I think I, for one, as a Councilor, I don't, I don't want to get caught flat footed and not saying that that's something that would come from the police department, but because as Councilor Collins said, This technology is evolving at a rate that I think most folks aren't even aware of. They're not even aware of the times that it might be in use and things like that. And that's exactly what we're trying to tackle. And again, it's not specifically towards the police department. I absolutely understand how it can be taken that way. But I think this is something that, again, every level of government needs to be focused on, technology and how it impacts our lives, our rights to privacy, and things of that like.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I'll just be really quick and, you know, like to add to both of those points. Something I'm really heartened by to hear is, you know, we're not doing this right now. It's not the it's not something that the department wants to do. We're so strongly confident in that, that we feel like we can handle it. And I respect that, I hear that. And I think that means that given what this ordinance is, it means that there's gonna be an annual opportunity to have a report that says we're doing the right thing. We're committed to doing the right thing. The public's gonna be able to hear that and see that. I'm gonna be able to point to it. Anyone who has any questions about it is gonna be able to point to it. It's a tool for us to say, hey, I'm not just saying it, I'm showing it. that we're doing the right thing. And I think the other point to make is, you know, I hear it, right? Like people are working right now. They have their, you know, this is, you, Chief Buckley, you are the chief. The mayor is the mayor. These are the people who are put in the position to run these offices and these departments right now. And they've, you know, you and they and everyone have publicly stated what, you know, your goals are, your commitments are, your values are. And that's a really important thing. And the good thing, and I think the thing that, you know, we think about as legislatures is, you know, someday Chief Buckley is going to retire. Someday Mayor Lungo-Koehn is going to retire. Someday, you know, Library Director Kerr is going to retire. And how can we make sure that the next person who is in that role knows that there's a process, clear outlined purpose and intentions that they can grab onto to continue doing the good thing. And that's the goal of government. And then I think it's speak to President Morell's point, this is only gonna get different and change and grow over the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years as technology changes at the pace that it's been changing. And us being able to have a place to come together and discuss that in 20 years, it's not gonna be me sitting here doing it. know, I don't think any of the partners and players are going to be the same. But if we are, you know, intentional, as I think we have been about this, there's going to be something in place for that city council, and that city mayor and those city departments in 20 and 25 and 30 years to have a venue and a process and a voice to have key discussions about what does technology look like in our community? And what does it mean for everyone who lives here? So again, that's where I'm coming from on this. And I am really thankful to everyone for the detailed work and reading and input that we've had to this point. And I think we continue with that spirit and mindset. We'll be well on our way to doing this in a good way and make it a good step for everybody. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you Vice President Bears. Councilor Collins, is there something you wanted to share on the actual document before we go to hear from members of the public?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you. I think both actually, first of all, if I may, the document that I had in mind to share is the document entitled Cambridge Annual Surveillance Report, a PDF. And as we're looking at that, I think it's also valuable to note, and I noted this to Councilors in our packets, just as a bit of context, this is an 80-page report, but it covers 69 surveillance technologies. That is, you know, I think we can all do that long division. Which is just to say, I was heartened to look at other communities' reporting and see Oh, good, this is not asking for a college thesis per technology. This is not even asking for five pages per technology. This is a very short report. This is less than two pages per technology. I also want to note that Cambridge's CCOPS ordinance differs greatly from the draft that we are looking at that we're considering for Medford. So actually, most of the surveillance technologies that are detailed in Cambridge's annual surveillance report They're both not currently present in Medford, and many others would be eligible for exemption under Medford's proposed CPAPs ordinance, which is just to say this document is very long, though each report on individual technologies is extremely short. But even if this exact template were to be implemented in Medford, that report would be even much, much shorter, because many of these routine technologies would be exempt from this ordinance in this community. in the annual surveillance report, I think that- Councilor Collins, are you able to share your screen? Or would you like me to? If you could, that would be great, just because I don't have the Zoom up on my laptop. But if it'd be helpful, I can certainly log in.
[Unidentified]: I just need to open this and something else. I could just pull up the Zoom quickly if that's helpful. I have to share my entire bio. Is that the right thing? It is.
[Kit Collins]: And then if you don't mind scrolling down to page 14, it should say number six. Department of Emergency Communications Division Police. Yes, thank you. I thought that this was maybe a good example relevant to our discussion. We know based on the technologies that we have already exempted under this ordinance that, you know, currently the only department considering surveillance technologies is the police department, hence Chief Buckley being so generous with his time in reviewing this ordinance with us and being here tonight, which is why I selected this technology for us to look at it being under police jurisdiction. But I just wanna point out in terms of what is included in this year's end report for this technology, it says, what technologies has been used, it describes the individual technology for this particular section, the trespass tracking database, just simply what is it, as we can see there's about three sentences. Has it been shared with a third party? The answer is no. What complaints have been received? It's a one-word answer. Were there any violations? A one-word answer. Has it been effective in achieving its intended purpose? Again, it's essentially a short answer question. And that's really what I wanted to highlight in sharing these examples is that We worked hard in this draft of the ordinance to make it more clear that what we were looking at was not granular data was not a spreadsheet worth of data on every single time that a given technology has been implemented and where and when and for how long we are not looking for. specific data, specific names, cases it has been used on, none of that is relevant to this ordinance. What is relevant is what it is, why it's being used in our community, and if the entity using it feels that it is useful for the purpose that they acquired it for. And I just wanted to demonstrate that through this nearby community's example.
[Nicole Morell]: Great, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: And I would, through the chair, I would suspect that most of this would be pretty similar year by year. Councilor Collins, would that be a fair way to put it? I mean, if the same questions are being asked and same technologies are being used in year one and year two.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I mean, I think it's safe to assume that no change, no change. I feel like every five council meetings or so, I have to quote my dad, you know, no change, there's no change. And I also think, again, this brings up in terms of how do we sort of forecast administrative load as a result of this ordinance, you only report on what you have and what you use. And I think we've heard very transparently from our police department that there are They don't really have many surveillance technologies right now, which is why I think this is potentially a good time to implement because we're getting out in front of the issue. I think there are other communities where it would be extremely difficult to entertain having a public process and a regulatory process around surveillance technology because they are already out in the community. Their impact is already diffused. That is not the environment that we're looking at here in Medford because we've so far been deliberate. And I think that we can just keep that going through this ordinance. And to get back to my original point, We only report on what we use. If we don't use that many technologies, this report is very, very short.
[Justin Tseng]: And again, I think to to your point into Councilor versus point. We know that what's being done in the police department right now is, is, you know, follows follows along, you know, falls with, you know, our residents want and so I don't see this, it wouldn't differ I mean what's what's being put on this page, you know wouldn't change Paul's department policy or anything, necessarily I think it would just It would help me, I think, as a community leader, be able to have something to point to and say, you know, you asked me this question about this technology, you asked me this question about what our city is doing. Here's my answer. I can give it to you. This is going back to your point about the document being 80 pages, but there being 69 technologies. I can't do long division that easily, I'll admit. But I did pull up my phone calculator and it is on average one page per surveillance technology. And so it's 1.15. And so it... Well, you are the numbers guy in here. But it seems, I will say to me, it does seem reasonable. I think, and especially if RC COPS ordinance is different and I think better adapted to Medford, it means that the work that we'll have to do in these reports are even less onerous than that one page document that Cambridge produces. So I do feel like it seems to me like a reasonable, like this ordinance is reasonable.
[Nicole Morell]: I think as I was saying, going back to Chief Buckley, and then I do want to get to members of the public to be able to speak.
[Jack Buckley]: Thank you. And I just want to just add one point here to Cambridge's report. I think it's important, especially, I think it's the same in all of our lives, but as an administrator of a police department, just because the answer is no doesn't mean that didn't take some considerable effort to go through statistics and data to arrive at the answer no. And subsequently, if the answer is yes, it will produce a lot more requirements. And then there's other factors that will come in. If I answered yes to one of those questions that was up there, it gets publicly released. It will take, we naturally get a lot of public records requests, and then that will generate public records requests, which will generate, you know, hours of work and resources from the police department to comply with them, which we would, I'm not saying that we wouldn't, I'm just suggesting to you that the length of a report, I could write you a one page report that will take me about four weeks to do, right? I mean, it doesn't necessarily equate to how easy the job is or how much effort goes into that report.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. So now I'd like to open up to folks, Chief of Staff, Madam Chief of Staff, Nina Nazarian.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Morell and members of the council. Appreciate the opportunity to speak. I wanted to update the council on some review that we've done on this ordinance and also mention that we have a couple of department heads on the call today and would like to, through you, if appropriate offer an opportunity for them to speak on areas that may exist where there may be matters that would possibly fall under surveillance technology within the community or areas that may come up in the future that we need to be cognizant of before finalizing if such an ordinance were to be finalized. But first, I want to remind everybody on the subcommittee, but also advise the larger city council that the city has acquired body-worn cameras, and those body-worn cameras are basically subject potentially to this ordinance. And what happens with this ordinance could affect how those body-worn cameras are handled. Importantly, we have a contract with Motorola. Again, we've acquired them. So there's a capital cost that has been essentially paid out. And that's just something to note, you know, should this ordinance pass, whereas body worn cameras would be subject to this ordinance, if for some reason, the city council were to disallow body-worn cameras, the city would likely have a capital loss in dollars. In other words, we've spent money we can't recuperate. Furthermore, as I mentioned, we have a couple of department heads on the line, but I know there was at least two other department heads who either were not able to make it tonight. We have body-worn cameras presently being used in the parking department, And we also have what's called live barn. I'm sure the Councilors would know it better than I do and the members of the public but I understand that it's a video recording of hockey games and live broadcast. So I want to bring those to the attention of the council as the council considers the specific language in this ordinance to consider potential exemptions there. I would also suggest, you know, with the body worn cameras and exemption to that, considering where we are in the process considering the implications of that process. And then, if I could please through you President morale or you could please more more appropriately. traffic and transportation, Todd Blake on the line, who has raised a concern, not a concern, but an area that may or may not be presently exempt and may require further review by the council and or legal counsel, as well as a building commissioner, bill 40 on the line. And, you know, if it would now be an appropriate time, simply because, you know, seven thirds, 30 is I'm I'm assuming these these heads hope to go home to their family is it now would be appropriate time to allow them to speak on the day issues that they've identified.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Director of Traffic and Transport, apologies if I swatched those.
[Todd Blake]: Hi, thank you, everyone. Council President Morell. Yeah, we just had some questions about technologies that may exist that people may not realize that, you know, aren't intended to do any of the things that I believe you're trying to capture. But in the definition of surveillance technology under Part I, it seems like some of these things would be captured, but then it's unclear whether under like 3C or some other provision under that, whether they're already exempted or not. So some of those include vehicle detection cameras at traffic signals. So there's a technology to detect either cars or bicycles waiting to get a green light. And it just helps inform the traffic signal controller to give that green light up to a certain maximum. So that's the sole intent of that type of camera But we actually did apply for and receive a grant from St. Massachusetts, MassDOT, and they're in the process of installing them. But they're actually held up in some supply chain issues. But that's one example. Another is traffic count technology. So traffic signal detection used to be roadway wires embedded within the roadway, but those break down over time. So video cameras have been in the past decade or two, the way to go. For traffic counting, they used to use those rubber tubes in the roadway, and they still do at times, but most of that technology is advanced to be cameras as well. So there are just these cameras that are out there that are doing these things for traffic purposes that have no intention of capturing anyone's personal information or anything like that or being shared, but they do exist already. And whether we use them or a third party or, say, a private development that's doing a traffic study, things like that. So we just weren't sure if they were including exemptions, and if they weren't, we'd like them to be. So that's all I have. Hopefully that helps. And if I think of any more, we'll let you know.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Director Blake. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, though, if there are other department heads that have technologies. One by one? We just have two, but let's go. Sure, that makes sense. Todd, thank you for being on the call. Thank you for reading this ordinance. I know it's 11 pages of legalese, and you're a busy guy, so I appreciate it. So my first response hearing your description of the cameras on the traffic signals, in the... My understanding is that that would not count as surveillance technology. I'll explain why. In section 5071 under definitions, scroll down to the bottom of page two, it says surveillance technology shall mean that associated with or capable of being associated with any specific individual or group. So if the purpose of these cameras is to detect whether a car or a bike is waiting for a green light, I do not think that falls under the definition of what surveillance technology is. Because again, the intent here is to regulate technologies which have the capacity to survey identifiable individuals and identifiable groups rather than vehicles, types of vehicles.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, going to build a commissioner bill 40.
[Bill Forte]: Good evening, Madam President. Thank you, members of the Council. So I'm sorry to weigh in a little bit late on this. Since I was just employed here a couple of months ago, I did have a chance to look at it on just a couple of concerns that maybe the Council or the committee could look at in Section 3, subsection C, there are certain devices there that are exempt. And without it actually saying iPhone or computerized phone, I know that they talk about a manual handheld device, which I'm assuming is basically would be something that would be like a phone. I just want to bring to your attention that almost 100% of our code enforcement cases are based on the prima facie evidence of pictures and sometime video, depending on if there's an activity such as noise or, you know, trucks running late at night or any one of those things. I know it doesn't specifically spell it out here. And I'm just wondering if it needs to be maybe you know, kind of highlighted a little bit in the manner that, you know, that any pictures or video used for purposes of enforcing a city's ordinance would be, you know, exempt or doesn't require any, you know, any forward permission from any other entity. I just wasn't sure if that needed to be looked at. So just a, you know, just a note there on the side. And then in addition to that, Um, the only other thing I noticed is that the ordinance doesn't, um, uh, it doesn't reference, um, GL 66, which is the public records law. Um, I know that, um, you know, that pictures and video are part of the public record. Um, but whereas we may be going into an apartment where, uh, personal, um, items might be a fixed, uh, we should have the right to maybe redact. uh, some of those, um, items, uh, such as, uh, if I'm taking a picture of a, of a fireplace, it's in violation that happens to be a picture above of somebody who's a, you know, a child or a family that someone doesn't want them to know. Um, again, we would have to re redact that from, from the information that a requester is seeking. Uh, and so, um, I, the only, the only thing that I saw here is that there's no mention of, uh, public records in GL 66. And I'm just wondering if. uh, KP law, um, you know, have the chance to either write it in or chose not to write it in. But, uh, but those are just the two things that I'd like to bring to your attention. And thank you for your time.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. Thank you very much, commissioner 40. And, um, you mentioned a few things, so apologies if I'm a little slow in responding to this, cause I'm trying to navigate among pages of this ordinance. Um, So first I just wanted to make sure that I got your clarifying, that I understood your clarifying question correctly. It sounded like you were wondering if use of smart, it sounded like first you were wondering if use of smartphones was exempted under this ordinance or if smartphone use It's essentially smartphones would have to be reported on under this ordinance and then it also sounded like you were wondering if photos taken to essentially raise. Building and construction related grievances would also be subject to this ordinance I just wasn't sure if I heard you correctly, the zoom audio in the chambers is a little bouncy.
[Bill Forte]: So yes, if you wanted me to comment, yes, essentially, there were two separate questions with two separate identities. One being, is there a need for clarity about, you know, cell phone, handheld cell phone or camera use in the action of a code enforcement? And secondly, and separately, any mention of GL 66 with records law and what, um, agencies and departments are divulged to, um, you know, withhold or to release. So again, that's the sense of my question or, or just my comments.
[Unidentified]: Great.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that. I'm just, I'm just scrolling through. Thank you for your patience. I feel deeply familiar with this ordinance. I'm still vice president.
[Zac Bears]: If I may under a section, sorry, one second. Section 7.1 definitions, subsection 3A, routine technology hardware such as televisions, computers, smartphones, or handheld devices and printers would be exempt. So I believe that the question as to photos and videos taken on a smartphone for the purpose of enforcing a city ordinance, that would certainly be exempt from this ordinance.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears, are you looking at the legal markup version? Are you reading from the legal markup version of the ordinance or from the version three?
[Zac Bears]: Legal markup version.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, okay, great. I think that actually is a, that the legal markup version includes text from attorney Austin that hasn't yet been accepted by this, which actually includes the word smartphones. But in this case, I actually would entertain a motion to include. I, to make it abundantly clear, just in terms of my perspective on this, I intended in the drafting of this ordinance for routine office hardware to include things such as smartphones, but I think a lot of our work here to forest and making things yet more explicit to address questions like these, I would be happy to put it in the form of the motion to add the word smartphones to section 3A under definitions, routine office hardware, such as the addition of smartphones and then resuming televisions, computers, and printers that are in widespread public use.
[Nicole Morell]: I would second that motion.
[Kit Collins]: It's the second definitions, 5071 definitions, and then it is section I3. Yes, it is on page three.
[Zac Bears]: If my fellow councilors would be amenable, Um, if I just want to make a quick review here, Madam President, if I may, please.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Um, just, I think that, um, um, Smart pad devices should be included as well. My inspectors are equipped with those. So included with cell phones, you know, iPads or smart pads would be, I think would also be, it'd be well to get that added as well. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just looking at the entire section of definitions, would councilors be amenable to a motion to accept all of the section 50-71 as written in the legal markup version versus the draft ordinance version three?
[Justin Tseng]: I do have a question through the chair for Councilor Collins. So the legal markup section, is that supposed to be replacing what we have for section three or just in addition to what we have for section three that we're looking at right now?
[Kit Collins]: The legal markup version includes the comments of the sidebar from Attorney Austin and contextual comments from myself. The text that we're looking at, this is more visible on a computer than it is in a printout. Some of the text in the ordinance includes suggested additions as well as suggested deletions by Attorney Austin that this council has not yet accepted. Thank you for, sorry, I should have clarified that.
[Unidentified]: Thank you for asking.
[Zac Bears]: Having read it, there are not many differences between the two, and one of those differences would address, the only main difference that I can find within the difference between the two sections would be specifically about smartphones and handheld devices.
[Kit Collins]: I would be happy to second that motion to accept.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah, and I think, you know, just given, you know, we have had legal review and I've had time to review it, you know, and I'm sure that many of these comments came from discussions with city staff, you know, I'd be happy to accept that definition section, that the content, not the comments or anything, I don't see as much comment, but the actual written content of section 50-71 definitions as included in the legal markup version.
[Nicole Morell]: Do you want to take all the motions at the end?
[Adam Hurtubise]: because I can't keep up with the back and forth.
[Nicole Morell]: There's only one so far.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, and I'll withdraw my motion. I made a now redundant motion to add smartphones and I'll withdraw that now.
[Nicole Morell]: So Commissioner Forty, does that address your issues? I do see Chief, Madam Chief of Staff has her hand up as well. At least for the time being.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you. Thank you very much. So I, one thing I didn't mention at the start of my introductory comments was that we circulated this proposed ordinance to department heads and asked department heads to review it. And as a result, this is, these are the scenarios that were raised. I will say that, you know, Each department had had some questions because it is a pretty as Councilor Collins mentioned it is a pretty, you know, legal document, so to speak, so there were there were a number of questions and I provided the best guidance, I could to city staff. And so, I mean, in that respect, I appreciate this discussion to consider whether modifications and further amendments would be appropriate to this proposed ordinance. And would also suggest that since we have legal counsel on the line, perhaps legal counsel could look at whether or not, you know, the point raised by our director of transportation and traffic warrants any potential conflicts. and further ask the council to give some thought to this issue of live barn. Because again, I don't think these are areas that are intended. And I just want to do our best to avoid future conflicts. But I also am a little uncertain if there will be areas we haven't realized. Another specific area that comes to my mind, and I'm not certain whether it would be conflicting, is potentially pull pads. So, you know, tablets, pull pads, other areas that you guys are discussing at this point in time. And, of course, as I said before, I would propose body-worn cameras be excluded as well.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I appreciate the comment, but I just want to know procedurally, it's my understanding that prior to when the city had a city solicitor, the city solicitor would go around and work with department heads so that you could get the insight from department heads and the legal guidance hand in hand at the same time. So I think that's kind of what we're wrestling with a little bit now, the lack of that system. So going to Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just want to just want to get the list down of the items. So it's an understanding that maybe not exclusive, but it's body worn cameras, traffic, you know, traffic monitoring devices, for lack of a better phrase. The, could you say what the, Madam Chief of Staff, could you say again what the broadcasting of local hockey games, what's that technology called again? Because certainly I don't think that would.
[Nina Nazarian]: Sure, thank you, Vice President Bears. I don't know what the technology is specifically called, but I understand that our contract is with a company called Live Barn. And so we'd also, again, this, as has been discussed at the subcommittee level, This ordinance has two areas and I'm sure that Attorney Austin could speak to this, and I'm sure that the council members are aware. ordinance potentially affects two specific technical or checkpoint areas. I don't know how to better characterize that. I don't think that does justice to the characterization, but one is potential contract negotiations, whether it's probably with police union employees, as it relates to any working condition changes, but should there be any working conditions changes for any union that could be, HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : implied as a part of this passage of this ordinance and also contracts, so the reason i'm bringing this up is in the discussion of the live barn. HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : I personally have not had an opportunity to pull or request or review this live barn contract. but it's these kinds of circumstances that should be reviewed to determine if there is, should it not be exempted, for example, and should it not be approved to be continued to be used? What are the implications for the termination of that contract? What are the liabilities to the city as a result of an attempt to terminate such a contract? So thank you. That's a long way of saying live barn is the answer you're looking for, but the thoughts to give to the city council. And I will say I did do my best to consult with attorney Austin as department heads raised questions to me that I wasn't a hundred percent certain on the legal matter or the detail or the nuance. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, madam chief of staff. And I think, you know, for lack of getting too specific, I would be happy to, make a motion to include exemptions for traffic monitoring devices, as well as recording and streaming technologies used for the broadcast of events, which I think would constitute the issue around the live Barnes thing.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. I see Councilor Collins and I also see Attorney Austin with their hand up. Would you like to go? You wanna hear from Attorney Austin first?
[Kit Collins]: Oh, thank you, President Morell. I'll be really quick. This has been brought up a couple times, and I think it's a great point. So I just want to flag that actually in the text of the ordinance, as written, from the penultimate page to the final page, section 5080, conflicting contractual agreements prohibited. I think that this speaks to the concern raised about liability under if there is a contract for a technology and the technology conflicts with this ordinance. The last sentence of 5080 reads conflicting provisions and contracts or agreements signed prior to the enactment of this ordinance shall be deemed void and legally unenforceable to the extent permitted by law and I'm adding emphasis, you know vocal emphasis to that last clause because I think they're in the text it, it shows, or that provides for. things are rendered void by this ordinance unless legally they can't be. And I think that that speaks to a provision for a legal non-liable off-ramp for technologies that maybe have to be phased out if they do happen to conflict with this ordinance and the ordinance is passed, but would not open the city up to liability if they are in conflict because it essentially exempts from termination conflicts that are things that are conflicting with this ordinance when it is passed.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Attorney Austin.
[Austin]: Thank you, Council President. Thank you to members of the Council for inviting me here tonight. I just wanted to address some specific points that were raised this evening and just to give members of the Council that are here tonight some some context is We did, KP Law was involved in the review of this, including a most recent draft back in October. There were some substantive comments made for the council's consideration. I understand that those are not, that those are present before you this evening. Some of them address, you know, public records, obviously contractual requirements, legal considerations for the council to carefully consider as it the proposed language. I know you have those there tonight. I know you have my comments and I am happy to answer any specific questions that any of the Councilors have with respect to those legal considerations. Just to address two specific points and I am happy to address anything else. With respect to the, I know Vice President Bears has just addressed a potential exemption but with respect to the traffic technology that was raised by Mr. I'm not familiar with that particular technology, but it might be worth just some clarification on that particular point. In addition, with respect to Mr. Fordy's comments on code enforcement matters, as the council is aware, there is specific language in that subsection three about handheld devices based on some comments that I had made, but it does also say that it's in widespread public use and will not be used for any surveillance or surveillance-related functions. So I think clarification, we may want to consider clarification to that point if the council wants to consider sort of what is used in a code enforcement capacity. So I just wanted to flag that last section of that subsection three for the council's consideration as well. And lastly, just to address the chief of staff's points with respect to the contractual requirements, you know, in my opinion, if the city is, entered into a valid contract with any particular vendor, there would be legal considerations with respect to voiding those contracts. I understand that there is the language, but I have raised specific comments with respect to potential liability for any and all contracts that the city is currently a party to that could potentially be voided. by virtue of the passage of this ordinance. Certainly that's a significant legal consideration in my opinion. So I just wanted to flag that as well in light of the chief of staff's comment. Happy to address any other questions that anyone may have, but I wanted to just follow up on those particular points. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Any further discussion from the council at this time? Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you so much, Attorney Austin, for all of your work on this ordinance and for being here tonight to provide comment. I am happy to circle back on this later. I know that we're eager to get to the public participation portion of this evening, but I also think for something for my fellow Councilors to consider, following up on the point that Commissioner Forte made that Attorney Austin just spoke to, I think you know, in service of continuing this project of making the ordinance even more explicit for the benefit of our city partners, perhaps in that same section under definitions that we have been discussing, section three, subsection A, routine office hardware, such as television, smartphones, computers, printers that are widespread public use, I would potentially entertain a motion to include include language, also including technologies that are in widespread public use and will not be used for any surveillance or surveillance related functions and are used only in service of code enforcement. For example, I'd be curious to hear my fellow Councilors thoughts on that before making the form of motion. But if we think that would be substantively helpful and further clarifying that code enforcement tools may be used for code enforcement, I would be happy to do so.
[Unidentified]: I would be happy to second such a motion. Great.
[Nicole Morell]: And Councilor Collins, just to understand the suggestions in the document from Attorney Austin, you said it was something that wasn't accepted in the last meeting. Do you intend to go through this meeting and see which we accept or not?
[Kit Collins]: It would be my opinion that it'd be more useful to continue this discussion of the ordinance thematically and in response to specific questions from Councilors and city staff and then make targeted adoptions or not drawing from. attorney Austin's comments, as we have been doing, rather than going line by line. There's a substantial back and forth in the legal markup version. Also, Councilors have had since last week to review the legal document with legal markup. So I don't personally think it would be a great use of our time to go through that line by line tonight. But that's just my opinion.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay, thank you. So turning to members of the public, I had some folks reach out in advance who'd like to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Madam President.
[Nicole Morell]: Vice President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Just if we could, are you making the motion to include the language regarding code enforcement?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'll make that motion.
[Zac Bears]: And I will second it.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, can I have that repeated?
[Zac Bears]: I think that's what I thought.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, so that would be, we are in section 5071, definitions. We are in section I, subsection three, sub-subsection A. And so that would be for, to add the language and are only used in service of code enforcement.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, Councilor Cohen, I think it should be, and will be used in service of code enforcement, just to keep the tenses in agreement.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, thank you, that's better. And will be used only in service of code enforcement. Okay, I have that motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion from the council at this time?
[Nicole Morell]: Going to, I believe, Julie Flynn with Medford People's Park. If you want to state your name and address for the record, please. Sorry, one second for the mic to come on. The mic is about to come on. It'll turn on. Okay, sure. There you go. You're good. Just name and address for the record, please.
[Julie Flynn]: My name is Julie Flynn. I live at 32 Summit Road. Good evening, everyone. I am a Medford resident, obviously, a member of Ward 8, and a member of Medford People Power. And I'm just really happy to be here this evening. Medford People Power began championing this ordinance three years ago. There's many reasons why we embraced it and are here tonight. I'm obviously in support of it. I am just gonna touch on a couple of, really one aspect of the ordinance, and then describe some of our work with the ordinance over the last three years. What I and we love about the ordinance is that it's a common sense ordinance. I feel like it really acknowledges what's happening in society, that there is this massive amount of surveillance technology that's expanding, dynamic, the capabilities are amazing on one hand, and then there is this potential use of this technology. And obviously the ordinance comes into play when a city entity wants to potentially acquire it and use it. And I think the ordinance addresses at that point in time, and it addresses it in a common sense way. It simply says that there should be public input in the process, and there should be city council approval of acquiring and using that technology. And it doesn't ban any technology. It doesn't ban surveillance. It's simply there to set up some democratic input in oversight of public transparent process. And, you know, just as a resident, I really do want to know, and would expect my city Councilors to know what's happening in the city, if and when surveillance technologies are adopted here. So that's why I think it's just just sort of common sense which we're banning nothing but we want the opportunity to have a public input in it. And obviously, you know, as Councilor Behr said, when you have that public input and Councilor Collins and others, when you have that public input, when the city council, when the city potentially wants to adopt our surveillance technology and we have that public input, and maybe that technology is adopted, there is a trust that is built that the use of that technology reflects the concerns and the input of people who live in this city. And that's why I think this ordinance is so important. I do want to share, you know, what's been happening the last three years. You know, Metro People, as I said, sort of HAB-Masyn Moyer): Started the ball running with the ordinance, but we have always thought of it as something that is a city ordinance and we right away sought out HAB-Masyn Moyer): You know, police chief Buckley and had had many conversations with him over the last three years, there has been input in this ordinance. I'm reflective of the changes that he wanted. I hear that there's department heads who have raised new concerns, and we absolutely would want the city. We would want the city council and you to listen to those concerns and to adopt an ordinance that really fits the city. And I think there has been so much tremendous work on the part of Councilor Collins for the last seven months, and I have been so impressed, actually, by all of the exchanges and the input that that has happened between you, the chief KP law, and there has just been a tremendous amount of work done. I think the product is an excellent product. And I just want to really thank you and all the city councilors for that. And I certainly want to thank you know, the chief of staff who's raised some good points and all of the city councilors and the department heads. And lastly, just as a small footnote, I do wanna say that as someone who was with Medford People Power three years ago and today, we don't view this policy as addressing any specific technology. We have always been concerned about technologies in general. And that's the only sort of footnote that I would like to add, but thank you all.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Marie Izzo]: Yes. Hi, my name is Marie Izzo. I live on Pilgrim Road in Medford. And like Julie said, I really appreciate the process. I really appreciate learning about what the chief has been up to all of these years. We have great respect for him and the force and his willingness to work with us related to specific issues that have gone on in the city. since his since he started, and I realized how difficult it has been for him. However, you know, I, I just want to spell out in my mind, you know, the seems like a simple ordinance, especially if we're willing to make You know certain accommodations and I think we've been very flexible in that just again, the public input and the willingness to be flexible for me is what government should look like. But I just want to mention that this ordinance, simply ask the city to present to the public through the city council what technologies are being used and plan on being used for public surveillance. The city presents its policy for the use of these technologies, and the city council, through a public process, reviews and approves these policies. The city then reports annually on how it is used, the technology, similar to what reporting on a grant would look like. Surely there are a lot of policies that need to be written as things change in the city, and I'm hoping for many, many changes, in fact. As we have mentioned, other cities have adopted this. Councilor Collins has reached out where we have examples and reports of cities of similar size. And it should not actually propose a tremendous workload for the city. This ordinance only applies to surveillance technologies and as we've already said, you know, amendments have been made in order to clarify those. This audience has significant public support. In addition to Medford People Power, it is supported by Mystic Valley NAACP, Human Rights Commission, Safe Medford, the Democratic City Committee, Wards 2 and 8, the Welcome Project, Our Revolution Medford, the Sanctuary Church, and the Unitarian Universalist Church, along with many others, in fact. We have speakers here this evening from these organizations who are interested in sharing their points of view, the need for this ordinance. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom now, Muneer Jermanas. Name and address record, please, and I will unmute you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you very much.
[Munir Jirmanus]: My name is Muneer Jermanas, and I live at 3 Summit Road in Medford. I'm a longtime resident of Medford. Excuse me, I'm here speaking on behalf of the Medford Human Rights Commission, where I have served for over five years, three of which as chair. As I mentioned in my letter to all members of the city council on October 14th of 2020, and again on October 12th of this year, the Human Rights Commission voted to endorse and reaffirm the principles and goals of community control of police or government surveillance. And to urge all members of the Medford City Council to support the current CCOPS ordinance that is under consideration by the council. Excuse me. I very much appreciated the discussion. and trying to finalize the language. And I'll add here that the use of surveillance technology should be made public and the community through you, our elected officials, needs to have control over any government surveillance of its residents in order to protect people's privacy. This ordinance allows the community to have this common sense review and control. It does not outlaw any surveillance or any technology. It simply requires a public input process and the approval of the city council. Before the technology is acquired or used, this ordinance will create the transparent public process that we all seek from our government officials. Thank you very much for your consideration. And I respectfully ask the city council to approve this ordinance. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. David Harris would like to speak. Name and address the record, please.
[David Harris]: Good evening. My name is David Harris. I'm a resident of 151 Sharon Street in Westmint, I've lived there for the past 28 years. I've served as the chair of the Medford Human Rights Commission for over 10 years. I recently retired as the managing director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School. And I'm the chair of the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights. I share all of this to provide context for brief comments I'm making this evening. During a career of 50 years dedicated to race and justice, I have been involved in and engaged in understanding the dynamics of racial disparities in the administration of justice, including but not limited to policing. Based on this experience and my life experience as a black man in the United States, I've come to recognize that the central problem of policing is one of legitimacy. I must emphasize that my comments have to do with the practice of policing, which I think this ordinance addresses, not to individual officers or public officials. The Houston Institute I directed organized its work around the notion of community justice, derived in part from the reality that community members can and must play a role in public policymaking and evaluation of those policies. We hear a lot about community policing these days, which I guess is a good thing. The problem is how to translate that into practice. The practice of community policing must include bringing community into the policymaking process, as well as creating mechanisms for regular input from community members about performance. Policing, indeed our entire democracy, proceeds from an implicit contract with the public A contract whose terms may and do change over time, but whose core underpinning is trust. In today's world, that trust has been damaged and many people feel at odds, if not totally under siege. It may well be that we at Medford are not in such an extreme crisis, but we cannot escape the need to revisit and renew our contract. During the last subcommittee hearing, A member, a Medford resident spoke emotionally about Chief Buckley's Martin Luther King Day speech a few years ago, in which the chief acknowledged past wrongdoing in the conduct of policemen. This was certainly an important development, and I can understand how moving it must have been in real time. Being aware of past problems, past wrongs and problems is an important step, and one which the city of Medford has taken. We must not, however, only seek to repair past wrongs. To be sure, we must do that. We must also continue to act with intentionality in the present and anticipation of the future. Although I'm persuaded by the arguments that this ordinance will not place undue burdens on those agencies it affects, any such costs may well be the price we pay for the days gone by when we cut corners on the rights of many of our neighbors, whether people of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, or women. I close with a specific concern about the use of surveillance technology itself. in law enforcement and public policy. First, the technology itself is flawed. Technology is astounding in its ability to analyze data, and we can only imagine how it will become more powerful. It does, however, reproduce many of the biases and resulting inaccuracies that racial antipathy wrought for so many years in the past. That alone is reason to exercise extreme caution. Powerful as it may be, technology, whether surveillance or otherwise, is far from perfect. As we contemplate the use of more and more technology in governing, there is an increased rather than decreased need for formal mechanisms to ensure full transparency and accountability to residents and elected officials. Creating and supporting mechanisms such as this ordinance would be a way to affirm the contract between government and the governed, which in turn could boost the legitimacy of government, including but not limited to policing in our city. There may still be some wrinkles to iron out as we've heard this evening, but the ordinance in all its details provides a reasonable and workable way forward. Adopting and implementing this ordinance is a way in which Medford can continue to lead by example.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Can I come speak?
[Nicole Morell]: Just name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_18]: My name is Clarence E. Ligon, and I live at 26 Monument Street. This ordinance is a significant approach for building the trust with the Medford community. Use of surveillance equipment should be used to protect the local authorities as well as residents. We asking that you help the citizens of Medford help you in coming to and coming up with a solution. This isn't a hide for either side to help each other. Just common sense. And I am with the mystic Valley area. NAACP, and we fully support this ordinance.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Going back to Zoom now to Ellen. I will unmute you and name and address for the record, please.
[Ellen Epstein]: My name is Ellen Epstein. I live at 15 Grove Street, and I'm here tonight representing Safe Medford. which is a nonpartisan group of Medford residents that advocates for the dignity and safety of all who live, work, worship, and do business in Medford. Therefore, we are in strong support of this ordinance. In view of the fact that the city has recognized racism as a public health crisis, it seems that adopting the CCOPS ordinance is one concrete preventative action that we can take to address that crisis. Surveillance has historically, maybe not in Medford, but nationwide, been used against communities of color, Muslim communities, immigrants, and activists. The technology is under-regulated, rapidly evolving, and built in such a way that it's difficult for municipalities to use it fairly, as has been pointed out by Councilor Collins. That's why we think it's a good idea for Medford to create our own regulations so that if these technologies are deployed in our community, they do no harm. by transparently sharing city plans for surveillance and inviting community input into those plans, the city can build trust and demonstrate that it is committed to protecting our privacy. Surely we can all agree on that goal. Therefore we expect this ordinance to receive full support from the city council and the mayor's office. Thank you for working together proactively on this issue. It's the smart thing to do.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Still on zoom, I believe, going to Reverend Wendy Miller. I will unmute you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Wendy Miller Olapade]: Thank you, Wendy Miller. 105 Brooks Street, Medford. I am the pastor of Sanctuary United Church of Christ and I'm going to try to be really brief because I just want to say thank you to the subcommittee for the amazing work that you've done. I know that it has been many years of working on this ordinance and Chief Buckley and the other members of our city staff who have taken the time tonight. I don't think I can do justice to add, you know, all of the really great reasons for why this makes sense. But I do want to speak to three sort of values based reasons why I am here tonight and I want to speak in on behalf of moving this ordinance forward. You know, and the first. This is in my world we call this cross talk jack. You know, I'm, I'm reminded that if we choose to implement any kind of tool, whether it's safety gear or the vehicles or communications tools or even the weapons that we provide to our police department, we have the responsibility to maintain those tools to continue to assess the viability of the tools, the applicability of the tools, the health of the tools. And we retire and replace them when they no longer work for us, right? Whether it's because the technology has changed or in the case of human beings, we retire because we can't run fast enough or think fast enough. And so I just want us to, I want to lift up the value of paying attention to and maintaining the tools. And I was very moved by David's recognition that perhaps the cost of maintaining something like surveillance is the cost, it's just the cost of doing business. And so if we can have the tools, then we're gonna have to come up with how to maintain them. The second point that I'd like to make is just, again, sort of aligned. We need to make sure that the impact of our choices are aligned with our intentions, including our commitment to transparency and safety. So if we say we're committed to transparency and safety, then we need to make the choices that reflect that. We can't just say we want to do it. We have to act on those values. I guess the last thing I really want to say the issues of civil liberties and civil rights notwithstanding, I'm really invested in this ordinance because of the safety net that it provides us as a community for transparency and accountability and building trust. This feels like a watershed decision for us that we, we've worked really hard to collaborate and negotiate on how this is going to work for you for the city and for the people, and to fail to move forward on this feels like a break in trust, it would feel like a break in trust. The last thing I want to say is that, you know, in the recovery world, we say that secrets make us sick. Secrets in systems, secrets in families. And I want us to be a healthy, trusting, working together community whose elected officials and servants and staff have community members that trust them and support them and believe in them and that to whom you can turn. I want the community to turn to us as well. So I want us to do this because it's the right thing to do. Thanks for your time.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public would like to speak at this time? I do believe Councilor Scarpelli has joined us and Councilor Caraviello is back. So is there any further discussion from the council at this time knowing we do have a few motions pending?
[Unidentified]: I'm good Madam President. Thank you Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins. President Morell, thank you so much. Thank you so much to every member of the public who
[Kit Collins]: There was another piece of insight from Attorney Austin that I just wanted to make sure that we officially adopted into the ordinance. This is in section 5072 on page four, titled City Council Approval Mandatory for Surveillance Technology Funding Acquisition or Use. Attorney Austin caught that there was a section I added subsection five that conflicts with subsection one. So my motion would be to amend the ordinance by striking the words, applying for a grant or from section 5072A subsection one. Can I slow down?
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, and what number is that? I'm sorry, I'm not.
[Kit Collins]: So this is section 5072A.
[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, A-1. Oh, A-1, I apologize.
[Unidentified]: To strike the words, applying for a grant or, and just by way of explanation,
[Kit Collins]: In October, the subcommittee voted to adopt language that would allow, this is subsection five in the same section, allow the city to seek but not accept funds for surveillance technology without approval from the city council. I mentioned this in my opening words, this would be to not preempt city departments from engaging in the process of potentially securing grant funding for surveillance technologies prior to having them approved. And this is just to remove language that would be in conflict with that new clause.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. So we do have a number of motions before us. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, if you could read them back one at a time.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I'm gonna read them in the order that I type, that I have them on my screen. Councilor Collins said she would, Councilor Collins moved on 50-71 definitions 13A to add the language, quote, and will be used only in service of code enforcement. And there's a second from Vice President Bears on that one. And then, Councilor Collins, I have you moving to amend 70A1 by striking the words applying for a grant for. I don't have the second on that one. 72A1.
[Unidentified]: This is the one that just came up. Do I have a second on that motion? That's what I'm saying. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And then I have a motion from Vice President Bears. I have a motion from Vice President Bears moving to exempt traffic monitoring technologies and recording and streaming devices used for the broadcast of live events. And I have a second from Councilor Tseng on that, but you may have had one earlier than that. That's the one I'm still trying to get clarification on.
[Zac Bears]: I also had, and this would be, there are additional amendments to this section that were made after this. So it would be, inclusive of the other amendments that we adopt the language of section 70-51 as written in the legal markup document submitted to us by Attorney Austin. to essentially accept the changes to section 70-51 included in the text of the document sent by Attorney Austin.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And I actually do have one more motion if I may. Let me just read this one back before we go to the next one. Vice President Bears has moved to adopt the language of 75-1 as written in the legal markup document as offered by Attorney Austin. Yes. Okay, and is there a second on that?
[Zac Bears]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman.
[Nicole Morell]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman.
[Adam Hurtubise]: PB, Harmon Zuckerman.
[Zac Bears]: in the first sentence to replace the words legally enforceable with the word mandatory. And again, I wanna thank, while I have the floor, thank all involved in this process, thank our wonderful public speakers for their fantastic input and I thank attorney Austin as well for for some detailed work that we are, we are incorporating here to address the concerns of city staff that were brought before us. And I think, again, just speaking to that we have worked really, really hard that this this everyone involved has worked really, really hard on this and are tailoring it to to the needs of our community.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Let me just read this back.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is a little bit unwieldy, but I have, I have it basically as you, as you dictated it, vice president bears moved in 57 three subsection B in the first sentence to replace the words legally enforceable with the word, with the word mandatory. And I have a second from Councilor Collins on that. Correct.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. If we could take the motions one at a time, if you could just because they're super. Yes, wordy, wordy and specific if you could read them each before we Yes, take that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. And then I, because you have, because you have members of the council slash committee participating on zoom all votes have to be roll call votes. Alright, so here is the first motion. Councilor Collins moved on 50-71 definitions, 13A to add the language quote, and will be used only in service of code enforcement. And there's a second from Vice President Bears on that motion.
[Nicole Morell]: All right. So on the motion of Councilor Collins as second Vice President Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Scarpelli, I believe, has joined us, but I can't tell if that's him because his screen is not on.
[Unidentified]: Councilor Scarpelli, are you there? Okay, you may not be here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. 5 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, 2 absent. The motion passes.
[Unidentified]: He must be following you. The cameras. Chief Buckley, you have your hand up.
[Jack Buckley]: Yes. Uh, thank you, uh, president Raul. I just took a question for clarification earlier. It was mentioned, uh, the question of excluding body worn cameras. Uh, and I don't think those, uh, was brought up and I don't think there was much discussion on it. Um, if you're at the point of emotions and excluding things, I would ask that you consider a body worn cameras and as an exclusion. Um, you know, we talked a lot about Cambridge, Somerville and Boston have been, um, AC cops ordinance. Well, Cambridge and Somerville do not have body-worn cameras. Boston does, and I'm quite certain that they are excluded under their CCOPS ordinance. This would be my most abundant piece of work if this ordinance goes into play for that. So I'm just looking for clarification. I know it was discussed when we were bringing up exemptions, but I would ask it to be considered. Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chief Buckley and thank you for raising that certainly, I would, I would be remiss to, you know, not not give that concern. It's do I know that it's been brought up in in previous subcommittee meetings and, you know, certainly, I know this is a big undertaking by the police department the city in the past year, certainly weren't discussion. You know we've we've talked a lot about how surveillance technology is no small thing we've talked a lot about our faith in the process that this ordinance lays out to use this process to arrive at. uses for surveillance policies that are consensus agreements and that everybody can feel comfortable with. I said at the beginning of this meeting that there isn't a single surveillance technology that I know the city to be considering that I would have a problem approving, should it be considered in the light of this ordinance. But like I said, I think that there's no surveillance technology that isn't kind of a big deal just by virtue of what it is for that reason. I as one Councilor, I don't feel comfortable exempting body-worn cameras whole cloth from this ordinance. I do however wanna say these body-worn cameras, my understanding is they're already acquired by the city of Medford. If this ordinance were to pass and be implemented, it certainly would not undo that. The city already owns them. Under this ordinance, my interpretation is, know, as this is a technology that is already acquired, has already been purchased, there is a structure set up for body-worn cameras to go through the same approvals process as any surveillance technology would. This is detailed in section 5074. It says within a month of the ordinance going into effect, becoming effective. Actually, that's not following the date that the ordinance is voted on. If it is to be passed, it's actually just following the effective date. At that point, there's a 30-day clock that begins, and that starts a period of about six months under which city department heads, city council can work together to come to a use policy that can be put before the council, discussed, most likely approved. So I understand your concerns. I do hear you. I know that's not exactly what you would like to hear, but I, as one Councilor, you know, I'm heartened by the fact that this lays out a process for a large window of time during which we can have that discussion for, you know, how to discuss a use policy for this specific technology like any others that works for our committee, that works for our community, that all stakeholders can feel comfortable with. and can just simply have a voice in. And I'd be curious to hear if my fellow councilors have any further thoughts on that. But I think what I'm trying to say is I think this lays out a process by which we can come to a consensus about how to make these work for our community. And as one councilor, no doubt that we could do that. Not at all. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Chief Buckley, your hand is still up. Does that address your question? Is there anything else you'd like to add?
[Jack Buckley]: It does, but I have actually a question for clarification and then a reminder. The first question is, so understanding what you said, we would not be able to implement the used body-worn cameras until this whole process is done once CCOPS is passed, and it could be six months or longer from now. Is that correct, what I heard?
[Kit Collins]: No, actually, thank you for bringing that up because that's not correct. Under this ordinance, if the use of body-worn cameras is to be before this ordinance is passed, then, this is laid out in section 5074, after the ordinance becomes effective within 30 days, the police department would begin an approvals process as laid out by that ordinance, and then, at the start after that 30 days elapses, the city would then have 180 days through which to go through that approvals process and arrive at an approvable use policy.
[Nicole Morell]: So sorry, now I'm confused. Sure. If the police department has the bodywork cameras and starts deploying them prior to... Right, they can continue to use them for that time. This would not stop it at any point?
[Kit Collins]: They do not have to stop. That approvals process can go on concurrent with using bodywork cameras.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay. So we're just asking for them within 30 days to submit something. Within 30 days... Of this being enforced.
[Kit Collins]: Within 30 days, the municipal agency must commence a city council approval process.
[Nicole Morell]: Okay.
[Kit Collins]: And I'm reading from section 15.
[Nicole Morell]: And then the approval process, there's 180 day window to approve or deny. Correct. And this entire time they can maintain using. Correct.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.
[Nicole Morell]: Chief Buckley.
[Jack Buckley]: Yes, thank you. And just a final point. I would have to really just consider that because I'm not sure that that would be practical based on policy or the reasons. So I just adding that until CCOPS is know, established and see what the impact is on my policy. But the second and very important part is he deliberate this, um, The policy, a use policy would be developed under this ordinance. I still have labor obligations to negotiate and should labor elect not to agree to certain things, we may not have the use of body-worn cameras at all if it's not exempted in this city. So I just remind you, I do have obligations to negotiate a policy with the labor unions in the police department and it could have, you know, even with the use policy presented by the city council, that has to be negotiated with the labor units. So just a reminder while you deliberate over that issue. Thank you.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Chief Buckley. Any further discussion from the council at this time? Taking our next motion we have.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is Councilor Collins' motion to amend 72A1 by striking the words, applying for a grant for, and that has a second from Councilor Tseng.
[Unidentified]: For or?
[Nicole Morell]: So on the motion of Councilor Collins, as seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Councilor Collins.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Scapelli. Councilor Scapelli is absent. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, the motion passes. We'll take the next motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears has moved to exempt traffic monitoring technologies and recording and streaming devices used for the broadcast of live events. And there was a second from Councilor Tseng on that.
[Nicole Morell]: So on the motion of Vice President Bears, as seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent. The motion passes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Next motion I have. Vice President Bears move to adopt the language of 75-1 as written in the legal markup document as offered by Attorney Austin. And I have a second from Councilor Collins.
[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears as seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Councilor Collins?
[Nicole Morell]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, the motion passes. Next motion. I have... Is this the last one? Yeah, I believe so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears, move in 57.3 subsection B in the first sentence to replace the words legally enforceable with the word mandatory. And I have a second from Councilor Collins on that.
[Nicole Morell]: on the motion of affairs. Mr. Clerk, please call it all vice president bears.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Councilor Caribbean. Yes. Council Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Scapelli is absent. Councilor Tseng yes. President Morell.
[Nicole Morell]: Yes. I mean, the affirmative zero and the negative negative two absent. Yes. And then we have Councilor Collins, you have another emotion you'd like to add.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. If no other councilors have other motions to make on this ordinance, to modify or amend it, I'm just really, really heartened by the progress on this ordinance. I'm especially heartened that we got even more input from even more city departments tonight. I would motion to report the paper out as amended.
[Nicole Morell]: I would be curious if there was comments from other city department heads of those who weren't able to attend tonight, if there was a way they could get them to us.
[Justin Tseng]: So I wanted to second the motion. I wanted to thank everyone for coming in tonight. I know we've had some speakers who've had to go home understandably, but the comments from city staff and from community members and from other Councilors, I think I think inspires me in showing me that city government can actually make substantive change and that we can push forward policies that are forward-looking, that are optimistic, that create a community of trust. I'm heartened by the amount of work that we were able to do on the site and by the ability of my fellow Councilors to bring people together and to work out different interests and to create a document that I think really best captures a community-based vision. of where our city is going and how we are working on surveillance. I was really, I think, touched by Councilor Berry's words on trust, and how this is an opportunity for our city to build trust with communities that you know, might have qualms, might have skepticism, a chance for us to tell the good story of the work that we're doing as a city, of the service that we are providing for our residents. It's a chance for us to address the wrongs of the past in terms of longer systemic issues that some of our community members have spoken about. yet is not, I think, a backwards-looking document. It is a forwards-looking ordinance. I was, you know, I think I was also touched by the remarks that this is about values and this is about making sure that we are proactive and not reactive when it comes to surveillance technologies, that we mitigate potential negative effects that might come in the far future. We have enough confidence in the moment now, but I think this is about creating guidelines that I think best mitigates problems in the future. And this is the proactive government that I think people people elected. And so I just wanted to, again, thank everyone for their comments tonight. Thank everyone for their contributions tonight. And thank everyone for giving me optimism in the functions of city government and in showing me you know what we can do as City Council. I would, so I second I second Councilor Collins's motion. I would, I would also move that we ask for final final comments from city staff. but I believe that we can report this out to the committee. And if there are final adjustments to make, I think we can make them at that next meeting.
[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And yes, so we do have the motion on the floor from Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. And yeah, I just want to know, I would be interested to see those comments from city staff and also just noting that Councilor Scarpelli couldn't be here tonight and Councilor Knight isn't here as well, but that does not, you guys have met for many months on this. There is pages and pages and pages of minutes and meetings, but of course, just because something is reported out for those watching, just because something is reported out does not mean that this is by-law approved. It's now going before the full council. Members of the council are unable to be here tonight. There's still stuff we can work through if they so desire. So I just want to make that note. So on the, do you want to make the other one in a form of motion or just, I can also ask the chief of staff, she's on the line as amended. So on the motion, by Councilor Collins to report out the paper as amended. The motion is amended by Councilor Tseng.
[Unidentified]: As seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Nicole Morell]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. It looks like we don't have Councilor Caraviello anymore. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Unidentified]: We're in the affirmative zero and the negative three absentee motion passes. Motion to adjourn.
[Nicole Morell]: Second. On the motion of Vice President Bears to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Aye.
[Nicole Morell]: Opposed? Opposed. Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone for being here.
|
total time: 10.5 minutes total words: 1231 |
total time: 32.42 minutes total words: 1989 |
total time: 9.5 minutes total words: 338 |
total time: 0.12 minutes total words: 13 |
|
total time: 13.21 minutes total words: 698 |
|||