AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Public Health And Community Safety Subcommittee 10-19-22

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Okay, so to quickly recap, we last met as a subcommittee in March to introduce this ordinance. In that discussion, we were able to put on the table a lot of comments and questions and considerations from everybody in the room. In my view, it was a really productive meeting for getting a lot of feedback, noting a lot of topics for further consideration. In the ensuing seven months, I've had the opportunity as chair to meet with Chief Buckley, to meet with Attorney Austin from KP Law, to meet with our subject expert from the ACLU to gain further clarity on all of these concerns get feedback on ways to amend this ordinance based on that feedback the draft before us tonight has many substantial modifications which Councilors and department heads have had several weeks to review before this meeting. These modifications were made towards the goal of preserving the intent of the ordinance as a mechanism for allowing meaningful input of the community and Councilors into the use of surveillance technology, while at the same time making changes that would ensure this ordinance would be manageable for city staff and department heads. So I'm really happy with the progress that we've been able to make so far. Thank everybody for their flexibility and collaboration. Before I open up the floor to my fellow Councilors, to our key stakeholders in the room, I'd like to just go over the flow of the meeting. First to make sure that we're all on the same page. I'd like to quickly run through the organist highlight some of the more major changes that have been made since the draft we looked at in March. At that point after we've just gone through those quickly I'd like to open up the floor first my fellow Councilors to make their preliminary comments and then for other stakeholders. Chief chief Buckley legal counsel, our subject expert from the ACLU, attorney Falco-Morano, and any residents who would like to speak. And then, like I said, by around 7.30, maybe 8 if need be, I'd love for us to be able to take a vote on next steps for moving this forward. So let me prepare to share my screen. Does that plan sound okay to my fellow Councilors?

[Unidentified]: Great, thank you. Bear with me as I share on my screen what Councilors are looking at. Okay, is this visible?

[Kit Collins]: Great. Seeing some nodding heads. Excellent. So I'm not going to run through everything that's changed from the version of this draft that we were looking at in March, because Councilors already had a chance to look this over. I just want to note some really substantial parts that have changed. First right at the top and section 5070 at the beginning of the ordinance. We've we start seeing some new language that was added in response to last discussion. Many of the considerations that we heard in April and follow-up meetings kind of work to the question of will this be constraining the city departments will this keep important department heads from doing what they need to do. And you know in my understanding that's not what the ordinance is intended to do it's just intend that mechanism for meaningful public input and oversight over technologies used in the community. So this new language which is underlined and highlighted in red seeks to make that clarification. Something else I want to flag in our definition section there are a couple new terms that are defined that were already used in the ordinance I want to flag that the definition of exigent circumstances. has been fleshed out to further clarify the conditions under which normal like normal regulations may be waived to further allow discretion for our chief of police.

[Unidentified]: Scrolling down.

[Kit Collins]: We're in section I to under 5071. This addition added other instances where or where the ordinance requirements are waived. such as when a person consents to surveillance or was given a reasonable opportunity to opt out of surveillance. And then lower than that, we also included many additional technologies that are exempted from regulation, including security cameras, many routine devices and softwares that are not involved. with surveillance and we did this we made this a proposed change because one of the things that we heard in our last meeting and follow-up conversations was the concern over you know this is all well and good but what doesn't doesn't count as surveillance technology. I think to answer that question really the best thing to do is to look at the definition section. But these additions were made in this section to make it even more clear all the things that this ordinance doesn't doesn't implicate and seek to seek to regulate. Scrolling down again trying to get through this quickly so we can get to our discussion. We're now in the section on 5072. Number 5 in this section. This includes a new allowance for municipal entities to apply for grant funding for surveillance technologies prior to actually getting approval. And this was a suggestion that we incorporated to give City Department just a little bit more latitude in being able to apply for grant funding and then seek the approvals process so not to be rendered ineligible should the approvals process result in approval. going down slightly we're now in the section on the surveillance impact report and the use policies. This is sort of this this gets more of the meat of the revisions on the impact report during our first meeting and subsequent conversations we heard a lot about heard a lot of concerns and follow-up questions about how much information would be expected to be in the surveillance impact report. So we've included the following language to make it more clear. that these reports don't ask for sensitive information that doesn't really align with the intent of the ordinance, but rather trying to find the pithiest section. Nothing in this section should be interpreted as requiring information that is substantially more detailed or technical than what is publicly available to further clarify that point. In the same vein, We've added section D which allows for the reduction of impact reports and use policies in the event that there's any information in there that is deemed sensitive and I want to stress that this ordinance. I don't think it should be read as asking for sensitive information. But this new language was added as a contingency for in case sensitive information is included. But it is not asked for an expected. Finally on this point I want to go down to the section on the annual surveillance report and similar disclaimer language has been added. In this large section the scope is intentions, the annual surveillance report is to provide a high level and generalized summary of policies and usages concerning surveillance technology and surveillance data dot dot dot. All this to the effect of seeking to further clarify what these reports are asking for and what they're not asking for. We can of course discuss that more detail. Last 2 things going down to subject D in the same section. Previously this section. Required to the municipal entity that seeking use of surveillance technology to host this to host one or more well publicized and conveniently located community engagement meetings once the annual surveillance report has been submitted this change shifts that responsibility to the public health and community safety subcommittee the subcommittee so as to further lighten the administrative burden. And then last thing from me for now, I also want to note that this section, the community advisory committee on surveillance has actually been excised completely. This was due to community and Councilor concerns that a volunteer community group with such a large and technical scope would be kind of an unrealistic mantle to handle. And furthermore, as I've learned in my 10 months as a Councilor, committees are also typically enacted by separate ordinances. So this has been removed. So with that having been said, I'd like to first invite my fellow councilors to give comment, share their thoughts.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to thank Chair Collins for being so thorough in your work and being so proactive in reaching out to different stakeholders with different perspectives on this issue and really integrating all of the feedback that we've heard over the last few months into this updated draft. of this ordinance. I think, and we'll have more time to talk about it later this evening, but I think such an ordinance really does respond to that need to protect civil liberties and to protect privacy of individuals in the city, which is an issue that as we buy more surveillance technology as a city, You know that's that's a need that we have to respond to that's those civil liberties are things that we need to protect as well. And, you know, this is an issue that's particularly important, I think for young folks for young folks of color like me. This is something that that community has really been advocating for in the last. last few years. This ordinance. Also, I think, as, as we can, as we can see from your presentation, I think really is about transparency and government as well. There are tons of steps in here that really lay out to our residents what we're doing with our money. What do we intend to use these technologies for? And I think such transparency also leads to more fiscal responsibility and fiscal accountability. That's something that our city council wants. I think every councilor is unified behind that goal. I think this ordinance really places, empowers the city council to have more authority over fiscal matters like that. which is something that, as we've seen in the past and as we've seen more specifically in this case with body-worn cameras, the council has traditionally been cut out and this really, I think, empowers the legislative branch of our city. I think particularly of note to me and why I think this particular draft seems to me like a great piece of work to move forward on is because I think this draft really responds to a lot of the concerns and questions that we've heard in that last meeting earlier this year. It's much more specific. A lot of the potential ambiguities of past drafts have really been, I think, fleshed out in this draft. I can tell that you've worked really closely with the chief of police and with legal counsel on this, which I really appreciate. The exceptions seem very reasonable and seem much more practicable. I can tell that you've put a lot of thought into making sure that there's no undue administrative burden, which is particularly important if we want to make an ordinance like this actionable. And so I really just wanted to lay out my thoughts when it came to this specific draft copy of the ordinance. I wanted to thank you and thank everyone who's been working on it.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you. I had the opportunity to read this. I'm glad we made some of the changes. I have just one concern I have is we keep mentioning the city council on this. Does this fall within our purview of our job as the city council? I mean, under our charter? That was really the only one of the questions I have is if we empowered to do this. under our roles as city councils. So I think that's a question maybe we could ask our legal counsel to look at. That was really my only comment.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. I'm happy to run that by legal counsel. I know we have KP Law on the call right now, but I will say this draft has gone through legal counsel, KP Law, our subject matter expert, at least twice each by now. And there's been legal considerations raised with individual parts of the ordinance. Like, do you want to do this or that? Do you want to do this or that? but at no point has the issue of city council jurisdiction.

[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, I'm just I'm just want to make sure that we're not overstepping our bounds on this by by what the chairman of our role by the city charter.

[Kit Collins]: Certainly, I know that that's the question I asked. Yeah, thank you for that.

[Richard Caraviello]: I don't have a problem with the changes that were made. Just just want to make sure that we're not, you know, overstepping where we should be overstepping.

[Kit Collins]: Certainly, and I appreciate wanting to avoid that. It's a shared concern. I know that Attorney Austin is on the call tonight. Attorney Austin, are you able to speak to the question of if this ordinance has been implemented in other communities with our similar charter, if this is something broadly that the city council can do?

[Austin]: Good evening. Thank you for having me. Thank you, Madam Chair and fellow councilors as well. I am aware that a similar ordinance has been adopted in other communities. Um, certainly the city council, in my opinion, has broad authority to review and consider ordinances, um, pursuant to its authority. Um, I have reviewed and provided significant comments, um, to Councilor Collins, um, regarding the latest draft outlining some, some legal considerations for the council's review. Um, but you know, it would be inherent to adopt legislation that would be better um, that, that would be, could be implemented in the city, in my opinion. Um, so there is the authority to do that. Councilor Caraviello. Um, and certainly any legal specific legal questions I'm happy and prepared to answer this evening as well. Okay.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. Attorney Austin. Thank you so much for your, um, very thorough and diligent approach to reviewing the ordinance before this meeting.

[Unidentified]: It's very appreciated. Great, any additional preliminary comments from councilors before we open this up to any city staff that are on the call?

[Kit Collins]: Great, I see that Chief Jack Buckley is here. I saw, I think I saw Chief of Staff Nazarian. If either of you would like to give a comment, I invite you to unmute yourselves if you've been empowered to do so or raise your hand.

[Nina Nazarian]: Good evening. Thank you, Chairwoman Collins and to the members of the subcommittee. Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I am catching up a bit on both this subject since March and also just in general, because I was on leave for quite some time, but this matter strikes me as a very large matter. Obviously the work that's being discussed here tonight is one that is rather complex in some aspects. And I understand that there's been a lot of thought that's gone into this process. for my own understanding and for my own purposes of making sure that I'm clear on what the overall goals are. And I have the ordinance in front of me. I've read it over, I've watched the meeting of 316. I'm interested to hear from the members of the subcommittee as to things around the challenges that we're trying to solve in Medford and what this ordinance solves in Medford because By and large, these technologies don't exist in Medford. And frankly, we have significant financial constraints. And from my understanding and read of this ordinance, this ordinance would have a material burden financially on the city. So these questions are rooted in that matter, trying to understand really what the issue is that we're trying to get to the heart of, considering the major financial implications that an ordinance like this would bring to the city of Medford. Thank you very much for your indulgence on that question.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Chief of Staff Nazarian for your comments. I'm curious if any of my fellow Councilors would like to make a direct response, members of the coalition that's been advocating for this. I can certainly respond, but I don't want to hug the microphone. Go ahead. I'll ask you to share a name and address for the record, please.

[Unidentified]: And we work closely with him from the beginning to

[Barry Ingber]: address Ms. Nazarian's question about the purpose of the ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that there is democratic control over surveillance technologies, that without democratic control, what you have is a police state. We want to ensure that there is transparency that the public knows what technologies are being utilized, that the city council has the authority and the power to determine whether they are a good use of expenditures or not for the city. In response to the issue of being a material financial burden on the city, I don't want to be glib, If these technologies are not being employed, there is no burden at all on the city. To the degree that they are being employed, if we can afford materially to purchase and put into use the technologies, it doesn't seem like there is really that much additional burden in reporting on the technologies that we've spent the money to acquire and to put into service. So it's very hard for me as an advocate to understand the material burden being placed on the city by this. And I've also heard arguments that, well, we don't need it because this stuff isn't being used. I've been listening to a series of webinars by Kate Crockford and And now her name escapes me, the director of the ACLU of Massachusetts on surveillance technologies. And Cade said that the two biggest arguments that she hears against this sort of control over surveillance are that it's too soon and that it's too late. So it's too soon because we don't have the technologies or it's too late because these technologies are all over the place and we can't do anything about them anymore. What we argue is that this is exactly the right time as these technologies are just beginning to come into common use and that there needs to be public oversight. And I meant to start by saying Thank you, Councilor Collins and members of the committee for taking this on and for putting all the work that you've put into it up until now and for having this hearing about it.

[Unidentified]: Thank you very much, Barry. Go ahead.

[Julie Flynn]: Hi, my name is Julie Flynn, 32 Summit Road, Medford. And I just wanna echo different comments people made. I think this is such an important ordinance. I think we as residents of Medford absolutely should know whether or not our government or any governmental entity in Medford is surveilling us. Second, I think our representatives, you as city councilors should know whether your constituents and all residents here in Medford, if any governmental entity is surveilling your constituents and residents. I think the government should know. I think we as residents should know. And I think that in terms of why we need this ordinance is so that we all know that. And that's really important, particularly where civil liberties are at stake. Now, Ms. Magarian, in terms of what problem are we trying to solve? I think part of this is all about, let's prevent some problems. Let's make sure that we are using these technologies because this is not a ban on technology. So if in fact the city council approves a certain technology, it's, having any governmental entity here be deliberate about why it's being used, how it's being used. And with that kind of deliberation ahead of time, we are gonna prevent some problems. So I think that is just really important. And as Barry and others have pointed out, this surveillance is becoming, it's gonna come, it's coming to every city, okay? And I think we should be ahead of it, ahead of the curve, rather than behind it. So again, I just think as residents, as city councils, we should be knowing, we should know what's happening in this city, and if the government is surveilling us, and we should be ahead of it and not behind it. And I really want to thank all of you for all of your deliberations, Councilor Collins and others, and KP Law and others for their input and the Chief of Police's input into it, because I think it really is at this stage where it is developed, there's been a lot of thought put into it. And I just want to say thank you, because the product so far seems great to me. Thank you.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. And I appreciate comments from folks in the audience. And I just want to put my own two cents in. I just want to echo some of what I heard. And to me, with ordinances that are meant to be, at least in my understanding, my opinion, proactive. The point is not reacting to something that the city has already done, at least not in my opinion. The idea is to take the opportunity to be proactive, take the opportunity to be progressive when we can to get a good version of an ordinance on the books, a version that protects the public, involves the community, involves the council that is, you know, as manageable by city staff as we can, which I think we've tried hard to do in this version. You know, and again, I think if we're at a point right now where, you know, as I think we've heard from some department heads in the past several months, we don't really have that much surveillance technology currently in Medford, barely any, then this is the time to implement this ordinance and allow ourselves a very gradual ramp up. And just one thing that I like to say about ordinances whenever I can, to me an ordinance is important because it transcends administrations, it transcends department heads. I'm not up at night worrying about anything that any of our municipal entities are currently doing, but an ordinance lasts, an ordinance is on the books. That's to me, that's the point. Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I think everyone's made great points so far. For me, it's, you know, just to add to the conversation why I view this as important. On your point about being proactive, I think it's much easier to lay out the ground game when it comes to a technology like this before we acquire the technologies. Then, you know, if we were to say, you know, let's say in five to 10 years, we acquire all this technology and then a controversy happens, right? our city is held accountable and liable for something. And maybe it turns out that we violated a civil liberty and now our city is being sued. And that gets us into a mess that's both difficult financially, when it comes to the function of the city, and when it comes to the politics. of a situation. This I think really allows us, by setting out the rules beforehand, I think clarifies the whole playing field going forward and I think really keeps us from tripping up and making any choices that might come to that we might come to regret in the future. I think when it comes to the, when it comes to the point about the, maybe the administrative part of it or the financial part of it, I mean, if you read through the ordinance, really, I mean, what this takes is perhaps more administrative work, but it's not necessarily like we're buying a whole new data system to work through these, work through these, these plans and these reports, right? So we're, I think, I think the worry about the financial impact is a little bit overblown. I do also, I will also say, if our city is investing money into buying technology such as this, I would be concerned if we were acquiring that technology without having a plan for accountability go forward with that, right? I mean, it's not just about surveillance technology, it's about anything that the city is spending big money on. We, as a city council, and I think as a public, should always, and people working within the administration, right? I think it's only fair to say, if we're spending big money on something, we want some report or some administrative system to show that this money was worth it, that we're spending this money responsibly, that we have a way to review whether we should make a purchase like this in the future, or maybe if we should be evaluating different options. I think that's just good government. And I think this falls squarely within that vision of government. It's something that I'm sure you know, that we already see, I mean, we've approved funds on the council before, you know, this is something that with different projects, we already see a system of accountability. When we get grants, we have to write reports, right? There's that system of accountability. I think this is exactly the same thing. And again, we're just laying out the playing field beforehand so that no one is caught blindsided or we're not walking into a trap. Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Okay, open up the floor for additional comments.

[Kit Collins]: Oh, I see you look like you're unmuted, chief, but we can't quite hear you. Can you try again?

[Jack Buckley]: Yes, thank you. best with raising my hand on Zoom meetings. So way to begin to so many comments and questions and concerns. And I sometimes think the tone of this conversation changes here and there. I mean, I heard the word police state, I heard civil liberties violated. And I mean, take that a little bit to heart. I've been chief of police here for four years and I think I've done, I think this police department has done amazing work serving this city and being accountable to the residents and to the people in the city. I don't have a lot of technology now and we don't have a police state in the city. It offends me that people would think such a thing would happen under my leadership, but that's just one sort of comment that I'll add to it. You know, and the second part about it is, you know, no matter how much we talk about the conversation, it tends to lean towards body-worn cameras. I remember I was very active and participated, didn't shy away from the conversations of 2020. And this police department, the community demanded that the police department seek body-worn cameras. And we did that. We were pushing to fulfill our obligations. And we're still working on a proper policy, working on the technology and trying to implement that within the city. I think body-worn cameras protects civil liberties. and to suggest that our use of body-worn cameras in the police department would violate civil liberties, or the concern would be that it may violate civil liberties, is again, you know, it hits home a little bit because that's not what our intent is. Our intent is to protect everyone in this community. We, I've received, you know, some, recognition earlier for partaking of being part of this process. And I just want to be clear that I'll never shy away from this conversation on this ordinance or the technology, but I've yet to offer any amendments or additions or subtractions to this language because I've overwhelmingly been concerned about the capacity of this police department to fulfill its obligations under this ordinance. I couldn't sit here before you and say that I'm on board with all of this. I am all on board with accountability and police accountability and be responsible with this community, but I don't fully understand every piece of technology. I know the direction that this is going. I will be approaching the city and asking for a consultant help on understanding this. I mean, even today, I give you one small example about where technology crops up, but just the realization and thinking through my police department is if you send me an email, You're sending me your identifying information. Just sending, Chief, how I hope you are well today. You sent me your identifying information. You do it every single day in your daily business. You're sending everybody your IP address and you're sending it across. That's something that I have to have reviewed. I have to have every one of my policies reviewed now to comply with this. I have to train my entire police department so that they understand that the day-to-day work that they're used to doing and performing may have an impact on the surveillance ordinance and what they are required to do. Training 112 police officers is a significant cost. Having consultants come in and help me and understand the full impact of this is a significant cost. I am probably going to have to hire personnel just to monitor this. you know we we've done a good job staffing this police department and the burden on the police department increases. We have more demands upon our services and you know it's more difficult to hire and we do more every single day with less and I can't sit here in good conscience as I said to you in the past that Yep. This is great. Give it to me. We'll somehow get it done when I'm not quite sure that we're capable of being able to do this without incurring a significant cost. Um, much less that it has policy implications and, you know, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the laws, you know, I'm charged with adopting policies for the police department. want to say that I'm not producing certain policies that are in line with what the community's beliefs are in protecting the communities. But it's also, in some sense, not that difficult because I'm guided by law and by practice and by legal standards and post requirements, et cetera. We're doing a lot of work in this police department. And for me to sit here and tell you that I'm all on board with this as it's written, I would just be putting myself in a position to fail. And I don't know that we have the capacity to live up to the expectations of this entire surveillance policy. It is quite in depth. I know you think it's in simple terms. I know you can break it down and say, I don't have a DNA mobile collection vans. I don't have x-ray vans. I do have email, and it falls under the same sort of arguments. And yeah, you can exit out. I do have body-worn cameras. We've purchased body-worn cameras, and we're pushing for a policy that is fair to all, but also fair to my police department, to be able to run an effective police department. And even there, I have obligations. If outside entities or the city council demands that my policy have certain things, I'm very open to listening to that, but I also have collective bargaining obligations related to that. And all of this has to be negotiated with the unions. It's changing working conditions. I just don't think that we're thinking through the impact this is going to have on the police department and our abilities to sort of live up to the expectations of this policy. And so I've never wanted to shy away from being accountable for this police department. I've never shy away to listening to anybody in their conversations, but I have to be a realist also. And I have to tell you that to sit here and sit and just say, you know, I'm all for this ordinance, a large part, I'm quite open to being accountable, but I don't know that I can be this accountable with the resources I have right now. So that's just one of my comments to start this evening off. Thank you. I appreciate it.

[Kit Collins]: Chief, thank you very much. Really appreciate your candor. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the input that you've given on the ordinance so far. It's really appreciated. I know that you have been in touch with advocates for this process for, you know, the past several years that it's been advocated for. And I really appreciate all of your time throughout that process. I also, you know, want to at least surface, you know, as, as one Councilor, you know, I want to apologize if any of this is counting as coming across as personal. That's, that's not my intent as, as one Councilor, you know, as, as I've stated, I don't think this should be seen as a referendum on, I think it's important for us to recognize that this ordinance is not intended to be unmeaningfully regulated surveillance technologies that are evolving faster than our state and federal regulations are able to control them. That's the environment's reacting to not to the work of of of anybody who's in charge of of keeping our city safe. What you do. So well. I also wanted to know just really quickly and I want to maybe invite up our subject matter expert on to speak to some of those points I do just want to, let me quickly share my screen again. If folks don't mind, there are just two things that I want to highlight. Second, the first, I do just want to note this section that I just really, really quickly glossed over before, the exemptions to the ordinance. It does specifically mention here in section 3E, devices that are used for internal entity communications that are not designed to start officially collect surveillance data such as radios and e-mail systems. I know that doesn't get to everything you're speaking to chief but I do just want to emphasize that we've tried really hard to make sure that this focuses very very now narrowly on public surveillance technologies. It's not something where if implemented it would require a report on know, everything that is used in the course of your day, certainly not email. Other thing I want to note really quickly, I was able to check out a couple published documents from another community control over public surveillance communities, including our neighbor, Somerville. This is just one of the reports that the ordinance calls for. They have one that's very similar to the one that we are looking at. So this is the Surveillance Technology Impact Report. And I only bring this up to say, this is the impact report. This is on a specific surveillance technology that they do use, poll crammers. I know that's one of the many surveillance technologies that we don't have in Medford. This is four pages long, and one of those pages is a checklist. So I know that's certainly not like the whole answer to the question of, is this manageable? But I do bring that up as an example. And maybe at the end of this discussion, one motion, if the councilor would like to entertain it, is if we were to move this draft forward for the chair and the city clerk to collaborate to make sure that there are more samples of the annual surveillance report and the use policies available for you at the next meeting so that we can really shore up on the length of reporting that's being looked for just to really double check that it's not going to be onerous with that all go to attorney Falco around. Thank you and just your name and address for the record can be your work address.

[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you chair, my name is a man of a common on the policy Council for the technology for Liberty program at the issue of Massachusetts. and I live in Boston.

[Kit Collins]: My name is Emiliano Falcón Moreno.

[MCM00000471_SPEAKER_08]: I'm policy counsel at the ACLU of Massachusetts and I live in Boston, Roxbury. So thank you for the chair. Thank you for having me here. Thank you all the Councilors and all the community members I have been working in this ordinance for the past three years. I want to address basically three things that I've heard tonight. The first one is the question of the financial burden. Actually, the financial burden when it comes to surveillance technologies come from the acquisition of the technology itself. It doesn't come from the reporting. of information about how the surveillance technology is going to be used. We have been working in the implementation of this surveillance technologies in cities like Boston and Somerville and Cambridge and the only thing that is A bigger load of work is in the beginning of implementation of the ordinance, when the police department and the city and other agencies have to get into the process of reporting these technologies. But after that is basically a reporting requirement that a person in an office can do, gathering all the information. So that's the thing about the financial burden. Then second of all, I want to echo what Councilor Collins said. These types of ordinances don't refer to a person in particular, like this is not directed against anyone. the chief of the police department mentioned that his tenure as police chief was good and this kind of like seemed something to control him. That is not the spirit of these ordinances because he may be gone tomorrow in one week, only one year, and this ordinance will still apply to the next one and the next one. So I don't think that this should be seen as that. And finally, a point also raised by the police chief about surveillance technologies. Basically, this ordinance controls how departments are going to acquire these technologies and how they're going to use them. When it comes to communications and emails, I'm not sure why those things are included in this discussion of this ordinance. First of all, because the Ordinance excludes communications for things that have to be reported. What has to be reported is basically the purpose of the use of the technology, how it is used, when it is used, the standards for keeping privacy of the data, of the surveillance data, and other things related to how the technology is used. As we know, apart from that, communications are subject to the public records law. So that's the law that rules when it comes to communications among the police department or among other city officials. So yeah, that's basically all. Thank you.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Emiliano.

[Unidentified]: Is our meeting frozen or is that just my screen?

[Kit Collins]: Okay, we're back. Councilor Tseng, thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I also wanted to say from my position, I am sorry if the chief felt like anything was directly personally directed personally at him. Definitely wasn't. I have 100% confidence in you, Chief Buckley and in the police department. I've made that very clear. I've told everyone that even people who, might still be coming around to that idea, but having worked with you, I know firsthand that we do have the best police chief. And I'm not saying that as a statement of flattery, but I do think that we have the best police chief in the area. Yeah, I mean, I think going back to Councilor Collins' point, that's the reason why we're doing it as an ordinance and not, you know, naggering, pestering the department with a bunch of resolutions is because we want this, we're really focused on a more long range view of things. I hope you're there, Chief Buckley, with us in 10 years and further beyond, but, you know, I mean, this is really directed at any other changes in administration and changes that might affect decision-making. It's really, again, proactive action and not particularly reactive to things that are done right now. I've also, and this is slightly not on topic when it comes to CCOPS in particular, but I think it's really, I've been an advocate for the police department getting more help personnel-wise to deal with changes and reforms and to deal with the increased workload that might come with the new laws and regulations, both at the state, federal, and at the municipal level. In fact, when I sent a letter in, when we were working on the city council budget priorities, believe I put more funding for your department when it comes to that in my top 10 of the list, if not top five. But I think going back to the point, going back to the ordinance itself, I understand that you have some concerns. I know Councilor Collins has worked very diligently to address many, if not most, if most, if not all of those concerns. This is a matter where I believe that we have in this version of the, in this draft of the ordinance really honed in on very specific, on a very specific definition of surveillance technology that very explicitly excludes a lot of things that would make the job particularly difficult, not only on your department, but on the city as a whole. And of course, we'll have more meetings going forward and we can talk through more, but I do think that we also have to recognize that it's our job as Councilors to balance different interests and to balance different needs. And so, as much as we need to address current resources and kind of the policies of the city government, we also need to address the needs of our constituents and the wants of our constituents, including important groups like the Human Rights Commission and different citizen groups here.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Councilor Tseng. And to folks in the audience, I apologize if there's been some gaps. We're kind of having spotty Zoom connectivity here. in the chambers. All right, we'll go to Chief Buckley and then Munir. Thank you.

[Jack Buckley]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, again to be recognized. I just want to briefly touch on the comments and responses. I mean, to believe that the City of Boston, the City of Somerville and the City of Cambridge are not expending resources to comply with the CCOPS ordinances is somewhat naive. They're very, very wealthy communities. Most of their technology is funded by URC security initiative grants, which we are not a member community of and we will not have the funds to be able to do that. easier for them to adopt that when they have such resources. They have legal on staff at the police departments. They have IT people on staff at the police departments. There are people who already fill some of these expertise roles on staff. So maybe the burden isn't as high for them, but it will be for us. That's number one. And again, I'm not one, I don't, my second point is I'm never worried about really being pointed out or singled out for different things, but I'll, lightheartedly add to you, if you read your ordinance, there's no fire chief mentioned, there's no DPW director mentioned, there's no superintendent of school directed, it's the chief of police is written here over and over again. So if I feel like I'm being singled out, it's probably because my title is all over the ordinance. So, but thank you.

[Unidentified]: Thank you, Chief Buckley. Heard and appreciated. We'll go next to Munir. Oh, I'll ask you to unmute, sorry. You should see an unmute box. Can you hear me now?

[Kit Collins]: Yes, and just name and address for the record, please.

[Munir Jirmanus]: Right. My name is Munir Germanus, and I live at 3 Summit Road in Medford. And I'm here to speak on behalf of the Medford Human Rights Commission, where I have served for over five years, three of which as chair until COVID and four new wonderful grandchildren intervened and convinced me to step down from that position. As I mentioned in my letter to all members of the city council on October 14, 2020, The Human Rights Commission voted to endorse the principles and goals of community control of police surveillance by the City Council. This motion was passed after presentations by legal counsel from the ACLU and several members, including two attorneys of Medford People Power, who also answered questions and concerns from the various commissioners. And in its meeting last week, the Human Rights Commission voted to reaffirm the 2020 vote of the commission and to urge all members of the Medford City Council to support the current CCOPS ordinance that is under consideration by the council. I will note that Chief Buckley, who is a member of the Human Rights Commission, was at the meeting two years ago during this discussion and was the only member of the commission who abstained in the final vote, I suppose as it involves a matter involving the police department. What is definitely needed now is for the community to be given a meaningful opportunity to review and participate in all decisions about surveillance technologies that are acquired and used or will be used by our police department in a similar manner to the chief's project to involve the Human Rights Commission in reviewing police policies that are being updated. The police are part of our community, although not an elected part. So the best way for the community to be involved in this process is through our elected officials, namely the city council, along with the mayor. So again, the Human Rights Commission is urging this committee and the entire city council to fully support this ordinance. and hopefully find a way to convince Chief Buckley that this will not be an incredible burden, but it just more open to transparency and allows representation by the members, residents of Medford. Thank you again, Councilor Kearns and members of the committee for this effort and for giving me the opportunity to comment.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Munir, appreciated. And before we go on to our next speaker, Jean, I just want to note, and I apologize, I should have said this at the top of the meeting, please address all comments through the chair, not as direct responses. My apologies for forgetting to say that earlier. Next, we'll go to Jean.

[Unidentified]: Name and address for the record, please. Oh, and I, again, forgot to unmute you.

[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry.

[Jean Zotter]: Okay. That's okay. Thanks, Kit. I want to thank Councilor Collins, the city councilors of the committee. Can you hear me okay? And also Chief Buckley for working with Medford People Power on this ordinance. Although I know that, and he did tell us upfront that he didn't want to make particular comments on the ordinance, but we did, present this idea to him a while ago when he had worked with us and met with us about concerns we had around surveillance. And I wanna just reiterate, this is in no way something to reflect that we feel like things are going really poorly with the police in Medford, but more to be proactive as my community members have also said. What I'd like to just share with you today are other groups that have endorsed this policy, other community groups that are supportive of having an ordinance where we have public participation in community surveillance and have input into how things are being used. So in addition to Medford People Power, which is grassroots organization affiliated with the ACLU, Safe Medford has endorsed this policy NAACP Mystic Valley has endorsed this policy. You've heard from Munir that the Human Rights Commission has endorsed this ordinance. The Democratic City Committee has endorsed this ordinance as have Ward 2 and Ward 8 of the Democratic Committee for Medford. The Welcome Project has endorsed this ordinance. Sanctuary Church has endorsed this ordinance as have some individual clergy members. So I just wanna share that there's broad community support for this type of ordinance.

[Unidentified]: And I wanna thank everyone for your time. Thank you, Jean. I'll go next to Steve.

[Kit Collins]: Name and address for the record, please.

[Steve Schnapp]: My name is Steve Schnapp. I live at 36 Hillside Ave, Medford Square. In January of 2019, I attended the Martin Luther King event at which Chief Buckley spoke. I believe it was the first or one of the first public speeches that he gave in the city. It was an absolutely remarkable speech. that brought many of the people in the audience to tears, including myself. What he did as police chief was to acknowledge what police have done in the United States for literally hundreds of years, the mistakes and policies that oppressed many people, particularly African-Americans. What he said on that day was that, what he said was he apologized. I completely believe that as an individual, he did not behave the way some police officers and police forces behave in the centuries of abuse toward people of color. And the fact that he would make this statement and set a tone for the police vis-a-vis the communities that have had difficulty with policing in Medford, in the greater Boston area and around the country, to me was quite remarkable. It was stunning.

[Unidentified]: I believe the chief believes this to his heart.

[Steve Schnapp]: It is in that context that ordinances of this nature are introduced and are necessary. It is because of the history of policing in this country that communities have found that they need regulation and oversight to how how the policing in their communities happen.

[Unidentified]: This is part of that history.

[Steve Schnapp]: So I think I'm thinking of C-COPS in that way, that this is a measure that addresses the past behavior and perhaps present behavior and potential behavior of police in this country. This is despite the fact that there are extraordinary workers in police departments who are trying to do the right thing. So this is the context in which these kinds of, for me, these kinds of ordinances and regulatory rules are brought into communities. I don't think Medford has a particularly egregious history of abuse. I think we're typical. And there have been incidents over the years that warranted close examination of how police are behaving towards various communities. So that, I just wanna say that to respond to comments I've heard about why this kind of ordinance is necessary. The second point I want to raise is a minor one. And through Councilor Collins, addressing Chief's remark that the application of an ordinance of this sort would be changing working conditions for his police officers. And that involves a cost both in time and resources. I agree, it does. I think, however, it is the use of cameras that have changed working conditions for police. And it necessitates not only learning how to use this equipment, obviously buying the equipment, et cetera, but it also needs to include measures of security to the residents of Medford that this technology is being used appropriately. So this is why this is, this is where, uh, changing working conditions have arisen. It is from our understanding of how police operate and the necessity for recording incidents. That's the, that's where the initiation of the changing working conditions come from.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Next we'll go to Chief of Staff Nazarian.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you very much. So just a couple of things on the ordinance itself. The version that was presented this evening is the red line version, but I believe that there are additional comments from KP Law. At least that's the version I have in front of me here. So I wondered if this would be an appropriate opportunity to ask Attorney Austin to provide comment on any of the areas that should be presented here this evening that are of concern from an administrative standpoint or from a legal standpoint that the city needs to be concerned with. I understand that's something that is done in other ordinance discussions. So that's something I just wanted to suggest we do as well.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chief Staff Nazarian. Attorney Austin, if you want to give, I know that the version we looked at was very thorough. This was a, I got these legal comments on Friday last week, Friday evening. had the opportunity to go over them with Attorney Austin yesterday. That's why they weren't in our council packets. But Attorney Austin, if you want to give sort of like the top line headlines from that legal review, I think that'd be great to add to the discussion. I don't want to impose on you to do the full rundown. I know it's after seven already, but would love to invite you to share some of the headlines from your legal review.

[Austin]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Yes, I did have the opportunity to review the latest draft, um, and provide some legal comments and some additional practical and administrative implications in terms of the implementation and effects of implementation of the proposed ordinance on city departments. Um, as Councilor Collins pointed out, this, um, is not directed just at the police department, but in my opinion would have broad reaching implications across. All of the city departments in terms of both analysis of technology as well as implementation and chief of staff brought up some staffing considerations, just to focus a little bit on some of my more substantive legal comments as Councilor Collins mentioned. There are some, under state and federal law, there are agreements that are already in place. And so care should be taken, in my opinion, to make sure that any ordinance that's passed doesn't interfere or otherwise restrict the city's ability to comply with applicable either contracts, agreements, memorandums of understanding. Or any other state or federal law that may be implicated not only in the police reform context, as the Council knows police reform was relatively newly passed in early 2021 and so. It's an evolving area, the post commission is putting out new regulations. So certainly we want to, we want to make sure there was no inconsistency with any post requirements, as well as any state or federal law or any current legal requirements that the city is obligated to comply with in my opinion, currently the requirements. With respect to data sharing or data retention, in my opinion, there may be security implications that are, you know, at issue. Obviously, the council, if it has oversight over any surveillance, would be subject to the requirements of the open meeting law. Um, and so there may be certain instances where public session or public hearing may not be appropriate if it would impact, um, you know, the city security, whether at an infrastructure level from a data security standpoint, um, potential cyber attacks, et cetera. Um, as well as obviously the safety of city employees. So we'd want to carefully consider whether or not under all instances, there could be an open session to discuss that. or the requirements of the open meeting law could be met for any public discussion of surveillance. In addition, there are certain requirements that may need to be considered with respect to the city's obligation under the Massachusetts public records law. There are exempt certain exceptions to public disclosure of information, including exemption N of the public records law, which limits the city's ability or allows the city to withhold certain information that may, based on the discretion of a city official, pose a security risk to the city's either cybersecurity or security plans. So that's another item I just wanted to point out. In addition, records retention requirements are already set forth under Massachusetts law. There's the Massachusetts Municipal Records Retention Schedule, That sets forth very specific records, retention requirements, um, that governs the city's retention, um, retention of all records that the city has that we would want to make sure it doesn't conflict with any provisions of the ordinance. Obviously the ordinance has to, um, match any current legal requirements under state or federal law. The other item I just wanted to point out is with respect to the contracts provisions. And I believe Councilor Collins that's in sections 50, I'm sorry, 50-81 and 50-80. In my opinion, the ordinance can interfere with any current contractual requirements of the city without posing a risk of potential breach of contract Um, or potential liability to the city. So, um, well, certainly there are. Some sections in terms of oversight of future surveillance, to the extent that the city is, is currently in a binding legal agreement or arrangement or a contract with a third party. Um, you know, the city would have to comply with the provisions of that contract. Um, in a breach of that agreement could pose a liability risk. I'm happy to answer any other questions that the council may have. Um, the Councilors may have, but I just wanted to flag those couple of large legal considerations as well for the group. Thank you for your time.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you so much, attorney Austin, your thoroughness and going over this draft ordinance is really appreciated. Um, and I know from the conversation that I was able to have with you prior to this, there were a lot of points that you made, um, that I absolutely flagged for. for follow-up. And again, apologies to my fellow Councilors that the legal comments couldn't be included in your packets this week because they arrived after close of business on Friday. You know, there's a lot there. There's a lot to follow up on. There were a couple of points that I wanted to defer to our subject expert, again, attorney Falcon Marano. Just because I believe we have existing language in the ordinance that addresses some of those concerns specifically regarding the redaction of reports should there be sensitive information involved going into executive section to review the reports should that sensitive information be included I just wanted to know if you could speak to some of the existing language knowing that it's not a comprehensive response to what was raised.

[Unidentified]: But just for the for the sake of for the sake of providing a response. Thank you, through the chair.

[MCM00000471_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, first of all, I want to mention in the section 5070, in purpose and intentions, there was an addition with which nothing in this ordinance should be interpreted as a list of four things that go in this direction that Councilor Collins was mentioning. Furthermore, there is section, section 50, sorry, 73, subsection B, about a surveillance impact report. There is an addition that states that this shall the surveillance impact report shall contain a description of the surveillance technology so as to provide the public and the city council with a general understanding of the surveillance technology's workings and the reason for which it is sought for use in the city. Nothing in this section should be interpreted as recurring information that is substantially more detailed or technical than what is publicly available. from the manufacturer of a surveillance technology. That is, on a product website unless a description of the capabilities to be used by the city are not publicly available. So this speaks to what information should have. It's basically information that is already publicly available it's just as the city, the city department or agency that wants to use this technology will have to explain how this, sorry, how this, the microphone is, and that the city department or agency that wants to use this technology will say we will have this purpose To do this, we're going to use the surveillance technology in this way, and the capabilities of the surveillance technology are going to help in such and such way. There is no intention of this ordinance is not to reveal any investigation, any security risk. It's just that the city departments will have to explain to the council how they are going to use the surveillance technology and for what. and for what purpose, and under what policies, and then the City Council will decide whether they will approve it or not. Finally, there is also in the same section, in subsection D, again, section 5073, subsection D, which reads that the surveillance technology impact report and the surveillance use policy may be redacted, A, to the extent required to comply with an order by a court of competent jurisdiction, obviously, and to exclude information that, in the reasonable discretion of the chief of police, if disclosed, would materially jeopardize an ongoing investigation or otherwise represent a significant risk to public safety and security provided. However, that information we'd like to pursue into this paragraph will be released in the surveillance report following the point at which the reason for short reaction no longer exists. So basically, when this investigation is done, or when the reason for the original withholding of this information is gone, then this should be reported to the city council. And finally, I wanna mention with respect to section 5081. that the last line of that section reads the following. Any contracts or agreements signed prior to the enactment of this ordinance that violates this section shall be terminated as soon as it's legally permissible. So if this ordinance is voted and this goes into effect, this will not affect the contracts that are already being signed. being were assigned before the ordinance. It's just that in the first opportunity, which is legally permissible to terminate them, whether it's because they need to be renewed or some other circumstance, then the city will have to reconsider these contracts in the light of this ordinance. Thank you very much.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much. Attorney Falco-Morano for adding that context. That's very helpful. I'm going to go back to you, Attorney Austin, and then knowing that we are getting pretty close to 7.30, I'm going to refigure the conversation back to my fellow Councilors.

[Austin]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Just to address Attorney Falco's last point. In the end, the version that I have at the end of Section 5080, there is other language that I just wanted to flag for the Council, which specifically says, conflicting provisions and contracts or agreements signed prior to the enactment of this ordinance shall be deemed void and legally unenforceable. to the extent permissible by law. So that was one of the specific sections that I was referencing. And while I certainly appreciate the language that's set forth in the ordinance regarding potential redactions, certainly there are also open meeting law considerations. So anytime a public body has a public session, to discuss matters that are before it, if a document is used, or there's a discussion of that, unless there's a purpose to go into executive session, and that's very fact specific, the document itself would be subject to public disclosure, not only under the public records law, but potentially under the open meeting law as well. So I just wanted to flag there's public records considerations, but also open meeting law considerations. Many portions of the draft ordinance and its current form have a lot of the discussions and public session not executive session, and so there are considerations in terms of meeting minute preparation, the documents used, so I just wanted to flag all of those. you know, there are sunshine laws that would apply, of course, to council proceedings. And so redaction may be difficult. And certainly even if it's at the discretion of the police, there was a limiting language in there as well. So just a couple of responses to that. Thank you so much.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Attorney Austin. Councilor?

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. You know, sitting here listening to everybody that's speaking, you know, I am in agreement that the city does need an ordinance moving forward. on this technology surveillance. But I sit here tonight and everyone has given their opinion and I do have a little bit of a problem forcing something on the chief that he's not comfortable with. I mean, we have a chief here who has moved this department in his short tenure He's moved mountains and what he's done, the technology and the changes he's made in this department to bring us up to current standards of how policing should be now. Attorney Austin brought up a whole litany of other concerns tonight. It isn't just Chief Buckley. It's all the other departments that have come into concern here, and we don't address them in this here. And again, all the other attorneys are making their opinion. None of the attorneys who spoke, and I'll do respect the attorney, he doesn't make policy for the city of Medford. And the attorney for people power doesn't make policy for Medford, nor does anyone else. It's this council and our department make policy. So though I value their opinion, there's a lot more work that needs to go into this as Attorney Austin said. And they're not even, some of the things you mentioned, not even addressed yet. To move this forward out of this committee tonight would be, I think, an injustice. If you want to move it to the committee of the whole for discussion, I don't have a problem doing that. And then we can address the concerns that Attorney Austin did, which we can do that then. Or if you want to keep it in this committee to address it before we bring it to a committee of the whole, the other chair, that's your call to make. But I think more work needs to go into this. And I wasn't aware of all those, concerns that Attorney Austin has brought forward tonight. So I say, if you want to bring it forward to a committee to hold and address him there, that's your choice. Or if you want to address him in this committee, that's up to you either way. But I say, but we do need something, but we need something that's done right. And again, I hate to jam something down the chief's throat that he's not comfortable with. And again, it isn't just the chief, it's all the other departments in the city who are going to be affected. So it's your decision on where you want to move this to.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. I really appreciate that. And I have to say, I'm sorry, Councilor Tseng, I know I talk a lot. I'll get to you. I appreciate that. And I really agree with you on all points. I don't think this is ready to vote on at all. I think that, you know, we've gotten this from template form to a more evolved form. And as we've all been hearing, there's a lot yet more to discuss. Personally, I think it's time to bring our other Councilors into the discussion, but I agree. I think there's a lot in what attorney Austin surfaced that we should look more into. And I just want to reiterate, You know, we asked for, you know, a legal review several, like a few weeks ago. I only got the chance to sit down with Attorney Austin yesterday to go over it, which is why, you know, it wasn't included in our packets. And I really thank Attorney Austin for her diligence and her time. That was really helpful. Of course, we need the opportunity to go over it in the detail that it deserves.

[Richard Caraviello]: So I say, I don't know if, I mean, if you want to do it in this committee, you want to address the issues that she brought forward in this committee, that's fine. If you want to, move it to the community of the whole and let the whole council weigh in. That's fine also.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. That's appreciated. And I have a motion in my head, but I'll go to councilor Singh. I do just want to note also, I totally agree. This ordinance is not about forcing things on department heads that is going to make their life hard. That's not what I ran for office to do. You know, I think that the chief has been really generous with his time with me for as long as I've been working on this. We've invited him to, you know, submit a list of technologies that he'd like to see included in that exempted section. You know, that invitation is still open. If there's more things we can add, this is still a work in progress. You know, I know that there's been a lot of collaboration that went on for the three years before I got in office and started working on this. You know, so this is, the invitation is open to have this be as collaborative as it can be. I know for me specifically, in our next meeting, which I'd like to be in committee of the whole, let's take a specific look at that capacity issue. Let's look at more sample reports from other communities that already have this and take a look at how long are these really? Are these books or are they worksheets? And I'll put a pin in there and go to Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, thank you. I was gonna say, I appreciate all the comments that have been made tonight from providing very different, I think, perspectives on this issue. I think a lot of the, it seems like a good number of the concerns from Attorney Austin may be addressed in this copy, but of course, there's a lot more work that we'll have to put into it as a council as well. I think, In my opinion, I would be most comfortable getting the feedback from other Councilors as well and doing things all at once or alongside each other. I think that's just, that'll be a more productive use of our time. And I would personally want to hear what the other Councilors have to say as well. I would make that motion. I do have one motion before that one, which relates to preparing reports for the next meeting. And so I would move, I would motion for the chair and the clerk to find and attach samples of reports for the next meeting on this issue.

[Kit Collins]: Great, would you like to take your motions together, or we'll go to Councilor Ioannoni?

[Richard Caraviello]: If Attorney Austin could send to you her list of concerns that she's... If Attorney Austin could send you her list of concerns that she mentioned in her closing statements, would be great. I say, if you want to address them before we send it to Committee of the Whole, want to have one more meeting see what her concerns are, because again, she rattled off a whole pile of them. I don't think any of us had a chance to digest. If you want to address them in this committee, it's up to you or in this way, when it goes to the committee of the whole, it's a little more complete rather than making them do our work that we should have been doing here. So it's our job to give the committee of the whole a more broad and complete document than rather have them doing the work that we're supposed to be doing here. So.

[Kit Collins]: Yeah, that's heard and appreciated, Councilor Cabriello. I do have the impression after going over those comments in a bit more detail, I do think that where we're at with some of those legal comments is more a matter of fine tuning. I know that there's a lot of issues raised that, at least in my opinion, are this is already addressed in the ordinance. How can we tweak the language to make

[Richard Caraviello]: Well, I think the concerns she made were a lot more than tweaks.

[Kit Collins]: Oh, I'm not referring to the chief's comments. I'm talking about specifically the legal comments that you just mentioned. I think those are a matter of language fine-tuning, and I'd like to get more councilors' feedback on those. So as chair, you know, I don't need to make a decision. Thank you. Did you have a motion as well, Councilor Caraviellola?

[Richard Caraviello]: No, I'll defer. It's if it's up to if it's a decision of the committee with me to all support whatever whichever decision you want to make.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you and councilors and I'll go back to you for your second motion.

[Unidentified]: Sorry that will vote on the motion first. Let's do that.

[Kit Collins]: So on the motion by Councilor Tseng for the committee chair and the clerk to find and attach examples of reports for the next meeting. Reports on this issue from other communities.

[Unidentified]: When you're ready.

[Kit Collins]: Oh, yeah. Right. Sorry. I'm still doing this. All in favor.

[Justin Tseng]: Aye.

[Kit Collins]: All opposed. Motion passes. On to your next motion, Councilor Tseng? President Bears?.

[Justin Tseng]: My next motion was just to refer to the Committee of the Whole.

[Kit Collins]: Do we have a second for that motion?

[Richard Caraviello]: I second.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Tseng to refer to the Committee of the Whole.

[Richard Caraviello]: Madam Chair, if I could amend that along with the suggestions of Jenny Austin that she gave at the end of her concerns. So this way they'll know, we can all discuss what the concerns are.

[Kit Collins]: Yes, I'll make sure to circulate those immediately and then before the Committee of the Whole as well, whenever that is scheduled. So on the motion to refer to Committee of the Whole along with that list of suggestions by Attorney Austin, all in favor? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you all. Any additional thoughts for the record, comments, observations from Councilors?

[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to adjourn. Second.

[Kit Collins]: Motion to adjourn by Councilor Caraviello. All in favor?

[Richard Caraviello]: Aye.

[Kit Collins]: All opposed? Thank you all very much for coming. Thank you. Special thanks to Chief Buckley, Chief of Staff Rosario, Attorney Austin, Attorney Emiliano.