[Emily Lazzaro]: Health and Community Safety meeting, April 9th 2024. Clerk, can you please call the roll?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Kelly?
[Emily Lazzaro]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Collins?
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lemit? Councilor Tseng? Present.
[Emily Lazzaro]: That is one, two, three, four, four present, one absent. This committee is called to order. We have one item on the agenda today, 24-074, Annual Surveillance Report Presentation. I have to mute my, sorry about that. So, Councilor Collins has brought this to our attention, and I would love for Councilor Collins to speak on this item.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I appreciate that. Thank you to everybody who's joining us today. I want to thank the Medford Police Chief, Chief Buckley, for submitting our very first annual surveillance report under the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance. It is exciting to bring this to the committee for the first time. And I just wanted to quickly recap the topic of tonight's meeting. Because as many folks in this space already know, this is the first time that we are having a committee meeting that is brought forth because of the new process of the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance. That is an ordinance that we passed last year around this time. in 2023. It was brought forward by community members in Medford by accountability, transparency, civil liberties advocates. We workshopped it together with the administration and the collaboration of the Medford Police Department over about a year and a half last term before it was passed. I think what is a really special opportunity about this ordinance is that this creates a mechanism for accountability around the use of surveillance technologies by any city department. In this case, in most cases, it's going to be the Medford Police Department. It's a mechanism for bringing greater transparency between the community and those agents and offices that are charged with keeping us safe and more transparency around how they do that and with what tools they do that. And it's a mechanism for talking about safety, the tools that we use to keep Medford residents safe and also our safety in the face of surveillance tools that we do know to be complicated. and problematic that have been demonstrated to be, you know, not without their risks and not without their complexities. So given all that, it is, I think, really positive to be in a place where we've passed this ordinance. We're at the beginning of the process where we are going through the process of bringing these technologies, the policies that we have for them, reporting around them to light in these public forums so that we can converse in the public sphere about them so we can have those conversations about risks and benefits and why we're using what we're doing and how we're using these tools to really maximize benefit for the community so that they're net positives. And so that this can be a trust building exercise. So I appreciate the administration and especially Chief Buckley for partnering on this. Before I pass the mic, I just want to orient us in what specifically this meeting is about. I will note that for folks who weren't there at the passage or who are new to this process, the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance covers a lot. One of the many nuances in the ordinance is that we made several exceptions for the body-worn camera program because those were purchased and the rollout for those was already planned before this ordinance got underway. For your average surveillance technology, there are more things in the CCOPS ordinance that those technologies would be subject to. In the case of the body-worn cameras, the process is truncated. The annual surveillance report is the only report that the Medford Police Department has to submit to the city council about that technology. So where we are in terms of what the ordinance requires us to do, The meeting that we're having tonight is about the annual surveillance report for folks following along that section 5077 of the ordinance. And that says, I'll just I'll just be super brief here, a municipal entity that obtains approval for the use of surveillance technology must submit to the city council and make available on its website and in hard copy form. and annual surveillance report for each specific surveillance technology used by the municipality within 12 months of City Council approval. In this case, body-worn cameras were exempt from City Council approval, and annually thereafter on or before March 15. So I suspect that Chief Buckley is going to run through specifically all of the parts that the annual surveillance report on body-worn cameras is speaking to. But this is our chance to take kind of a bird's eye view at the past year of usage for surveillance technology and say, you know, let's ask the questions. How was it used? Has it been effective at its identified purpose? And some other, you know, just several other questions about the usage and about the community reaction to that technology in the preceding 12 month period. I'm sure Chief Buckley will speak more to this, but we're starting things off with a short report because the pilot program for body-worn cameras went into effect in December of 2023. and this annual surveillance report covers 2023. So I look forward to reviewing with my fellow councillors this annual surveillance report that covers three weeks of usage of body-worn cameras in Medford. I will pause there. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Do we have any comments from other councillors? Okay, thank you. Chief Buckley, would you like to speak? Thank you so much for being here. I understand you had a traffic commission meeting.
[Jack Buckley]: Oh, no worries. Much calmer than the traffic commission. So thank you for having me here. I'm glad to have submitted the report, albeit probably like a week or two late, and that's my fault. I misread one of the communications. But to repeat what Councilor Collins has already said, that we started our body-worn camera program officially in December of 2023. So we roughly have one month of using it. And even then it was a trial period. It was about 40 officers who were wearing the body-worn cameras and going through a process of trying to get used to it and trying to fix the flaws so we could train the officers. Prior to that December period, though, we spent more than that year, but training the officers in depth on the use of body-worn cameras and the policy that relates to the body-worn cameras. And even prior to that, we spent many, many months writing a policy. And I'll note, I do have a copy of the policy here, but I believe I've sent it to everyone here and it is on our website. So if anyone in the public wants to see the policy on body-worn cameras, it is available publicly on the website. And so the in the little, the small timeframe that we've had in December, I have to say that it's gone like much better than I expected as far as, you know, this is a big change for us as police officers and it has been hugely, I think, successful in where we go with it. And it's a process that, I mean, I have two full-time officers. I have Lieutenant Pat Duffy and Officer Frank Casarino. They're with me tonight in case there's questions that I probably can't answer that may go to, they are full-time assigned to the body-worn camera unit. They handle almost every request that is covered by this surveillance report. And so on a daily basis, they're reviewing this process so that the technology reports, excuse me, the surveillance report can be kind of compiled at an easier pace year after year after year. So having said that, we have in December started the process and the 40 or so offices that use the body one cameras, put them into play and we received no complaints. I don't think we've received a complaint yet. I mean, I'm stretching out at the 2024 but we have had no complaints yet from the public and the use of our body one cameras up to today. Um, so there's nine questions that are being asked. to compile this report, and I believe everyone has it. I believe it's been posted as part of the public record here for tonight. But you can see the camera is on me right now. This is just a small piece of technology. Every police officer will wear it, including myself, when I'm out in public. And it's just, it's a piece of equipment that captures audio and video footage. And we use it to sort of document police interactions with the public. And almost all of our officer relationships with the public will be documented on a body-worn camera. And it's done through policy and, you know, but the normal, hello, how are you? Hey, can you tell me where the nearest you know, public parks or something probably will never get documented, right? There's some discretion that comes to there. And so I think in 2024, everyone has a general idea of how well the technology works. There's enough video out there that people have seen that. There's the question of whether or not the technology has been effective in achieving its identified purpose. In one month, we were very satisfied, right? I mean, it was, but it was all new. So it's, this still learned, you know, a lot more to learn on this program, but thus far, again, extending my comments into 2024, it is very effective. We have, you know, it's not numbered as of now, but we've seen a reduction in complaints, but we see quicker resolution for any complaint, not complaints related to body-worn cameras per se, but maybe complaints related to officer behavior or conduct or something along those lines. So it's very helpful when it comes to those. and of those sort of incidents. The question is asked about collected surveillance data. Are we sharing with external persons or entities? The majority of the people or the persons that we will share this body one camera with has been the district attorney's office. In 2023, there was only two instances with body one camera. The Middlesex District Attorney's Office has taken the tact that they're going to take all body-worn cameras for every sort of police criminal charge. And so it's a lot of work. And these two gentlemen behind me do that work on a daily basis. And we'll submit it to the District Attorney's Office unredacted. And so we will continue throughout 2024 and future years be providing that to the District Attorney's Office. It could go to the U.S. Attorney's Office, depending where criminal matter will be. But in accordance with The trial courts, both federal and state, were obligated and is mandated to provide this as discoverable materials. So that is why we'll have to push those forwards. We did have one public records request in 2023. It was an individual who wanted the body-worn cameras related to a specific call, but that call was related to domestic violence, and by law, we are precluded from sharing that with anyone. so we do not disseminate that, and we have advised that individual thus far. Of course, we've seen an increase coming into 2024 as a preview, as we use these more and more, we'll get more and more requests for it, and we have released them. There's very few issues that would prevent us from releasing a body-worn camera. Ongoing criminal investigations would be one of them, but I will tell you this, the biggest Again, foreshadowing what is going to be said at the end of 2024 is that one of the bigger problems we have is we have to edit and redact every piece of body-worn camera. I'll tell you, an average police call may take 20 minutes. And if I have three police officers there, that's 60 minutes of video that has to be watched, redacted before it's released to public record. It's any delay in releasing things publicly will probably mostly be tied to that. And if it's a major incident, you're going to have many hours of voting on camera video. I've stated already the answer to number five, complaints and concerns that were received about the surveillance technology. There have been none. The results of any internal audits, we have, again, this is where I go into explaining the trial period. It was 40-something officers. Interestingly enough, I had more officers wanting to get involved in the trial period because the technology was out there. When the program was new, we were auditing almost on a daily basis, right? But we do have a general order related to auditing compliance and offices. This is the body one camera unit will have a lieutenant charged with that. He will do the auditing of these cameras as we move forward in the years. And of course, anything that goes out public records wise or released to the district attorney's office is another time we will be reviewing at odds. But in general, like no police officer should be watching anyone else's video unless there's a reason and purpose for it. And I know that sometimes is asked that question. So we'll get it to seven, whether the civil rights or liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the cities are disproportionately impacted by the deployment. And so at this time, we do not believe it. And I've said it earlier when we had the surveillance ordinance reviews, I think that this will help us. But as of now, we have no compliance. We've seen no change in behaviors or attitudes related to body-worn cameras. I can tell you it's sort of business as usual. And so we don't feel that the body-worn cameras are doing anything but helping the city and helping the police. Total costs related to the surveillance technologies. I mean, they're sitting right there. I have to pay the salaries of two police officers, two full-time police officers. That's the majority of our costs right now. And that's outside of we've already paid for the body-worn camera technology in and of itself. But there was a significant cost of, say, $28,000 in 2023, but that was related to training every single police officer on the use of body-worn cameras. Going forward, there'll be some training for newer offices, there'll be sort of remedial trainings maybe that will come up and then some sort of updated trainings, but probably we'll never come to the total of that cost again going forward. And lastly, a decloser, any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the data, surveillance data it provides, I assume that is I should assume that it's generally related to the bodywork cameras or the technology, but either way, we have not done anything with any organization on any surveillance data, including this. We don't share it with anyone outside of what I've disclosed in it. So that covers the report. And, you know, I'm open to answer any questions as it relates to that. And so I turn it back to the chair.
[Emily Lazzaro]: If I, as a new councilor, coming into this, not having the history of when this was established. I have just a couple of follow-up questions that may have been covered in prior meetings discussing this, but forgive me. Sure. When are the cameras turned on and when are they turned off?
[Jack Buckley]: Okay, so on and off, and not to get too technical, my camera's on right now. Right? It's not recording anything. So on and off is when the police officer leaves the police station and goes out on patrol or is out into the public. And it's turned off when he enters the building or he exits his shift. That's technically like sort of like powering it on in a better way, but it's activated. There's a large button right here. It will be activated at the time an officer is either dispatched to the call or something of immediacy happens, and then we'll activate that computer, or an exigency, it happens as soon as they can feasibly activate their camera. So almost all interactions are being recorded now.
[Emily Lazzaro]: So the reason I'm asking is because I am familiar with a lot of folks that will make calls to the police because of suspicious activity. If somebody is called because of suspicious activity, And then, so they're dispatched to a place and they're called upon to deal with somebody who may be outside somebody's house. maybe doing nothing wrong or maybe just existing. Would the camera be turned on? Would that person be recorded? Would that data be kept? Could you kind of walk me through what that would look like?
[Jack Buckley]: It's simple. Yes, that's recorded. What the data is, that would be. So it really would depend on how the outcome of the call came, but it would be collected for, what's that? That's probably one year, right? Retention on that. Depends on the outcome of the call, you know, if an arrest that gets extended father but if it's just an interaction with the public that would be kind of retained for a period of time and the retention schedule for all our instances in the back of that policy, but innocent like that will be recorded, and we've had that happen a lot. I probably want to keep it so when you talk about just say hey suspicious person is someone in my neighborhood, you know, we have, we've advanced our policing over the years to kind of be aware of what is what is happening and how people think and behave and how they want to use policing, but we definitely would record those incidents.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay. So you do have, you have a schedule for the amount of time that you will keep. recordings of that nature if it doesn't result in an arrest or say it results in an arrest but not a charge.
[Jack Buckley]: Well, arrest would, well, I mean, I guess it's possible, an arrest would be a charge, but it's automatic with an arrest. If it involves just a minor thing, but it may involve, maybe it evolves into a complaint against the officer, we would then extend the- I see, okay. Yeah, so we would keep that for anything. Anything that sort of arises after the call for, say, a basic call for service that we would wanna pay attention to, there's a means for retaining it, and that's why these officers are reviewing that. So if I get a public records request or a complaint regarding, let's say, officer behavior, or even sometimes accommodation on the officer's behavior, we might want to retain that. But if it results in a crime, like we cannot, you don't just have to arrest somebody, you could file criminal charge later, we would then retain that for a longer period of time.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay. I guess the reason I'm asking is because I'm curious if the goal of the program is to assist with evidence gathering or to assist with officer compliance more, which would you, or is it both?
[Jack Buckley]: It's probably, I mean, I say it's both, but there's, you know, there's a lot of things, right? You know, evidence is related to not just It's statements, it's physical evidence that you might see. We had one instance where a police officer interacted and the individual had a gun and he didn't even know it. The police officer was a newer officer. Things like that we can find and use as evidentiary purposes later on in the court. But there's statements that are made and then recorded while we're talking to individuals. But it also allows us to some extent to be doing some review of training and officers' behavior and You know, even if it could be a simple search thing. So there's multiple reasons why the retention of these cameras or the recordings is important. But if we don't hear anything for, you know, six months, three months, six months, a year, we're in a minor incident, we're getting rid of them, we need space. So. Thank you.
[Anna Callahan]: Councilor Callahan. Thanks. Thank you so much for being here. Great to, you know, be informed of this totally new process and new technology and everything. I just had a couple of questions. So you did talk about, you used the word audit, and I wondered, after the, you know, opening sort of process where you're training people and you're you know, learning how the Medford Police Department will be using these body-worn cameras. Is there any sort of continuation of any sort of audit of the footage? Is that something that you would ever, like, what is in terms of the policy that, going forward, is there any review of footage that would happen without a sort of complaint or an arrest or a need for that footage by a specific cause?
[Jack Buckley]: And so we have a compliance audit. Each officer is going to have three incidences audited, and it's somewhat random. I should probably ask the lieutenant to come up here and kind of talk to this, but we have a general incident, an arrest, and a motor vehicle stop would be the three instances. And we'll pick them randomly from the police officers, and we'll go through them randomly. We want to make sure they're complying with the policy. We want to make sure they're not shutting the camera off at the wrong and appropriate times. And we want to make sure that the policy is being adhered to. We have 100 something offices and that takes a long time. Now, what helps us get through that is if the district attorney says, hey, I want to see Chief Buckley's 41 camera on this incident, well, they're going to audit it then. It's going to count as an audit. And that gets us through the year because they're taking almost every video that we have if it comes to a criminal challenge type stuff. So that gets us to the thing, but it is an annual audit of three different incidences of police officers' use of the body-worn camera throughout the year. And that will continue for as long as we have cameras.
[Anna Callahan]: And my second question is, you mentioned redacting. So I'm curious if the footage needs to be provided for some reason. Can you just give us a sense of what the redacting process is like?
[Jack Buckley]: No, I have no idea.
[Frank Cassarino]: How you doing, Patrick Duffy? We just started the redaction, but it's pretty time consuming, but it is pretty easy to understand and figure out what we need to redact and what we don't have to. We're always going to err on the side of caution and lean on someone's privacy. So if we get a request for, say, someone had an interaction with us, and I'm giving an example that we actually had out in front of 121 Riverside, that person wanted the video of their interaction. We blurred out everybody's face and everybody that walked by in the background. If there were any juveniles that we saw, their faces were blurred out. If anyone was speaking in the background that could be identified, such as using a name, hey, Sally, Matt, we muted that. We then went into that president's apartment and we went into an elevator and there were three or four people in there. We told everybody that they were being recorded. When we did the redaction, we blurred everybody's face out. So there's no privacy issues. The person that requested the video, obviously he can be shown on the video because he's getting the video. So we're always going to take into consideration everybody's privacy that's not involved in the call. And we'll take as long as it takes to redact the video to make sure that happens.
[Anna Callahan]: Great. And that's the totality of the reductions.
[Frank Cassarino]: Yeah, you mute, you blur, license plates, anything identifying, someone's house number, street number, a car in the driveway. We look at everything. We've seen videos from other departments and seen what they do. And Officer Kasserian and I make sure that we double check it before we send it out. So far, we've just got requests from mostly people involved, and there hasn't been a ton of redaction, but the few that we have had, I'd say they've been pretty spot on keeping everybody's identities private and out of that video.
[Jack Buckley]: You're welcome. And if I can just add one other aspect to that is I've learned to say never, not say never, but it would be highly unlikely that anything a police officer said or a police officer's identity would be redacted. We're gonna be on that, to the extent that another officer's in the camp would. So that stuff would not be redacted.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you for the report. Thank you for your time. Thank you to our fellow officers for their time too. I think your summary of the report was really, I think, very succinct and helpful, and it's really helpful to review what the policy is and has been, especially as you guys have just developed the policy. I just had two very specific questions about things in the report, and then I'll hand it back to the chair. In the sixth kind of blurb of this report, you mentioned that they're minor violations, not criminal in nature. I trust that characterization and I trust what's being said. I know we maybe don't want to go too much into detail, but I was wondering what kinds of things are we referring to there?
[Jack Buckley]: Yeah, the most common one is, I forgot the term, but body-worn camera. Okay. So, you know, there's also times where officers will go in and deal a report. put their camera onto the to download anything that's on there and then they get a call and immediately rush out and they're like oh I forgot it's all new to them right and so it's like a lot of habit is being put that is the majority of what we're seeing and you know in this city it's very rare that a police officer is going to be alone or one call so if somebody did forget to turn it on they eventually do but the other officers captured the video And we're just trying to get the officers to a point, and it's actually coming along really quickly, which is for some matter, right? We do a lot of things with our radio. After 25 years, I'm always doing certain things, and that's gonna be one that we pick up on. Those are the issues that are minor in detail that we're just trying to get people to comply with. That being said, I mean, I do have a general order out there that says, listen, I get it that you forgot to turn your camera on, but you forgot to turn it on the next day, and the next day. At that point, we're getting beyond my right, you've got to start learning something. So we have, but that's the lieutenant's job. And that's how we in these deal with it, and we're becoming effective. When there are discrepancies on the video, like if I was approaching and said, say, hey, I would like you to not record me, you know, and they're in a private place, the officer would just say, based on the request, I'm going to shut off the body-worn camera. Now, they have to do a report, a little quick compliance report that happened so that the lieutenants know. Sometimes they forget to do those things because it gets busy at the end of the shift. And so it's a lot of training, a lot of habit to get built into it. So that's the extent of what we're looking at as minor infractions.
[Justin Tseng]: I see. Yes. Thank you so much. I think that satisfies a lot more and that's very helpful to know. And I think the second question, again another quick question, is about question seven. Just that I also trust that nothing has come to light about this. I was curious what types of things you would be looking for in terms of answering this question. So what would be the types of infringements? the disproportional impacts that you would be looking for in answering this question?
[Jack Buckley]: So it's an interesting, I've asked myself that I try to answer that question, right? Because it's how do you know and how do you study this, right? And I guess part of it is that we're not going to see every body-worn camera video that we have. The first and most obvious is we're getting complaints about the use of our body-worn cameras. And we haven't, right, to this point, and that's a good thing. But when we do have them, we'll be kind of keying in on, like, what is being used and how are we going to use it. But if everyone is recording every incident and they're doing it properly, they're only going to record what calls of service we're going to. Now, there is proactive police operations, right, so where I sort of self-deploy, I want to do parking enforcement. Parking enforcement on an empty car isn't going to necessitate up to a particle camera. But if I do traffic stops, that will attest. And we can be able to tell and say, listen, OK, no. Massachusetts is really unique when it comes to traffic enforcement. We're not allowed to ask anyone their race. But we have to make guesses. That fascinates me to this day, that we're just supposed to guess as to what someone's race is. And that's why when we give statistics, you're always looking and you say, I'm like, oh, it comes down. But this would be able to kind of record those instances, what the police officer may have seen, what time of day, and put those things in. So it could be helpful when it comes down to those sorts of incidences. But it is an open question. I mean, I didn't, the metric of asking whether or not the civil rights and liberties of communities or groups are marginalized, are being impacted by the deployment of technology, I didn't write that question. I probably would have phrased it a different way. So I mean, I understand what they're asking, and it's actually a great reminder for us to always be aware of what we're doing. I just don't think it's a measurable item, you know, thing, so we'll do the best we can as it comes to that. So I just, it's, even answering that, I'm like, how do we, how do we absolute measure?
[Justin Tseng]: Right, I was reading that question and I was also that was in my mind that, how do you measure this I mean, I think we all know what it's pointing out but you know it's a big, it's a broad question, and maybe the broad, the breadth is good, but, um, yeah I mean it serves as constant reminder for us right to keep this this those things in.
[Jack Buckley]: in our conscious thoughts as we move forward as a police department, but it is anyway. I can tell you that we constantly think about those sort of things. But I answered it to the best that I could, but I don't know that it's technically answerable. Like I don't have a scientific calculation to kind of figure out that question. So you'll hear that answer from me every year going forward, because it is just tough to kind of gauge. But we would be able to see it through complaints.
[Justin Tseng]: I appreciate your answers and appreciate your time and the fact that they haven't been complete yet.
[Jack Buckley]: So far, so good. So far, so good. Really happy. We've gotten a lot of positive feedback in the community about them on that. And I'm not saying I'm surprised at that. Most jurisdictions that do this, but people are very They're like, Hey, we let them know what's on recording on my 41 camera. They're like, okay, great. You know, like, I think they're kind of happy that, you know, just moving forward has been no real negative at all when it comes to that. So can't, can't be happy with that. Right. And. Um, I know that I don't know if there are any questions here, but I assume you can probably open up the public comment. But before I do, I really, really want to take the opportunity to say to do it. I have to thank Lieutenant and Officer Casarino here for the work that they put into this. Um, This is not easy stuff and they do this on a daily basis and this is it. This is a full-time assignment from putting together the audits and review and they keep me posted on equipment and what's happening and who's in compliance and where they're not and what things we have to look out for. They're doing a bang-up job but I go all the way back to even writing this policy. This is not an easy policy to write. There was a lot of input throughout the 2021-22-23 about body-worn camera policies. I can tell you now that they did a lot of work on this, but mostly I have Cambridge, Arlington, Belmont, They all are interested in this policy. Now, every community will modify slightly, but this is a policy that also our labor unions signed off on, right? So police labor has signed off on this policy. The district attorney's office has reviewed and signed off on the policy. It's extensive, right? And it's hard to write a policy that's so extensive, but people are happy with that policy thus far as we see it. So I just want to take the time publicly to give them the credit for a lot of the work that they did us in the work that they do on a daily basis in this unit, because it's not easy. Thankfully, I don't have to do it all day long. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Councilor Collins has her hand raised on Zoom, so let's go to our, excuse me, Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. That's fine. I answered both. Want to again, thank you, Chief Buckley and officers for being here. And I know this is, I know a lot of care and hard work has gone into this, and that's really evident. So thank you again for that. And I think it's very relevant, you know, the reminder that how much work has gone into adopting these and bringing these onto the force. And to me, that brings us back to kind of the theme of this public process to begin with. We know that there's a lot of escalating pressures to use body-worn cameras. Specifically, you noted that so far the only occasions that you've had to share footage apart from that one public records request that, of course, had to be denied per law has been to the district attorney's office. And I know that state level district attorneys are expecting, requesting this type of evidence more and more. And that's an external pressure upon our police department, as with many others. And I think a positive outcome of this process, which I'm really glad that we're going through together, is that knowing that pressure to adopt new technologies, including things like body-worn cameras, that pressure on police departments and other city departments, both from within industry, from within modern policing, and from kind of the more technology developmental sphere, we need to do our best to keep pace with that pressure to adopt and scale up and use new technologies and bring them up to speed and up to the force quickly with creating processes to let the community know what are these, why are they being used, how are they affecting your work, how are they affecting the community. and try to keep pace with the rapid pace of adopting them into your work. So just another way of phrasing that. I think it's really positive to be beginning this process in a way it feels appropriate to me that the first annual surveillance report is on this super short window of time, kind of bite size. It's a good chance for us to get a sense of what this process will look like. going forward and have an initial small benchmark for this reporting and the type of questions that we know the community really does want answers to because of the appetite in the community for this type of process. I won't take too long. I know that there's folks who are eager to speak and ask questions, but I really appreciate my fellow Councilors' questions about the annual surveillance report and the body-worn camera policy. So far, you know, it strikes me that, you know, this specific committee meeting, as outlined in the ordinance, is for going over the annual surveillance report, which touches on the actual technology policy, but it also gives us the opportunity to ask questions about the execution. And of course, the policy and execution are intimately related, but kind of separate. I think one of the big transparency benefits that we have is getting this chance to ask in public, just these kind of specific, sometimes abstract questions about the policy and why it is the way it is. And also as Councilors, it is our role to kind of ask those questions about the policy itself, like the regulation, the policy level. And I appreciate the opportunity to do both, just to ask the questions about why is the policy the way that it is and, you know, get clarification on how it's being carried out so far. So on that point, I just wanted to follow up on Councilor Callaghan's line of questions on the redaction policy. And it's, you know, honestly, this is gratifying for me to hear as a Councilor. It sounds like, you know, by all accounts, Officer Duffy is setting a really good precedent here. If you don't mind reminding me, is this redaction policy, is this a policy that's laid out in the body-worn-camera use policy? Or is this kind of more of a norm that's being established in real time? Like put a different way, like in the hypothetical that Officer Duffy gets promoted into a different role, there's somebody else doing the redactions. Is there a leeway for this kind of norm to change into a policy that's less rigorous, or is this written into, like, this is always how camera footage is going to be redacted this rigorously?
[Jack Buckley]: Does that make sense? Yeah, no, it makes sense. It's a good question. We don't have a redaction policy per se, we do have a redaction practice. And the reason I can say in general that we haven't really fully developed a redaction process is we haven't done. So we were learning, we're getting body-worn cameras, we're looking to see in our heads, we know what we expect, but now it's real life and we're learning what we want to redact and how well we're going to redact. I can't tell you that ultimately it will be put into probably policy, but it might be just put it through general orders about how things will be redacted and what will be like, but we're learning right now what we have to redact, where to redact, and they're still undergoing training. They've done a great extent of the training. So it's not done yet, but it will be, but we just didn't know what to expect. And so we'll get there. hopefully soon, but I think they're doing the right thing. We are redacting everything that is except for what is being requested to the extent that we can.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chief. Yes, it does. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think it's a great answer to the question. I'm happy to hear that there's plans to turn this into policy once there's more data gathered around what's working and what that policy should be after you've gone through a little bit more time of doing the redactions. And before I pass it off again, just one more question. I think Councilor Lazzaro touched on one of the questions in the surveillance report, the expense of using this technology. Heard you loud and clear that the expense is essentially salaries and training. I was curious. Is there a less than annual licensing cost to continuing to have these cameras on the force? I know that the cameras themselves might be more capital expense than an operating one. Are there renewal costs to keeping these on, even if that cost doesn't occur with every budget cycle?
[Jack Buckley]: There will be ultimately, you know, part of the package that we purchased originally. One of the things that calls for is an upgrade in the equipment right so for for period of these these cameras are supposed to go, you know, be in. use for, say, three years, and then after that third year, you're going to get a camera replaced, just a modern technology, the newest versions. And we're actually, believe it or not, starting that process sooner because it took so long since we originally purchased the cameras. but that's at no cost. That's part of the original package that we got. So it's just included that after a certain period of time, you get an upgrade. There may be things that we have to purchase, like these things come in all sorts of like clips to hold them to uniforms, very minimal cost, but we occasionally find that we need to have more of these. And so we've purchased some of them, but during the whole process over the last sort of estimates of the other, that at least right now we feel we have enough. I mean I do think that you know depending on breakage or number of offices we have we're probably going to want to purchase some more in the future to kind of keep just but these are going to be small numbers of the same technology it won't be newer during the course. At the end of five years the the lifespan of this camera the city is gonna have to negotiate with a vendor to bring body-worn cameras, either change vendors or get a new deal for new technology. But all the storage is already included in this, and it's up in the cloud, and it's based on our server. So all of that is currently included with the exception of some of those small incidentals. But in the, I forget when we actually signed this contract, but by 2025, by 2026, I think, we'll be going through this whole process with a new vendor.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you appreciate that. All right.
[Jack Buckley]: So that's the next expected cost for that. And I think that's probably when at least we have a five-year exemption on body-worn cameras. So I think it closely coincides with that.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, it is a five-year exemption for the other parts of the ordinance. Great. Thank you very much for the clarity on that.
[Jack Buckley]: Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. If Councilors don't have anything else to add, I can open it up to public participation. Before we open it up to the floor and to Zoom, I have a couple of letters that were emailed that were requested that I read into the record. Chief, you can feel free to sit. You can stay standing if you want, that's fine too. First is from Gene Zotter, 36 Saunders Street, Medford. I am writing to comment on the annual surveillance report submit by the City of Medford's Medford Police Department to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee as part of the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance. First, I want to express how significant it is to me as a member of Medford People Power, which advocated for this ordinance that this hearing is happening. We worked collaboratively with City Council, the City of Medford, and the Medford Police Department to pass this ordinance. It took many years to get here, and it is heartening in this age of pervasive and invasive technology. I hope the city will take this requirement seriously as we move forward. Oh, wait, hold on. Pass this ordinance. Heartening to see it in action. CCOPS is an important part of ensuring transparency and accountability in this age of pervasive and invasive technology. I hope the city will take this requirement seriously as we move forward. Second, while there are many parts of the body-worn camera policy that follows state guidance, there is one area that deviates from state task force recommendations that I hope will change. I understand that as part of the agreement with the city, city council exempted body-worn cameras from the approval process for the first five years. However, it is an important time for the public to be aware of the body-worn camera policy and weigh in on their use in preparation for when the technology will fall under this ordinance. The main concern I have is the provision that allows pre-statement viewing video footage by involved officers, even allowing previewing with an officer's lawyer present in situations of possible police misconduct. I understand that cases of the use of deadly force are exempted from previewing. State guidance, however, recommends that officers shall not access or view any recording of an incident involving the officer before the officer is required to make a statement about the incident. I would like to see Medford align with the state recommendation. Third, I hope the committee will consider working with Medford People Power in the future to address a loophole in the ordinance that allows the Medford Police Department to purchase bulk surveillance data. the ordinance disallowed this purchase, but it was changed at the last minute by City Council at the request of city officials. We hope you will let us work with you to fix this as it allows police to subvert current warrant requirements and lessens civil liberties. The second letter that I have to read is, this is from Jen Sullivan, I think, but it's printed out and I don't have her name attached to it. As a This is Jen Sullivan, right? It's in our email. So we'll put that into the record with her address. As a longtime resident and a member of Medford People Power, I'm proud that we were able to work together with the Medford Police Department, City Council, and the City of Medford to finally make C-COPS a reality. C-COPS demonstrates to the Medford community that we mean it when we say we want accountability and transparency, but we must do even better. The 2023 annual surveillance report submitted by the Medford Police mentions There have been no issues or complaints related to the department's BWC program. What is the process for submitting a complaint or issue? Who can access them and when? Allowing officers, possibly with a lawyer present, to view BWC footage before making a statement is not transparency. This access is not granted to suspects or witnesses. It is a privilege being permitted to only the police, giving them ample opportunity to craft their response based on viewing the BWC footage. I encourage the MPD, City Council, and City of Medford to commit to continued work on improving CCOPS. We have a loophole in the current ordinance that allows the MPD to purchase bulk surveillance data. The original ordinance banned these purchases, and that ban needs to be reinstated. Thank you, and I look forward to our continued collaboration. Okay, so I would like to open it up to public participation now in the room or on Zoom. I have nobody on Zoom, so we can open it up in the room right now. Please state your name and your address for the record.
[Marie Izzo]: Hi, Marie Izzo, Pilgrim Road, Bedford. I really want to thank the chief for being here and Um, you know, I've spoken to the chief often about his vision of community policing and I think that this policy and the amount of work that has gone into it very much reflects I would hope, you know, your role in that and our goal and really keeping you to task chief, but I'm just going to read because I'll get up. topics, I'll just read, but thank you again. So we at People Power are happy that after years of working, collaborating with the Medford Police Department, City Council, we have finally gotten here in our first public meeting with the annual report and surveillance equipment used by the Medford Police Department. For me, the purpose of this tool is to build, is for trust building between all the people of Medford and the police department through transparency and accountability. My hope is that it will be taken seriously by prioritizing timelines as well. We understand that this is new and that the chief is very busy with staffing shortages, technological limitations, budgeting, and possible union conflicts. However, there has been very little to report in a full year to put the reporting in place. Many Medford residents and groups are in support of this ordinance and that Medford should follow state guidelines regarding body-worn cameras. These concerns are stated by Safe Medford, NAACP of Medford, the City Committee, Wards 2 and 8, Unitarian Universalist, and Sanctuary Churches. Therefore, we hope that this process continues to be prioritized and that it's not just checking a box. Thank you. Thank you.
[Barry Ingber]: Good evening. I'm Barry Ingber, 9 Draper Street, Medford. I'm a member of Medford People Power and a longtime resident. I'd also like to thank Chief Buckley for his report and thank this committee for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to speak. I want to address two concerns regarding body-worn cameras and their policies for use. First, in his report, Chief Buckley describes the identified purpose of the body-worn cameras as follows. Well, actually, I won't read it because he read it. When Chief Buckley was first proposing the body-worn cameras to the city, he was describing it as a tool for police accountability, for preventing police misconduct. There is nothing here in the way he describes the purpose of the body-worn cameras that even mentions the word accountability. This language heightens our concern that body-worn cameras have been adopted for the primary or sole purpose of gathering prosecutorial evidence and not towards our shared goal of police accountability. which was what was claimed was going to be their purpose prior to acquisition. My second concern is with the Medford Police Department's body worn camera use policy. The core policies in the use policy are mostly positive and quite aligned with the ACLU and with the state guidance with a few exceptions. The most glaring exception, which puts it out of compliance with the state task force's recommendations, the judgment of civil libertarians, and the expressed view of the Massachusetts state legislature, is the provision allowing pre-statement viewing of video footage by involved officers, and even with a lawyer in situations of possible police misconduct. This creates an uneven legal playing field, allowing officers to conform their testimony to what they view on the camera rather than what they actually witnessed. This is not a privilege accorded to criminal suspects or to witnesses, and it is outrageous that officers have this privilege in Medford. I want to emphasize that when we say that the Medford Police Department's body-worn camera policy is out of compliance with the recommendations of the state task force, this task force is, I'm not talking about the notions of a bunch of academics and starry-eyed idealists like me. The task force's 25 members included nine from law enforcement, two prosecutors, and six high-level, state-level public safety officials from the Baker administration, as well as several elected officials. This is a very strong concern of ours that we'd like to put on the record, that we'd like to put on the record, and we'd like the Menford Police Department to reconsider. Thank you.
[Elizabeth Burke]: Hi, Elizabeth Burke, 12 Stephen Street in Medford. I'm also a member of Medford People Power, and I'm very appreciative of the engagement by the City Council, the Medford Police Department, and this committee on the issue of surveillance technology. The annual surveillance report prepared by Chief Buckley and the Medford Police Department is a significant step to help our community understand the technologies that Medford chooses to purchase. While we think much of the content of the body-worn camera policy is robust, we do have significant concerns regarding the latitude given to officers and supervisors to use their personal discretion to create exceptions about the use of the cameras, even in matters regarding First and Fourth Amendment rights of residents, such as surreptitious use and filming of protests. State guidance does not allow for these types of exceptions. if in the opinion of the officer is a low bar for justifying violations of the constitutional rights of residents. Secondly, this policy does not describe the progressive disciplinary procedures that would be used in the event of policy violations. While the policy excels in firmly stating the need to protect civil liberties and privacy, there are no sanctions stipulated even for gross violations of individual officers or the department as a whole. The annual surveillance report states that during the BWC pilot program, minor violations would be, quote, managed with additional training and counseling, as opposed to formal discipline, end quote. This indicates that when the pilot program ends, there would be disciplinary actions taken when warranted, and we'd encourage that future versions of the BWC policy describe that in more detail. The very purpose of law enforcement is to ensure accountability in our communities. Imagine if the only thing an officer could do when a motorist was speeding was to pull them over and tell them they were speeding. Sharing how the Medford Police Department enforces accountability to this policy would only increase the public's confidence that the Medford Police Department and our city more broadly can use surveillance technology in a way that provides benefits while respecting our civil rights and liberties.
[Marie Izzo]: Thank you.
[Ilene Lerner]: My name is Eileen Lerner, and I live at 9 Adams Circle. And I want to thank the city councilors and the chief and his lieutenants for being willing to come here and discuss this important issue. I am here as a representative of both Safe Medford and the Mystic Valley NAACP to support the testimony given by people power and to request that the Medford Police Department's policies regarding body-worn cameras be amended to conform to the recommendations of the Law Enforcement Body Camera Task Force. In preparation for speaking here, I looked up the definition of surveillance and found this. Surveillance is the close observation, especially of a spy or a criminal. The problem is surveillance does not happen separate from racism. Racism is encoded in surveillance. While white people feel protected by surveillance because of racism, people of color feel targeted and endangered. Urban surveillance is policing. This form of policing is a new and crucial part of the civil rights battle. And surveillance negatively affects the lives and psyches of people of color. How are people of color to feel they belong to America when they are viewed as potential criminals and their civil rights are ignored and even trampled on? Surveillance causes alienation. Students at high surveillance schools had lower math scores, higher suspension rates, and were significantly less likely to enroll in or graduate from college. For these reasons, Safe Medford and the Mystic Valley NAACP joins people power in requesting that the Medford Police Department's policies regarding body-worn cameras be amended to conform to the recommendations of the Massachusetts Task Force. Surveillance threatens the rights of all of us to privacy and civil liberties. Surveillance must be strictly regulated and controlled to help prevent a dystopian future in which everyone is considered a potential criminal spy or terrorist. Thank you.
[Marie Izzo]: Thank you.
[David Harris]: Good evening. My name is David Harris. I lived at 151 Sharon Street, West Medford for 29 years. I chaired the Medford Human Rights Commission for over a decade, although I can't remember exactly how long. Currently chair of the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. I'm a board member of the New England Innocence Project and former managing director of the Charles Hamilton Institute for Race and Justice. I was appreciative of the opportunity to testify last year as the city wrestled with questions arising from its use of technology. I was disappointed in some aspects of the outcome, specifically related to body-worn cameras, but held out hope as we moved forward. I concluded my remarks last year by saying there may be some wrinkles to iron out, but the ordinance in all its detail provides a reasonable and workable way forward. I'm here today to follow through on that hope with a focus on two specific wrinkles that privilege officers in ways that further undermine the legitimacy of policing as performed here in Medford. I'm gonna begin with a personal anecdote. Several years ago in 2016, my wife and I awakened to find a note from our 16-year-old son that said simply, it happened again. Rubel Philando Castile. We did so and learned about the shooting. While the shooting itself shook us terribly, we were more disturbed by the fact that our son had to experience this news late at night by himself. We realized there was no way we could protect him from such events, and he was reduced to saying, it happened again. We could not protect him from this violence. I went on WBOR a few days later and was asked by Bob Oakes about the talk. This, of course, has become a matter of American folklore, and people rant about it all the time. Everybody knows about the talk black parents must have with their kids, especially their sons, about how to manage encounters with the police. I'm not sure we ever had that talk with our son, but we had a different, more important, and more painful talk long before this happened. We had a talk about the nature of policing itself in the United States, its history and continuing disparate impact on black people. We did not feel he needed to be told how to act around police. He needed to know policing was a failed practice and it had little, if any, legitimacy. And we taught him to carry the name of an attorney in his wallet. And so I ask you tonight to reconsider two departures from past best practices and plain common sense that are part of the Medford Police Department's policies. The first is the policy allowing officers to use their own discretion at times in the use of their cameras. There may be First Amendment or other questions raised, but the fundamental question has to do with why the public should trust the police with such discretion. It seems to me And I apologize if I've misunderstood something, because from what Chief Buckley said, this might not be the case. But it seems to me that with this new technology, it is better to proceed creating published rules and practices that eliminate or greatly constrain discretion around camera use. It may well be that at some point in the future, based on experience we have accumulated, we can identify certain circumstances or situations that would allow for such discretion. but we do not have enough experience to issue a blanket in the opinion of an officer privilege. The second concern is even more serious than we've heard about it today. It has to do with allowing officers to preview video footage before creating or submitting their statements on an incident. And worse still, to have an attorney present in an instance of possible police misconduct. This provision is wrong on so many levels, not least of which is the simple injustice of such access. In the past years, we've seen many instances in which police statements vary from video records, and that variation has exposed truths that are painful truths. On one hand, we might think previewing would only help an officer recall events accurately, but it could also allow an officer or officers to create an alternative narrative. More disturbing still is the obvious advantage the practice creates over others and other involved parties, whether suspects or witnesses, who are left with only their own memories. It's hard to think of many things more harmful, not only to the legitimacy, but to the simple notion of justice. It's hard to imagine allowing this provision to stand. Think of the newly revised story we'll have to tell our children. Well, son, the police were granted legitimate use of force and the right to carry firearms are also advantaged over everyone else by getting to preview the body camera for footage that is intended to provide unbiased accounts of incidents. No one else will enjoy this privilege or this memory aid. Now, I know we have taught you that you must be fair and must play by the same rules, but policing in Medford is different. While many things are or can be complicated, these two are not. These wrinkles can be removed by simple elimination.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Is there any further public participation? I have a raised hand on zoom so I'm just going to go to Emiliano. Hello.
[SPEAKER_08]: Through the chair, dear committee, I am here today to talk about two issues that were mentioned today here. The first one is the body-worn cameras. And the second one is, can you hear me?
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes, can you just state your name and address for the record, please?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, sorry. Emiliano Falcomarano. I'm the policy Councilor for the ACLU of Massachusetts. My address is 225 Center Street.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: So, as I was mentioning before, I want to speak on two issues today. The first one being boy-worn cameras, and the second one being some issues related to purchasing data. So, the first one, I want to remind this committee that I was part of the law enforcement boy-worn camera task force that analyzed Last year and the year prior are the usable. I mandate from the legislator and we should have reported that. I assume everyone here here has seen and I want to stress that in section of 5.2 of this comedy in the. section pertaining to Operation Sanders, it was recommended that users should not access or view any recording of an incident involving the user before the user is required to make a statement about the incident. And the reason for this is that there was a lot of discussion in the committee, and almost every member of the committee voted in favor of including this recommendation. And the reason that this was included was because the legislator mandated us to include this committee in the enabling statute. The legislator in the Police Reform Act of 2020 mandated the task force to basically impose this requirement. That means that police officers that were involved in an incident shouldn't be able to review um the footage of the war on camera before giving their first statement um they can the recommendation of the of the task force implies that they can they should give the statement then they can see the um their footage, and then they can give a second statement if they think that they have forgotten something. And the reason for this is that if there is a use of force by police officers and their body-worn cameras are supposed to be an accountability tool, they're not a surveillance tool, or they shouldn't be a surveillance tool. They're an accountability tool. So it doesn't make sense to allow police officers that are involved in incidents to review their footage before they give their incident. We don't give this opportunity to any sort of defendant in the criminal justice system. When someone is called to a station to give a testimony or something of the sort, people are not shown all the evidence. that's in the case, so this should not be different from police officers that are involved in this type of events. And then finally, I want to talk a little bit about the use of body-worn cameras in protests, which, as we know, body-worn cameras should be activated in any sort of instance when there is interaction between police officers and people. And if there is a protest, I know that the policy for policy leaves to the discretion of the police officer where to activate the camera if the officer believes that there might be some incident. I would like to say that if there is an incident, then the camera should be used. to analyze how that incident went, but if there is no incident, that footage should not be reviewed and should be deleted immediately, because there are a lot of First Amendment concerns with having footage of peaceful people protesting, of course. And second, I want to mention that the risks of bulk buying and purchasing data, particularly sensitive data like location data. I know that there was a discussion in the council before the CCOPS ordinance passed where there was a language that was removed, and the language prohibited the police department from acquiring data. I want to say that the market of sensitive data is a very big market, and it's a very harmful market. For example, a 2020 investigation by Vice disclosed that the U.S. military has been purchasing user location data that was mined from a Muslim prayer app or dating apps that Muslim people use called Muslim Pro. There are countless and countless of instances where the government is accessing and is circumventing the constitutional rights and buying and purchasing data. So we think that this should be banned, that the police department shouldn't be able to buy location data or any other type of sensitive data. Thank you very much.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Do we have any further public participation?
[Barry Ingber]: Barry Ingler, 9 Draper Street. I just want to follow up on what Emiliano was just talking about in regard to the purchasing of bulk data. While the passage of the CCOPS ordinance last year was a great victory for Medford residents who care about privacy and justice, there is a loophole that remains regarding the city's potential purchase of commercially available surveillance data for law enforcement purposes. At the last minute, just before the final hearing on the CCOPS ordinance, the city requested that city council delete a section of the ordinance, section 5080, that prohibited certain public-private contracts for the purchasing of privately generated and owned bulk surveillance data. The last minute request exempted the Medford Police Department from the section and allows the Medford Police Department to purchase both surveillance data, and we want this changed. Thank you.
[Marie Izzo]: Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. Joining virtually, it's hard for me to see if there's others in the chambers that are going to speak, if that's the case, I'd happily defer. But just wanted to take this opportunity to thank everyone who spoke and was present for sharing their reflections on the annual surveillance report and the body-worn camera policy, sharing questions, concerns, reflections. And again, I really want to thank Chief Buckley and his officers and lieutenants for being here to present, to receive, and to respond. These are hard conversations to have. And I think that this is the rubber hitting the road. This is the process that we were I think all of us worked very hard towards for several years before the passage of this ordinance. And now we are at the point where we look at the reports on the technologies that are being used. In this case, it's just body-worn cameras. That's the only one that the city has that we'll be getting a report on until others are proposed and put forward and approved. But I think that This is the crucial precondition for being able to grow trust and transparency and to be able to improve outcomes and improve justice is being able to have these conversations in public, making the policies and the reporting public. allowing the public to have access to at least an annual opportunity to go on the record, asking questions and responding and reflecting on these tools that are being added to policing and other city functions in our community. And I think that is not the end goal. The end goal is participating in this shared project of making sure that these policies are always a net positive for the community and making sure that those public safety improvements and those other benefits are distributed equitably around the community. And that's what we're here to do. And I think You know, everybody who is involved in debating, deliberating, negotiating, what would this ordinance, what would the structure that is created by this ordinance look like? That was not itself an easy process. And I, again, want to thank everybody who was involved in that, the administration, the chief, my fellow colleagues. And, you know, this second chapter of implementing it is also difficult. But I believe it's, you know, certainly as a city councilor, I think it's, you know, our responsibility to when we hear from the community saying, you know, this this really nascent class of technologies are not simple. They are complex. They are problematic. They're demonstrated problematic in other communities. And Medford isn't a unicorn. So we need to make sure that we have the structures for bringing as much clarity and accountability to that process as we can. We have a responsibility to respond to that. And this is just the beginning of what that can look like. So I just want to appreciate everybody for starting this structure together. All of these surveillance technologies, in this case we're talking about body-worn cameras, These technologies are being added to the field of policing because public safety is problematic. Policing is problematic because the world is changing around us. And it is our responsibility to maximize public safety by using tools that are appropriate for the community in a way where we are continually, as a city, not singling out departments or individuals, but as a city, asking ourselves those questions that are ultimately impossible to really quantify. Who is this helping? Who is this making more vulnerable? Who is this disproportionately affecting? We are, I think we have a requirement to ask ourselves those questions, even though it is hard to answer them. And I am really grateful to everybody who's a part of this process so that we can start out you know, start with our best foot forward and saying these questions are going to be a part of this process. And for this committee meeting, these questions are being raised, these concerns are being raised. That doesn't end, you know, the outcome here in terms of the City Council's jurisdiction right now is not to make any changes to the policy. We can't do that. But I think it's very important that we're putting these concerns on record, and I'm really proud that we are collaborating with the administration, with the Medford Police Department, on a structure that really requires us to ask ourselves every year, and I know for the people using these technologies, it's a part of the day-to-day workflow. But that's the goal, is to have it be a constant question of, what are the impacts of these on whom in the community? making sure that this is a net positive for the community and really investigating how is that playing out. I just want to, before I make a motion to receive and place on file, unless there are other comments or questions from my fellow Councilors and members of the public, I just wanted to preview for everybody in the space what the process in terms of the annual timeline of the Community Control of Republic Surveillance timeline looks like from here on out. As I mentioned, the risks report that the police department submitted was the annual surveillance report because of the exemptions granted to body-worn cameras. That's the only report that is due for that technology. Now that the City Council has this in hand, per the ordinance, it is our responsibility to post by April 15 an annual public reporting that comes from the City Council side. This will be on the city website. This will also be available in print, just like the annual surveillance report is. It will cover the number of requests for approval for new surveillance technologies that are submitted to the City Council. This number will be zero. The number of times the City Council approved requests for new surveillance technologies. Again, this will be zero. The number of times the City Council rejected requests for new surveillance technologies. There were also no new requests for surveillance technology that were requested. In 2023, the number of times the City Council requested modifications to surveillance impact reports or surveillance use policies for new surveillance technologies. Again, because there were no surveillance technologies approved or rejected by the City Council in 2023, All of those sections will be irrelevant for this reporting cycle, but that annual public reporting for which the city council is responsible will include this annual surveillance report. And in future years, if the city is ever using more than one surveillance technology that is eligible under this ordinance, it will include all surveillance reports that are submitted to the city council. So over time, this will be the community's repository for aggregating data and feedback and reporting documentation on how surveillance technology, what surveillance technology is being proposed to the community. the community's reaction to it, and then documentation of those approvals and how it's being used. So I just wanted to mention that in terms of, we've had this meeting, we've had a discussion, we've discussed the body-worn camera policy, concerns have been raised, accolades have been raised, the report has been submitted, what happens next? This is just another piece of documentation that comes from the city council side to create another benchmark for documentation around this surveillance technology. Lastly, I just want to again say thank you to Chief Buckley for being here, for the presentation, for answering all of our questions, for the reflection, for always being available when we do have questions about this. I also really want to thank all the community members who attended this meeting to reflect on this policy and to say that your concerns are heard. I would make a motion to receive the report and place it on file.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan did have one comment to make before we vote on that motion. Councilor Callahan?
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. As one of the councilors who was not involved in passing the CCOPS ordinance, I would appreciate Chief Buckley responding to the two Um, so, uh, variance is places where we differ from the state recommendation, um, that have been mentioned multiple times. So allowing police involved in a miss in a misconduct report, um, to preview the footage and secondly, purchasing bulk data and why, um, what the reasons are that those exceptions were, uh, asked for.
[Jack Buckley]: the Middlesex District Attorney's office as well as other district attorneys across the commonwealth have basically suggested both plainly stated and uh, letters to the chiefs of police that they want their police officers watching more camera videos. And there's not a police department in the commonwealth of Massachusetts that I am aware of that has that in place right now. So I understand there was a commission put together and there were recommendations, but Time has moved on and this is where the standard is. That's actually written in the quote from the Middlesex District Attorney is in this policy. The second part is, I don't even know how to answer this about bulk data. I don't know what you're talking about. I don't understand why someone from the ACLU comes on and accuses me of purchasing bulk data and working with the military. I mean, we came in here with a pretty, like the police department. We work well, I had objections that were reasonable to the C-Cops ordinance. I came here tonight saying, this is good, this is a good process. I can listen to constituents, I can hear what they wanna say about the voting on cameras and I can adapt. But we ended with accusing me of like being what, a military spy? Surveillance spy? Is that what we think of our police department? Is that where tonight we're not at? Why is someone who's not a Medford resident being allowed to accuse their chief of police of working with the US military? Chair, do we have an answer?
[Emily Lazzaro]: Sorry, no. My understanding is that the lawyer from the ACLU worked with Medford People Power and was part of the conversation.
[Jack Buckley]: They can work with Medford People Power all they want. They're in a public hearing right now. And they just accused your chief of police of inappropriate behavior. Well, I'm just going to tell you, this should be a process where we are working together, right? I can answer questions, I came here, I brought my team to answer questions. Some of the questions that were asked are very clearly defined in here. We do not, it's prohibited to record during demonstrations. The discretion is to allow, if a police officer does see criminal behavior or something that is going to lead to something, to record, because that is what the recommendation is. The discretion is to turn the camera off. It's not a discretion to record those who are protesting.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I will just say that public participation is, we are very open with the way that the public is allowed to interact with the city council in Medford. We don't police the way that people speak to the council in any way. They can say anything they want. So sometimes people will say things, and this was a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts last year. believe me. So, I apologize for how that may have come across, that's, we can only speak for the Medford City Council but public participation is still a big part of the way that City Council meetings operate. You know, I can only speak for myself. We as the Medford City Council are here to hear from the public and hear from our departments and hopefully we're all willing to work together. And that's the goal here is to just see the report and talk about the report. So I do apologize. I'm sorry that that came across the way that it did, but that's our reality.
[Jack Buckley]: If they do come across, maybe someone should stand up and say that that is not what is going on in our city. You know what the life expectancy of a career of a chief of police in Massachusetts is right now? It's probably less than two years. I'm going on six. This is why you don't have chiefs of police staying around. You get accused of stuff, and all you're trying to do is make the community better. I came here tonight. This was a good event. Now I'm leaving here ticked off.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I'd be happy to.
[Jack Buckley]: And it's nothing to do with them. I could answer all of their questions of back and forth.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I'd be happy to talk with you about this afterwards, but I'm empathizing with you very deeply. All of that being said, we do have a motion on the floor to receive and place on file, but does Councilor Callahan have more that you'd like to say? Yes, Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: I, you know, I certainly hope you didn't feel like I accused you. I heard many people here who simply asked about the purchasing of bulk data. And that was my only question. I'm sorry, the two questions, the first one that you answered, I do appreciate that. And it sounds like you don't actually know anything about the purchasing of bulk data or why that all I recall, sorry.
[Jack Buckley]: All I recall about that purchase is I believe, and I have to go back, this is a little while now, that the city attorney believed that that was illegal to put in the process. But I don't recall anything about data. I don't recall working with the US military and acquiring data. As a matter of fact, we're not doing any of that sort of stuff. And to think that we would do it is just, I don't know what to say. We work pretty hard to be accountable to this community. Accountable is the first sentence. The fact that I didn't put it in a three sentence response to nine questions that I didn't write or you didn't write, right? We're very accountable to this community. I will come here at any sort of time, but I'm not gonna come here and be accused of just total nonsense.
[Anna Callahan]: Yes. Sure. I just, I think that the chair stated it very well. We have no ability to, change or demand make demands on what people can say public comment is quite common that people come say public comment things that are accusatory toward a city councilors or are completely inaccurate and not in any way true. And there is simply nothing that we can do because that is the way that public comment works in the state of Massachusetts. So I hope that in the future, you will just allow those things that there's nothing else to do about them, unfortunately. And I hope that if you have any issues with the way the city Councilors are interacting with you, then we would love to address those ways. I certainly did not have any intention of having any accusation. I simply wanted to address the two issues that had come up from many of the people here who spoke from that particular hour.
[Jack Buckley]: And you may have seen that I was walking up to the podium and then you went back and then it went on. But I was going to voluntarily answer those questions. They are pretty straightforward. I mean, the district attorney, I believe that they have met with a core group of judges, and it's written in here exactly why and what they believe is why we should be reviewing and watching our body-worn cameras. to some extent that makes sense, right? And we're gonna abide by what the district attorney tells us we have to do when it comes to that process. The issue in demonstrations I think is being misread. It is a prohibited action. It's listed in here under prohibited actions. All purchases, follow what you're talking about. I don't, so.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you for the clarification on that. Um, we would have invited you either way to come back up and clarify those questions. Um, and I appreciate it.
[Jack Buckley]: I just didn't want to it.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I understand.
[Jack Buckley]: Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Um, Councilor Tseng on the motion to receive and place on file by Vice President Collins and seconded by Councilor Tseng and to adjourn Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Okay.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I'm on the motion to receive in place on file and adjourn by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Roll call, please.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh, this meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 9.87 minutes total words: 624 |
total time: 19.93 minutes total words: 435 |
total time: 3.13 minutes total words: 281 |
total time: 1.94 minutes total words: 196 |