[Morell]: The Medford City Council sent its deepest and sincere condolences to the family of Russ Rosetti on his recent passing. Russ was a longtime supporter and board member of the Chevalier Auditorium. His presence in our community will be sorely missed. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. For those of you who don't know Russ, Russ was part of the core group that kept Chevalier open. during the years when there was really nothing going on there. And he was a tireless volunteer, chaired this country in the Air Force as a veteran. But part of the reason we still have Shabai here today is because of the efforts of Russ and his group. So Madam President, I'd ask that we dedicate this meeting in his honor this evening.
[Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'll bring it forward. A true gentleman. Russ was someone that was a pillar of our community and will be greatly missed. So may he rest in peace. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any other councilors wish to speak? Mr. Kasichnay. Now, do you want to push the button with the little person on it? There's a little face on it. There you go.
[Castagnetti]: Thank you future references a second. First of all, casting Eddie Andrew Christian Street, he's met. I want to thank console cover your for bringing this up was. I knew Mr. Rossetti. Russ was a great guy. He probably still is a great guy. And if I could, I'd like to commend him for all his volunteerisms for that Chevalier Commission. It's been more than a decade, maybe two. And it's amazing what that man did for the city and Chevalier. I'd like to share a story he once told me. As he grew up in the north end of Boston, he had an unfortunate accident. He fell down an elevator shaft. And from that day on, he had severe back pain. And I don't even know how he got up and down the stairs in West Method. So I really commend him for putting all his efforts forth. He's a great man, and he'll surely be missed. Thank you for listening.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Please rise for a moment of silence. 23-035 offered by President Morell and Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the City Council celebrate this month as Black History Month and recognize the significant contributions that Black Medford residents have made in shaping our city and history and enriching our community life. Councilor Tseng.
[Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This February is Black History Month, and Medford, as many may know, has a very rich history when it comes to African Americans in the Northeast. When we look at our West Bedford community in particular, that's a community that's been there for a very, very, very long time, pretty much since the city was founded. I personally have learned a lot by following on the West Bedford Community Center's Twitter account, where I believe every, it might be every day, but every few days they're tweeting out some, you know, something short and readable about a black Bedford resident who shaped Medford and the surrounding region somehow. The count has talked about Black Medford residents who've served in our army, who fought for the Union, it's talked about athletes and their contributions to to our society as well. I also pulled up a list of a bunch of events that residents can attend if they want to learn more about Black history, want to learn more about their connection, the connection of the Black community to Medford. This Friday, Medford High and Medford Vogue are holding their celebration of Black History Month at the high school at 1.30 p.m. Our school districts historically held this event and There will be music, there will be dance performances and guest speakers as well. And on Saturday, the West Bedford Community Center is hosting the Black Entrepreneurs Showcase and Sale from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., where you can look at artisans and crafts and gifts that you can buy and gift the family as well. The Human Rights Commission is hosting an event titled An Oath to Belinda Sutton on Saturday, February the 25th at the Royal House. from 1 p.m. to 3.30 p.m., and on Tuesday, the 28th, so the last day of the month, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is hosting a lunch and hosting conversations here in the city hall chambers.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. All I was going to say and more, thank you for sharing those events. Any other councilors wish to speak? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-036 offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council commend and congratulate the following firefighters on their respective promotions. Frank Giliberti to Deputy Chief, Michael Halloran to Captain, and Samuel McLean to Lieutenant. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I want to just congratulate these, uh, these three fine people on their rise up to the ladder of through the fire department. Young Frank is following in the steps of his dad is now deputy chief and, uh, Aaron, um, the captain. So I think we have a good young core of firemen moving up the ladder and just want to congratulate them for all their work that they've done to get their promotion. So
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Knight]: Thank you very much on these three firefighters bring a wealth of experience to the field, and I think that other city methods a safer place by having them being elevated to these positions of leadership so I'd like to congratulate them all and wish them a very successful and safe future to them and their families.
[Morell]: Thank you. So on the motion of cancer Carveo seconded by cancer saying all those in favor, all those opposed motion passes. Records, the tabled records from January 17, 2023 were passed to Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight, how did you find them? On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Records of the meeting of January 31st, 2023 were, this is a, I'm sorry, yes, were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. How did you find them, Councilor Scarpelli? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committee, 22-581, January 31st, 2023. We have the whole report to follow. Someone remind me what this one was. I can't remember what. Yes, that was the planning development fees, because it was a short one. approval on the motion of Councilor Knight to approve seconded by answer saying all those in favor, all those opposed motion passes to do dash 494 the February 7 2023 subcommittee on ordinances and rules report to follow.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, this was a meeting of the subcommittee on ordinances and rules to discuss a budget needs assessment ordinance. We also discussed potential items for improving the budget process, the budget schedule, and what we can do by ordinance and what will require charter change. And it's an initial discussion and brainstorm, and there'll be further meetings to come when I move approval. Second.
[Morell]: Thank you. So on the motion of Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Arpelli, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 2-514, February 8, 2023, committee, the whole report to follow. This was our follow-up discussion with PDS. on proposed changes to the outdoor dining ordinance. Do I have a motion?
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes.
[Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules. If we can, we can table 20-025.
[Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to table 23-025, second.
[Scarpelli]: Next meeting, please.
[Morell]: Okay. Until the next meeting, seconded by... Second. Vice President Bears, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes.
[Bears]: Madam President, motion to suspend the rules to take paper 23-043.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears, we suspend the rules to take paper 23-043, which is on page... 21. All the way to the end, okay. Communications from the mayor, oh, sorry. I'm going to buy some affairs, second by cancer saying all those in favor. All those opposed, which passes rules are suspended 23-043, the electronic delivery to the President and members of the Medford City Council regarding request to establish a revolving fund for stormwater. Dear President Morelle, members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that the City Council approve the following amendment to Charter 2, Article 5, I'm dying, I've had a long day, Division 4 of the city's ordinances by adopting the following change. The table in section 2-964, authorized revolving funds, shall be amended to include a stormwater revolving fund as per the enclosed table. Enclosed is a letter from City Engineer and Stormwater Board Chair, Owen Martella, which outlines this request and provides supporting documentation. Finally, I'm in closing a memorandum by Finance Director Ayer, Bob Dickinson, which provides the necessary certification pursuant to MGL Chapter 44, Section 53E and a half for establishing a revolving fund in the middle of a fiscal year. City Engineer Owen Wartella will be available to speak to this request and answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brown and Woodford Mayor.
[Knight]: I for one feels this is a good expense. I mean, I mean a good, a good initiative and a good endeavor because we look at the way that city's been spending money, lack of financial transparency anytime that we can set up a revolving fund or a trust fund to be sure that that money is being spent where it's supposed to be spent I think would make sense. So, by approving this we're actually providing an additional check and balance and additional control on the frivolous and wasteful spending that we're seeing that's coming out of the administration and the lack of transparency that was coming out of administration. So by approving this, we're going to be creating another layer of oversight. I think that's a good thing. So I'd move for approval.
[Morell]: Thank you. That's right.
[Knight]: and President.
[Scarpelli]: Again, I think that I think Councilor Knight bringing those words up, I think that it's important when we're looking at it with the oversight that's needed. Again, it's the only reason why I am voting for it. Anything like I said, that deals with any fiscal responsibility or requests in this body, I would not support for the fact that we still have no idea of our fiscal future here. in the city. We have no, had no discussions with the mayor of the administration and guide us where we are financially. So again, that's a dire situation, but I would support this paper.
[Bears]: Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to see if Engineer Wirtala had any kind of short summary of what this is and what the Stormwater Board has been doing.
[Wartella]: Hello. Thank you for having me. This is just a, we're setting up a stormwater regulations. There's new stormwater regulations that the city is required to do by federal law because we dump it to the Mystic River. This is a, there is a fee going to be associated with that permit, and we need a revolving account to be associated with that fee.
[Morell]: Great, any questions from the council? questions from the public. Seeing none, so on the motion, Councilor Knight to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli for first reading.
[Bears]: Mr. Clerk. Does this require first reading? It's not in order. Oh, I guess it is in order. Sorry, my apologies.
[Morell]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll when you are ready. Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins? Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, six in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The motion passes for first reading. Thank you. Yeah, sorry, okay, one at a time. 23-039? Yes, ma'am. What was that one? Okay, all right. All right, I'll start with, I'll just order. 23-038 offered by Councilor Knight, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council request the city administration to deploy pothole crews to pass roadways with priority to emergency arteries in the city of Medford.
[Knight]: Thank you very much. No, thank you for sticking around to hear a couple of these resolutions that are on the agenda this evening. Ultimately, the condition of our roadways in the city of deplorable. I think you know what I think we all know, right, you could drive in front of Bob's food store for the past five years, and the bottle hasn't been patched even, never mind a plan to fix it. You'll drive around the Winthrop Street Rotary going down High Street and you'll cross over the first pedestrian crosswalk there and ever since the first Eversource project, the Crosswalk has been sunken in for now eight, nine years now. I know our DPW, I know our commissioner, I know our mayor drives down these roads. So I know that they know the condition of these roadways is terrible, but we need to develop some sort of plan, some sort of methodology for how we're gonna attack this. We have C-Click fix and we have 50 DPW members. I don't see why we can't take them all one day and say, get on the roads, drive down our emergency arteries and document each pothole that's on there and then we can put a plan together. on how do we can patch these emergency arteries saving ultimately these the roads that our emergency vehicles drive down or EMS vehicles drive down. You know, when there's a snow emergency, these are the vehicles that we're not allowed to park on, because these streets are used for public safety purposes. So I think that it's something that we need to take a look at. And I'm hoping that through the leadership of your office, you'll be able to come up with a plan on how we can address that.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any other Councilors wish to speak before
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Councilor for putting this on. I agree. I think we all drive down the streets. We're all getting the same calls about the holes. They just keep getting bigger and bigger. We patched them, especially when you get this hot weather and cold weather. patch comes out. So I agree with Councilor Layton, some type of plan has to be come up with to at least get the emergency arteries into some kind of shape that people don't keep getting flat tires.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Chief Engineer Ortel, do you have anything you could share?
[Wartella]: I have nothing to add. I'm here for questions, if you have any.
[Morell]: Any specific questions from the Council?
[Knight]: I have one. Golden Ave has been a topic of discussion now for going in the better part of five years. We appropriated some money to have the underground infrastructure of Golden Ave repaired and then also have the above ground infrastructure of Golden Ave repaired. And I think that was supposed to take place over the summer. Do you have any idea what's going on with that project?
[Wartella]: I really wasn't prepared to speak on those things. I will get you the information. Thank you.
[Morell]: Any other questions from the council? We'll take you for public, we'll take you. All right, so Mr. Wardeller, if you want to, Mr. Casagnani, if you want to come up and speak.
[Castagnetti]: Yeah, since this subject has come up again and again and again, I recollect when Councilor De La Ruza was here, he called the plot holes plot holders. But anyways, I brought this up years ago. I kind of understand why you fix a pothole, and then it regurgitates, and it becomes a pothole again after it was patched. I brought this up years ago. Maybe we should reach out to other TPW yachts, such as Buffalo, New York, or Montreal, Quebec, wherever, someplace in Maine, where they have probably more potholes than we have, since they probably use more salt. If I DPW could reach out our administration, maybe there's a better way to build a mousetrap. Maybe if you cut them at an angle, what a task skills are, I'm not sure, whether it's slanted in or slanted out, or different type of material. but it seems like we're fighting mother nature and it's the same old song and dance. I've also lost two tires on the old 2155 out streets. I have yet to put in to get paid for one, but I think this time it's more time. And of course, Councilor Knight lost two at one shot on Mystic Avenue, but you gotta pay attention out there too.
[Morell]: Good memory, thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-039 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council have the city engineer report back with the repaving schedule for Bower, Holton, Temple, and Tontine streets this spring. Be it further resolved that the public utilities pave curb to curb similar to the same standards private contractors are held to when they open the streets.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I guess we're doing Ellington Street now. I see that's open. Do we have a schedule of when these streets are going to be paved? I mean, I'm assuming they're going to be paved crib to crib, correct? Because we're holding private contractors and making them pave crib to crib when they open the street. So public utilities should be up to the same standard.
[Wartella]: By law, they're only allowed to repave their trench.
[Caraviello]: We've this council passed a resolution seven years ago, when Council March is here.
[Wartella]: My understanding is that the state Supreme Court ruled that all they have to do is repave the trench. Now I know that Engrid has done more than that. Our city standard is going usually one foot beyond the trench. And they tend to take a lane because it's another foot, you know, and their trenches and usually straight.
[Caraviello]: So why is it when a private contractor puts a pipe in the street? They have to pave the whole street. They have to pave crib to crib.
[Wartella]: That's a private contractor you're talking about.
[Caraviello]: The rules should be the same for everybody.
[Wartella]: I agree.
[Caraviello]: Rules should be the same for everybody. I mean, these companies are coming in, they're destroying our streets, and we get sinkholes, and they come in, they're gone, and six months later, it's all sunk in, they never come back and fix it.
[Wartella]: So they typically do a cold patch, or not cold patch, they do a temporary trench, and then they come back and they do a resurfacing. Typically, six months after they do the work in that six months falls within the winter moratorium, then it goes to the next spring. We have been with tomorrow. Why are we digging up during with the moratorium, because it's over 40 degrees and it's warm.
[Caraviello]: In the past, we've never done that before. We've always that you should take that up with the TDW commissioner because I don't think it's right that these these companies to on health to the same standards that the private companies are held so it's not it's just not fair.
[Morell]: President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I mean, I think what we're hearing is that we all agree that the public utility should be held to a higher standard, but that the state law says that they don't have to be, and we don't control that. So, you know.
[Wartella]: It's not a city project. This is Engrid doing their gas main replacement. I do know that it's not gonna be in the spring. It'll probably be summer or fall before they come back and do the resurfacing for those roads. And they're very narrow roads, so we'll see how wide those repaving efforts are.
[Morell]: Any other questions, Council night.
[Knight]: One thing I want to talk about in the past I've spoken about with Tim when he was the city engineer was, you know, some sort of mitigation agreement. When these public utilities come to our community and dig up our streets and that. expect to leave their supplies their equipment, their stock on public ways or on public passes. So that's one way I think that we can look at this right if they want to leave the ticket stuff and get it out of here.
[Wartella]: On and grits case. Yeah, this one has some stuff parked on Thomas, that wasn't the arrangement for that. There have been mitigation agreements, especially with the Walnut Street Metcalfe roads. I know it's been done in the past we use a spot.
[Knight]: So I think that that's something that if we look at strengthening those mitigation agreements, I think that might be able to be a way that we can expand that patch on the roadway to maybe go a little bit further than a foot.
[Wartella]: Yeah, we did just receive an updated projected list for the 23 through 26 season of the integrated proposed works. And so we will try to pair that up with our own repaving efforts so that we get more utilities in and repaving done. in accordance with this so we can save a little bit of money and stretch our funds.
[Knight]: We could post it on the website?
[Wartella]: It will be. Steve Smyrna is on my case about it.
[Knight]: Yes. Okay, excellent. Thank you very much.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you for being here. The question I have is, as I know in the past before your entry to this wonderful position, we had a question we had with all the road work that's being managed throughout this community. How have we set it up that since we don't have a clerk of the works, how do we manage the work of one, let's say, National Grid comes in, sets a trench, leaves, who's monitoring that at the end of the project? Because that's typically been the issue, that we just don't have enough people.
[Wartella]: Right, and we actually, our DPW staff is really great about reporting issues to us, the whole, and residents too, everyone kind of chips in.
[Scarpelli]: keeps eyes on things and we tend to find out what's so but we don't have anything formal like in place where it says, you know, we have an alert systems is job, you know, job, job, a from National Grid, public street.
[Wartella]: Yeah, internally, we do track the permits and what's been going on and what is right, you know, been allowed the MSEs is a great way for us to track it internally. so that when the springtime happens, we can say, okay, you were- We have to go check it. It's time to repave and resurface. Yeah.
[Hurtubise]: All right, perfect. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any other discussion from the council? Seeing none, so on the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by- So moved. Councilor Knight, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Owen. We are still under suspension.
[Hurtubise]: Motion to reverse. Okay.
[Morell]: What number is that? 23042. Oh, there is. 23042 offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council reach out to our federal delegation in regards to the continued problems at the Medford Post Office. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I know we didn't get something from the Mayor's office today in regards to this, but I'm sure we're all getting the calls from everybody about not getting mail for two or three days. And all I could ask is that this council send something to our federal delegation and that we urge people to I'll call on Catherine Clark, Congressman Clark, Senator Maki, Senator Warren, et cetera. If we could send something to my end, I know the mayor has been working on it too. So if that could be done, it'd be appreciated.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Carmiel. Madam President, might as well just go with the last two, if we can.
[Scarpelli]: Sure.
[Morell]: Sure, Mr. Kasich, do you want to speak on the post office?
[Castagnetti]: This is my last one, I'm going home.
[Morell]: We'll see you online.
[Castagnetti]: Probably. What's the subject? Remind me. Post office. Thank you, Councilor. I want to say factually, my wife has a habit. of sending birthday cards and Easter cards and Hanukkah cards and things of that nature to friends and associates. And she usually slips in a couple of scratch tickets. I think you probably know where I'm going. This has been going on a few years. She asked her friends, did you get my card? The answer is no, no. So I find it very disconcerting that When I was a kid, it was said that the meal must go through a range, so no sleep, shine. And I hate to think that something nefarious is going on in the postal office, but that's lousy. And I'm sure there's some other stuff. As you know, in Melrose, the lady, I think we call her a lady, post office gal, was robbed at knife point by two hoodlums. And I guess what they wanted was, I didn't think she was carrying a 24-carat gold bullion, and she wasn't, but they wanted the key. the key to the city post office boxes. Now I'm not sure when that happens, if the post office general immediately changes the locks and issues new keys at that instant. Because in the old days, people would fish them out with chewing gum in a fishing rod, but they made them mailboxes. So I kind of put a decent package in there. I have to go to the post office physically to bring it in. So now when she tells me to mail these cards with scratch stickers in them, I go in the post office and put it into the slit where the sack is. But I'm not sure if that even works. It's kind of sad. The state of the country, the state of some peoples, it's just not right. I hope they can do something about this. Maybe put a tracker or some sort of technology chip or something. Find out what's going on. Thank you for listening.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight, all those in favor? All those opposed motion passes, going up to 23-040 offered by Councilor Caraviello be resolved the Metro City Council request that the Recreation Department look into putting a port-a-potty at the pickleball courts at Duggar Park, Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. I don't know if anybody has been driving around the city in the morning lately. We run between nine and 11, probably 50, 60 cars of people playing pickleball, which is just growing in leaps and bounds. They've reached out to me, all the people that are playing there, senior citizens, and they're asking if they could be a part of a portal party there for them. So if we could ask that the recreation department look into putting a portal party somewhere over there for them, it would be greatly appreciated.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: I completely understand what you're asking for as a member of. In our business, in the recreation business, when we're asking for what applies, it sounds great, but because of the pending snow and- And the spring. And the issues.
[Caraviello]: They're not looking right this second.
[Scarpelli]: That was a confusion, so I think that, yeah. No, I think that anywhere there are parks, I think that I would second that. You know, once we have, you know, during the spring season where we have the traffic that we have now at Doug a park. I think it's important that we do.
[Caraviello]: Uh, you know, like you said, as you know, a lot of them seniors are there and they have a different needs than that. Thank you. So I second the motion in further discussion.
[Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-041, offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that DPW place a rubbish receptacle in front of the St. Joseph's School. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. The principal from St. Joseph's has reached out to me and asked about putting a rubbish barrel in front of the school door. They've asked in the past, but they've never thought of one. They're not even, they said they will maintain it themselves. They'll have their janitor empty the barrel. So if we can get one of those wireline barrels put there, because people at the bus stop are just leaving stuff there and kids are going swimming and stuff. So again, if they can put a barrel there, the janitorial staff at St. Joseph's will empty it themselves.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. Are we taking every resolution that's not an ordinance? Do you want to go back to the front now? We have one from you, Vice President Bears, about the 23-037 we haven't taken. It's fine, you want to take it or it's fine? Okay, good point. On the motion of Vice President Bears to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. 23-037 offered by vice president bears it resolved by the city council that the city administration take the following steps relative to the city budget to ensure transparency accuracy of information and reporting, and that all boards and commissions have the budget information they need to function. One that the city of administration produce a 2023 budget book and clear go before the budget hearing start. Two, that all commissions have binders as part of the budget book. Three, that the city administration reinstate annual reports to be published at the beginning of each calendar year. This will help the city prepare in advance for the budget process while providing a valuable source of transparent information about the city's budget activities. Four, develop a one-sheet on financial processes. policies budgeting for boards and commissions and share with all members of boards and commissions via further resolve at the subcommittee on ordinances and rules incorporate these recommendations and or any responses from state administration into the draft budget needs assessment ordinance currently being worked on by the subcommittee vice president bears.
[Bears]: Thank you Madam President. As folks know, We've had a fiscal 23 budget last year. The process was less than ideal to be kind to the process, and there have been ongoing issues with us getting the information that we need. Since then, it's also come to my attention from members of various boards and commissions in the city that they don't feel that they have the information that they need around their budgets. and that they have some concerns around what has happened to funding that they had and grant funding that has come in and things of that nature. I won't get more specific on that right now, but suffice it to say that boards and commissions have serious concerns about the budget. So these recommendations are to request that the city administration adjust their procedures and processes around the budget and finance and financial information to better inform boards and commissions of the status of their finances and in general to better inform the council and residents about the city budget, where we stand mid-year and getting that process going earlier and making sure everyone has the information they need. So I would ask my colleagues to move approval.
[Morell]: Thank you, President Bears. Any further discussion? Councilor Scarpellilli.
[Scarpelli]: I thank Vice President Bears for bringing this forward, but this is common practice in most municipal budgets. We're further along in our budget where I'm working with municipal government that I work for, and it's very transparent. This is where I find my frustration that what Councilor Bears just asked for is truly a press of a button of spreadsheets and really help everybody involved. And again, that magic word of transparency, we use it, but I think we should follow it. So I think it's important that this initiative moves forward. So I appreciate the efforts Vice President Bears and I move second on this paper, thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Thank you. they want to get more involved in municipal politics. And oftentimes it can be really challenging to follow what's going on, especially when things are messy here at City Hall. And so if we take the initiative, if we get ahead of this before the fiscal 24 budget season, then hopefully this helps people at home watching follow municipal politics even better.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Madam President, I just think it's important to point out that every action has a reaction, right? And this whole process could be avoided if the mayor would just work with the council. We wouldn't have to go through the process of creating legislation to direct the mayor to be transparent if she would work with the council and be a partner to the council. So, you know, Imagine that we've gotten to the point where the council now has to rise to take legislative action to get the man to communicate us to communicate with us effectively when it comes down to the finances of this community. I mean, I think that's where we are right now. That's how far this relationship is deteriorated. Now, I've been in the city my whole life. You know, we've all heard the stories about what the council used to be like. when there was fighting and screaming and yelling across the pit, everybody couldn't get along. We get along relatively well here. This is probably the first time in 40 years that the council actually walks in unison on a lot of items. More often than not, we're in agreement. And the one thing that we all agree on quite frequently is the lack of financial transparency in this community. So I just think it's important to point out that the reason why the council has taken these steps is because the council isn't being provided with the tools or the opportunity to be successful in their job. So we need to pass ordinances. We need to make laws telling the mayor to communicate with us. Think about that. How outrageous that is. That's where we've, that's what we've come to. And that's where the relationship has deteriorated to. That's the level of respect that the coroner's office gives this body that's been elected by the residents of this community. So I thank Councilor Bears for taking a proactive approach.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to my colleagues. Just if I could make one amendment and strike a 2023 and put FY24. That was just an error on my part.
[Morell]: Any further discussion? So on the motion of Vice President Bears, as amended by Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor?
[Buckley]: Aye.
[Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes. 22-058 offered by Vice President Bears and Councilor Collins. I'm going to read this whole thing. Okay. I remember the marijuana ordinance 71 pages being read so I don't know what the motion to suspend the reading in favor of a summary on the motion advice was embarrassed to suspend the reading in favor of a summary I will go to Councilor Collins has been working steadfast on this for a summary to be provided to the council.
[Collins]: Thank you President Earl I'd be happy to provide a summary of this ordinance and a summary of the process that has gotten us to where we are today. I'm very gratified to be able to put this ordinance forward for first reading the council has been discussing modifying and evolving this ordinance for almost a full year, almost a full year now in the public health and community safety subcommittee and committee of the whole. and in one-on-one conversations with city administration, our chief of police, and other department heads, legal experts, and with community advocates. This ordinance is about being proactive to safeguard our community against nascent, privately developed surveillance technologies, which are both rapidly evolving and severely underregulated at the state and federal levels. I think this is a very exciting moment for this council and for the city. While we would be far from the first city to have a CCOPS ordinance, Medford has the chance to be a real leader here and a model for other communities. This ordinance, with the inclusion of some floor amendments that I'm going to propose in a minute, presents a clear and a structured way for the community, the City Council, and the administration to communicate and to collaborate. The outcome of that communication and collaboration will be the development of use policies and parameters for surveillance technologies now and in the future that are properly weighed benefits and the risks of these technologies. When we do choose to put surveillance technology to use in our city, we will know that we have had the intentional conversations about costs and benefits. We will have discussed the potential risks and the helpful benefits and how to balance both so as to safeguard community members against threats to personal privacy, civil liberty, and over-surveillance. As a city council, we will know that we have a guaranteed seat at the table when potentially large impacts to our constituents' lives and potentially huge purchases are decided. We will have a clear and a structured way to let this people's forum be a people's forum on these very real 21st century issues. And we will be able to guarantee that our constituents have a chance to ask questions and to be heard. Surveillance technology is already in use in communities around America. There's no turning back the clock on this new class of corporate technology. However, We can do what we can under our local purview to take this as an opportunity to involve the public to hear from experts and to build trust between our government and our community. So the version of the ordinance that we'll be voting on tonight is the product of four years of advocacy by the community coalition behind it, and months of discussion among city council and the administration. Since March of last year we have substantially modified added to and subtracted from the original draft. These changes centered around paring down the reporting requirements to make this ordinance more manageable, making it more clear that routine office tools are not considered surveillance technology, and also clarifying the reporting requirements are to be high level and general rather than onerous and granular. Throughout this process we have had productive good faith conversations with this administration, especially this chief of police in those conversations we've been able to address a number of outstanding concerns that were raised even after this ordinance was reported at committee, and I know that no document is perfect. And there are partners within and without of this administration, who have, who would have preferred different approaches to certain aspects of this ordinance. Still I'm grateful that we seem to have reached an agreement across a broad range of stakeholders on a set of amendments that we believe would make this ordinance doable workable for this community. And there is a document before Councilors, along with the clean and also redlined versions of the ordinance tonight, outlining the floor amendments that we intend to propose, and I will move that they be adopted prior to us taking a vote tonight. So, to sum up, I believe this has been a collaborative process helping us craft what I think is the most Medford tailored version of this ordinance that we could have arrived at. In short, this ordinance would advance the goals of transparency, accountability, community participation, and trust building, goals that we all share, within a scope that our department heads can accomplish within their existing duties. I thank my fellow Councilors for their deference with my preamble. and I ask for your support tonight. And President Morell, I know that there are audience members here to speak on the ordinance, and I would ask if you'd be willing to invite them up to speak after my co-sponsor. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Vices and bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. First, I just want to thank Councilor Collins for her incredible leadership over the past 14 or so months to advance the ball on this ordinance. And I also want to thank Medford People Power and all of the organizations and individuals who came together to initiate this process, move it forward, have many, many community meetings and forums and discussions and conversations about getting it to where we are tonight. And I also want to acknowledge and thank the city administration and Chief Buckley for the many conversations that we've had to get to a place where we feel that this is something that we can enact, given the capacity of city staff and to address outstanding concerns. I also want to say that you know, one of the things that we talk about in government is when, you know, when you're trying to reach a compromise between parties who have different positions on issues, usually the end result is something that nobody is 100% ecstatic about. And I think this, after we put the amendments forward tonight, I think that this document will reflect that as well. And I say that because it's reaching an agreement between their stakeholders, again, with different approaches and thoughts around how this should be enacted, but also that as we move forward through this process, the intent of the ordinance is that it be long lasting and also that it adapt to change. And as the council considers surveillance reports for the first time, as the community adapts to changes in technology and all of the different things that come around them rapidly changing and growing. and surveillance technology environment across the world. I think we're going to have to come back and look at pieces of this, you know, in the future. So I just want to put that out there, too. And the great thing about this is that I really think it creates a strong foundation for us to have those conversations, to build trust and understanding in what the city is doing around these technologies that are you know, in many cases, new and unknown and have impacts and consequences that can't be foreseen. So that creating of a community process and a forum and a place for members of the Medford community to directly discuss what their local government is going to be doing when it comes to surveillance technology, I think is an incredibly important thing for us to do. And then I completely agree with Councilor Collins. that the state and federal governments are not taking the approach they need to take on us, and so it's up to local government to do so, and that local government is generally tends to be the level of government that has the most direct impact, the most direct interaction with people in their everyday lives, and that's the place where In many cases, surveillance could be the most impactful and could have the most negative impacts if not done correctly and not done with community control. So really thankful to Councilor Collins again for your leadership. If I may, I'd like to just propose that we amend, propose the 12 following amendments to the ordinance on the agenda. The first would be to strike some language from section 50-70. to provide protocols for use of surveillance technology or surveillance data that includes specific steps 2. The second is to strike and remove section 5071 C and D and adopt the updated section numbers. The third is to strike and remove the following language from section 5071 F and 5071 G subsection 3. and those language removals would be or significant property damage or loss and will be, and the phrase and will be used only in the surface of code enforcement. I'd like to further propose following amendments to adopt amendments, add new subsection to section 50-72, which would be B, body-worn cameras shall be exempt from section 50-72 of this ordinance until January 1st, 2028. Add a new subsection.
[Knight]: Can I just repeat that I missed that but you said it's going to put off the use of body one police cameras.
[Bears]: No, it's actually going to exempt our approval. Those, if those were to be used by the city they would not have to be approved by the city council for five years until January 1 2028. And that would also add to the section 50-73 the same clause, 50-74 the same clause, technical amendment to 50-74 subsection A to change the language to no later than 90 days following the effective date of this ordinance or prior to implementation of any new surveillance technology use covered by this ordinance. strike the first sentence of section 50 77 B and replace it with scope and intentions. The annual surveillance report is to provide a written report on an annual basis that contains a high level and generalized summary of policies and usages concerning surveillance technology used by any city department during the previous year and containing the information set forth in section 50 dash 77 of this ordinance. The eighth amendment is to strike and remove section 50 dash 77 C subsections four, five and nine and update the section numbers. Ninth Amendment is to strike section 50-79B and replace with B cause of action. Any violation of this ordinance constitutes an injury and any person may institute proceedings for injunctive relief, declaratory relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this ordinance. Any actions instituted under this paragraph shall be brought against the city and if necessary to effectuate compliance with this ordinance, any other governmental agency with possession, custody or control of data subject to this ordinance. striking the following sentence from section 59 C and this is due to federal and state Supreme State court rulings that this can't be done by ordinance would be striking the sentence. A court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff who is the prevailing party in an action brought to enforce this ordinance. We'd also strike in a move section 5080 and update the section numbers to reflect that and finally strike section 5081 and replace it with, quote, it shall be unlawful for the city to enter into any contract for monetary value with a commercial entity that provides the city with a mass acquisition of privately generated and own bulk surveillance data, any contracts or agreements signed prior to the enactment of this ordinance that violate this section shall not be renewed. After the completion of the term of said contracts or agreements, Section 5080 shall not apply to contracts or agreements executed for law enforcement operations or purposes. And those are the amendments. Can the clerk read those back, please?
[Knight]: You're welcome to. The way I look at this matter.
[Morell]: I think he has it. Yeah, I thought you asked. He has it.
[Knight]: No, I would not. Because right now I think that what we have in front of us is an 11 page ordinance with 12 amendments, right? This is craziness. All right. This isn't even something that's really important to the operation of our local government, in my opinion. Okay. We spent a lot of time, energy and effort working on something when I think we could have really been working on something else that matters to more people in this community. I understand that there's a group of people that care about this. I'm not really one of them. I don't think that this is something that's vital to the future of the city of Medford. Quite frankly, I think that it does things that can kind of hamstrung our ability to move forward and to promote a vision that adopts technology. When we sit down, when we first started talking about this ordinance, chat GPT wasn't a thing. And now look what it is, right? So in a very short period of time, technology has changed. And quite frankly, when we codify something in an ordinance, the government process is designed to move slow. And by codifying this in ordinance, I think what it's going to do is hamstring us in our ability to adapt the technology. So it's really not something that I want to support this evening. You know, I think when we're looking at the direction that we're going in here in the community, you know, We're working on a lot of things, but the results that the people want to see that I talk to are in the streets. They're on the ground, they're on the sidewalks, they're in the delivery of services. So while I can appreciate the work that's gone into this, it's not gonna be able to support this evening. And I asked my council colleagues to really think long and hard about an 11 page ordinance with 12 amendments on the floor, and whether or not that's a good transparent public process for us to take hold of and move on. I understand that the gentleman put a lot of work into it, as well as the lady, my colleague said I did an excellent job on this ordinance, don't get me wrong. It's just something that I have problems with, theoretically. So for those reasons, I will be supporting the paper this evening.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Collins, Councilor Villes. I know this took a lot of time, but I've been steadfast in my my view of our business and the lack of legal representation that could guide this council. And without that, that's one of the many reasons why I can't support this this evening. Like Councilor Knight said, there are 12 amendments of an ordinance that needs to be changed and how that affects the technology piece, not just this situation, but moving forward in other situations. Again, I'm gonna say this again, Councilor Knight put it one way, I'll put it the way that I've been saying it. We've been trying to do the city's business without a city attorney that represents this council, that guides us on ordinances. The recommendations from KP Law, I don't even know if they would be valid for the fact that they don't work for this council. So any legal information that we need to back from dealing with the legality of this or any of the questions that we had. I really can't trust or depend on, and to support this right now would be no different than any of the other papers that I've not voted for because of the lack of legal guidance. So I hope you can understand that. I appreciate the hard work. I know that this took a lot of work, and I appreciate that. So thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell, and I appreciate my colleagues thoughtful consideration of what's before us this evening, not just a 12 page ordinance, but also 12 floor amendments to go with it. And Councilor Scarpelli, to your point, I honestly, I do hear you on the legal council piece. I think that that is a concern that this entire body shares, and I'm sympathetic to your view that, you know, at some point we have to draw the line when it comes to demanding appropriate legal representation for this council. At the same time, I've made this clear many times to me, serving in public office is a privilege. None of us know how long we're going to get to sit in this chair and I'm committed to doing what I can while I can for a lot for as long as I sit in this chair. So when I hear about an ordinance that a community group has been pushing for for four years, if I have the opportunity to work on it, I'm going to work on it. That's my personal opinion and I respect yours. On the issue of the 12-4 amendments, You know, I think this is something that is procedurally well within bounds so there are other comments that I've heard that I don't quite know how to countenance but if any of my fellow Councilors would like us to go more in depth on what's before us. I know we did kind of a speed read round I'd also be very happy to walk anybody through it. I touched on this in my opening remarks but all of these floor amendments have come from. conversations that we have had with the city administration over the past months, in the past two weeks, as recently as today, all in service of trying to pass an ordinance that is manageable and doable for this administration. I'm sorry if that process didn't feel transparent at first blush, but there's, you know, all of this in spirit of this ordinance can be talked through. Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Point of information if I can.
[Collins]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: In no time do I question your ability or I'm disrespecting you in any way, madam, my fellow council, but like I said, and the other votes we've taken, we've talked about this and I've been steadfast on this. Even with the knowledge of the city administration or the knowledge of outside parties or your intense work, I still, still doing the city's work and making sure that anything I vote on, I feel secure legally that I've done the right thing. And again, I bring this back all the way back to BJ's. We voted on something that we thought was right because the work of this council, we thought we put in how we felt. It came back and we were sued and we lost. And we lost money tenfold, whether it be attorneys fighting the fight or fighting the appeal or whatnot. And I think that that's my point. Nothing else right now. I think that this is the reason why I know that this is the frustration that Councilor Knight brought up when it came to Councilor Beza's last paper. We talked about the partnership with the mayor's office and this council working together. In other municipalities, there is a liaison that works directly with the mayor's office that works as a partner with us. When we had some issues and concerns and negativity going back from this office, I sat with the chief of staff, I sat with the mayor, and I said, please, allow us to share in the celebrations, but as equal share in the negative issues that are happening, that we can work together. And that's just not happening. And until it starts to hurt, I have not, I haven't voted for a money paper. I will not vote for money paper. I think the city administration has to understand either we start getting along, we start fulfilling the needs that we need as a council that we've asked for for years. I can't support it. It has nothing to do with, I appreciate what you're doing. I appreciate your knowledge and the time you put into it. But again, no disrespect, but you're not an attorney. the people in that office I'm working for this, this, this office, this, this department, and we don't have anybody that's that's guiding us, because I will tell you, I did contact city solicitors that I used to work with, and they, they recommended that George you don't, you shouldn't do anything until you get a representation from your city solicitor because They don't know, they've never heard this before. There's no definition of who is guiding us in signing any ordinance, let alone this ordinance, but any ordinance moving forward. And if it's coming from, you know, support and who's guiding us, who's pushing this forward. So that's why I'm cognizant and a little leery of anything we do. And I know that I've talked to Councilor Biaz, I've talked to Councilor Morell about this. I know we have to do the city's work. But there are some things we just can't, can't push forward without having what I feel comfortable for the constituents that put me here. So I appreciate it and I apologize, but I thank you for respecting both of our opinions. So.
[Morell]: Any further discussion from the council at this time? Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. These amendments are dated today. When were these amendments drawn up?
[Morell]: I see a date of today on it.
[Caraviello]: I'm sorry?
[Morell]: I see the date of today.
[Caraviello]: I have a question. I'm a member of the committee. How come I wasn't consulted in any of these?
[Bears]: Well, this was reported out of committee and then reported out of committee of the whole.
[Morell]: These are from, these were reported out, these are the amendments.
[Bears]: No, no, no, these are.
[Collins]: No, these are, these are, sorry, Councilor Caraviello, these are new amendments that we're proposing after it was reported out of committee of the whole.
[Caraviello]: fellow members of this committee and I was a consultant on this.
[Morell]: And these are amendments being presented by vice-president Bears.
[Bears]: These are amendments that I just proposed them, but that councilor Collins and I, as the people who filed the paper, we met in negotiations with the mayor and the chief to develop a list of further amendments after the paper had been reported out of both the subcommittee and the committee of the whole.
[Caraviello]: So why wouldn't the subcommittee admit again to discuss these amendments? Well, the paper had already been reported out.
[Morell]: Any further discussion from the councilor? Councilor Tseng?
[Tseng]: I have some notes written, but I would actually, if my councilors are amenable, I'd like to listen to some residents who are here for this topic.
[Morell]: Any other council discussion at this time?
[Knight]: Madam Mayor, I think we all know where we stand on this. Why don't we just take a vote?
[Morell]: I mean, I think we, there's a number of residents here to speak, and I think we'd like to hear from them. So I'm happy to. have folks come up.
[Hurtubise]: The chief is here as well.
[Morell]: And also, yeah, Chief Buckley, if you'd like to speak first, or... I mean, you are more than welcome to speak first. Then we'll hear from the members of the public.
[Hurtubise]: There you go.
[Buckley]: I always do. Happy Valentine's Day. Thanks for letting me come before you to speak for this. I myself have been involved in these negotiations for four years now. I think we started 2019 and recognized from very early on that this is a difficult ordinance for not just the city but for the police department. A lot of this pertains to the police department. As the negotiations have developed throughout the years and more specifically this past year, the ordinance took on some heft and involved a lot of items that very clearly I could not produce for this city. And I can, by way of example, I can tell you that I'm a strong proponent of police officers wearing body-worn cameras. My unions are in support of it. The police department is in support of it. It is a piece of technology that I have very early on identified as wanting to be exempt from this policy. And as the sort of debate around this CCOPS ordinance developed, it became clear that it would be impossible for me to implement a body-worn camera policy if the ordinance was to be voted in the way it was written. Very recently, and again, I understand where I stand Vote wise and politically wise where this is. I am negotiating from the position of weakness You know The the C cops C cops ordinance in itself The irony of the name and so I know we can go back and forth to call it, you know community control the public surveillance Police surveillance. That's what everybody is put the floor. It's why it being an acronym is C cops Is It's just it's a way of looking at police in a negative light and I believe in my profession and I believe in our police department and I believe in the officers that go out there and I believe that they do a very difficult job and they do it very well and that Legislating how they should behave is probably not necessarily the right thing to do. We should be supporting them, training them, holding them accountable, and all for that. So as we move forward with this, in the last few days, there's been conversations about modifying the ordinance to address some of the concerns that I have had. Because I'm telling you, last week, if the ordinance passed, I would not have a body-worn camera policy. And I've got to tell you. God forbid anything had happened, it would be on this council that body-worn cameras were not on the street. There's been some amendments that have been put forward that, you know, considering my negotiation position, I have to support, right? I've talked to both councils, and I've said from the beginning, I want body-worn cameras exempt for a lot of reasons. There is a five-year exemption, which will allow me to put body-worn cameras on the street, and it'll probably be as soon as this summer, at least in some sort training program. So the way the amendments are, I support having amendments to an ordinance that I probably don't totally support. I mean, I always find myself having to qualify and quantify things I say. I support the civil liberties and civil rights of all people. I mean, I took an oath, and I've honored that oath for 25 years. So it's not that aspect of the ordinance. It's the burden that it's putting on the police department. I'm not Boston. I'm not Cambridge. I'm not Somerville. I'm not San Francisco and any of the other major city and municipalities that have this ordinance. I'm down with 20 police officers. Even watered down, this puts a burden on my police department. So I very much appreciate that the amendments are in there and that there was some listening and going back and forth to allow at least me to be able to put a body-worn camera policy in place. sound practice for a manager like myself to sit there and push it down the road for five years? I don't think so, but I have to take it, right? I mean, I have to sort of say, I have to take the five years. I want 41 cameras excluded permanently. We've had that discussion. I don't think I'm gonna get my way. I don't know if I'm gonna be here in five years to address it. I don't know if I'm gonna be here next week. I mean, that's the way policing goes these days, but it is not sound practice to put managerial practice to put in play body-worn camera policy or any other policy, and then say five years from now, we'll look at it and review it. Thumbs up or thumbs down. I think we should learn a lot of lessons when we put it in the street and keep it in play. So I try not to confuse people. I mean, as far as the ordinance goes, I believe in this police department, I do. And I don't believe that, you know, we need an ordinance to make us do good police work. I will repeat over and over again that we always uphold civil rights and civil liberties in this police department. We will maintain it when those issues are called into question, we will investigate and we will hold officers accountable when needed be. That being said, recognizing that this ordinance is going to pass, the amendments do help me get a body-worn camera program in play. And so I I just it's just a position of weakness that I stand for. So I would prefer to have body one cameras excluded completely. I know it's probably not proper to be up here negotiating that. But the things that were put in place in the past for this ordinance have sort of you know, would have put this police department in a very tragic position as it relates to managing a police department and holding them accountable in 2023 and further. Now there's a little bit of light. I would like it to go further. If you have questions, I'll be able to answer them, but that's where I stand on this, people. Thank you, Chief.
[Scarpelli]: Just one question. Chief, since your tenure as a chief, have you seen, is there identified issues with what we're talking about that people's civil liberties have been harness harmed.
[Buckley]: So through the use of technology, I don't know of any right now. And that's what we're talking about technology and surveillance. I've said from the beginning, I don't have much of this. We're not a very wealthy community. And if I have money, I'm going to spend it on human resources, not on surveillance technology. We don't have a lot of this technology. And those that You know, we do have, have historically been exempt from, Boston's exempted some of the, like the 911, it is a surveillance piece of equipment, but we haven't received in my tenure, but I can tell you 25 years prior to that, many complaints that I can think of off the top of my head as it relates to that.
[Scarpelli]: So two Sundays ago, I was personally involved in a road rage incident where a person, I had my son and another guest in my car, up and down 93, young person driving crazy, slowing down near an exit, threw a bottle off my car, contacted the state police. As we're traversing, they were taking off the exit. Person was making motion that he was gonna shoot me. As we came closer, and we were really slow because they were slowing up going to the exit. That person then slouched down into a seat, and I heard my son scream, dad, he's got a gun. We talked to the state troopers. They ran the numbers. Unfortunately, it wasn't the plate, the number with the car that we set. Got a phone call yesterday from the state police, thankfully. What I expressed that evening was not even that the gun issue, but the fear for my family that if he has my license plate, What is he gonna do if he's gonna brandish a gun on the highway? State Trooper called me yesterday, told me thankfully for the surveillance cameras on the Cloverleaf, they identified the car to the plate that we gave, and they followed through. He couldn't give us any more information, but to say that, it's safe to say that It's documented, they know it, but there's a history there with that situation. So I can tell you firsthand, I know my son and his friend haven't slept because of that fear. I just want to share that with you. So I appreciate how state troopers do their due diligence using that form of policing in a sense that, and it really wasn't used for policing. It's really used for traffic. And when you talk about a gun, they really triggered something for them to look at that. And there was history there. So I just wanted to share that with you. So thank you.
[Buckley]: Thank you. And of course, you know, like technology is meant to be used for good. And I get it, there are people who can fear for this, but you have to have some faith in your employees and some faith in the people you asked to lead them, right? And I was asked to lead this police department and I believe in controlling how we operate as a police department and for the good. And, you know, even with the amendments, it's a burden on the police department, but I have to say, it's a very, very difficult position to stand here to say, not for the ordinance, but I really need these, like, if you want a body-worn camera, I need this amendments passed. So it's kind of. know, uh, difficult, but I would ask that if somebody would reconsider at the last second to exempt 41 cameras forever because I think it's a good technology. I think it's going to hold, uh, the city in a better light, and we will never have to answer the questions that they've had to answer in Cambridge and other communities that have not, you know, have impeded the progress of 41 cameras on police. So other questions.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Thank you chief appreciate you being up here. You know, like I said earlier today, I really appreciate your candor, I know that this is a difficult conversation I really appreciate that you've been willing to have it with us with me for a year with others for four years. You know, I respect where you're coming from and I just want to reiterate that I don't want to repeat our conversation from earlier from two weeks ago, etc. you know, to the extent that we're having this conversation in the public forum, just for the sake of responding to you and putting it on the record. You know, I do want to emphasize that, you know, again, our intent here is not to be anti-surveillance technology. You know, that there is a reason that the ordinance is called Community Control over Public Surveillance. I think it's evidenced by our December Committee of the Whole when we had a whole range of city departments petitioning for exemptions or asking questions. How will this affect me? How will this affect me? It's really not our intent to target your very reliable department specifically, and I hope that you know that that intent is sincere. We've done our best to enshrine that in the language of the ordinance. This is intended to be proactive, not reactive to anything that your department or any other has done or done wrong. You know, I think I try to say often you know, policy and ordinances. They're not about just today and they're not about tomorrow and not about next week. They're about decades and even generations. You know, they're about putting something in place that will benefit the community when nobody who's currently in this room is still in this room. And I think we've tried our best to create a policy that will be right for the community, even when, you know, there's the next Jack Buckley leading the police department. And even when the city council looks entirely different so that we still have those structures for community input for transparency, regardless of who is at the helm. You know, over the past year, we've heard your very reasonable concerns about making sure that this is something that you can actually do, because we all know you have so much on your plate, and we've tried to only pare down this ordinance. I just want to say all that for context, for folks watching at home, for others who are participants in this process, and to say, you know, I really do appreciate your good faith discussions with us throughout this entire process. It's really appreciated, and I hope that you do feel heard. Thank you. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief, if you could, um, maybe elaborate what happened in Cambridge and what the situation is over there in relationship to the rules that we had being proposed there.
[Buckley]: Uh, so in relation to the rules being proposed, unfortunately, uh, people's rules different than ours, and they're having a controversy with what happened over there a few weeks ago. Well, the point that one of those Cambridge does have a similar C cops, so that's right. Cambridge doesn't have his body on campus, right? So a lot of the language in here will never impact 41 cameras because they just don't have. We're trying to implement a program. My reference earlier was to the, you know, to the tragic events that happened. The police involved shooting and, you know, there was a public outcry justified to some degree, that they want body-worn camera footage to see what happened. Cameras don't tell you everything, but they can give you some some basis of to what the facts were. And Cambridge has the police department and I know many of the offices and they've historically asked for 41 cameras and they've been denied for various reasons and some of it political. And I don't want this to prevent us from getting 41 cameras in the street. That was what the reference was for. So will they have a similar ordinance? Doesn't matter if they exclude 41 cameras because they don't have them. and there was never an intent, in my understanding, to bring body-worn cameras. That whole argument has probably changed right now. I'm willing to bet you that body-worn cameras are coming to the city of Cambridge, and they will have to re-argue. Now, even the city of Cambridge, for example, puts body-worn cameras and doesn't exempt them from the CCOPS ordinance, they have tremendous resources in Cambridge to be able to administer a program like this. We just are not in Cambridge. We don't have those resources. We're not Boston. We don't have those resources. Boston does have. Somerville excludes body-worn cameras, right? But they don't have them. They cut them out of their last budget, right? So Somerville Police wanted body-worn cameras. They budgeted $400-something thousand for them. And then their city council removed them from the budget to support the program. So we come from a There's a lot of similarities, right? We are one of those communities that's about to pass a CCOPS ordinance, but we're really not similar in community size, right? We're a police department that has 41 cameras and trying to put them on the street, but we have less resources. And that's why this impacts us differently than some of these other communities. When it comes down to it.
[Morell]: Any further discussion from the council at this time? Vice President Paris.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'll keep it short and just say that appreciate you coming forward, Chief, tonight and your engagement in the discussions and negotiations prior to tonight. Something that I've seen out of the conversations that I've been able to be a part of is that I personally, and I hope we can agree on at least this part, I do think that we share the same goals of having the trust and the process and the public understanding of what we're doing. I think where we've differed is on the approach and the details of that process, you know, and from as one person involved. I think we've tried to find a middle ground between the two positions about which that process should look like and my hopes are that that will mean that we can move forward to achieve the goals that we do share around it. And, you know, again, something that I said earlier and I'll reiterate is it's a foundation, something to look at in the long term, but also something that we can look at as practice happens and make adjustments. And, you know, I think that that openness to do that is the key. in any sense to being successful as things change and as things are so rapidly changing as a surveillance technology or the practices of implementing those technologies. So I just wanted to say that and end there. I'm going to support this tonight. Obviously, I'm going to support it with the amendments. And I think as we go from that point, we'll be able to have a public process around the surveillance technology that we hadn't had before. Thank you.
[Morell]: If I should embarrass any other Councilors to speak, Okay, so we haven't, anything else you'd like to add, Chief?
[Hurtubise]: Oh, no, no, thank you. Okay, I think we'll go. I appreciate the opportunity.
[Morell]: Thank you so much. We have a number of members of the public who'd like to speak, if you could just come up to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and slowly for the clerk.
[SPEAKER_16]: Sure, sure. Good evening, everyone. My name is Julie Flynn. I live at 32 Summer Road, Medford, Mass. So I am a Medford resident and a member of Ward 8 and a member of Medford People Power. And we are the group that was the proponent of this ordinance. And for those of you who don't know us, Medford People Power is a local group. It's been around for six years. We are concerned about civil rights and civil liberties here in this city. And approximately four years ago, we really saw the value of this ordinance here in Medford. And I think Councilor Collins and Zach Beers tonight has sort of captured and said things about this ordinance that we thought about four years ago. And that is, look, this is a 21st century issue. It is happening in cities and towns across the United States. And that is, as it's been explained already tonight, we have these powerful surveillance technologies that exist and are ever expanding on one hand. And then on the other hand, we have this potential use to acquire it and using it within our own city. So the ability of our own city to surveil us as residents. And all this ordinance sort of at a fundamental level, common sense level is saying, all right, All right, this technology exists, the city might want it, what should we do? And all this sort of asks for is some public input. So if in fact someone wants to acquire it, it should go before the city council. You as city council members should know that this is happening within our city. We as residents should know about the use of something like that in our city. And so anyway, so I think it is sort of just this basic ability to have democratic input in something as powerful as your own city and surveilling the residents within the city. And I should say, and it's already been said, this ordinance doesn't ban any technologies. It has no statement about any surveillance technology at all. And so there's no ban on anything. And it makes no comment about any specific technology. And as Council Collins has pointed out, there's gonna be so many ordinances, I mean, there's gonna be so many kinds of technologies in the near future, 20 years from now, three years from now, two years from now, it doesn't matter, there's gonna be a lot. And this ordinance is not about the state of any department here today, it's about building an ordinance that is good for now, two years from now, three years from now, dealing with an issue that does exist, which is surveilling surveillance of us as residents. Anyway, it has been four years since we started. And I just want to say it's been a journey with lots of discussions and lots of endorsements. I mean, there's just been a tremendous amount of work with people power working with the mayor's office speaking with the chief. Everyone has talked about it's been three years of different conversations going on. We've had a webinar, inviting citizens and political groups to it. We've gained the endorsements of many along the way. And some of the members of the groups who have endorsed it will be here tonight to speak. We've gained the endorsements of the NAACP for the principles of this ordinance, the Human Rights Commission, Sanctuary Church, Unitarian Universal Church, Democratic City Committee, Democratic Boards 82, Safe Medford, the Welcome Project, and the West Medford Community Center. So there has been a lot of community endorsement for the principles behind this ordinance And I think someone will speak tonight and to give some flavor to the, you know, sort of the texture and the historical reasons why such an ordinance like this has an impact more than maybe, just has an impact for many different groups of people here within Medford. So I wanna just thank you for the time tonight and we wish for your support. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_01]: Good evening, David Harris, 151 Sharon Street, West Medford. I'm a resident of that address for 28 years. I've served as a chair of the Human Rights Commission for 10 years. These glasses are terrible, all right. And most recently retired as a managing director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School. I'm also the chair of the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Being a career of 50 years dedicated to race and justice, I've come to understand racism as a differential distribution of access, opportunity, health, well-being, membership, and participation in society, a structure that cuts across all of our institutions. This differential distribution often occurs unknowingly as a by-product of policies and practices that are inserted into existing structures uncritically without regard for how they might enhance or dismantle inequality. As a resident of Medford, I'm committed to having our city act responsibly in this regard. From my perspective, we face a crisis across the country today with serious decline in confidence in our institutions across all realms, public, private, academic, and nowhere is this crisis greater than in the area of policing. Because police are granted legitimate use of force, this crisis is more pressing. While I know this ordinance covers all departments, I'm going to focus on implications of the practice of policing, the practice, not individual officers or officials. My work at the Houston Institute focused on what we call community justice, derived from the belief that community members can and must play a role in public policymaking and evaluation of those policies. We hear a lot about community policing these days, which I guess is a good thing. The problem is how to translate that phrase into practice. It has to be more than basketball games and cookouts, more than officer friendly. Community policing must include bringing the community into the policymaking process, as well as creating mechanisms for regular input from community members about performance. Policing, indeed our entire democracy, proceeds from an implicit contract with the public, a contract whose terms may and do change over time, but whose core underpinning is trust. In today's world, that trust has been damaged and many people often feel at odds, if not under siege. It may well be that Medford is not at an extreme crisis point, but we cannot escape the need to revisit and renew the contract. We know our public officials have shown a willingness to acknowledge the enduring legacy of past racial injustice for which all residents are thankful for that acknowledgement. While awareness and acknowledgement are important steps, they're only that. Well, excuse me, we must act with intentionality in the present and anticipation of the future. And that future is sure to bring an increase in the use of surveillance technology. Although I'm persuaded that this ordinance will not place undue burdens on those agencies it affects, any such cost may well be the price we pay for days gone by when we cut corners on the rights of some of our neighbors, whether people of color, women, newcomers, differentially abled, or others. I have two specific concerns about the use of technology in law enforcement and public policymaking. The first is a matter of the technology itself. Today's technology is astounding in its ability to analyze data, and we can only imagine it will become more powerful in the future. But we know this technology is flawed, that it reproduces many of the biases and resulting inaccuracies that racial antipathy wrought in the past. In doing so, even in its neutral or impartial application, it carries great risk of harm. That alone is reason to exercise extreme caution. Powerful as it may be, technology is far from perfect. Second, the technology will be used by human beings and we are all flawed and subject to error. We can think about various forms of training to protect us from missteps, but reflect on how long we've had implicit bias training and yet it continues to arise in both clinical and everyday settings. As we contemplate the use of more and more technology in governing, there's an increased rather than decreased need for formal mechanisms of transparency and accountability to residents and elected officials such as yourselves. Creating this ordinance will be a way to affirm the contract between government and the governed, which in turn could boost the legitimacy of government, including but not limited to policing in our city. I wanna close by thanking you all for your diligence on this matter, for your leadership, and the opportunity for us to take a step toward keeping Medford in the forefront of liberty in this country.
[Morell]: Thank you. Going to Munir Germanis on Zoom. should, there you go. Name and address for the record, please.
[Munir Jirmanus]: My name is Munir Germanus, and I live at 3 Summit Road in Medford. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Medford Human Rights Commission, where I have served for over five years, three of which as chair. As I mentioned in my letter to all members of the city council on October 14th of 2020, and again on October 12th of last year, the commission voted to endorse and reaffirm the principles and goals of community control of public surveillance, and to urge all members of the city council to support the current CCOPS ordinance that is under consideration by the council. We realize that such an ordinance will involve some difficult discussions and negotiations that involve the city administration, the police and other departments who would be affected by the ordinance. Over the past four years, this process has involved an amazing open discussion between the various parties involved as each party seeks to protect their own interest. However, we have full confidence in each and every member of the City Council that they will protect the interests of the City, the various departments involved, and all its residents in these discussions. We are proud that our city council is involved in this process as our representatives in city government. Passing such an ordinance will demonstrate that our voice is being heard in this critical issue. The failure to agree on passing such an ordinance will send a message that the community will be excluded from any discussions and decision making of critical matters that affect this community. So once again, I respectfully urge each and every member of this council to vote in favor of this ordinance. Thank you for your attention and for your consideration.
[Morell]: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak either in person or on Zoom? Name and address for the record, please. Oh, actually.
[Steve Schnapp]: I live at 36 Hillside Avenue.
[Morell]: Sorry, could you hold the beat? I realize you're not the clerk, so just, or he can go back to the minutes. He can, okay, well, he can watch the video.
[Steve Schnapp]: I am a member of Safe Medford, which is a nonpartisan group of Medford residents that advocates for policies, services and education to ensure the safety and dignity of all who live, work, worship and do business in Medford. Safe Medford joined People Power in an effort to create a new official policy guidelines for police interaction with all community members, regardless of immigration status. We worked with both the past and the current chief of police to eventually codify those procedures. We are again joining Medford People Power in support of the CCOPS ordinance under your consideration. Three years ago, I listened to Chief Buckley's remarks at the city's Martin Luther King holiday event. In one of his first public appearances, Chief Buckley made a commitment to the people of Medford to bring Medford policing into the 21st century, he pointedly stressed that that meant first acknowledging the historical legacy of harm that police forces committed, particularly and disproportionately to people of color. In his remarks, Chief Buckley also vowed to work to create trust between Medford's law enforcement and all of Medford's residents, and most especially with its marginalized communities. Seacops is one of the places where the rubber meets the road, where the chief's commitment to a 21st century police force is now being tested. allowing government to conduct surveillance activities without adequate public oversight keeps the door open to misuse and leads to more mistrust. Transparency is essential to building trust. It's a key to accountability. CCOPS moves us in the right direction. I urge you to support this ordinance. Thank you.
[Morell]: Reverend Wendy Miller Olapade on Zoom. I'll unmute you. Do it again. I'll try one more time.
[SPEAKER_09]: You should see, there we go. Oh, okay, there we go. I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to do it myself as well. I am a resident of Medford live at 105 Brooks Street, and as of this week I will have been a resident here for 10 years. Thank you so much for giving me a chance to speak and thank you to all of our Councilors for continuing to work on this ordinance. The last time I participated in some public comments about this ordinance, I spoke about the values of community and accountability. Tonight, I want to speak to the values of equity, justice, and the issue of civil rights. I expect the servants that I elect to protect my privacy and my civil rights and the privacy and the civil rights of all of my neighbors, all of my neighbors. I also expect that the civil servants that my taxes employ and the officials that my votes elect are attending to the safety and the well-being of all of Medford's residents equitably. Unfortunately, our history and the data about civil rights and civil liberties demonstrate that there is a need for oversight, for a democratic process, for public and legal oversight to ensure the equitable implementation of justice and safety services, because it has not been just. And we do need to put processes in place to make sure that it gets just. The city council has spoken regularly about transparency and accountability, and is wagging its finger regularly about that. So I ask you my elected representative representatives to vote in favor of this ordinance. to ensure that transparency and accountability and protection of all of our civil liberties are assured by law in the use of the tools that have an impact on my civil liberties, on my civil rights, which we, as we have already heard, this technology does. It has an impact on my civil rights, and I want you to control it. I expect my government to represent the rights of all of our citizens and the values that have been expressed by the other speakers who've chosen to speak. I do not expect my city council to be afraid to vote in favor of ordinances that clearly protect civil liberties and accountability to their electors. This is simply the right thing to do to protect all of us and to protect our civil servants' ability to do their jobs. Please vote in favor of this ordinance. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Bears]: Madam President. Is there anyone else?
[Morell]: I don't see any hands up on zoom. Is there anyone else? Uh, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Bears]: Okay.
[Morell]: You came back. Welcome back. Hang on one minute. There you go.
[Castagnetti]: Thank you. Um, I'm very, I don't understand this 14 page, I believe ordinance. And I don't think 99% of the people in the city understand that either, nor have they even read it. I'm hearing things that sound pretty touching on both ends of the spectrum here. To be fully honest and full disclosure, I am a Woodstock graduate, 1969 in Bethel. And I wasn't a big fan of cops in those days. or Big Brother putting their nose in our business still. However, if something is happening that's violent and it's not fair, I mean, who are you gonna call? I think people wanna call the cops, not Ghostbusters or Dr. Phil or Phyllis. You're in deep trouble, and chances are, even if they're like three houses away, they won't get there in time, mind you. I just have one concern. Not that I'm a fan of cameras, the big brother thing. However, if a camera catches someone stabbing you, I would hope, I wouldn't hope, I would demand that that video, if it's authentic and not fake, should be shown in a court of law to Convict the culprit. And it should be colorblind, the camera.
[Bears]: Period. Thank you, Madam President. Motion to approve the paper for first reading as amended.
[Morell]: Any further discussion from the council? Councilor Tseng?
[Tseng]: Just a very short comment from my personal perspective, having served on the committee. I wanted to thank all of our speakers tonight for being so eloquent, no matter what they were speaking for. When I think about this ordinance in front of us, I think about democracy, transparency, and productivity, and with the combination of those three, building trust in government. I think the process that we've gone through really highlights the best of democracy. We've had good faith negotiations, compromise, we've had activists who've engaged their elected officials on an issue that they've really cared about. And as a young person of color, I especially thank you guys for that work. Because there's a lot of, the fact is that there's a lot of work that we can do to rebuild trust. And this is the first step of many that we can take. And it's an exciting step. I truly do believe that this product is tailor made for a city and look, people might not be completely happy with it, no matter the side of the political political spectrum but that is a it's a fact of compromise and It's a feature of democracy. I especially, I think, like how this ordinance uses community-centric approach to make us a public forum where residents can make their opinions heard, where they can learn about what we're doing as a city, and where we can help facilitate a trusting relationship between city government and our residents. And by letting the public have a voice in our discussions, I think we're really just crowdsourcing their knowledge making more critical decisions. And so with that, I'll second the motion to approve.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And if I could just briefly from the chair, I also want to say thank the chief and everyone who worked on this. Just the amount of, I think, good faith discussion around this and kind of moving the needle both ways, I think is a model for things going forward. And I just want to say for me, in addition to everything that's been said tonight, for me, it comes down to the technology. It's not a lack of faith in You Chief, I absolutely have very much faith in you, and I think we've had a lot of great conversations that I really appreciated. But the technology, it evolves at such a rapid rate, and I think we've seen, and it's a known fact that ethics are often a last thought when it comes to technology, if a thought at all. And I think this is just something that's putting guardrails on that. It doesn't, as it's been, but I just want to reiterate, even though it's been said, it doesn't ban or even comment on any specific technology. but it gives the opportunity for us to know what might be used in our city. And I do think one of the residents too, I believe was Mr. Harris just saying that this is a real opportunity for 21st century community policing. I think it really gives them having the community able just to know what's going on is really, really important. And this is an important step towards that. So I thank everyone for their work on this for all of their comments and thoughts and for being here once again tonight to discuss this. We have a motion on the floor from Vice President Bears.
[Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello? Are we passing the amendments first?
[Morell]: The motion is to approve as amended for first reading.
[Caraviello]: So we're just doing the amendments first? Or the whole paper?
[Morell]: The motion is to take all the amendments, so.
[Bears]: Well, if we need two votes, I propose the amendments. If you want to vote on the amendments and then vote on the paper, I'm more than fine with that. I think we should vote. I think we should.
[Morell]: We can take the amendments.
[Bears]: I'll withdraw my second motion and I'll move to amend the ordinance as I had read earlier.
[Morell]: Okay. So on the motion of Vice President Bears to amend the ordinance based on the 12 amendments presented earlier that are also in the hands of the clerk, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Stroud. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Vice President Bears.
[Morell]: Yes. I have an information on the night of the motion passes.
[Bears]: Motion to approve the ordinance for first reading as amended.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears to approve the ordinance for first reading as amended, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. For the affirmative three in the negative the motion passes. Passes for first reading. Okay, so we have one more paper.
[Morell]: to one that's 053 offered by Councilor Collins housing stability notification ordinance motion to suspend the reading in favor of a brief summary on the motion of vices and affairs to suspend the reading in favor of a brief summary seconded by Councilor Gabriella all those in favor, I suppose motion passes, going back to you once more Councilor Collins very brief summary.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Brown. What a treat to have two of my ordinance projects come before the council on the very same night. Good thing it's a holiday. I'm very glad to be bringing this forward tonight. This paper was first proposed by Councilor John Falco in 2021. Very grateful to him for proposing this paper and for the opportunity to carry the project forward as Housing Subcommittee Chair. In contrast to the ordinance that we just discussed, this ordinance is extremely simple. It creates a new requirement that all property owners in Medford distribute a simple, perhaps one or two page document prepared for them by the city to their tenants at the beginning and termination of any lease or upon eviction. This document would also be provided to homeowners that are being foreclosed upon. The goal of this policy is to make sure that all residents in Medford are aware of the housing rights to which they are already entitled, and the resources that are already available to them. People should know what their rights are, what to expect, and where to turn for help before some kind of stressful or emergency situation occurs. This information is often hard to find. Whether you're a tenant, an owner, or an owner being foreclosed upon, having to scramble for information, or not know where to turn for help benefits nobody. This ordinance ensures that relevant information is distributed through the community in a streamlined way proactively. I want to just briefly outline the process of this project. The council has been meeting on this paper since the fall first in the housing subcommittee, and then in a recent committee of the whole. We began by discussing the examples of three of our neighboring communities, Cambridge Boston and Somerville, who also have housing stability notification ordinances. We compared and contrasted these ordinances and selected the best parts of each example. We also reviewed the actual notification document that's currently used in each of these cities to inform our discussion. At every step we discussed the ordinance with the city departments that would be implicated by this ordinance. These partners included the Board of Health, which stepped up to do enforcement. The Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability volunteered to create the housing notification document. based on resource documents that their office already has available, and they also consulted on how to best begin the rollout of this ordinance. The Office of Prevention and Outreach, whose work in our community is closely aligned with the goals of this ordinance, offered their insight on equity and implementation strategies. I'm very heartened that this ordinance has the approval and even the enthusiasm of our city departments that are already responsible for housing stability and community outreach projects in our community. Finally, I just want to say this is an ordinance that is primarily intended as an educational tool. Thanks to the collaboration and the input of our city partners, I believe that this ordinance will be simple to implement and serve as another tool toolbox for promoting stable housing in Medford, through expanding awareness of existing housing rights and resources in our community.
[Morell]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I'm looking at this. I have a question as to how it would work relative to the students in the dormitories
[Morell]: Has that been under consideration or is that exempt from this?
[Knight]: You know, so students in the dorm, they say you gotta go, school's over. Yeah, I don't wanna go, I wanna stay. I wanna stay for the summer. We gotta give you notice, you gotta take it through the eviction process. I mean, I'm not sure, I'm trying to figure out how that would apply.
[Morell]: Councilor Collins?
[Knight]: To the university.
[Morell]: Yeah.
[Knight]: Or off campus housing in the university for that matter, you know what I mean?
[Morell]: Sure, thank you.
[Collins]: Sorry?
[Knight]: I just don't know who to place a burden on the university. I mean ultimately they house thousands of kids up there, right?
[Collins]: Councilor Collins. Yeah, thank you for that question, Councilor Knight. This doesn't currently exempt any housing situations other than short or long-term like hospital care facilities in the city of Medford. So I believe it would implicate student housing situations, whether that's private property owners or the dormitories themselves. I wanna be clear, this doesn't create any new housing rights or responsibilities. It doesn't create the right to remain in a housing situation for longer than a person would already be able to do that. It's just a simple document that's delivered upon move in and move out.
[Knight]: Right, but what it does do is it creates a punitive situation for where if the property owner fails to provide the certain notice, they're going to be fined $300 a day. So if we have a property on a Tufts University that has 900 kids in housing, and they fail to comply, 900 times 300 times 300 times every day at the fine. You know what I mean? They're one of our bodies in the community. We don't want to put an administrative burden on them. It's going to be punitive. I support the paper. I just, I think the fines excessive really is what it is. I mean, if it was 25 bucks or something like that, yeah, fine. 300 bucks for not sending somebody a notice about what their rights are when they get evicted. When, you know what I mean? We have all heard the term caveat emptied by everywhere, right? You also have to be able to have some accountability personally and know what your rights are as well, right? It's not government's job to hold everybody's hand all the time, right? Some people have to have some certain personal accountability, right? So if you run into a situation where you're gonna be evicted, right? You might wanna say, hey, what are my rights? Cause I'm being evicted. and have some personal accountability as well. I just think that the $300 fine is very excessive, especially because it's for every day that passes, it's another $300, and it constitutes another violation. If we brought that down to, you know, 25 bucks or 50 bucks, I would have a problem.
[Collins]: Councilor Collins, Advices and Affairs. Thank you, President Morell. Thank you, Councilor Knight, for entertaining this line of questions. I think that we discussed similar issues with the Director of the Board of Health at our recent committee of the whole around enforcement, the fee structure, fine structure. The $300 was booked because it's statutorily defined and also because it's commensurate with other fines for ordinances that we already have in the books in the city of Medford. More importantly, when we discussed, when we were kind of first hashing out who would enforce the ordinance earlier in the subcommittee process after it was determined that it'd be more appropriate for it to be the Board of Health rather than code enforcement. You know, like I said, I think this is a phrase that I probably borrowed directly from Director O'Connor. This is primarily intended to be an educational tool. This ordinance isn't on the books that we can go around issuing $300 fines to landlords that don't know that this is something they're supposed to be doing. After all, the penalty for the first warning is a written fine, and this is to be endorsed, sorry, enforced at the discretion of, in this case, the Board of Health Director or their designee. So I say that to say, I don't think that this is the kind of thing where You know, if a landlord is delinked and accidentally, or we have some kind of extenuating circumstance, overall, it's at the discretion of the director of the Board of Health to enforce this towards the goal of actually promoting housing stability, not towards it generating revenue. And that was a discussion that we had pretty explicitly with the Board of Health director earlier in this ordinance process.
[Knight]: That discretion part is what makes me curious, especially after listening to what Mr. Harris had to say a few minutes ago. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. It shouldn't be at discretion. If it's violation, it's a violation. If it's not, it's not, right? I mean, ultimately what we're doing is putting language in here to say that the board of health director can haphazardly policy if they see fit, right? And fine up to $300, right? I don't think that's what we're looking to do. I don't think that's what the goal objective is. So ultimately, we're saying the Board of Health Director may at their discretion do this, right? So ultimately, we're talking about issues of equity. We're talking about government not being trusted. We're talking about putting controls in on government. But then we're going to give somebody the authority to act haphazard and apply policy unevenly.
[Bears]: So the specific things here, number one, Tufts could just give this to all the students that they house, and that would be fine. It'd be another packet in the many packets of papers that they give to their students. And secondly, when it comes to off-campus housing, that would be private landlords, and therefore they would be providing this information to their tenants or the other residents. When students sign an agreement to enter dormitory housing, they sign a specific contract for a specific period that's very different from a standard rental lease. requirements, penalties and needs around that are different. I, you know, generally you don't see students squatting after, you know, homecoming or, sorry not homecoming, but you know, graduation just to try to uphold their eviction rights for 60 days. I don't think I've ever seen that at any university that I've ever been a part of. When it comes to the discretion piece, there's nothing in here that says the board of health may do what they want or the health director may do what they want. It's just a common understanding that any level of government in this country, state, federal, local, the executive branch is the branch that enforces the law and they may enforce that law at their discretion, right? We see that with a number of things with You can go from president to president, and some presidents choose to enforce certain parts of the law, and some presidents choose to enforce different parts of the law, and we have lots of debates around that. Going back to Councilor Collins' point initially, I think that really is the crux of this is we had the conversations about what is this gonna look like, how is it gonna be implemented, and what is the purpose that it's gonna serve? And it's going to be a document, Developed can even kind of a modification of existing documents that have been created around the rights of renters and homeowners and their and their housing rights and resources, it's going to be. created by the city, distributed to property owners, and primarily the goal is to have it be an educational tool to ensure that everyone in the city, whether you're a homeowner or a landlord, a tenant, or anyone else, has a clear picture of what your rights are. And in terms of the specifics of enforcement, the first violation is a written warning. The second violation is the fine that you noted. Pursuant to Chapter 40, Section 21D of Mass General Law, And even more so than that I did a fine per incident not a fine per day so it wouldn't be $300 a day would be if someone. And again, the intent here, both the intent of us and the intent of the administration that we worked with is that this is not just know, going around and finding people willy nilly, it's trying to get folks to provide the relevant legal information to everyone who has housing in the city so that they can better understand what their options are in any situation. But in any case, the way that it would be implemented, or the way that the enforcement structure is written, If I'm a landlord and I didn't provide my tenant this information, and I was then told about the existence of this ordinance, and then I started providing the information, that wouldn't be an issue. If I didn't provide the information, was told about the ordinance, and then continued on to provide the information for whatever reason, then I could be given a written warning. And then if I didn't provide it to a tenant on the inception or the termination of a tenancy or a lease, then I would be fined $300 one time, not $300 a day until I provided the information. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: That's not the way I read it. Thank you, Madam President. And again, not to disrespect my fellow councilors that are speaking on this issue, but again, the intent of law and the understanding, we do not have anyone behind this rail that's an attorney. which poses another issue and concern that we have with a lack of this. And like I said, I'll say it again, most communities is there's representation for the council that's present with us that you can call the podium and ask these questions to make sure we're protecting us, the fiscal responsibilities of the community and our laws. And again, it just, I don't think that people, my frustration comes in understanding how serious this is without not having legal representation as we move forward with these ordinances. So again, just something I needed to share. Thank you.
[Tseng]: Sorry. Thank you President well, um, for me this is pretty straightforward. I look at the housing stability and the vision ordinance I see something that has generated support from different parts of town. I think this is fundamentally, fundamentally about transparent and helpful governance. And the idea that we're all better off when we know what our rights are and we know what resources we have access to. Access to information can be hard, especially to those who don't know who to ask for resources, where to look for information. And some people who might fall into those buckets are older folks who might not be internet savvy, immigrants who might not speak English, and people who just moved to Medford or have moved to Massachusetts for the first time and they don't really know what how our institutions work here. I also want to commend the people who've put so much work into writing this ordinance for making sure that it meets our goals when it comes to equity in housing. There's language in here that talks about language access. There's language in here that really addresses print versus digital media. And I think it's, This is one of those kind of pieces of legislation that we have in front of us that has, I think, a newer perspective on how we can solve these long lasting challenges. I think it's also important to to state again that our city staff have been supporting us the whole way with this. They know that we have the ability to do this. We do have the ability to do this. And we have the ability to build a fair economy in the housing market where we do look out for the little guy. And we look out for tenants. We look out for the tenant landlord relationship and for people being foreclosed upon.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion from the Council?
[Knight]: Just, Madam President, if it's about transparency, right, and it's about making sure that people are aware of something, then why are we attaching a punitive measure to it, right? Why are we attaching a fine at the end of it? if it's about transparency and it's about making sure that people have knowledge, right? I mean, this is always an excuse when it comes up to something, this is some reason why the people aren't competent enough to pursue what it is they need to pursue. There's always a reason we're trying to pass something. What about the person that doesn't have internet? Yeah, that one person, like, come on, it's 2023, the internet is everywhere. They're giving phones away. You walk into the store, they're giving you a phone for free. You know what I mean? Come on. Everybody has access to the internet. If not, there's plenty of places to access the internet, number one, number two. You know, I don't think that we give the general populace enough credit sometimes. All right, we don't give the general populace enough credit sometimes. But with that being said, I'd motion to strike the fine from $300 to $50, and then I'll move for approval.
[Morell]: We have a motion from Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Can we take those separately?
[Morell]: Uh, do you have a, um, would you sever? Are you asking to sever or would you sever those two? Councilor Knight?
[Knight]: Well, I'm going to, I mean, I'm making the motion to make it 50 bucks. And then if it passes, I'll move for approval.
[Morell]: So we have a motion from Councilor Knight to adjust the, um, fine to $50.
[Bears]: Second.
[Morell]: Seconded by Vice President Bears. Uh, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Bears]: If I may add the motion.
[Morell]: Councilor, uh, Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: The reason there's a fine is that there. Otherwise, if no one if people don't do it and the city doesn't have any authority to further ask them to do it. I don't mind if we reduce the fine, but also if we find out because the finest so is that an amount that is not sufficient to convince a property owner to otherwise follow the law. then I think we'd have to revisit that. So I'm fine, we'll test it out at 50. I mean, again, as we said, the intent was educational and my understanding is that at least on the first pass and probably multiple passes of going through the property on our list and asking them to submit this, the Board of Health won't issue fines at all. But again, I think if we come back here and find out, we hear from the Board of Health, well, there's 200 problem properties in the city that aren't gonna issue this because they'll pay 50 bucks and they have an objection to it, then we may have to come back and revisit it.
[Knight]: I mean, ultimately what we're doing is we're asking the landlord to give a piece of paper that the city puts together to the tenant. We're gonna charge them 300 bucks if they don't do that. That's a little much. That's a little crazy, but I support the, I appreciate the council's second on the motion.
[Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Knight to strike the $300 and change it to 50, seconded by Vice President Ferris. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Ferris. Yes. Yes. Yes. No.
[Morell]: No. For me for three and a motion passes. Vice Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: One more moment of motion to exempt Tufts University. Motion to accept Tufts University on campus housing University.
[Morell]: on-campus housing, so Tufts-owned on-campus housing, motion to exempt?
[Knight]: Under B-5, I guess it would be. 4933-B-5, new section.
[Morell]: So we have a motion from Councilor Knight to exempt Tufts University's on-campus housing, seconded by Councilor Caraviello.
[Hurtubise]: Roll call, please.
[Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you. I just wanted to note before we take the vote on this Council and I appreciate your amendment and thinking through this on the floor. Having not considered such an amendment before, I think it's worth putting on the record that as a Tufts alumnus myself, I've seen firsthand, I don't think that this is an ordinance that would be in any way difficult for them to implement. And I think that there is some value for an institution that professes to be a community partner to participate in such an ordinance so that should students move off campus after graduating from Tufts University, like myself, that they are given a headstart in, you know, like we're talking about being aware of the housing rights and responsibilities and resources that they can expect from their community. So I don't know that this is a major point, but I just felt it's worth expressing that I don't think it's going too far to ask a major and wealthy community partner to participate in a good faith ordinance. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you Councilor Collins. Do you have the motion, Mr. Clerk? So the motion of councilor Knight to exempt tops on campus housing seconded by councilor Caraviello, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: No. No. Yes. Yes. No.
[Morell]: No. Three in the affirmative, four in the negative, the motion fails.
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve.
[Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Knight to approve as amended by Councilor Knight for first reading, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Peers. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. No. That's what I'm saying.
[Morell]: Yes. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. That is the end of our agenda. Up to public participation. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak? Name and address for the record, please.
[Steve Schnapp]: Steve Schnapp, 36 Hillside Avenue. I actually wanted to say this about an hour and a half earlier when folks were discussing the post office. I just want to say, and if there's anybody here who knows the last name of postal carrier Joe in Medford Square, We get our mail every day, unless he's sick. And he had surgery, it was out for a while, and the mail was a little slippery. Came back after surgery. This is an older gentleman, he's probably gonna retire in a few years. Not as old as me. Also remember a couple of weeks ago, when the weather was below zero, and with freezing rain and snow, we were still getting our mail on that day. So I just wanted to put that on the record so folks would know that there are a lot of postal workers who are trying their damnedest and who still believe that the mail should be delivered through snow, rain, ice, et cetera. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you. President Bears.
[Bears]: Just to that point, I believe I also saw recently that according to the head of the post office here in Medford, they're down almost a third on their delivery staff right now. And that's probably the main reason here. And there's a variety of reasons that could be true. But one of them is I think that our postal workers are underpaid significantly. And I think that if we maybe should consider a resolution to encourage higher pay for postal workers, and maybe then we'll get more filling of the openings in our current delivery services, open positions. So thank you.
|
total time: 17.23 minutes total words: 2786  |
total time: 4.84 minutes total words: 926  |
total time: 11.43 minutes total words: 1792  |
total time: 7.0 minutes total words: 1014  |
|
total time: 10.72 minutes total words: 2351  |
total time: 16.21 minutes total words: 2933  |
total time: 13.89 minutes total words: 2759  |
|