AI-generated transcript of Mystic Valley Voter Forum

[Unidentified]: th

[Kevin Harrington]: th th th th You can all be heard in both the room and online. We're going to have these microphones when it's everyone's turn to speak. One of the things you're going to want to do is hold it pretty close. Hold it like right in front of your chin. Project as well as you can. If you gesture a lot, don't put the mic in the gesturing hand because it'll sound like that. And then from there, yeah, I'll try to goose it up a little bit, but we don't have a ton of additional volume we can do without feeding back. So whenever you can, nice and close, nice big voices, and I think that should work out for us. So what I'll do is, could you let me know, it's Alan, is that correct? Kevin, good to see you again. So members too, I'll have you start off with this microphone. He does too, yeah, he's gonna get his from here. So if you want, you can turn it off for now, if you'd like, switch it to the.

[u1Dt2VrL-v4_SPEAKER_21]: All right. If everyone could just take a seat and we'll get started here in just a second. Are there folks in the hallway? All right, all right, hello everyone. Thank you for coming to the Mystic Valley Voters Forum for the 34th Middlesex State Representative Race. My name is Imani, I'm one of the co-organizers of this event, and we're very grateful for you all to attend on a Wednesday after probably what is a work day, as well as thank you so much to our candidates for attending and participating in something like this, and of course, Alan, our moderator, who you're gonna hear from in just a second. Before we get started, I just wanted to say a huge thanks to our co-sponsoring organizations. Those are the NAACP of Mystic Valley, Safe Medford, Mystic Mashup Indivisible, Medford for Palestine, Our Revolution Medford, and the Medford Democratic City Committee. There are folks representing those organizations here today, so I'll shout them out during our breaks, as well as when we do some thank yous at the end, and there will also be time for Q&A at the end of this event, so please do stick around. If you looked at our flyer, we do have five questions that we're asking of the candidates today that were put together by the organizations that are co-sponsoring today's event. So we're very excited, and with that, I'm going to turn it over to Alan.

[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you. So I want to welcome the three candidates, Paul Rousseau, Will Mbah, and Chris Oates. And I think I managed to pronounce everybody's name correctly. And welcome to everybody who came and to all the people who are going to see it right now or later online. And let's jump right in with the, well, let me explain how it's going to run. So, there's five questions. We will start with a brief introductory, you know, statement from each candidate explaining who they are and, you know, what they, basically what they would do in the legislature. And then we will jump into the five questions. Each candidate will have two minutes. And then after the two minutes, each candidate will have, if they choose, one minute for extra comments. For example, if they have anything to say to follow up on what somebody else has said. If anybody attacks anybody's record, then I have the option of giving the person who got attacked 30 seconds to rebut. I don't think that, I doubt very much that's going to happen today. And we'll, so there are three questions, then a break, and then two questions, and we'll go to closing comments, and question and answer, and I hope we'll have a lot of time for question and answer. OK, I'm going to jump right in. And here is the first question. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So each opening statement is how long? I believe it is two minutes. So you're going to have the first answer to the first question. So why don't we start with Will.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Alan. Thank you, everybody, for being here. And thank you to the Mystic Valley Voters Forum and any other organization that contributed and put this event together. It's really, really nice to be together at this great community. So my name is Will. I'm running to be your next state representative, you know, and I believe that government should do more than, you know, talk about people's problems. Because government should deliver results that makes people's lives better. One of my experience, you know, in government, just like people talk, we know the problems. We'll talk about them as the questions come up. And before I even go any further, I want to recognize some very special people who are here with me this evening. My beautiful wife is over there, Crystal, and my two kids, Joel and Grace. And in fact, you know, today is particularly special in our family because it's my son's, Jowar, he turns 10 years old today. Happy birthday, Jowar. So Jowar, I promise you, you know, I won't make you sit through a two-hour speech. So it's really, I want to really acknowledge that. But having my family here tonight is very meaningful to me because much of what motivates me to serve about the future we are thinking about our children is my family. So I'm grateful to see them here, and it really inspires me. 16 years ago, I came to this great country from Cameroon in search of opportunity. And I came here believing that If I work hard, contribute to my community, and play by the rules, my family could build a better life. But I also learned very quickly that opportunity is not equally available to everybody. Excuse me. Oh, it is up? Oh, wow. Okay. We'll look forward. I mean, I'm excited to be here. You will hear more about me and my story. I'm not going anywhere. And yeah, so, but thank you for the opportunity because I appreciate the fact that we want to express who we are. But one thing I will say is that I have the lived experience, the governing experience, somebody who has translated ideas into policy for nearly a decade for the city of Somerville. So thank you.

[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you, Will. I'm glad I'm not going to be the only one to run over. So my name's Paul Rousseau. I have been on the Medford School Committee for nine years. This is my fifth term. And I lived in Somerville before I moved to Medford. A lot of folks here moved to Medford for the same reason. You couldn't afford to live in Somerville. Things haven't gotten better. I live with my husband, who this is actually, it's not the only anniversary. It's the only special day. It's our 20th anniversary. And my two kids are going off to be freshmen in college. One the day before the election and one the day after. And so the day after that I promise to be curled up in a ball in my room. By day, I am a software developer at Dana-Farber supporting important cancer research as well as some standard of care. And, well, that's my day job. In my time on the school committee, we have, I've made, equity a major issue I looked at the policies that really needed that we're not having impact on our students equally the dress code policy which by far was affecting our students of color especially our girls there was our There's our discipline policies. There's our out of school suspensions. All of those things I have remedied. And I have written every policy in Medford Public Schools except for two this year because we have somebody else finally that likes to write policy. And I'm very proud to have been the policy chair because I think in policy. I think in how it gets implemented. I grew up experiencing homelessness, food insecurity the whole time. I never went to a dentist until I was an adult, and I'm still literally paying for that. I think I went to the doctor once because I had appendicitis. And so I know what it's like when there's systems that are there, don't reach the folks that need them, as well as the systems that just simply aren't there. And that's how I prioritize what I think has to be done.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: I'm just waiting for the timer to reset. So I just don't want to take extra time. So I'm going to let them go. OK. OK. Hi, everyone. My name is Chris Oates. I'm running for state rep. I live in Somerville. I grew up in Canton, which is now known for the Karen Reid trial, which is not what you want from your hometown. But growing up, I think looking back now, I didn't realize at the time how much of my worldview was shaped by all the stories I heard from my grandfather. He grew up in South Boston during the Depression, about as poor as you can get, and then he served in World War II, and he would tell me these stories that, you know, seemed like funny stories, you know, going to Dirty Sammy the Cobbler, which I don't think was his real name, but, like, there'd be a pile of mismatched shoes in the corner, and he and his brothers and sisters can go get them. And I would hear about that story, and then I would go with my parents to the mall to get my shoes at Foot Locker. And at the time, I was just like, oh, that's funny about the old days. But really, what those stories were were the stories of progress in America. Things used to be bad, and now they're much better. And you just assume that that's the way the world works, is that things just keep getting better. And I think that's what feels so disheartening about politics today, is that it feels like it's not getting better. Like nationally, certainly, it is getting worse. But even here in Massachusetts with the Democratic supermajority in the legislature, there's not the urgency to tackle all the problems that we know we have. And that's why I'm running, because I come from a policy background. So I got my PhD in international relations, thinking I was going to go into foreign policy. Then I started working more in state government issues. I joined the Ranked Choice Voting ballot campaign to try to bring more choice to voters here. I then started a company that makes state legislative hearings more accessible. And I also take care of my son when I can. But the most important thing is that I've never thought like, oh, I want to hear a politician tell me how much they agree with me. I want to hear people do stuff. I want them to accomplish results, to deliver in government. And that's why I'm running, because I think we need a government that will deliver, not just talk about eventually one day delivering.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay. Thank you all. So our first topic is affordability. There's an affordability crisis sweeping Massachusetts and the nation, from housing to utility bills to universal childcare and beyond. Every election cycle, candidates and elected officials talk about the need to tackle this problem, but it only seems to be getting worse. What specific actions will you take at the Statehouse that you believe will make a real impact on tackling rising costs in Medford and Somerville? And how will you ensure that your plan is equitable? And we'll start with Paul Rousseau.

[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. This question obviously affects, well, not everybody, but nearly everybody. And I also want to start by first addressing what I think the problem is and why we don't actually ever do it. I think transparency is, it sounds like an interesting word. I think transparency is, the lack of transparency is why we have the least competitive races in this state and the whole country, why we incumbents just get reelected endlessly. We don't have transparency. So I can tell you I'm going to do something. I'm going to file a bill for you. I go file the bill, and then behind the scenes, I don't support the bill. You'll never know. And that's the current legislature we have. So we need a lot more transparency so that we can frankly get rid of a lot of state reps. That's the bottom line. A lot of folks think they're progressive, say they're progressive. They're canvassing, they're progressives. They're not progressives. They have no idea what progressive even means. So we have to fix that. And the other major thing we have to fix is that we have to face the revenue problem. You know, Massachusetts, known as Tax-a-choose-its, we have been reducing the amount of taxes we're taking in since Prop 2.5 started 45 years ago. And it's really a tale of two types of communities. There's the communities that have done overrides every other year, and they're doing just fine, and we know who they are, and they're not Medford and they're not Somerville. And then there's all the other communities. And I don't think that the Prop 2.5 was actually There's a lot of like discussion about why did we do Prop 2.5. I think it was very much so that the wealthy communities could have what they wanted and then everybody else can be just left to the wolves to fight over and have austerity budget after austerity budget. So one of the first things I want to work on and I think we have to do is Medicare for all. We will save billions of dollars a year in this state. Everybody will have coverage and we can spend that money elsewhere.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Chris Oates? Yep. And the timer is? Good. Okay, so I think conceptually, obviously affordability is when things are too expensive, and so I think it's easy to break it down into two different ways of looking at the problem. Is it that the thing costs too much to produce, the good or service, or is it that someone else should be picking up the tab from the person who's currently paying for it? If we think about housing, for example, housing is obviously the biggest part of people's budgets. And in Massachusetts, the problem is that housing is too expensive because we don't have the supply statewide. And it is extremely hard to build, so it just costs a lot of money to build houses. Somerville recently did an affordable housing project, and it required $600,000 to $700,000 in subsidies per unit. So that is an instance where it just costs too much to produce the good or service that people need. And that has gone up over the past 30 years or so. The other instance, and I think child care is a good example of this, is where we need to do it. Child care, you can't get any productivity gains in child care. You just need a highly qualified worker to take care of the kids, and you can't take care of too many kids at once. So you just need, if you're going to make that more affordable to the average person, you need someone else paying for it, which is, in this case, the government. And what the federal government has said is 7% of your income going to child care, that's the affordability limit. So what we need to do there is get the revenue at the state level to have the government pay whatever is above that 7% of income. And that's going to be expensive. It's going to be about $5 billion annually. And we currently have a $63 billion budget. So that's not something that you can get into office and then just do right away. It's probably going to be a 10-year process where you're starting with universal pre-K, low-income vouchers, but you've got to get there one day. And then I think there are other issues that are a mix of the two. So, for example, public transportation, the government needs to invest more in it, but that does actually reduce costs overall because people don't have to pay for, you know, a second car if they can go down to one. And then healthcare is one where I think, again, the government should be paying more, but there is also a lot of extra costs in the healthcare system that we can work on. We do have some tools at the state level, which I hope we can talk about later on tonight, like the Health Policy Commission, but that's one where I think it is both spending a little bit more, but also controlling costs.

[SPEAKER_13]: And Wilma.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. I guess I will start by always bringing myself into the picture because I have a track record of actually producing affordable housing in Somerville. Before I talk about what I'm going to do, I just want to talk about what the issue actually is. trying to grapple with. So I ran for office on affordability. I grew up as an orphan, came to Somerville, never could imagine that someday I'll be entrusted with the responsibility of representing my community in elected office. I was part of a wave, you know, of like people just frustrated. I moved five times in six years. So Bernie Sanders even came and kind of like blessed us. So we got in five city council at one. The very first thing I did was led the effort to create the Office of Housing Stability. This office has been helping, you know, like prevent eviction and displacement in our community. This is huge, you know, because again, it's about delivering results. And so, and on top of that also, we kind of like led the effort to create the Somerville Community Land Trust. So when Chris mentioned this, the amount of money that is cost to produce affordable housing. I sat on the Affordable Housing Trust, so I appropriate between $5 to $11 million every year to, you know, which goes to building affordable housing. And traditionally, it's supposed to be between $150 and $250, but it's increased astronomically to the point where I actually made an analysis and said, I think we should focus on tenant prevention instead of trying to invest this money in affordable housing because it's not going to be sustainable. Now, moving forward, looking at the state level, we need to look at the production side of things. You know, we looked, and that is also, yes, in God's backyard. Enable church facilities to build multifamily housing. We talk about the planning side. Remove the barriers to building affordable housing. And then lastly, the will of the people have to be there because this is not a political issue anymore. The MBTA Community Act was passed by Governor Baker in 2021. along that we are supposed to be affordable housing, along all the stations where there's rail lines, where's the hindrance? It's only us here that are saying no, we don't want it. So we have to be purposeful and intentional in really advocating for what we want. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: OK. So now, thanks everybody. Now, anybody who wants to can have one more minute to expound, comment, whatever you want.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I think one thing that the second part of your question is how do you get it through the legislature? And this is, I think, going to be the common denominator for so many of these things. There is no easy way to get 81 votes in the House and 21 votes in the Senate and the governor all to sign off on it unless you do the work and you build the coalitions that are statewide. When I worked on the Ranked Choice Voting campaign, I was going to Republican town committees, Democratic town committees, in Central Mass, on the South Coast. They're very different communities than Somerville and Medford. But you need their votes in the House and the Senate. And you need the governor to support it. So there's really no way to get any of these things done unless you're able to build those coalitions, and unless you're able to say why it is in their interest to do it as well. You can't just go up there and say, this is really important. We should do it, and expect that they say, oh my god. A person came up and told me what to do in the legislature. That's never happened before. That happens every day. They're used to that. You have to say, here's why it is in your interest and helps your community to get this done.

[Paul Ruseau]: So, one of the ways that we can try to deal with the fact that we don't have the money, we do have the money, we need a Massachusetts bank. Walkling Court, which is right near my house, has been a project going on since before the pandemic. They moved all the residents out two plus years ago and for most of the facility. It's just sitting there. And when I keep asking why is nothing happening, the answer is always we can't get the funding. A Massachusetts bank could literally just It's a it's a public housing project here your money like it doesn't need to be hard But when public housing has to go into the marketplace with every other developer and builder and you know Bank of America's got their requirements and all these other things It doesn't have to be like that that project now for the last couple of years has had nobody living there The project hasn't started nobody's doing any work and nobody's living there. So all that time that's housing that could have been on the market and

[Unidentified]: Okay, Will?

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Yes, just thank you, Paul, and thank you, Chris. I guess also just with the little time also that I have, I wanted to also uplift something that I actually felt so close to my heart, that rent stabilization is one of the key piece of really helping our community. So I ran for mayor of the great city of Somerville on rent control, and it wasn't popular, but I thought This is like the most unique opportunity to kind of stabilize housing. as I was knocking thousands of doors in Medford. I've knocked more doors in Medford than I've knocked in Somerville. And people have told me time and time again, well, Medford is in Somerville. So that is why now I'm so grateful that now we have enabling legislation. It's like, so rent control can work in some communities. Enabling legislation gives you the tool to work, tackle affordability in a way that works for your community. So those are things that we can build coalition around that. you know, and then pass it so that each community can actually come together and tackle what works best for them. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, very good. So now we will move to the second topic. The second topic is racial disparity. And Chris will be the first, but first I got to ask the question, right? While the 34th Middlesex District includes some of the state's most diverse communities, racial disparities in housing, criminal justice, education, health, and economic opportunity persist throughout Middlesex County. In terms of housing, black applicants for home loans in Middlesex County were 138% more likely to be denied loans than their white counterparts. These disparities also show up in arrest records. Since 2020, black individuals who make up about 6% of the middle sex population have comprised 16 to 18% of annual arrests. That racism, and in particular anti-black racism, continues to be a powerful force holding people back. It's glaringly apparent when we look at data such as these. So here's the question. What specific steps would you take to address the racial disparities in our state?

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you for that. So there's a really important report that just came out from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston last week looking at racial disparities, in particular in the wealth gap. And what they found was that it is enormous. It is, I believe, around $430,000 median wealth for a white family and $1,200 median wealth for a Hispanic family or Latino family. They use Hispanic in the document. And that is extraordinary. That is not something that we should be accepting of. And what they found is that those are highly correlated with two important things. Housing, as you mentioned, and also education. And these issues are not necessarily because every mortgage lender is intending to do this, it is because the existing inequalities in our system get reinforced through the structures that we have. And that's why I think it is so important to tackle these issues individually, but also to make sure that you are listening to every single community who comes in to talk about an issue. Because a lot of times, you might have a housing set of meetings, and you think that you're just dealing with housing. And so you have talked with housing advocates who want to build, housing advocates that want to block housing in their neighborhood, and then you don't get the meeting with the group that says, actually, we don't get access to that housing. If we can't live there, we have to live 50 minutes away from our jobs. And those are the kind of meetings that I think you need to have, whether it is the things that are falling through the cracks otherwise in the system. The folks that, let's be honest, maybe don't come to an event on a Wednesday night at 6 p.m. at a library, there are a lot of groups where I'd knock on their doors and they say, a lot of people, and this is of all races and backgrounds, do not come to meet with their state representative. They don't go to Beacon Hill on a Tuesday at 11 a.m. for a hearing, and they need to be listened to. So that's really, I can't give you, here's everything I'm gonna do to solve this, but what I can tell you is that any single group in our community, I wanna go meet with them on their time, where they are, because I don't want anyone to think that they're not being heard by their elected officials.

[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you, Wilma.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. for asking this question. This is personal to me. It's been, again, as somebody who was actually racially profiled in the city that I love, that I'm now governing, this is something I take very close to my heart. And I've seen so much. It's a very complex situation because we live in a society that is built on racial hierarchy and subjugation. How do you begin to kind of like, on entangle some of this stuff. We are all here because we do care, but look around the room. How many people like me are here? So that alone should ring a bell that it's a, and so one of the things also that I did in some of it, and my early policy is to kind of like propose a restorative justice program. Because these are issues that, and people is in good faith, people are oblivious to some of this stuff that is happening. So how do we make sure that people that were even arrested, you know, for carrying marijuana, which is something that if you even point to me, I would not even know, because I grew up in Cameroon. When they say something is not good, you don't even go close to it. But now they are all in jail. Nobody's talking about those people. Another policy proposal was to make sure that those records are expunged. The people that, you know, so I have done so much. I feel like they say the person closest to the pain should be closest to the power. So I'm not running on good intention. What I plan to do, I have struggled at a municipal level to change this thing, to redraw the drawing board, because I have said time and time again, if a community, those in municipal government, doesn't reflect the population they are serving, Forget about justice and equities or buzzword, people just go about their day. So we need to start by really making sure that we redress these issues that are permeating our community, go to the neighborhood that are being impacted. We just had an issue even about body-worn camera in the city, you know? And I actually was the only municipal legislator that went to the public housing to kind of engage with these folks, to ask them about their opinions. So this is my process. This is how I would tackle this thing, with you or with me. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: OK. OK, so now we have an extra minute. I have an issue. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh my god. It's OK.

[Paul Ruseau]: So I do want to say also that the Mass, thank you Will, I appreciate all of that. The Mass Bank idea, we'd have had a state bank before, long before anybody here was alive, and the value of a state bank isn't just that it's another alternative for funding, it's that Unlike private banks, we as legislators can have requirements and benchmarks, and we can say, why are you only lending to white people? And we can do something about it. That is a lot harder to do in the private sector. As for dealing with the racial disparities, the first thing I would do is take all of my cues from the Black and Latino Caucus. And it's worth noting that of their five or six bills that were about wealth disparity, they're all dead. They've all died this legislative session. Most of them didn't get a vote. Actually, I don't know if any of them got a vote. So this is kind of a big deal. I'm not black. I'm gay. But those are not at all similar experiences. And I can't pretend to be what I'm not. But I can believe that the Black and Latino Caucus knows what they're talking about. And I will believe them. And I will do whatever it is they think is the right thing to address wealth disparities. And, you know, some of those things are really like, you know, we we take away your driver's license because you didn't pay a fine. Well, so you and you lose your job so that you don't have the money to pay your fine. Like some of these things that are currently allowed are like just, you know, terrible. I mean, they're biting whatever that saying is biting off. What's that saying about biting off your nose despite your face? I don't know. Anyways, I wasn't an English major. But anyways, my point is there's a lot of things we allow in this state that are just really bad law. Okay, thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: So everybody, if they want to, has one additional minute. Okay. So, do you all, are you all interested? Yes. Well, you can go first.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Yes. So, again, no, thank you, Paul. You know, I just want to leave the fact that even as we speak, my uncle is at the detention center also, taken by ICE. The ice came, was looking for somebody else. He was collateral, because he's black. 70-year-old uncle, he's even a patient. So this is what we are dealing with every day. It is something that should be said, that there's a lot going on. And if you're not at the table, you're on the menu, as simple as that.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: I realize you said a specific action. And so for me, one of the most specific actions we can do is to massively increase the amount of homes that are built in Massachusetts. Now, the governor said we need 220,000 over the next 10 years. And given that the federal, most of those will be kind of in the 128 to 495 area. And given that, that Federal Reserve Bank report says that home ownership is one of the best ways to build wealth. That, as I think, if we want to reduce that gap, is to make it easier for people to buy and own their own homes across the state, not just here in Somerville or Medford, but across the state, and to do that in transit-oriented development so people can get to work and get to jobs. So that, I think, is, it is universal, but given that the Fed has said that that is a particularly big problem for black and Latino communities, I think that is one specific action that we can do. Okay.

[Paul Ruseau]: Paul? All right, specifics, I love specifics. So seems kind of slightly unrelated. The lottery system in Massachusetts, we are kind of known for that. In fact, we spend dramatically more per capita than any other state in the country, like dramatically. And before 2010, we distributed that in a way, there was a formula that distributed it to some extent based on where the revenues were coming from. And everybody knows the lottery is mostly being funded through our lower income residents. In 2010, they decided to get rid of that entirely, and now it's just everybody gets their equal cut. So there are 16 communities in Massachusetts where they sell no lottery tickets whatsoever, and they get tons of lottery money. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. And this is a redistribution in the wrong direction, in my opinion. And if we can, I think that's just one way, a very specific thing we could do that would increase the revenues to communities that actually need it. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: That was very interesting, actually, all of you. OK, our next topic is Palestine in local policies. And Will is going to be the first person on that. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, Amnesty International, and human rights organizations, including the Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights, have characterized Israel's military campaign in Gaza as genocide. American voters have increasingly made candidates' positions on this issue a deciding factor, as seen in recent elections in New York, Colorado, and Michigan. Last fall, Medford passed a values-based investment ordinance to end investments in fossil fuel private prisons, war manufacturing companies, and in companies complicit in human rights abuses, including genocide. Similarly, Somerville City Council is debating a bill that's in line with a ballot measure passed by Somerville residents that calls on the city to end investments in companies that are complicit in Israel's genocide, apartment, and illegal occupation of Palestine. There are similar efforts at the State House. So here's the question. First, do you believe Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide? And second, how does that belief inform your position on investment policies like those being debated in Medford, Somerville, and the State House? And Will, you are first.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Alan. The first answer is yes. It's not something to even ponder about. And the second piece is that we are actually, I sit on legislative matter. I'm one of the co-sponsors of that policy action. currently walking through it, I've been making several amendments with direction from the people that are well knowledgeable, that know what the issues are, because again, we need to learn. We need to be humble enough to understand that. It is pretty clear, like yesterday, Alan, I sat home, I pulled my computer, for some reason, I don't do this often, which I think I have a little bit of time, And it just puzzled me that I typed the word, just give me a chance here, I typed the word genocide meaning. And it was just, it said genocide is an international crime defined as specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, or national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. And the term requires a deliberate. So I was just like, wow. I'm not a constitutional law scholar. This is about the heart. This is that we are watching something play in public, in daylight. It is our moral. This is when people say genocide, it is their moral compass that is saying that this is a genocide. This wasn't, it's not like the, it's not, they're not looking at a text to say like, oh, is this a genocide when you're watching children being bombarded? There's that generation of trauma. How do we sit with that? I can't. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: Paul.

[Paul Ruseau]: So the first part is yes, it is absolutely a genocide. And when I think about the values-based ordinance as well as Somerville's, forgive me, I forget the exact name of the, what is the exact name? Do you know? It's long, I think. Anyways, the equivalent in Somerville. I am very proud of our city council that we did it, we didn't require that the residents spend their whole summer doing a, a ballot initiative. I have a lot of opinions on ballot initiatives, and I tend to think they're typically a failure of the actual governing bodies. You know, we live in this weird world where the Supreme Court says money is speech, unless it's, of course, speech that some people don't like. Like, to me, if our money going to pay for genocide and weapons is something I don't want, well, if money is speech, then I should be able to say no, but then that's not OK. So I mean, I don't think money is speech, but I do want to be clear that None of us, I don't think anyone in this room wants their money being spent to kill people. And let's also remember, most of the people in Gaza are kids. And we talk about Hamas, we talk about October 7th, but most of the people in there are actually children. watching what's going on there is really, really hard. Right in this room I watched the voice of Hind Rajab, and I don't think I was okay for several days, but I was sitting in my house comfortable and able to work, so you know, lucky me. But if you haven't seen the movie, I do highly recommend it, but do not watch it if you have plans for the next couple of days. I also want to say that this is a local issue. Our residents, whether they're from Palestine or whether they have family there or whether they simply have a strong moral compass and cannot deal with what's going on there, it is a local issue. Thank you.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Chris. Thank you. So I remember in college, in 2007, I had a class taught by Lincoln Chafee. He was a senator from Rhode Island. Then he lost re-election. So he did what senators do, which they teach a college class. And he brought someone into the state from the State Department. And they said, it was about Israel-Palestine that week. He said, we know what a two-state solution looks like. Like, it's not a secret. We know what that looks like. It's just that we're not doing it. And that is, to me, what has always infuriated me about US policy towards the Middle East over the last, let's say, 15, 13 years since John Kerry's peace plan died, is that in Congress, we have allowed Benjamin Netanyahu to undermine a two-state solution, which we say is our preferred policy. That's what the international community wants. That's what we want. We have allowed him to get away with so much while saying and doing nothing. and going along with it. Now, I'm running to be a state representative. And I want to be clear, I have almost no control over foreign policy. But my background is foreign policy. I care about this. People care about this. So I've thought there's really only three things that I think I can actually promise you that I can do. One is that if we want to do at the state level some kind of global ethical investing, it has to be truly global. It would likely be striked down if it tries to target one country. I mean, we see that Medford is being sued for that particular reason. I don't know what it's going to turn out as. I don't know what the Somerville Ordinance is going to be. But at the state level, I think if you have to do it, it has to be truly global. And it would likely have to fold in other things that we could put under the banner of ethical. So are we investing in social media companies? Because they might be addictive. Are we investing in weapons companies? What are we doing? And I'm happy to help with that. I think number two is to use my voice as a Democratic elected official to say that a two-state solution should be one of the top foreign priorities of the next Democratic presidential administration. I don't pretend that my voice would matter that much as a state rep, but to the extent that it does, I'm happy to do it. And then just to stress that this should be a welcoming community, and that every single person, no matter what you think about foreign policy, should not have to face discrimination based on who they are, whether that is Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Palestinian, anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, whatever it is, if it is anti-identity, that we won't tolerate that, so that we can have that debate without people feeling like they are being attacked.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, now, you're out of time, but I just want to ask you quickly, the first part of the question, do you consider that what Israel is doing genocide?

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Well, that is a question that's currently being decided by the International Court of Justice. It is.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, that's an answer. Okay, anybody want another minute?

[Paul Ruseau]: Well, no, no, let's not get into it today. We can do that later.

[SPEAKER_13]: Go ahead.

[Paul Ruseau]: One of the things I would like to do at the Statehouse, I'm part of a small group of folks who are talking about the complete lack of any curriculum around essentially it's like World War II ended and the world was at peace in our school curriculum. It's just lovely. The world is lovely now. The partition, the Nakba, isn't taught. I looked at the state's curriculum, and again, it's avoided by simply ending when the war is over. And so, one of the things that I will push for, Curriculum is a particularly challenging thing to push for because it can quickly turn into something that is very ugly. And there's plenty of countries that have gone that route. And we don't want to go there. But we do need to teach what happened at the end of the war, and what is continuing to happen, and that the world was not just at peace as soon as World War II was over.

[SPEAKER_13]: Does anybody else want to? Yeah.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Just to say thank you again, Paul. I am also somebody who is against anti-Semitism no matter where it's coming from. Again, I come from Cameroon. It's a war-torn zone. I know. I come from the most marginalized part in Cameroon also. Google it and see what is going on. Again, this is something that even friends of mine that are in Israel, their moral compass says that this is a genocide committed by their own government. And I don't think that they're saying that because they hate their government or they don't want their state to exist. This is just morals.

[SPEAKER_13]: OK, Chris, do you want to say any more? I forgot my extra minute.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: No, I had a question here. So what is the ICJ? So the quote that Will read out about the definition of genocide, that is from the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. And as I said, it creates two thresholds to qualify as genocide. The first is the physical act, where you are destroying in whole or in part a racial, ethnic, religious, or racial group. The second one is the intent that the action was done, not as part of a war, but as the intent to destroy that group. So all the things that you mentioned, that is evidence before the ICJ at the moment. But one thing that I think is really important to note is that currently Israel is in violation of international law on the settlements of the West Bank. There's no debate about that. The fact that Benjamin Netanyahu is undermining the two-state solution, there is no debate about that. And I think it's really important for us to note that whatever the ICJ finds, it is not like if they find it doesn't qualify as genocide under that extremely narrow legalistic term, that everything was okay in Gaza. Basically, what they may find is that Netanyahu was extremely reckless on civilian deaths and prolonged the war for his own personal benefit. That's what Chuck Schumer said so that's very clear like it's not good either way.

[SPEAKER_13]: I just want to stress Thank you everybody And now we're gonna have a three-minute break, but let's really make it three minutes so that we have lots of time for questions We have two more topics and then closing statements and then questions

[Kevin Harrington]: Mic check one, two. Check mic one, two.

[u1Dt2VrL-v4_SPEAKER_21]: If everybody could take their seats, we're going to get started again. Two more questions, and then we'll have a public Q&A.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, if people will come in and sit down, we will move to part two. And our first question for the second round is about immigration. And Will is going to be the first. Many of our community members in Medford and Somerville are impacted by the federal government's immigration policies, most notably ICE raids. arrests and deportations. On August 5th, the Massachusetts Statehouse passed the PROTECT Act. Among other provisions, it prohibits police from initiating contact with ICE. However, the new law still allows federal authorities to access the information about residents through state and local databases, including the state police database. Massachusetts is also the only blue state to maintain a $287,000 contract with ICE that notifies the federal agency when formerly incarcerated people without documents complete their time. So here's the question. It's got two parts. What do you think still needs to be done at the statehouse now that the act is law? And specifically, what is your position on A, allowing federal authorities to access local and state databases for immigration purposes, and B, on our state's $287,000 agreement with ICE?

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Alan. This is again, most of the issues we have talked about from start to now, these are issues that are personal to me, issues that have impacted me, issues that I've actually led on. There's nothing, and just for the record, I'm a four-term Somerville City Councilor. I'm the current Vice President of the City Council for the great city of Somerville because I shook hands with my friend over there and when she didn't know that I was a Somerville City Councilor. Allen, this, for me, you talk about the Protect Act. Ever since I got to the Council in 2017, in 2018, Senator Jamie Eldridge introduced the Safe Communities Act. And I went to the State House, spoke at the hearing on that bill with the Chief of Police, Chief David Fallon, and Mayor Joe Curatone. Because this is just simply about due process. So all is just to say, I have spoken multiple times. I'm like a frequent flyer at the state house on almost all the issues that we are talking about here. So this is not something that is new to me in terms of really seeing the issues that we are actually grappling with. That's why I mentioned my uncle at the ICE Detention Center. So for me, number one, we should even abolish ICE. That is the very first bill that I want to lead on. It is painful that we can sit here and deliberate on these issues because we need some urgency. George Floyd was killed in 2020. There was a mass exodus of people on the street. We need that level of urgency, sustained commitment to be able to move things 360. If not, it's going to still become another struggle. Every day, we are kind of moving one needle, one needle. So I want to make sure that one... you know, with different eyes as soon as possible. And two, yes, our city and policies should have nothing to do, you know, with police. They should not be sharing data. So the next thing we need to do now is outreach and education methodology, because another problem is we pass all these laws and policy, people are not even aware of. So how do you educate people, you know, that this is what is in place? Because now, it was even, you know, two, last week they arrested somebody again, ICE picked on somebody in some of it.

[SPEAKER_13]: That's, you can continue afterwards.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, thank you. See, I'm very passionate.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, now, Paul, before you start, I have to make a big correction, which is, I didn't write this question, and I read it wrong. Oh, so I got another task? No, no, no, you don't. I read this $287,000 agreement with ICE, thinking that was the amount of money that ICE was paying us for that, right? But it's actually a 287G agreement, which I assume is a provision in the law. which provides for agreements between ICE and the state to tell ICE when a formerly incarcerated person without documents completes their time, correct? Okay, so I apologize for that. And now, Paul, those two specific questions which Will did answer, what's your position on allowing federal authorities to access local and state databases for immigration purposes and on this 287G, not $287,000 agreement?

[Paul Ruseau]: So I do think that we need to pass legislation that forbids sharing of our student data, of our health care data. Certainly, the state police and police departments should not be sharing any data with the federal government. For me, this seems like a no-brainer. We should be doing that. I think we also need to protect Act 2.0. The day it was passed, I was on Facebook or whatever social media platform it was. saying how disappointed I was while everybody was celebrating. We're doing the 287G because we have, I'm sorry, we did the PROTECT Act because we have a 287G, and the only thing we didn't actually get done was getting rid of the 287G. So I didn't know why we were celebrating. So we need a PROTECT Act 2.0 to end the current 287G, which was the motivation of everybody screaming to do this bill. It is sort of a legislature kind of, you know, let's have a press release about this thing we are going to do. And if you don't read the language, you think you're going to do it. And it turns out we're not. You know, Republicans are very good at that. You know, they name things that are the complete opposite of what they are. Democrats tend to be a little more honest about that. But we also need to put real dollars to providing legal aid to anybody who is being detained or has an deportation order. I'm very proud that we have done, we have procedures in our schools in Medford. I actually believe they have them in Somerville as well. And we don't just have procedures for how to deal with if ICE shows up. We actually have training. Our staff know what to do. They know how to recognize that, wait a minute, this isn't right. We've lost a lot of students, a lot of students. And that's a major problem, not just the humanity part of it, but for budgets. And I am the chair of an educational collaborative. And we had our first TPS employee that had to be let go. And it's just unconscionable. Okay, thank you.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Chris. Thank you. So the specific questions are easy. We should not be sharing data. We should not have a 287G argument. But what I've been thinking about a lot on immigration, because if we get sworn in, it'll be January of 2027, and hopefully there will be a Democratic House and Senate. So there's two things that I'm thinking about what we can do in the next term. One is that if there is a federal government shutdown over ICE policy, because obviously we at the Statehouse cannot abolish ICE, we cannot defund it, but there might be a big fight in Congress over it. Are we ready in Massachusetts to withstand a months-long government shutdown? We had one in October and November of 2025, and that shut down because SNAP benefits were running out. because there was a service that we needed federal government money for and states weren't prepared. So we should be preparing in advance for what we do if there is a three-month long government shutdown so that we don't have to be calling our Democratic delegation in Washington saying you have to cave. The second thing that I want to do, and this is not just for right now, but I think long term, is more support for the integration services that immigrant communities need. Somerville has a great Office of Immigrant Affairs, and I've talked with some people who've worked with it about could we get a state grant to allow them to cover more communities, to try to regionalize that a little bit. They already have infrastructure, why not give them money to cover more communities? Because the immigrant experience, there is no one immigrant experience. I was technically an immigrant when I lived in the UK for seven years. No one called me an immigrant. They called me an expat, which is an immigrant that doesn't face any discrimination. When I went there, they were like, OK, here's your house. I went there first as a student. They're like, OK, here's the house that you live in. Here's your doctorate. It's on the NHS, so you don't have to pay when you go there. And then when I went back to work, I didn't even have to file taxes, because they just take the tax money out of your paycheck. You don't have to file an extra one. And it was so easy. And there are obstacles in this country that don't need to exist. And if we can have offices like the Office of Immigrant Affairs that can help reduce those frictions, help people overcome those obstacles, it's not just important now, but long-term for helping people integrate into their communities.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, thank you. So I think we're up to the one-minute ads, right? Do all three of you want to say something? Yeah, I always... I'm just saying the last forum I was at, somebody actually decided not to say anything.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: No, no, but Alan, especially like I said, somebody who has been in office for nearly a decade, you can tell that this is like... I actually had to make a spreadsheet with my list of policies that I led. When you give me One minute to speak is just like, it's not enough, you know. But I guess back to on this issue, just to leave the fact that we are the only blue state in the U.S. that still has that agreement, which is pretty embarrassing to actually know that, you know. So it's something to be said about the kind of state that we live in and the kind of legislature that we have. So and then in terms of like what other things that we can be doing, part of how my opportunity came about in this country is because of my volunteer activities. I like to help. I like to be a resource. I teach citizenship classes for new immigrants at the library with community members, retired professors. So this is something that we've appropriated funds to actually even pay part of some of those costs just to help our community members. So that alone. It really helps. Also, I'm part of some Lucy network. You see what I'm saying about timing? We got a lot to say.

[SPEAKER_13]: There will be time for questions also.

[u1Dt2VrL-v4_SPEAKER_13]: Good. OK.

[Paul Ruseau]: So I do want to I am also part of the loose a network and I do respond we seem to spend a lot of time at the district court here in Medford and You know, we're there to witness bear witness to what's going on there. We're not stopping anything at the Senate version of this that happened Burhan Azim said something I thought was very Astute if we can slow down ice We aren't it doesn't really help the individuals that are actually being detained or whatever is happening But there's only so many hours in a day. There's only so many ice agents so if we slow it down that means there are some who won't actually end up being processed or whatever their words are for that. I also want to quickly point out that Massachusetts is in love with our myth that we are this big blue progressive state. I don't think if we were to actually just like remove the names of states, look at our laws, look at our forms of taxation, we wouldn't end up in the blue column. Chris.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: So one thing that you can also do as a state representative is constituent casework. And it's, I think, one of the most important things that you can do and one of the most impactful things you can do as a first term representative. Because a number of people, but especially immigrant communities, are concerned about going to government officials and they're concerned about, I was talking to a city councilor recently, he said, you know, this person doesn't want to go to their landlord because they're afraid that the landlord is going to report them to ICE. And what I think you can do as an elected official, what I hope all three of us would do, is to go out of our way to help anyone who comes to our office, help them in a way that does not expose them to any threats of deportation or retaliation from a landlord, an employer, someone else, because it should be that we are there for every single person who lives here to help them in any interaction they have with the government or with any kind of other private entity that they may be afraid of to know that they have someone in government behind them.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, thank you. And you know, I'm going to ask the organizer something since I clearly don't know anything about this provision. Does the governor opt into this? How do we get into it? Does anybody know?

[u1Dt2VrL-v4_SPEAKER_13]: I'm no expert and won't pretend to be an expert on this topic. There are different types of 287G agreements. Most recently, about a month ago, after some public pressure, the governor did opt out of some of the 287G agreements. As far as my understanding goes, the facts about that could be slightly wrong as to how it happened. There is one 287G agreement that the governor is on record still supporting, and that's the one with the Department of Corrections. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, our last topic is digital security. In April, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation to prohibit kids under 14 from having social media accounts. It also gives parents access to their children's social media activity if they are under the age of 16. To enforce the age limit, all social media users, including adults, will be required to provide big tech companies with an ID and possibly biometric information to verify the person's age. The ACLU and other civil liberties groups have expressed privacy concerns both for kids and adults. What's your position on the bill and how would you go about crafting policy that protects the health and safety of residents without enabling massive destruction of privacy rights? And Chris is first on this.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: So yeah, I wouldn't have voted for that bill, and I said at the time it came out that it was the identity, you know, offering your identity up. That was the big concern. I don't think kids should be on social media, but I don't think that everyone should have to give their ID to use social media. And I actually, I once, a couple years ago, I was on a team at the World Bank that was doing a report about using GPS location data in natural disaster responses and other kind of government planning. There's an earthquake, and the government notices that a bunch of the devices that were pinging in, I think the example we had was Mexico City, is now in this other small town. That means we have to get humanitarian supplies to them. It was a really interesting report about using anonymized and aggregated data to basically get help where it's needed quickly. And I was talking to some of the data scientists on this team, and I was like, hey, if someone had access to this kind of data, could they track my device and track all my movements? And they go, oh, don't worry. No one's going to do that to you. And I was like, that's not the answer I was hoping for. There's a lot of data that we have. I'm happy to talk about it later. It's very easy to track devices, apparently, if you have that data. It's basically two filters, one at night close to your home, and one during the day close to your work. And then you can track your device throughout the day. It was very scary. It was a really scary moment. So, there's a lot of data that we have, and I think the way we need to think about this, and not just with social media, but with everything related to the data that we're generating, is to think of it like the Industrial Revolution. When the Industrial Revolution happened, we needed a whole new set of laws for labor relations, for workplace safety, for things that we didn't need when everyone was just working on a farm. I think we need to think that way around digital security, data privacy, cyber security of We are now in a new world where there is a lot of your information every day being spat out and put out into the ether and able to be bought by companies. And we need to have legislation around data privacy, around banning location tracking for certain areas, and a whole variety of things that I can't get into with three seconds left. But I think we need to see this as a fundamental shift in the data that we generate as people.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Chris, for saying all that stuff. I think, I'm looking at my kids, this is also like something that if you're not close to the impact, you will not even know what the real issue is. So yes, to everything that Chris says. And when I look at the kids, we need stronger protection for them. We need this privacy protection. Because again, we need accountability in some of these companies. In a company that their business model is about maximizing engagement, regardless of consequences. That is, so this is something that we should, we can actually lead on this as a state. You know, Massachusetts, we are like the epicenter of innovation. Sweden is already a leader on this. France is already ahead. So we can do better around these policies, you know, to be able to protect our kids and make sure that there's greater accountability, you know, around, you know, the social media engagement.

[SPEAKER_13]: You've got a little time left, I think. Yeah, like how would we do better?

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: He said we could do better. Any ideas about how? Yes, again, it's about making sure that before, you know, like once you're deploying this thing, there should be greater accountability. And how do you, because again, there's the mental health piece. Mental health, we don't talk about it, but it's become another silent epidemic. that nobody is talking about it. So how do this company, this is how we're going to measure, you know, like how would they kind of like talk talk about how they will be able to mitigate the impact for all this, the consequences of kids having this exposed to the internet at this age, and they're interacting, the learning curve, also the distraction. There are various ways that we can measure. Again, I'm not opposed to technology, but I'm opposed to a technology moving faster than we can actually regulate them. That's the point I'm trying to make.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, thank you. Okay, Paul.

[Paul Ruseau]: So I would also have not voted for this. There's a lot of concerns for the LGBTQ community in particular, as well as the ACLU, of course, which was mentioned, are opposed to this. And you know, I feel like before Trump, we were sort of in a It's going to be fine. And now we have a Supreme Court saying, next up is gay marriage. Get rid of that too. And this federal government, of course, has absolutely no respect for the law. And so privacy, not that privacy was never important, but we sort of got a weird gift from Trump, and that we really do understand that we are not living in some utopia in the United States, that we actually can have a government that is gonna just use our data to go pick us up and take us away. And so, yeah, I would not have voted for that. I am very thrilled. Our legislature is one of the most ineffective in the country, or is the most ineffective in the country, but the general data protections regulations is in conference committee, I'm very hopeful it will survive and actually include the House and the Senate versions have very different strengths. The Senate version allows for suing the companies when they do not follow the law. The House version did not. So hopefully that will stay there. I feel like if there's no bite, then, you know. They'll just pay their fines and keep doing what they're doing. So I very much hope that is going to be the case. I also think that the state of Massachusetts needs to open up an office to service the entire population, but especially our seniors who are being scammed endlessly. The sophistication of scams is unbelievable. Many of us are the people that we receive the messages from our friends or family, certainly many of our elders who are like, is this real? And I'm a software developer. I usually have the right answer to that, but I also know how to find the right answer. There needs to be a trusted phone number or website that the government runs that anybody can call and say, is this real?

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, thank you. So now we have one minute extra if you want, optional. Anybody have one more minute about this topic?

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: So I think what's interesting is, because you started with social media, and you started with talking about some of the abuses that we see there, and this is something that is interesting. I have a feeling we are going to have some sort of either regulatory or regulation through lawsuits about what's going to happen with social media, Boston has sued because it's too addictive. We've seen other lawsuits on kind of negligent products. And I think we should also be thinking about how do we make sure that we have an information environment that can support democracy if social media really takes off. As of last year, more people get their news from social media than directly from traditional journalism sites. That scares me a lot as someone running for office knowing that what I say may not get to people. Also, fun fact, I checked the meta summary of my own campaign platform and it invented something based on the Mississippi State Senate voter guide, which for whatever reason, Instagram thought applied to this race. So I'm very worried about that.

[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you. Anybody else? Go ahead.

[Paul Ruseau]: Yeah. So I want to remind everybody, if something doesn't cost anything, then you are the product, okay? And I think we should pass a law that requires companies like social media that allows us to actually pay for it, which is a weird sounding thing. But you wouldn't have to pay Facebook $1,000 a year. But if you could opt in and pay for Facebook, where you didn't get ads, where you didn't get our ads, where you only actually, you know, Facebook actually used to be functional. You'd find out when your family members were having kids. I have family members that have died, and Facebook doesn't mention it. It's like, there's 10 posts about it, but I don't know, because Facebook decided it wasn't important for me. So I think a law requiring that any of these products, You should be able to pay for them, and then there's a full blackout. None of my data goes anywhere ever. You're not collecting it. We also need to talk about flock cameras. Medford and Somerville are not doing it, but Tufts University has a pile of them, and I live right there.

[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you. That was fascinating. That's probably the topic I know the least about. So that was really interesting to me. OK. One minute closing statements. And let's start with Will.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you again for the opportunity. Thank you, everybody, for being here. I'm really excited. You know, sometimes when I get passionate, I'm like, I'm so angry. But the thing is, this is for me, seeing you guys here, it matters to me because you are the people that keep government accountable. So you've heard this conversation. You know where we all stand. You know where our heart is. I, this is, you know, for me, standing here, we already, you can tell that, you know, we have a lot to offer. I respect my colleagues, but I bring just my lived experience, my governing experience. As somebody who has actually translated ideas into policies, I've written them, proposed them, passed them, and govern on them. I understand City Hall. And most of the proposals that are on Beacon Hill left from the city council. They're waiting for us to come and push them through. So I'll be honored to have your vote. I also need you to throw me some bread for the campaign, because I need some few cash so I can send some last mailer out, if you feel comfortable.

[SPEAKER_13]: OK. Yeah, it goes to Paul. All right.

[Paul Ruseau]: One minute, huh? I've never done anything in one minute. So in my time on the school committee, I was the first Our Revolution Medford candidate. I was one of the founding members. And I quickly realized that as much as I think I'm a great guy, I couldn't get anything done by myself. And now the Our Revolution Medford coalition involves all six school committee members that are elected. Six of the seven city councilors are all our revolution member candidates. We are not all one hive mind. We do have a set of values that we have to agree on if we want to even be on the slate. I don't think anybody here in this room can go to the statehouse and make a difference by themselves. Absolutely do not think that's possible. There are 200 voices with all of their priorities, with all of their constituents and constituency groups all having their opinions on what should be happening. And if we do not have somebody who can actually build a coalition and keep it together, totally unrelated activities, then I'm not hopeful that we're going to see any change at the Statehouse. I have 100 priorities. I have to subjugate most of those priorities to a tiny number, and so do anybody else in that coalition.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you very much. So as I said, this is my first time as a candidate I come from the policy world and one of the surprising things I found is that it is very easy as a candidate to make a promise that you kind of know you can't deliver on You know and that's not the world I come from you know when when I worked in policy I had to assume that that every single thing I wrote would be dissected by a professor, an examiner, my boss, my client. You know, I couldn't make a product and say it worked if the person then looked and was like, it doesn't work. And I think that's the mentality we need in the State House. People who will commit to what they say and then do what they've committed to. And, you know, because you don't want to say, oh, I care about child care. But they never actually do it. That's not what people care for. But I can't do it alone. And it's not just about the other legislators. It's because I don't think we should have government for the people. I should believe we should have government with the people. So what I can promise you is that I will be honest about the tradeoffs confronting me. I will ask you for your input. And then when we make a decision together, I will ask you to help me advance it at the Statehouse. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you, everybody. So now people can ask questions. You can ask a specific person, but other candidates can also answer. I saw your hand first. I have a mic.

[Laurie Krieger]: One, two, three. Hi. So this is a question about housing. In the 40s, 50s, early 60s, the federal government put in a lot of money into programs to make loans to people to get houses. And it created the middle class. And one of the points of creating the middle class was to increase civic engagement so that more of us would show up at places like this because we lived in one community and we cared about that community. Owning a home stabilizes your economic reality, right? Everything gets stable. I used to move every year. I changed jobs a lot. Once I got a home, I didn't have to focus on that. And all of a sudden, as I got raises, I could afford my mortgage because my mortgage didn't go up every year more than I could afford. So, we've all talked about the housing shortage, and I don't perceive it to be a shortage of homes. In my neighborhood on the hillside, there are multiple homes that are owned by people, and it's their second, third home, and it remains empty most of the year. Of the ones that are Airbnbs, they come to sleep one day a month or something like that to get around the regulations. So there seem to be plenty of homes in our neighborhood that could house families or even single people like me. But so there's a law problem, not a housing shortage problem. And when I look at the Seaport District, they've built these luxury apartments that are 33% vacant. So the rich are doing something where they're storing their money, but not housing the people. So I don't think we need 200,000 homes built. I think we need to populate the ones that exist. and see where we're at, but the laws aren't supporting that. So what would you do specifically about that? And second add-on is how do we make the state government more transparent? Thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: Answers.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Okay, because I want to get to a bunch of questions So if all of Eastern, Massachusetts looked like Somerville in Medford, we wouldn't have a housing shortage The problem is what we are do not see when you go into the suburbs like I grew up in Canton My parents house could be a duplex or a three unit, you know it could fit on that that lot but it can't because it's not allowed and And so that to me is really where the problem lies. We have a lot of homes here. We have a lot of density here. The rest of the state does not. So that's why I think that is really like the one thing that we can do to unlock those homes. Now, in terms of transparency, what I think is a downstream of transparency or upstream of transparency is the lack of competition. We have the least competitive legislature in the country. And 60% of our races this year are uncontested. And this one's going to be over September 1st, before a lot of people start tuning in. So what I've said I will propose is a top four plus ranked choice voting, which is what they have in Alaska. So if we had that here, all three of us would be going through to November. And then we'd be elected on ranked choice voting. And it allows for more competition.

[SPEAKER_13]: So just quickly, Chris, do you have a position on, I mean, you may not have thought this through. You don't have to have. I mean, I think the question was about people who are part-time residents, who don't live here, who, you know, most... Yeah, yeah, I think you were cleared. You may not have, you know, thought that through. That's okay.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: I mean, we could do a, you know, kind of like what they do in New York, the pied-à-terre tax, of like an extra tax on your second home where you don't get a property tax break. So we can do that, too. But yeah, we do need physically more homes.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, anybody else want to respond to that?

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I think in some of it we tax, like there's this absentee landlords, like there's all these different regulations that we have with Airbnb, condominium, like, so we are playing with different tools because there's no way you can, I mean, we are aware about like people buying houses and just leaving them and not being there. So it's like in the offices of housing stability, is really developing policies to be able to tax these folks and also make sure that they will have to register. So I authored also a registration which is also part of the legislative matters about like a rental registry. So if you have a property in the city, you have to register a property. Because some of those properties also, it's not really up to code. It's not upgraded. You have renters. They live in dilapidated apartments. They pay high energy bills. So through that process, we will know who is actually living where and what they are doing around those properties. So that is a very great question. And then in terms of transparency, I don't have time. Can I just answer?

[SPEAKER_13]: Everybody actually talked about transparency. I would like to focus on, if you don't mind, just to deal with the housing thing, which was an interesting question.

[Paul Ruseau]: So in Vermont, if it's not your primary residence, you pay a lot more in taxes. And I don't mean like 10 or 20 percent. It's a lot more. It's kind of intended to keep you from having extra homes. So those are homes, of course, where you're going during the ski season and you're helping the rest of the state because now there's less taxation required for the residents. And of course, there's more money. I do think that we need to figure out how to, we don't need to figure out, we know how to decommodify housing, and that's the root of the problem here, is that as housing as an investment, if you have that sentence, we've already failed. So we have got to figure out how to stop doing that, and there are lots of great ideas on how to do that, affordable housing, I forget the group, but we have to make it not an investment vehicle. Because otherwise it's going to be 5, 10% increases year over year forever, no matter how many houses we have, forever.

[SPEAKER_13]: OK, thank you. And I think the second question was over there.

[qy5_Am-xQ_s_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. Chris, this is for you. My name's John Shaib. I live here in Medford. And I want to know how I can trust you. If you can't declare that there is a genocide taking place in Palestine, with schools being destroyed, hospitals being destroyed, children being murdered, no places for people to live anymore. and you're using words, say, well, these people said this, and these people said this, and that's not what the words are. You're playing with language. I don't trust you by doing that. I encourage you to get a spine and acknowledge that there's a genocide happening.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you for that. So I've thought a lot about this, and people have asked me a lot how I'm going to answer this, because I knew it was coming. Genocide is a specific term under international law, and there is a court that will adjudicate that. May I finish? You can acknowledge the situation as I do. I have friends in the region. It is one of the most horrific things that has happened in recent memory. Benjamin Netanyahu is obviously a war criminal. Israel is violating international law with the settlements. That is absolutely undeniable. What you're asking me is a definition that does have a precise term under international law. There is a court that is currently adjudicating it. I believe that if we are ever going to do, let's say, something at the State House on ethical investing, and it gets sued, what they might bring up as evidence in a lawsuit is that there was a state representative who took a lead, who used a term that has a precise definition under international law, And he used it incorrectly where it had not been found true. So if we want to do that, I don't want to get ahead of international law. And I want to be precise in my terminology.

[SPEAKER_13]: OK. You were the next.

[David Zabner]: My question is for all three of you, and it's we've heard a lot about the downsides of big tech, of the technology that is slowly ruining and ruling our lives. Is there a technology out there that you're excited about that you think that state government could use to make our lives better?

[Paul Ruseau]: So I wasn't prepared for this question, even though I know David. It's a great question. I think one of the things that literally every person in this room has had is an experience interacting with our government at the state level in some way. And it's rarely good, frankly. And it isn't about the people, and it isn't necessarily about the laws or even the funding. It's that we sort of design these systems as if they're the same systems operating in the city hall, where you walk in, you know the people, and suddenly we're in a different era where nobody walks into anybody's office at the state government. We send an email, we fill out a web form. And the systems haven't changed at all. So I am hopeful that, I mean it's, I don't know if it's AI or what it is, but I am hopeful that we can resolve some of these challenges because there really should be one portal for every part of state government. We should all get one ID, we log in, we can do whatever we want. Okay.

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: It's optional. Go ahead. Again, it's a very interesting question. At one point, also, thank you, Paul. I just want to oblige what Paul is saying, because one time, actually, a few years back, just trying to navigate the website of the city, Each department has their own. It was just even trying to pay your water bill, and the other person trying to pay Comcast, and then the other person is trying to pay electricity. It's like we need, again, this is like that integrated way to make government work better. And I ask that. I mean, they also play around with words to me, but again, at some point, the whole thing is that I have, I could, I didn't know, like, which, but I made that request, that we need an integrated approach so that that way, a very streamlined way to engage with residents so that residents can feel like, oh, government is smooth, government, so they're not just having this antiquated software that has been existing for 100 years.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: So one piece of technology that just came out today is Moderna and Merck announced that they have a vaccine that can target melanoma. And this is, I think, one of the, this is where Massachusetts is changing the world. We are leaders in medical technology. And one of the questions that we have to ask ourselves in government is which of those technologies are we willing to pay for for everyone? Because there are a lot of medicines that, in the last just 10, 20 years, have really changed health outcomes that are way too expensive for us to give to everyone under our current plans. So we have to decide, as Boston did with their teachers' health care, about whether they're going to cover GLP-1s or not. What are we covering? When are we covering them? What standards do we have to hit? Because I don't want the people in Massachusetts not to be able to access the innovations that the people in Massachusetts are creating.

[SPEAKER_13]: Thank you. I think we have more questions. There's a question over here. Okay.

[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: Yeah. Sort of a follow-up comment. Before the Civil War, there were people fighting to get rid of slavery, but that was the law. And the fugitive slave law, that was the law. So you could say, well, it's a law, so it's OK. But it isn't OK. And you have to stand up and say, it's wrong. And if something is, many people are being killed, I guess the count is like, 130,000 people have killed in Gaza, of which 50,000 of them were children. And I mean, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to look at that, and even look at the definition, intent, and also targeting. I think it qualifies as genocide.

[SPEAKER_13]: question well okay well it was the common nobody has to comment on that questions questions

[Josh Ekhart-Lee]: I'm grateful for that comment. I absolutely echo it. And on that topic, I just wanted to correct something that, Chris, you said incorrectly. The Medford Divestment Ordinance divests from any companies engaged in human rights violations, not just Israel, though obviously Israel is committing a genocide and doing so using our tax dollars. as well as prisons, weapons, fossil fuel companies, right? It is a broad divestment ordinance. So given that, would all three of you support state-level efforts to divest public dollars from those industries, especially Israeli genocide abettors? You know, there's things like H.1264, an act promoting responsible investment to divest from weapons of mass destruction. There's also H.2984, relative to pension divestment from companies providing weapons to Israel. I would ask you to commit to supporting those two bills or their successors in the House. Would you be elected?

[SgWMenvuJVg_SPEAKER_00]: I will.

[Paul Ruseau]: I will as well. I will also say that the Massachusetts Teachers Association is the largest union in the state, and they are on record supporting divestment. As well, they've long been on record for divestment of fossil fuels. And I am very proud that they have endorsed me, which, frankly, is a very big surprise, because I'm on the negotiating team for the school committee, which is, if you've ever done negotiations, isn't always a lovely experience. So I'm very excited by that endorsement. I also want to look at if there's some global thing that prevents divestment. Can we do parts? Can we take the teacher's stuff and divest that? But obviously, I want to allow for it. I want to do full divestment.

[XXXXXX00148_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I think the ethical investing standards, which would be kind of similar to ESG, if you remember that from like a few years ago, environmental, social, and governance, that's definitely something that we should be looking at at the state level because there are global standards that we could implement. There are sectors that we could be pulling our money out of. Companies, as you mentioned, the issue is always are you targeting a single country or are you, because then it gets thrown out often as foreign policy, or are you doing it globally? So that's, I know, what is the issue with Medford, one of the issues with the lawsuit. And so if we are at the state level and we're doing it globally, absolutely we should be looking at it. I'm happy to do that. I mean, I've written reports in the past for pension funds on geopolitical issues, so I'm happy to help with that. I don't know what my time is, sorry.

[SPEAKER_13]: Okay, were there other questions?

[Phyllis Morrison]: I have a comment. Does anyone have a question before I make my comment? Is this on? Can you hear me? First of all, I'd like to say that a lot of really important issues were brought up this evening. I can never prioritize which one is the most important to me. For me, the basic rights and liberties of everyone on this planet and here in Massachusetts and the United States is paramount to me. housing, food, clothing. I believe that we should welcome the stranger, clothe the naked and feed the hungry. That's my bottom line. How we get there has always been an issue. It's always been an issue. And I want to say this. I want to thank the three of you. I may not agree with you. I may agree with everything you say. I may vote for you. I may not vote for you. But I want to thank you for having the time and the courage and the commitment to want to run for office. That is very important if our democracy is going to survive. And so I truly appreciate your time, and I thank you very much for being here with us this evening. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_13]: That was a beautiful conclusion. And now we're going to have a closing statement from the organizers. No more questions? Well, I don't think there are. OK. All right. If there are more questions, we could do that. But the organizers actually planned on 15 minutes to just chat informally with the candidates. Be great. And we are right on time.

[u1Dt2VrL-v4_SPEAKER_21]: So yeah, I'll just echo your comments that thank you so much for the candidates for coming and being willing to speak to us about a diverse range of topics. We're very grateful for that. A little bit about Mystic Valley Voters Forum. It's a recently formed organization that we started earlier this year. We thought that there was a need to bring together a coalition of organizing groups in our community so that we could ask our candidates that are running to represent us questions that matter most to our membership. So we're very excited that all of you have come and dedicated time this evening to attend. I also wanted to just mention our co-sponsoring organizations again. So Medford Democratic City Committee, Bruce Kulik is here in the back if you could wave. If you're interested in learning more, yes. Yes. Amazing. Jennifer Yanko is here from the NAACP of Mystic Valley. She also has information at the table up front. Jennifer, you could just stand and wave. Perfect. Yes, and she's also representing SAFE Medford, which is also another great organization in our community that is co-sponsoring this event today. Mystic Mashup Indivisible, Megan Searle is here if you'd like to learn anything about their organization, she's available. Medford for Palestine, Josh Eckert-Lee is here. Nyla and Munir are here as well with some information about our organization. And Our Revolution Medford is here as well. David Simon here from Our Revolution Medford. And I think I covered all of them. So thank you again. And last but not least, Medford Community Media. They have done this for us. Yes. They make events like these accessible to people who aren't able to physically attend. This live stream was live and it is also available on YouTube forever. So you can always go back and watch it. Yes, so thank you very much for doing that. So thank you again. Oh, and Alan, thank you so much for everything that you do. Yes. This is what happens when you don't write a script. Alan did this for us for the second Middlesex State Senate race. He's also here today, a great member of our team, so we're very grateful. Myself, Chadi, Simon, Megan, Matt, a few, David, and Micah, who's not here today, are all members of the co-organizing group, Mystic Valley Voters Forum, so if you have any questions, please let us know. Thank you.