Confirmation of Appointments and Personnel Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

Alright. Welcome, everybody, to this meeting of the city of Summerville's legislative matters committee of the city council. It is Tuesday, April 28 at 6PM. I'm the chair this evening, Ward 2 councilor JT Scott, and we are live and in person here in City Hall. Thank you, my colleagues. And we are joined by a number of city staff to help us answer the questions. We will be conducting, this meeting also via remote participation. Two of our colleagues are logged in online, and a copy of this recording will be posted shortly after the conclusion of the meeting. Let's go ahead and take a roll call to establish quorum, madam clerk.

This is roll call. Councilor Davis?

Here.

Councilor Mbaugh?

Present.

Councilor Yuncampin? Here. Councilor Schrezo? Present. Councilor Scott? Present. With all councilors present, have quorum.

Alright. Thank you very much. So, we have first the committee minutes, from approval minutes of our last meeting on March 17. Seeing no comment on those meetings, meeting minutes, we'll go ahead and lay them on the table for approval in a single vote later on tonight. This evening, we have, three substantive items before us, and then a series of public communications, that were submitted to the city council, related to each of those.

Just for reference this evening, my intention is to go in the order we have listed on the agenda, and, I will just give a little bit of framing for what each one of these things is and what our, responsibilities as a council committee are relating to them and then, move into an introduction from the administration and then discussion by counselors. It is my hope this evening to wrap it up by 08:00. But if we need to go to 08:30, I guess we could. So with that said, we'll go ahead and take up item item two on the agenda. That's 260302, conveying, the 2025 surveillance technology annual report.

Now this is a document that, includes an update on all of the surveillance technology that has been previously approved by the city council. It is a report that's required by our surveillance technology ordinance. And, our procedure this evening, according to ordinance 10 dash six six, is that, first, the city has to provide the surveillance technology annual report, and that has to include any new agreements made in the past twelve months for any surveillance data sharing or, obviously, any new technologies that were, adopted. Having provided that, it is our role this evening, to hold this meeting. It's required to happen before May 31 to review that star.

And then subsequently, we will release a report that includes a summary of all surveillance tech requests this year and whether or not we approve them. The council must determine whether the benefits to the community outweigh the financial and operational costs and whether reasonable safeguards exist according to the ordinance. Now, if, the council has concerns or does not find, that the benefits outweigh the financial and op and operational costs, The council may recommend modifications to the mayor, and the council may also request a report back from the mayor about, what is being done to address those concerns. That said, if we do wish to eliminate the use of an accepted technology, we would have to pass an ordinance specifically prohibiting it. And and presumably, if that was if that was not supported by the mayor, if it was supported by the mayor, the mayor could simply remove it from the surveillance technology, report.

But, if that removal was opposed by the mayor, it would then need to be passed to survive a veto, so with a super majority. So with that said, we did receive this star in advance, and we have all had time to review it. Before we get into councilor questions, I would like to invite somebody from the administration to come up and give a brief introduction to it and, any comments that the administration may have.

Yes. Yasmeen please. Thank you, mister chair. For the record, Yasmeen Radassi, legislative liaison with the mayor's office. I don't really have much prepared in the way of introductory remarks. We're happy to keep partnering with the city council in submitting these annual reports each year, and we're here to answer any questions. I know, we're joined by members of the Somerville Police Department since a large number of the reports in the annual report document are related to the police department, and I'm here to take notes, and relay back any information to the other departments that also have reports included in the document. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Well, I know I certainly have some questions, but I would rather than firing off from the chair, I'm looking to my colleagues to see if anybody has any questions or concerns about the annual report. Checking online too. Councilor Ewen Campan, I see you first.

Thank you, mister chair. I actually don't have a question, but I just wanna say to the public who is interested in what surveillance technology the city has, uses any question you might have. This is a really, really helpful document that goes through each one by name, talks about whether there are complaints, talks about whether they have been effective. You know, we, for example, get a lot of questions about ShotSpotter. Members Members of the public have questions about Somerville's use of ShotSpotter. This is a very helpful place to look for basic statistics. How many times was it used? How many shell casings were recovered? Were there complaints? Etcetera.

So I I wanna recognize this is obviously a lot of work for city staff, and I'm grateful for that. And I just wanted to acknowledge all the work that went into this and that I think it's extremely beneficial for the public.

Alright. Thank you, mister. Thank you, councilor Ewan Campan. Looking for any other questions from members of the committee. Does anybody have their hand raised online?

Alright. Well, seeing none, I do have a few. So I guess I'll just ask a few of these. I was really impressed with, one of the communications that we received from, Digital Forth, and, it actually did, remind me that there were some some things that did seem a little bit off to me. In the surveillance technology annual report here on Gracie, for example, item number seven, there is an estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what sources of funding will fund the technology in the coming year.

This is on page 24. So I guess, probably somebody from the department can can address this, but, is there any ongoing training or, there any training to use the great key system that, officers in the department undertake during the year?

Mister chair, captain Sean Sheehan with Stonewall Police Department. There are currently two officers, one a supervisor, another detective who, their duties are to, administer k Gray Key. They are trained. From my understanding, the training took place during their work hours. I don't think it's very extensive training, like a week training. I think it's most of it's done online, but I can find out exactly how many training hours they had, whether they have recurring training during the year, find out exactly what you need.

Okay. Well, you know, recently, you approved a grant for crisis intervene crisis intervention team training, that was specifically intended to cover overtime costs that were incurred, by training. And that could be that the officer who themselves getting trained was getting paid overtime to do that, but it was also, that that officer was being taken out of rotation and another officer was brought in to backfill for their responsibilities. So was another officer brought in on overtime to backfill for their responsibilities when they were getting trained?

No. These are not backfill positions.

Okay. So, the detective and the superior officer, just took a few hours out of their duty to do the training. Okay. Correct. Yes. Alright. Do we have access to that training to, get a sense of what that training is?

I I imagine we do. I do not personally have it. I can speak with the supervisor who's assigned to GradeKey and find out what training they have.

Yeah. I believe it is, something that we should be able to get access to. So, I'll just formally request Absolutely. Yes, that you can provide that training data to me. Appreciate that.

Yeah. I appreciate the the impact or the annual report, documenting the number of investigations that that were used on this. Let's see here. I I was curious about ShotSpotter as well. You know, we are and I was looking at, reports from Cambridge's ShotSpotter. In their technology report, they showed that, basically, they were getting, like, 60% false negatives or 60% false positives. You know, it was only accurately reporting an event about 40% of the time. I I don't see that kind of data here. Is that is that data that we do have that we could report on?

Well, yes, we can. We can report on the the number of shotspotter, alerts we've received. But I also wanna know that just because if if we have a shot spotter and we don't find any ballistic evidence or there are no physical witnesses, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was a false alarm. But I will get the statistics for you, that we have. Like I said, just because there isn't any ballistic evidence doesn't necessarily mean it's a false alarm.

Yep. Alright. Well, I I can appreciate that. Maybe people are cleaning up their shell casings after themselves.

Well, some some, you know, although most firearms today are automatics, we do have some revolvers out there that do not eject their shell casings. That's true.

Haven't seen one of those in a minute. I guess, the one one question I did get, because recently the data was published on where the ShotSpotter devices are installed. And in Summerville, it's very clear that there's a pattern of where these devices are installed. One of the questions on the technology annual report is about whether or not any communities, or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities, are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the technology. It says here none.

I'm wondering if maybe you can give a little context given that quite obviously these ShotSpotter, listening devices are over the mystics.

I unfortunately, I can't. All I can tell you is is that when we from my understanding, when we initially placed these devices, we used the data that was available to us for shots shots fired calls to place the, the listening devices. As far as that question, I have no context for you. There's we haven't had any reported, instances of that.

Alright. And, you know, again, this is one of those where it says the total annual costs are are none. But ShotSpotter is an ongoing service. Correct?

I'm sorry.

What's ShotSpotter is an active service. Right? It's a subscription that we have to pay for every year?

We do not pay for it. No.

Who who pays for

it? UASI pays for it.

Directly?

Through I I don't I don't know exactly how the the, the how it's paid. What but it's not paid by us. It's paid by USC, by home and secure not home and security, by, the I believe it's funneled through the brick.

Alright.

I can find out an exact answer for you. How the invoices are paid and by who?

No. I I I appreciate that. I'm just, I'm trying to understand because the question here is what are the total annual costs for the technology, including, what the source of the funding is for for funding those.

Mister chair, I would just add, in in support of the captain's response is is that the, the one square mile of coverage that we have, in the city of Summerville is paid through, the annual USC grant as part of the commitment of the region. So there are a number of jurisdictions and communities that have shot spot of coverage that is covered through the USC grant. I believe when you look at the response, and I defer to the captain and author in the report, but when we say no cost, I think we were the spirit of that was no operational cost. But the cost there is a cost for the service that it is borne by the USC grant through the MPSR.

Okay. Well, I just by my oh, yes. Sorry, chief.

My my apologies. Yeah.

If you could just, introduce yourself for

the Sure. My apologies. You may have been for chief of the Somerville Police Department.

Alright. Alright. The ordinance, doesn't say, you know, operational costs. Right? I mean, this so I'm I guess I'm I think the report should show what what this, technology is costing and where that money is coming from. Right? It could be just as simple as, hey. Sure. It's an invoice that, home Department of Homeland Security pays through The USA program, and, it's this much each year. Is that something that we could amend the report to include?

Sure. And thank you very much for the suggestion, mister chair. That is certainly something that we could share as part of the report and the amendment.

Okay. I think I think that would be really helpful. And, obviously, this isn't the only technology that applies to. They're Sure. Up and down there. If we could if we could get that visibility, I I appreciate it. Councilor Strezo, I saw you put your hand up there.

Thank you. If we're gonna get into talking about ShotSpotter, and I I do wanna have this conversation about it. But what I do know is, and I've mentioned this to colleagues before in the past, I I know that we always wanna check the data. We wanna make sure we're getting Somerville data, not Cambridge, not Boston Somerville because this is Somerville. And also, for the the counselors that have Wards 4, Ward 7, and the areas where shot spotter is typically placed or where some of either the the gunshots are mostly coming from, like Wardsboro and Ward 7, it does matter.

And I always check-in every year or so whenever this conversation comes up, and I check with actual residents who live in the neighborhood where ShotSpotter is. And what I have heard in a large majority is that with ShotSpotter, those that actually live in the neighborhood prefer it be there because they do want to know if there is gunshots. And most of the time, actually, if you have lived in the neighborhood or live nearby the neighborhood, you know that you do hear gunshots. And I implore any colleagues that have questions about shots at Potter to actually pull out of tents, so you have them, and camp out all weekend long in the summertime in the most crime crime driven parts of the city. I have not ever seen that happen, any of my that any of my colleagues have done it.

I have not heard them even consider it.

Thank you, councilor Schozzo. This is simply a meeting to review the surveillance technology annual report and request for, further detail where it I understand. There's further details. So these are my request.

Yeah. I understand, mister chair. But if there are if there are going to be facts presented, we want actual facts presented, and we wanna be talking about this, especially when it's affecting the most poorest and the most disparate, disparage neighborhood neighborhoods in the city.

Absolutely. That's why I'm requesting this information. Alright. You know, there the memo provided by Digital Forth was was extensive, and had a great many requests. I guess, my question is, did anybody from the administration review that communication that was sent from Digital Forth? I see nodding from the legislative liaison. Was it reviewed by, the police department when preparing the annual report? No. Okay. So you've you've never seen this communication from Digital Forth? I saw it today. Oh, okay. Did you did you have any response to it?

No.

None? No. Alright. Well well, I hope we can get those updated cost numbers across all the different uses of the technology. And and, like, as was requested earlier, the the additional information about ShotSpotter and the ones that we can document were, in fact, incidents because of shell casings being uncovered at the scene. So Absolutely. I appreciate that. Just putting it out for any other colleagues. I see councilor Mbah. Councilor Mbah, you have the floor.

Thank thank you, chairman Scott. No. I just wanna, you know, echo the sentiment of councilor Yuan Campan. I think this is a pretty detailed report, and I really encourage, you know, folks to review it because it's it's a it's a lot of I guess, like, one of the one question I had, you know, was just kinda, like, broadly, you know, just to figure out, you know, if there were any measurable outcomes, you know, that demonstrate that the existence of this surveillance, you know, technologies are improving public safety without disproportionately impacting marginalized communities. You know?

Just kinda like because it's I I appreciate the way it's being structured. And, also, kinda, like, any instance of of misuse or policy violations, you know, and how they addressed it in some fashion.

Alright, councilor. We can go with the second part of that question first. Have there been any policy violations during the course of last year?

Yes.

Alright. And I'm not sure if you could hear the answer. The answer there was no, councilor Mbaugh. And then, your first question was about, making a determination about the value to public safety that's being gained by these technologies. Is that is that what we're asking?

Yes. Without disproportionately impacting marginalized communities.

Alright.

I'm sorry. What was the question?

The question was about what is what is the benefit to public safety that's being gained by, by use of these surveillance technologies?

Well, I believe it it it assists the department in solving crimes, specifically for ShotSpotter. It gives us an alert that some of these some of these calls that we receive, for gunshots, through ShotSpotter, we don't receive phone calls from from individuals. So I I I think it's very helpful.

Alright. Well, maybe one another way to ask that. You know, in the report, it says Gracie was used in 27 criminal investigations on 30 different devices. Are those prosecutions complete?

I'm sorry?

Are those prosecutions complete? For prosecutions for? In the in the in the annual report for Gracie, it says that 27 criminal investigations that was used to recover evidence in 27 criminal investigations on a total of 30 devices. And in 20 of those, it was shared with the Middlesex District Attorney's Office to assist in prosecution. So are are those I

do not know the answer to that question. That that would be I'd have to follow-up with with with each individual detective specifically to find out if the case has been completed. Alright.

Councilor Bai, is there more detail or more exploration you'd like to undertake along that line?

No. No. I just wanted to just follow-up and because they mentioned short spiral. I I I mean, say that that is you know, I can see that in the report, you know, that it's doing its intended purpose. It says during the calendar year last year, they received nine, you know, short spiral alerts, and a total of 24 short casting were recovered. So so that wasn't I wasn't, like, trying to laser focus on one. I was just asking broadly, but thank you, chairman Scott.

Alright. Thank you, sir Bah. Liaison Radasi.

Thank you, mister chair. Through you. I think, councilor Mbaj just alluded to this, but one of the questions in the reports number five says Do you mind? No. The surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose and then outlines how it's been effective. So I just wanted to flag that. Thank you.

Indeed. Just asking for maybe a little bit more detail on the outcomes and the on the grade key cases. So, I appreciate that. I think I'm at the end of my questions that I have for this. I'm gonna look to my colleagues online and in the chambers to see if anybody else has anything else.

Alright. Going twice. Given that, this is an item that is being sent for discussion, to the committee. So the appropriate disposition for this would be to mark this item as work complete. And unless the administration has a different interpretation of the surveillance technology ordinance, I would anticipate that the report of this committee given to the council would, serve to satisfy the requirements of the city council to produce a report of their review of the annual report.

Mister chair, I think that in the past, what we've done is taken some of the feedback from the counselors and incorporated into the annual report and then resubmitted an updated one that reflects those changes. But Alright. It might be mistaken as well.

Yep. Well, then, we can keep this one in committee until the amended one comes back, and then we can place that one on file and, mark the other one where completed as the final submission. Alright. Then that brings us to, item number three on our agenda. This is, the administration requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report, for that is an odd order.

I had originally submitted this in order to have the body worn cameras next, so it is my intention to take that up, next. So, we'll take up item number four. That's twenty six zero four eight four, requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report for body worn cameras. So we also have that before us, and we have a number of public communications. We'll take up those public communications as well. Okay. I believe. Yep. Six through eight? Sure.

I mean alright. Would anybody from the administration like to give an introduction to the, oh, before I get to that, just to lay out the process here for everybody because I know that the, surveillance technology ordinance can be a little bit of dense reading. Thanks to the liaison and city staff for helping to peel this apart procedurally. But what we have before us is a surveillance technology impact review impact report being initially submitted to the city council. Our action on this, can be to accept that impact report, which gives our approval for the city to use that technology, or it can be rejected if the city council does not want that technology to be used, or we can hold it.

Now, there is also a grant before the body, and, technically, the technology impact report must be accepted before any grant can be accepted. There is also a requirement for a use policy, a specific use policy, that will need to be submitted to the council for acceptance or rejection. And my understanding is that that specific use policy is being negotiated as part of collective bargaining. So we do not have that before us. The ordinance does have a sixty day timer for acceptance or rejection of, the surveillance technology impact report and use policy, but my understanding is that timer does not start until the use policy, the specific use policy, is presented to the council.

Just looking for confirmation on that. Alright. I'm seeing nodding from staff. Thank you, sir.

Mister chair?

Yes. Councilor Davis.

Thank you, mister chair. If I may, just one, slight clarification or or calling out of nuance. The the use policy is a policy that's required under the surveillance technology ordinance, and and it it shall be that. The collective bargaining agreement is a collective bargaining agreement. Whether or not that that the collective bargaining agreement includes terms related to this policy is not well, it's effectively relevant.

It's not technically relevant. One would reasonably assume that the use policy would be consistent with whatever is or may be agreed to in in the in the bargain agreement, but it's, they they are two different documents, and they may contain, you know, some differences based on or at least, they're they're, you know, they're they're hypothetically, for example, could be terms or conditions or or or language in the use policy that isn't relevant to collective bargaining and therefore wouldn't necessarily be be included in that. So I just wanted to to to sort of make that distinction so that folks who are sort of following along understand that there's a lot of moving parts, but, you know, we expect the use policy to be a clear, concise, and and comprehensive policy to to to, you know, to govern the use of this technology if it's approved. That is a different thing from the from what is we are it would from anything that may be being discussed with the, relevant associations.

Alright. Thank you for the clarification as always, councilor Davis. So, with that procedure, laid out, once that sixty day timer, starts, we have sixty days to either accept or reject that item. If the council fails to act in sixty days, the item is automatically accepted. My understanding is that this is a somewhat incomplete surveillance technology impact report that the administration is requesting that we consider and accept with their intention to submit a further detailed one, after the technology is implemented.

So with that said, who from the administration would like to introduce? Welcome, chief.

Thank you, mister chair. Again, Shmee Benford, chief of the Summerville, police department. I wanna thank the committee, as well as my colleagues here from the police department, city colleagues, and community partners, this evening. I'll be very brief with, my comments, but I do wanna recognize, some of the clear commit the clear contributions and benefits of the body one camera program. We are very much committed to and a part of this community that is progressive and very values itself around equity equitable equitability and support of all members of our community.

Until that end, we value accountability, trust building, and transparency and believe that BodyOne cameras would help us in that mission and our commitment. I also believe and we believe that BodyOne cameras as a tool and a resource for helping us be an integrated part of our community would help to reaffirm the overwhelmingly positive experience between the police and our community members. I would point out that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts made a substantial commitment to body worn cameras and has assisted, over 144 police departments, across the Commonwealth with instituting, and standing up body worn camera programs. Some of our immediate neighbors, that do, partake, in the program include Medford, Cambridge, the Somerville Housing Police, as well as the city of Boston. I would also like to highlight the community process and recommendations and discussion in the public safety for all studies as well as the staffing study and its recommendation around body worn cameras for the Somerville Police Department.

I would also like to point to the president's commission on twenty first century policing where it talks about building trust and legitimacy with the community through technology and officer safety and wellness in a multitude of different other, tenants that support, that particular, pillar and building the necessary, quality relationships that we have with our community for policing in the twenty first century. That report was reaffirmed in 2023. And in that report, it talked about transformational, policing and, again, pointed to whole of community, as well as, a legit and sustaining, open and transparent process for policing, within respective communities. In closing, mister chair, I would like to put out point out that as we discussed party one cameras, and we know the sensitivity around enforcement by ICE and the federal government, they have a hand to tactics that we've seen in our city. And we know that this is going on not just in our city, our region, and our country, and very proud to be a part of this community and standing up for, as the councilor pointed out, some of the most marginalized members of our community that are impacted by this behavior.

And I would just highlight that one of the technologies that is consistent with the debate going on in Capitol Hill is around not only removing mask, from these agents that are doing this work, but also to employ the use of body worn cameras to help us document and hold those agents accountable as they go into our communities. So I would keep my comments, again, very brief in that space. Thank the committee, for its work. Thank the committee, the community for its partnership. And, I humbly request and ask that as we round out the debate and the discussion, that this proposal, and the report be accepted and allow us to move forward with this tremendous benefit for the community. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, chief. Anything to add, liaison? No? Well, we have also received, several communications from the public, including recently a, an extensive letter that was signed by a great many people. So, councilor Strazo?

Thank you, mister chair. We're on the same committee in, finance as well. And mister Ben Stroll also wanted to speak tonight. So when we do get into the discussion, I would like to sponsor a speaker. So wanted to put that on your radar.

Sure. And the speaker's name again? The speaker's name again?

Ben Struhl. You heard he was a member actually, the chair of the public task, public safety for task force. Some one of the Somerville residents, numerous Somerville residents had spent, what, like, a year and a half to two years examining policy and and best police policy that serves the community. And and they had the report with the racial and social justice department. So I'd like to speak allow him to speak again tonight.

Alright. He is not an employee of the city of Summerville. Correct?

No. He is one of the members of the public safety for all task force that spent the last two years with the racial and social justice committee, I'm sorry, department, that unveiled and discussed the, again, public safety for all least, conversation. And they had a presentation and report, and some of the people in this room heard that as well. So he, has extensive research on this and wanted to speak. Actual

Alright. Looking for any objection, barring any objection there. Madam clerk, can you unmute, mister Stroll? What's up? Alright. Can you try speaking, mister Stroll?

Thank you very much, mister chair. Can you hear me? We can. Well, thank you, everyone. I really appreciate, you know, being sponsored to speak here and you giving me a little bit of my of time. I'm not a city of Summerville employee. Just give you a brief background, maybe important to understand where I'm coming from. I run the crime and justice policy lab at the University of Pennsylvania, but I'm also really fortunate that UPenn allows me to do this job as a resident of Summerville. I've lived here since 2011. Most of my career is working for city mayors.

For example, my largest project in the last few years has been helping Baltimore mayor, Brandon Scott, develop his city's violence reduction plan based on public health principles. But beyond the work with elected officials, I think my work as a university leader is only possible through close partnership with community groups and citizens, which is where a lot of my thinking comes from. So my research lab partners with the Black Ministerial Alliance in Boston, the Urban Affairs Coalition in Philadelphia. We've worked with the ACLU to analyze and publicize racial disparities in Boston Police Department and the NYPD. I've also worked with alternative public safety responders, and I'm currently developing a plan for cities to adopt new alternative public safety response systems.

And I think this is important because, you know, some people were disappointed we didn't have that in the public safety for all report, but, really, we were trying to find what are important things that the government is actually capable of the short term sort of in mind of what what the facts on the ground were at the moment. And it's something I'm always interested in talking to the council about more and how we can actually make some of that happen. I first became interested in body worn cameras when colleagues at the NAACP and ACLU were interested in implementing the program in Boston. And, basically, there was a lot of resistance from the Boston Police Union and worked with the Institute for Race and Justice to get that program and an evaluation going in Boston. Our evaluation in the Boston body worn camera program found that the cameras reduced citizen complaints and reduced officer use of force.

And my colleagues at the Institute of Race and Justice also interviewed people. He used the cameras in court. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys said they believe the cameras led to more just legal outcomes. So following this research, Boston adopted the body worn cameras, but there's some elements of body worn cameras that aren't straightforward. This is a technology that, you know, it needs some good policy with it to be effective.

So I wanna just give you a little snapshot of all the research. There are so many research papers on this, but they're pretty consistent. There are two big problems with the cameras. First, it's hard to measure what the cameras are doing. So for instance, if I'm hanging out with counselor Mbah somewhere and I'm wearing a body worn camera and he isn't, you know, I think we can all agree we would both probably be acting differently because of the camera.

But in a study, counselor Mbah might be in the control group. There wouldn't be an apparent difference between us. So that's one sort of challenge. And the second complication is there have been jurisdictions that have adopted these camera programs and then put in place policies that have undermined any chance the cameras are effective. So, you know, think about policies that allow officers to turn the cameras off at will or policies that make it difficult to access or review the footage.

Despite these complications, we have to look at all of the studies done. We don't wanna do any cherry picking. So we look at all of them, the range of outcomes, and we do find this very consistent finding. My colleague professor Cynthia Lum did this meta analysis of every study of body worn cameras. She found despite all the complications I mentioned, cameras have a very consistent effect in reducing citizen complaints against the police.

And like I said, in Boston, we found a reduction in officer use of force. My colleague, Morgan Williams, who's an economist who studies racial inequality in the police, did a cost benefit analysis of the cameras. So we actually have a lot of ideas about sort of what is the cost of these and what what we might get out of them. And he found the cameras have, on average, $5 in benefit for every $1 of cost spent. And when you look at all those benefits, there's a lot of different types of benefits he looked at, but he said about as much of a quarter of the benefit could come back to city budgets directly, meaning the cameras could pay for themselves in the average city budget.

So I think it's important to think about the benefits even as the cost feels very tangible and real as we consider this additional expense in the city. I've talked to a lot of cities and towns that have been reluctant to implement programs in their jurisdiction because of the ongoing cost, but I haven't talked to any cities that have considered getting rid of the cameras out of after adopting them despite the expense. And then just briefly on a more personal citizen lens, I've spent many, many months, you know, multiple years, really, it dragged out to working on the public safety for all committee, and that was a lot of talking to my neighbors. They had a lot of different opinions on policing as you might imagine, but I didn't speak to a single person who said they were against body worn cameras. There are probably some out there who are, you know, very very, you know, libertarian, but the ones I spoke to were sometimes cynical.

Sometimes they expressed the belief, well, I don't think they'll change much. But everyone seemed to be on a similar common sense wavelength that cameras could enable some things to get better. Better. And and following that intuition, I think, you know, there's some things that are just harder to measure. Technology alone can't bring accountability and transparency, but it can enable it.

And these two values we are in desperate need of building in our civic communities. The fact that the cameras are likely leading to more just outcomes for defendants in the courtroom is also hard to study but seems undeniably important. And and then last, you know, Cambridge had this experience with the police shooting of Syed Faisal. There was no camera footage. And our neighbors in Cambridge, like, I saw they were just wracked with really extensive grief, confusion about what happened, and the uncertainty created these big rifts in the community.

And the cost of that is really impossible to measure. So I think there's just a lot to consider here. It's it's not a straightforward issue, but the evidence really is clear that these cameras in general, have some positive benefits, across all the jurisdictions they've been studied in.

Thank you, mister Stroule. This is a meeting to discuss the surveillance technology impact report of, that's being proposed. Do you have any comments directly addressing any of the content of the surveillance technology impact report?

My understanding was there was some, you know, interest in the council to understand, whether or not to approve the use of the cameras, as as a committee so that the grant might be considered additionally. I will say that I have spoken to a number of departments about this really ongoing concern about how technology could be used for surveillance, particularly by the federal government. And we have seen an unprecedented level of the federal government illegally accessing databases even in things such as education and finance that we thought they would be unable to access previously. Even amongst all these concerns, I've seen very, very limited concerns just given the the high degree of difficulty and the barriers, inherent about that technology being used by ICE in any way. And so I think that's another important thing for the council to consider.

Okay, mister Scholl. So you don't have any comments on the content of the surveillance technology impact report before us?

I really have come here just to talk about what I know about the evidence on cameras. If you had any questions on the report, I'd be happy to answer them. But

yeah. Yeah. Thank you, mister Stroll. I appreciate it. Councilor Yuncanfin?

Thank you, mister Chair. Through you. Thank you very much, mister Stroll. The the question I have, and it definitely pertains to the the impact report, has to do with cost. So through you, mister chair, the can you help me understand what you said about $1 spent towards cameras is $5 of public benefit? Can you walk me I I don't understand that. Can you help me?

Yeah. I'm sorry. It's a little bit complicated. So, my colleague, Morgan Williams, who's at Barnard, did an analysis of these, and he said, well, look. Okay. These cameras have definite costs. Right? It takes people to, you know, manage the footage. The cameras themselves have ongoing costs, so we should put those on one side of the ledger, and then we should look at all of the the benefits of the cameras themselves. Right?

And some of those benefits are, you know, benefits to the community and and things that can be measured and costed, you know, and other things are direct economic benefit to the city budget. Right? So this would be saving the city budget money because they don't have to adjudicate a civilian complaint or saving the city money because an officer is not using force at an inappropriate time, which could cost the city, if that were to happen, millions of dollars. And and I would gather, although, probably the least important thing about the event, the shooting of of Syed Faisal was incredibly costly in dollar terms to the city of Cambridge. Right?

And so the point that Morgan's analysis was and and this is a great paper, which I'd be happy to provide the committee because it is publicly accessible unlike many cam many papers are sort of behind paywalls. But he found that, you know, there's benefits of about $5, and then about a dollar 25 for every dollar was direct benefit on average to to sit government budgets directly. Now I will put in the important caveat that that benefit will be lower the fewer complaints that a city has, right, or the fewer incidents that the city is averting because if those incidents aren't happening, you're averting less.

Mister chair, through you,

thank you very much. Thank you for all the work you've done, on the task force for the city and for your testimony tonight. I guess, mister chair, I'm just reflecting on this. I I don't have the exact number of the expected costs here, but it's a two percent salary increase on all the superior officers and everyone who's worked on the force for eight years or more. It's significant. Right? It's I've I've seen numbers above $400,000, something like that. So if that's five x, you know, that's something like $2,000,000 of benefit a year. I'll just be frank. I'm having a hard time seeing that in the Somerville context. I would I would love to see the the the research on this, but I'm I'm having a hard time exactly with that, and I just wanted to raise that now. Thank you very much for the testimony.

Appreciate it.

Yeah. If if I

could respond to the chair, I I think it's a reasonable thing to sort of question because, you know, this analysis is talking about the the cost of cameras and the benefits. And there are other things that go into these negotiations such as, you know, pay increases for officers, which, you know, are sort of a separate item. Right? So I think, you know, I was looking at the overall cost of the program, which is something like with all the proposals, 2.5% increase to the police budget overall. And that, you know, is a cost that the council needs to weigh one way or another.

You know, I think it's just important to note that these cameras do have a really consistent track record of benefits and could save the the the city money. How that stacks up to, for instance, increases in salary is is worthy of questioning, and, is a valid realm for debate.

Alright. Seeing no further questions here. Thank you, mister Stroule. I have also been contacted by a member of the community who, put together a letter that was signed by over 20 other community members and organizations in Somerville who requested a short amount of our time this evening, and prepared some slides as Derek Rice. Mister Rice, I trust your presentation will be about the terms of the surveillance technology impact report? Yes. Alright. Well, if we can if we can assure that it will be on topic, I would love to hear from you. Let's see. Slide is available on screen. Seeing no objection. Mister Rice, please.

Thank you, chair Scott. Thanks to the committee for the opportunity to speak. My name is Derek Rice. I'm a community organizer and spent much of my focus on a broad range of public safety issues affecting our neighbors. I'm here to share a perspective on the body worn camera policy.

First and foremost, I wanna emphasize that this perspective is not my independent perspective. Next slide, please. But the, what I'm presenting is informed by Somerville's own work and the work of highly regarded expert organizations such as the American Bar Association, the ACLU, and the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Body Camera Task Force. You also have in front of you a letter that I delivered last Friday authored by myself and three other community members, cosigned by 22 community leaders, experts, and organizations, which were the signatures we collected in one short week of trying to get in touch with people. It addresses the substance of the body body worn camera policy as well as, some process concerns around transparency and public engagement, and it is much more detailed than I will be and I imagine any of us will be this evening.

And it is itself only a summary of the expert information available. For your convenience, the letter has an appendix of collated references providing citations to the various sources for each component of policy that it advocates for. Next slide. Both the American Bar Association and ACLU and indeed, I heard elements of this from, my neighbor Stroll, tells us that body worn cameras without good policy don't just fail to help. They can hurt.

Any hopeful effectiveness of body worn cameras depend entirely on the policy framework around them and the public's trust in that policy. If we adopt them before we get the policy right, we seriously risk making things worse. From what we and the public are able to see, there is a real cause for concern in this moment, which has motivated this letter and me being here. We have six years of task forces studies in this council's past deliberations have converged on a clear answer to the question of how body worn cameras should be governed if adopted, yet we don't see elements of that adequately represented in the, STIR presented by the city. The city's own studies and past commitments have led us to expect community transparency and input on this policy, yet we're being caught off guard by the mayor's request for funding and STIRR approval prior to any public engagement.

I am one of many people appealing to you to use your authority over the STIRR to help ensure we meet these held standards of transparent policy and public engagement. Next slide, please. I will go through this more quickly than I had planned given the audience in front of me that you already understand in much more detail than I do, this surveillance technology use ordinance. But I did find that it was very important to center the purpose of this ordinance that it is to allow for public discussion before deploying surveillance technology, and to allow a balanced decision about whether the technology will be useful. I think this is our opportunity to develop that policy carefully.

Once this is approved, once equipment is procured, once policy terms are written into collective bargaining agreements, this council's ability to shape the technology shrinks dramatically. Hope this is not an opportunity to waste or rush through. I understand that delay may mean we miss our opportunity income grant funding, nearly $250,000, but, hopefully, our commitment to good policy development is worth more than that. Next slide. This is an overview of the policy points that are outlined in the letter, and I will not be reading them, although I'm happy to take questions on any of them and answer to the best of my ability.

But, again, I'm trying to act as a conduit of experts who are not in the room today. But they are what the city has through its own work and its own side of the authorities already said that the policy should include. I want to acknowledge that this is not the end all of policy considerations and concerns. This is sort of that middle of the Venn diagram where there's just very broad agreement on these policy points being important. I'm gonna touch on a few of them, but first, just a quick illustration from our attempt to understand, next slide, how these compare to what we were able to find in the body worn camera STIR.

There are two strong conflicts where the STIR states are strongly implying something to the direct con conflict in contrary of what is advised by these expert bodies. Five omissions where the STIR does not establish the recommended policies, and three items in the recommended policy that are only partially addressed. So it's clear to us and the public that the STIR is not in clear and full alignment with the recommended policy on any of these points, and I'll touch on a few of them. Next slide. The policy should prohibit any officer from accessing, viewing, receiving an account of any footage before completing any required reports, statements, or testimony.

The American Bar Association is the most direct and comprehensive on this point. I there's no substitute for reading their arguments and their evidence. All other sources are in green in agreement, often leaning on the recommendation of the American Bar Association. Notably, this includes the city's own paid staffing and operations study as well as the public safety for all task force. They all point at this or point at the American Bar Association as the guidance.

Reviewing footage before reporting undermines the accuracy of reports. While the STIRR states that body worn cameras, quote, serve to enhance the accuracy of officer reports, experts say that reviewing footage prior to providing reports does the opposite. Officers may even unconsciously conform their written reports to the same video, including in cases with what they remember and what the video shows could differ in ways that matter. Next slide. Forgive me, counsel, you and Camden for putting your own words on the screen in front of you.

This was the most articulate citation that was available, on this issue. The chief Benford stood before us a moment ago explaining the purpose of this and the importance of police oversight. The stir is noticeably quiet on that point. It does not it should not only state that it is the intended purpose, but explicitly mandate that body worn hemorrhage must be permissible for use in disciplinary action. If that is incompatible with the collective bargaining agreement, I would hope that that would mean a violation of the STIR, which therefore prohibits use of the technology.

The only mention in the STIRR on this point is the final bullet of purpose, which says, will be used to build trust and transparency with the community, which candidly falls short of saying that they will be used for police accountability. Next slide. The policy must clearly establish access rights for subjects of any footage along with an explicit timeline for how quickly footage must be made available. Experts recommend within a week or sometimes within days in the course in cases of an arrest or, like, physical contact. Identifying that they are public records is not sufficient.

The timeline for public records is significantly longer than what's recommended for subjects of footage. And as someone who has made many public records requests, exceptions are frequently invoked. So it is difficult to get even simple things through public records requests. Next slide. Civilians oversight.

The civilian oversight task force, is pretty direct about requesting that the the civilian commission share authority over management of footy footage. This discussion point does point to something larger than the item that is before us, which is that civilian oversight has been a stated city commitment since 2020, and progress has been slow. While we seem to be very quickly rushing to adopt body worn cameras, we haven't seen any concrete action towards civilian oversight. Various sources agree that civilian oversight being responsible for the manager footage helps to reduce some of the risks and the distrust of body worn cameras. Well, I'd love to see civilian oversight happen first.

It would also seem like doing that would make body worn cameras a more successful investment, and it's something we're committed to doing anyway. If that isn't happening, the STER can and should be written to accommodate that that civilian oversight body, when it exists, have oversight access. So, yeah, gap that's easy to close now and much harder later. And for your edification, Nicole is the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, and this is one of their 13 principles for effective oversight. Finally, on some other points, I promise I am wrapping up.

Next slide. These are just three other points where the STIRR, as we are able to understand it, is falling short of recommended policy points. Again, expert recommended policy points from a number of different perspectives. There's no specific timeline for deletion of routine footage. Dimension of retention only talks about the requirement to keep footage for a certain amount of time based on the state retention laws.

There's no prohibition against facial recognition, which I know has been a cause for concern by counselors in the past. It explicitly grants broad officer discretion to passively record the public if they feel it useful or necessary. And one of the stated sort of concerns from these expert bodies is body cameras being used as sort of passive surveillance technology for First Amendment protected assemblies, protests, gatherings, marches. In addition to policy terms, next slide, please, there are process considerations, including sequencing of policy development, body worn camera adoption, and police union negotiation. The city's own report is direct on the sequence as quoted here.

Policy first based on community priorities and best practices, then negotiation. Doing it in any other order creates the impression that these principles are negotiable. All the sources of guidance that I've drawn from are consistent in emphasizing the importance of effective policies for any hope of body worn cameras to provide transparency and police accountability. Adopting body worn cameras with anything less would be ineffective at best and potentially harmful. Next slide.

Several sources emphasize the importance of public engagement. So regardless of what policy terms may or may not be happening behind closed doors, I would like to argue that the public engagement process and transparency matters on its own merits. The city's on page study provides clear guidance on what that might look like. Just wanna emphasize things. Listening sessions open to the public, direct engagement with community groups, opportunities for individuals to submit comments online.

This is referring to body worn camera policy, not do we or do we not want body worn cameras. This is the recommendation from the staffing operations and analysis, which is from I get the year right if I'm gonna speak cleanly. 2023. I know that some have cited community engagement going back as far as 2015, but it seems that as late as February, 2023, the recommendation was to do more. Next slide.

I will, for the sake of your time, largely skip this except to mention that concerns about the ability and city council's authority over what is or isn't in the STIR when the STIR delegates out to other documents that define policy. It is unclear to me that we retain the purpose and authority of the surveillance technology ordinance. Those those documents can be changed without modifying the STIRR, and I don't know if that under if that means that they can be changed without city council's oversight. It is also much more difficult to demand changes as we just saw with the annual review. You cannot demand changes.

You can merely request them unless you pass a high bar to revoke access to a piece of technology. So this is emphasizing that the item before you is really, like, the the item, it seems, to make sure that policy is done right before the horse is out of the barn barn. Next slide. So the sources I've drawn upon, the bar association, ACLU, the state of Massachusetts, city paid studies, city task forces, and the city council itself. They clearly support a course of course of action prioritizing even the policy right, public engagement before considering approval.

First, withholding approval of the STIR until it directly contains the minimum policy requirements. I would argue not by delegation, but within itself. Second, requiring or conducting a genuine public engagement process of the kind that the SPD operation report explicitly calls for either jointly by the city and council, by jointly by city council and the administration or by either, and then only then considering approval of the SIR. And then finally, urged in the administration to reconcile collective bargaining based on the policy. And I would argue that if the police unions will not accept a community defined poly policy, then we should not be adopting them.

And it would be in the public's interest to know that that is the politic position of the police unions. I wanna end on a point of unity. Next slide. Like, we're all we're all here who's spending our time and energy because, like, we we want community safety. While I was playing my small part in organizing a response to these fire alarm camera items, I had the incredible privilege of reconnecting with and drawing on a vibrant network of community members and organizations that are deeply committed to community safety.

We're lucky to have six years of careful work work to draw upon a council that's built a tool specifically for moments like this one and a community that wants to see both work and the tool used well. I understand that this requires a lot of labor of you. We see it, and we're grateful for it. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you, mister Rice. Are there questions for mister Rice from members of the community or for of the committee? Sorry. Councilor Yuencamping. Thank you, mister chair. Through you. Thank you

so much, mister Rice, for all the work that's gone into this. This is just on one of the many topics you raised, but I'm trying to think through this. So my kind of default assumption around this footage is that it's to be treated like a public record, the the same way that any public record is, and there's a process for requesting them. The city reviews them on a certain timeline, redacts if legally necessary response. Having more recently done a lot of research on this than I have, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, so feel free to say, you don't wanna answer right now. What is the argument that it should be something other than a standard public record?

Sure. So briefly, the argument is yes and to the public record issue. So subjects of footage, I'm doing my best to represent from memory and a little bit of notes of what I have in front of me. So, forgive any misstatements. Do the trick.

It's a yes hand. So the model ACLU policy, I think, is probably the best thing that I would point out. I actually have put a copy in front of each of you before we started. It does make sure to assert, not simply to state a presumption, but to make the assertion that videos are public record and therefore subjects so that there is no later disagreement on that point, but also to outline much more aggressive timelines and rights to access for individuals who are, subjects of footage or who, had certain types of interactions with the police. So it is a clearer, more, cut and dry access policy for, subjects of footage, and the timeline is what has been stressed the most.

And the material is that it's, like, within a week. And in the cases of, there are certain cases that were named that it should be within, like, two days.

Anything else, counselor? Alright. Counselor Mbaugh online.

Thank you, chairman Scott. Thank you, mister Rice, for and your community engagement and your advocacy, I think, is very thoughtful, very stimulating. Again, I have said it many times. You know, I'm a proponent of body worn cameras. But now the more I hear about, you know, this conversation as also wanna make sure that, you know, those loopholes that, you know, continue to surface has to be closed.

We have to do it right. So, I mean, you've really articulated a lot of stuff that is also I mean, it almost feels like common sense. If anybody wants public safety, they should be able to accept those things. You know? They should be able to accept, you know, just to have a that this is all about accountability.

They should be able to you know, it should prohibit, you know, review a footage before written statement or testimony. Like, just again, which goes back to tying up accountability, right, to access by a civilian oversight body, which, you know, chairman's called you and I and I think councilor Davis back in 2020. You know, nothing has really happened, but, again, it has to provide provision for that. And it it mean, like, almost everything that has been spelled out, I just feel like it's pretty straightforward, the right of subject or footage by the general public. Also, to be able to have access, you know, with ClearTime, I also think, you know, even though it's very stringent, but at the same time, you know, if folks are gonna benefit, say, oh, you're doing this for collective bargaining.

And then, yeah, actually, you should be able to, like, accept that this is clearly you know, you we need to clearly, you know, detail the policy with meaningful consequences for noncompliance. And yeah. No. I think, you know, everything that I'm seeing, it's something that I would like to see. At the same time, I'm also very, you know, very inclined.

Also, I'm not naive to think that, oh, we you know, I don't wanna us to be in that space where, you know, we are always looking for more loopholes left and right, you know, dragging. You know? I just but there are key elements that, you know, you've enumerated that I feel like makes so much sense. And so, mister Rice, one question I have, it's for you, it's I know you you know, they they they were so many representation on your signed letter by various members of the community. You know?

Some of them, you know, appear to represent certain groups or demographic. But a question I have for you is, have you personally engaged with folks from the public housing and the folks from the Mystic?

Through the chair, no. I haven't. I I felt compelled to even include a note on the letter, expressing our regrets on the limitations of our outreach. As I said, we, as a community of organizers

No. No. Thank you, Derek. Right. I think I got the answer. And, yeah, you're an honest man. I appreciate that response because there are people that look like those demographic, but they are very comfortable with their limited knowledge as well. So which I just wanted to know if, you know, you engage with this community and you've answered my question. But, again, I applaud you and your work and and I fully endorse, you know, your presentation. Thank you, chairman Scott.

Alright. Thank you, councilor Mbaugh. I think I heard at the end there, a request for the administration to incorporate, these changes in a revised surveillance technology impact report. Mhmm. Was that your intention, or, did I misunderstand you?

Oh, that was the intention, chairman Scott.

Alright. Thank you very much, councilor Mbaugh. Are there other questions?

I'm happy to keep

Councilor Strasza? And you if you wish. If you have questions. Councilor Strasza, you have?

All right. Thank you. I actually well, I think that it's really important that we are completely having a full plethora of of dialogue about the ins and outs of this and are examining this from every angles and this constituent bringing this forward. It's really important. And I I am grateful that we are talking about the public the the police oversight board because that has been community that's been brought up a lot of times.

And I did want to, number one, ask the administration about that because they had to have seen it coming that this would have been in tandem with the concept of body worn cameras. So I do wanna ask if there's a commitment to that. So would you prefer can I actually, I would like to have the the mayor's administration come forward to to ask about that? And second, I would like to ask so I'm just putting this all out there. We can organize this as we wish.

And I would like to ask the the expert on this, Ben Stroll, of his thoughts, mister chair, through you to Ben Stroll, of his thoughts on on this presentation from the constituent tonight.

Okay. I was first looking for anybody who had questions for the presenter here about the content, the presentation that related to the terms of the surveillance technology impact report. So I understand you do not have any questions for mister Rice?

Yes. I would like to hear from, yeah, mister, Ben Stroll on the the on on his impressions through you, mister chair, to Ben Stroll about the presentation that was sent, presented by this constituent tonight.

Respectfully, I believe counselors are able to form their own opinions, and this is a time for a discussion of the council about the technology impact report that is before us, not a discussion of the merits of anybody's individual presentations.

Okay. So you are not willing to allow the expert on body worn cameras to I wanted to hear his thoughts on this presentation as well. So you're not willing as chair to entertain that?

That's that's correct. He is an expert on policy, not necessarily on the presentation we were given.

Oh, my mistake. Policy presentation. Thought thought they were all kind of the same or similar, but my mistake. Okay. Well, then I would like to have the administration respond about the concept, because there is a good point that is brought up about the police oversight board and where we're gonna be with that. So, mister chair, where would you like to put that in in my thoughts on this? Right now? Sure. Okay. Cool.

Mister chair, through you to the administration who we have, here to represent that, I guess, liaison. Can we get a commitment or some kind of conversation or the process of something of this? Because, yeah, like I just said, you had the the administration had to have seen this coming with the body worn cameras talk. It's it's all the research that I've seen and had had have mentioned that this is an important element to implementation of the body worn cameras. Like, that we need that oversight board.

Through the chair, I also don't wanna get too far off topic from the document before us tonight. I know that there's a public public health public safety meeting next week where our, project manager for public safety for all will cover a variety of implementation steps that are being taken towards the recommendations, including touching on the civilian oversight body. So I'm not really sure that I should speak to it as part of this discussion given that this is about the impact report.

If you can reassure the counselor about maybe the high point is you don't have to give the whole presentation that they are giving, but the concern expressed here is how the technology impact report if I could paraphrase how the terms of the technology impact report, specifically as they relate to civilian oversight, are being accommodated by the administration or being anticipated to be accommodated by the administration?

Oh, I know that the mayor has previously said that he is in favor of a civilian oversight body. We will I know that he's also said that in an ideal world, we would have that body first and then be seeking body worn cameras. But, unfortunately, given the nature of the grant, this is the kind of rollout that we have to pursue.

Alright. Councilor Yuan Kempen, you have follow-up questions. Okay.

Councilor Yuan Kempen. You, mister Sherry. Is this a good time to just get into our questions about the document

before us? Absolutely. I mean, I I had a few other questions, but I can go back to mister Rice. I'd say, please, launch us into discussion, sir.

Thank you. So I I kind of have two big picture thoughts about this. So first, and I'll just lead with this because this is really what's on my mind. It has to do with the costs. When we did the surveillance oversight ordinance, it was very intentional that one of the questions required in the the impact reports is the cost because we're we're never having these conversations in a vacuum.

It's we're always balancing priorities. And this is really just what's top of mind for me, is the significant salary increases, that are a part of this. And this is not news or surprising. Right? This has been this has been the case since this was first agreed upon four or five years ago now. In the STIRR, it it it mentions accurately that it's a 2% salary increase for superior officers and officers with eight or more years. Does the administration have, like, a relatively straightforward dollar number of what that would be annually?

Through the chair, I'm sure you were gonna say this too, but we did submit a memo response for the finance committee. I can't remember which week, if it was last week or the week before, and it did have a dollar amount for that number. I believe it was 215,000, but I may be mistaken. But it should be attached to the meeting page for the finance committee.

It was $430,000 annually when you consider the pay raise and the additional personnel that would need to be hired to operate the system.

Through the chair, if I may. The question is how much the two percent comes out to. Correct?

Oh, yeah. My my misunderstanding. Yes. I I think the just the straight pay raises piece was in the 200 and change thousand dollars. Okay.

So through you, mister Share, I I will certainly review the memo. Thank you. Just so, you know, we're discussing it tonight. It's a little bit over 200,000 salary increase, and then there's an additional something like 200,000 for additional staff. Is that right, mister Sherer, from your memory? I'll see what

I can pull up for a citation. Sorry.

And the reason I bring this up is because this this is what's on my mind. We're you know, I'm not the first person to say this, but this is a very difficult budget year. I think we would be having I would certainly be having a different conversation about this four or five years ago, when the city was in a really different financial position. And I guess the other it's not so much a question, but it's just to to kind of name this is different from every other impact report we've done because it's the subject of collective bargaining, which just makes these conversations much more complicated where, you know, this council has an executive session, had conversations about this topic, but the public hasn't seen any of that. Right?

And that it's a very strange and difficult position to be in where we're asked to kind of ask detailed questions about this document that's before us that refers to a document that hopefully will exist publicly in the future. And it's and I wanna be clear. Every I know that everyone from the mayor's office and the police department, everybody's acting in good faith to try to accomplish something that that is a goal for the for the city. But it seems like the process that we're under this kind of frustratingly aggressive time, time constraint because of this grant. And I'm just I'm concerned about the kind of putting the cart before the horse.

You know, the the it's not come as a surprise to anyone. The the use policy is really, really important to me, to my colleagues on the council, to the public. And to not be able to have a, like, detailed conversation about it before we're asked to approve it in public is really, really hard. So I I just wanna name that. That's why I'm incredibly apprehensive about this. I'd say primarily, it's the cost. I I really do think that we could get somewhere that I could support on the policy given enough time. But just given the budget conversations we're having this year, I'm extremely apprehensive about that, and I wanna say that on the record.

Alright. Thank you, councilor Ewen Kampfinn. Are there other comments from colleagues regarding the surveillance technology impact report being requested for approval by the administration? Councilor Davis.

Thank you, mister chair. I, you know, I I have the same concerns that councilor and Kampen expressed, so I won't I won't repeat them.

I mean,

aside from all of the sort of cons the the the tactical issues that are raised with trying to review a document that we can't change that relates to some discussion that may be happening that we can't really materially impact. I guess I will repeat a little bit. I I I just this isn't this is a backwards way of doing it as has been said.

I

guess I'll leave it at that because otherwise, I'm just gonna repeat what council you and Cam has said. I I I also have significant concerns about the the timing and the process of this.

Alright. Thank you, councilor Davis. Seeing no one else, jumping up on this, I guess I I just wanna say thank you to mister Rice for, bringing in all of those different sources. And one one of the things that you actually encouraged, me to do from, citing our colleague from Ward 3, was to go back and actually read your memo from 2022 again. And when I do, read that, the number one and two items, on that are conspicuously absent from the impact report policy that we have here, namely the right then review policy, the necessary, condition that, viewing the footage before preparing a police report or testimony, is not acceptable.

And then number two was that there needs to be a civilian over oversight organization, and you you put it here explicitly to maintain the footage, control access, and imply enforcement for failure to adhere to policy. So, again, that's more than just access to the footage. That's more than a public records request. That is a that is a clear statement of the goal of this policy, in this technology is to, in fact, provide oversight and discipline. And, you know, the the surveillance technology ordinance is, certainly silent on on those.

So or surveillance technology impact report. So as I look at the impact report, I am certainly, in agreement that there are a few glaring omissions here. And I understand that there are certain things that may be covered in a detailed use policy on which the impact report would be silent. Right? Clearly, the impact report is not going to have, all of the details that would be in a use policy.

However, the framing of this, including the pieces about data retention, about data protection, about access, they can be specified explicitly. And when I review the ordinance, which I have spent far too much time doing, I concur with council Davis. The the intention here is to establish the baseline, through conversation, until it gets to a point of where the council can support it in terms of the deployment of the surveillance technology, where the council determines to use the language of the ordinance, that it is that is meeting the need to, provide sufficient value and benefit to the community outweighing the financial and operations costs and and, frankly, privacy costs. So I I'm I'm also of the mind that, regardless of my own personal opinions about, the suitability of the technology, one one thing I'm absolutely convinced of is that there's no pathway for this to be a a beneficial technology implementation without meeting at least these baseline requirements, that have been presented both in the good counselors 2022 memo and the legion of sources that was cited there, which I was I I do wanna call out again, including included the COPS staffing study that the city paid for in 2022 that was done by an outside consultant that included a chief of police from, I think it was probably North Carolina.

So, that said, I'm going to return to the procedural piece of this discussion, which is to say, right now, this is simply a proposal from, from the mayor's office. This committee could act on it, could certainly entertain a motion to approve, although I'm not hearing a lot of, motion towards that. It could, entertain a motion to recommend against approval. It can also simply, leave this policy in committee because until a full body worn camera, use policy arrives before us, it is the the clock doesn't start on our ordinance for review. I I did have a question for, the city about, about that use policy because Let's see.

Bargaining. Right. In in number eight on the surveillance technology impact report before us, that asks for an explanation of how the surveillance use policy will apply to this surveillance technology, and if not applicable, a technology specific surveillance use policy. So my understanding is there will be a technology surveillance technology specific surveillance use policy. Counselor Davis earlier helpfully pointed out that that is going to be its own document and not simply a copy of the police contract.

But when I read the response here, it seems to say something different. It says the department's current body worn policy is contained in the collective bargaining agreement between the city and patrol and superior officers unions, and any changes to that policy will be subject to the bargaining process. So is it is it the city's contention that the entirety of the use policy will be the text of the negotiated contract of the union?

Thank you, mister chair. No. I think it's just that there will be significant constraints or not constraints, I guess. The, collective bargaining agreement will set the limits of what can be included in a surveillance use policy. And as you have pointed out, and I think others have alluded to, the document that's before you tonight is based on the current body worn camera policy given that there are ongoing negotiations.

And so we can't really include in the STIR that's presented to you tonight some of the some of the things that will be changed once we know who a vendor might be or once that collective bargaining agreement has been signed, which is why we are intending to resubmit a new STIR. And, again, making sure that we divorce a little bit the body worn camera policy from the STIRR. And, again, those conversations have been having have been happening in executive session with this council around some of the policy considerations that have been that councilors have raised. And so, again, this stirs based on the current body worn camera policy because it's basically the only thing we can debate about in public at the moment. But, yes, the administration does intend to put forward a surveillance use policy for body worn cameras.

Alright. And I and I think I heard, I just wanna make sure I repeat accurately what you said that the outcome of collective bargaining will serve as a top end constraint over what could be pursued in terms of access and policies in the use policy.

Correct. And I I think as councilor Davis had also pointed out, the surveillance use policy would probably go into a lot more detail than just the what the collective bargaining agreement, body worn camera policy would outline.

Yeah. Okay. Well, from my standpoint, that's just entirely backwards of where we should be, doing this as a city. Right? We have, this is the city council has a very specific role in this process.

In 10 dot 65 d, it says in approving or disapproving any acquisition or use of surveillance technology, the city council shall consider the safeguarding of individuals' right to privacy as well as the investigative investigative and prosecutorial functions of the police department in promoting and ensuring the safety and security of the general public. Right? We have a requirement to evaluate what the benefit is of this proposed surveillance technology based on the surveillance technology impact report that's before us. And speaking as one counselor, I firmly believe that we must have a surveillance, civilian oversight body in order for this to be of any positive effect and that we are there are certain policies, that we could place into the surveillance technology impact report. For example, the access provisions under I wanna say it is three a.

Could explicitly call out that, any civilian oversight committee created would have direct access to all footage or would have custody would maintain custody of that footage. Right now, the only release of it can be through a public records law or by explicit order of the chief, I believe. Yeah. Access to oh, officer access to footage can only be granted with approval of chief or designee. Public access is only granted through a public records cost process.

So I for me, that is a big gap in the surveillance technology impact report presented here and all of those best practices, that are presented in the ACLU. So, for myself, I am inclined, not to support this in its current stance. I would encourage the city to go back and rethink rethink their approach to this. Because I I will not say outright that there is absolutely no world where there is a benefit from body worn cameras. I can say in the, in the bounds that are being created right now, it is not on balance helpful, I believe.

And my my concerns about the use of the technology, prevail. So, colleagues, I see that we do have we do have an item before us. The actions that we can have, we can keep this item in committee. We could move to disapprove, or we can move to approve. Are there any motions for members of the committee?

Councilor Ewing Campbell. Mister chair, I I

don't feel super strongly. Historically, we've kept these in committee awaiting a future, submission. I'm totally fine with that. I'm not at a point where I'm ready to vote one way or the other. So, you know, whatever we do, I I don't want to I would not want to be forced to take a vote tonight. I might vote some way that I don't don't agree with in the future.

Councilor Davis? No. Councilor Davis first and then councilor Mbaugh.

Thank you, mister chair. So as I said, I like councilman Kemp, and I I also I do not feel this is ready because of the it it's not because of the failure of drafting. It's because of the decision to do the timing this way. The only other thing I'll note is the the other option that the committee might have if, you know, if there is a concern of timing, which, you know so it's the discussion that we've already had, but we could refer this out without a recommendation just to complete the list that you gave at the top there, mister chair. I would I would imagine it's something I said.

I imagine something you know, when the time comes, I would imagine we'll have a discussion on this. I have a feeling that the president might agree to, to enable that discussion at the council level, should it should there be a I wish to do so.

Well, as as president, I suppose that is your your your prerogative. But I I'm inclined to agree with you that this is it's just not ready. Councilor Mbaugh.

Thank you, chairman Scott. I guess I will not say anything

Alright. Well, then It's

not a thing. It will be nice to put keep it in committee.

Yep. Alright. Well, it sounds like the will of the body here is to keep this item in committee, so we'll just go ahead and put that one in a desk drawer. With a note that, without acceptance of this surveillance technology impact report, it does gate, the adoption of the technology. But I suppose we will see more when a, revised technology impact report is submitted, and or a surveillance, technology specific use policy.

So let's go ahead and mark item four. That's 260484 as captain committee. And that brings us to our final substantive item of the evening, which is the, mayor requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report for Crime Tracer, previously known as CopLink. So is somebody from the administration prepared to introduce, on this?

Good evening, chairman. I'm Kevin Shockward from the Sunwell Police Department.

No. Go ahead, sir.

Going to read, crime trip which Crime Tracer is, sir. This is my first time doing this, STIRR report, so if you don't mind bearing with me.

Sure. So this is a this is a documentation of what Crime Tracer is, used for and what its purposes are in the city and presumably also answering all the questions needed here. In this case, it is serving as a request to the city council, for the police department to be allowed to use Crime Tracer. So

Yes, sir. Crime Tracer is a police collaborative software system that links criminal justice data from multiple agencies. It's police report data that is pushed out as some police department records management system, and it's used to, the crime traces database. So we push it out daily through an automated IT process, and it's used for us to conduct investigations, criminal investigations. So

Alright. Before I get to questions from colleagues, I I do I will go to you first, councilor Yuncanpin. But, there was something you said there, which is, that this is already implemented and is already updating the city's data uploading the city's data to the central database every day. Correct, sir. Okay. This ordinance was passed, I believe, in 2020. Is there a reason why it was not listed prior to this year, Why there was no surveillance technology impact report related to Copley, before this year?

I don't know the answer.

Chief. Mister chair, I'll get you here. Again, she made it for the chief of some of the police. I can't explain why it wasn't included. Certainly, we've had discussion, and upon, further discussion, we decided to produce a report, to disclose, the use of the technology to the city.

Alright. Seems like a pretty big o machine. Liaison Radasi.

Thank you, mister chair. Yes. Also, wanted to flag the technology was in use before the ordinance passed. So, again, this was pointed out to us actually by councilor Link, so I'd like to thank him for flagging this for us. Most of the technology that we seek impact or we submit impact reports for are usually, like, video surveillance or things like that. So this was just something that slipped beneath our radar, and we're just trying to correct the record here.

Well, I think that's absolutely the appropriate course of action, so I appreciate the city bringing it forward. I definitely do have questions based on, the information in here. But, councilor Ewankampan, you have first crack, sir.

Thank you, mister chair. And through you, thank you very much to councilor Link for leading on this and to the administration for bringing this forward. I know that, you know, many of us counselors have submitted questions, and I have my questions here. But before I get to the specifics one, I just have, like, a bunch of dumb questions. What does this software look like?

Because kind of my my basic question is I'm kind of trying to get a mental picture of is this every police department in Massachusetts has this. It's just default. Every single time you're fingerprinted, it goes into Crime Tracer. Every single report goes into Crime Tracer. Is that the nature of what we're talking about? This is, the first place that every piece of information goes into through you, mister president? That's my first question.

It is. It's a place where all the data every police report is entered in. It's 369 cities and, agencies that contribute to it, sir.

Through you in Massachusetts?

Correct, sir.

Okay.

And again, these are, like, these are not leading questions. This is me really trying to just understand how this what this is and kind of so let's say I was arrested tomorrow, and you wanted to know, you know, my history. Just every single time that my name has been taken by the police would come up, and you'd in any city of Massachusetts. Is that right? I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just trying to understand.

Police generated report, sir. If it's in a police generated report, it would be there, sir.

Okay. And so that would include, I don't know, witnesses through you, mister president? You know, peep people who didn't commit crimes, but just their name is in a police report for some reason or other?

I don't I'm not quite sure if it would have witnesses, sir. I couldn't answer that definitely.

I guess what I'm kind of big picture trying to get my mind around is it makes perfect sense to me that there is a database that the police have access to of you know, they they wanna have basic access information when they're starting an investigation about has this person been arrested before in some other city? Has they have they been fingerprinted? Is there you know, etcetera, etcetera. That seems totally straightforward to me. And then I go online and just do some, like, basic googling about the capabilities of this software, and they seem quite expansive in a lot of ways.

Right? So I read there's facial recognition. There's AI tools that allow, you know, officers in the field to kind of query all of the information in Massachusetts, and and I don't know exactly what happens with that. And that stuff seems well, potentially, like, depending what I learn about it, could be concerning. So I guess maybe I'll just go through my questions to try to get a better sense of that if if this is an appropriate time to do that.

Absolutely. If you if you did not receive written responses in advance to your questions, let let's, by all means, let's get them answered here.

Through you, mister president, I guess, did I receive written responses that I missed? Okay. Okay. So bear with me then because this I I really, really appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions because this clearly kind of a basic technology that apparently every the city has. I don't kind of question its overall value, but I I have a lot of questions that I just wanna understand about it. How do we so this is all just go in order. How do we ensure that local police interactions, including, you know, noncriminal interactions, anything in a police report, isn't accessed by the federal government?

Sir, the federal government doesn't have access to these programs to, to Crime Tracer.

And, mister president chair, through you, forgive me if this is a dumb question. I'm I'm glad to hear that, but but federal agents might have friends in some local district. Right? And couldn't they call their friend and say, hey. Like, look into this for me? Is that crazy?

That'd be a violation of the terms of using crime chasers, sir.

Okay. So there's a contract saying under no circumstances can a federal employee be given access to this? Correct, sir. Okay. From what I've read online, Crime Tracer has facial recognition capabilities, which obviously aren't allowed in Somerville. I I didn't see this mentioned in the impact report. Is there a reason that this either, you know, wasn't do we just not use those capabilities? Is that, an optional thing?

No. So Crime Tracer does not have facial recognition or biometrics. The prior version of CopLink did have a a segment of that, and it's no longer used. It's no longer there.

Okay. Okay. When I Google this and this might just be wrong, so correct all of this. When you Google it, they're they advertise a lot of built in AI, artificial intelligence capabilities. I was surprised then to not see that in the impact report. Not that I can't see any, you know, value in this, but can you describe or, you know, if it doesn't have to be tonight, what AI services are a part of Crime Tracer? Do we opt out of some of those? Is that is the AI ever involved in decision making? You know, I don't even quite know what the answers questions to ask because I don't fully understand what the AI could do.

No. Sorry. It's not involved in decision making. It actually has a feature that's designed to support investigative efficiency, such as a search through crime tracer using natural language with AI chat box and AI generated summaries of police reports. If there's a long report, long lengthy report, AI will summarize that report.

Okay. I think so I would really like to see some more detail about this in the impact report just so I can kinda get my mind around it, you what this looks like in practice.

I apologize. That was our oversight. We will absolutely resubmit it with that information.

Okay. Thank you. There's a sentence in the STIR that I don't understand. It says the technology allows the police department to obtain nationwide crime data from participating agencies on a daily basis to help effectively solve crime and address crime issues in the community. I think I just need a lot more information about what that means, like, data nationwide crime data is it, you know, pertaining to specific individuals?

Is it a graph of, you know, arson is up in the East Coast or something? Is it how general, how specific? I mean, what I'm concerned about, right, is surveillance. I'm concerned about, like, excessive surveillance of people who aren't committing crimes. So I I just wanna understand more detail about, like, what information is included in here. Is it specific to ongoing criminal investigations? Is it linked to individual people? I think I need a lot more information on what sort of information comes into Crime Tracer before I can even kind of form an opinion on this.

Yes, sir. Through the chair, sir. The data we have that goes through crime chases, arrest reports, incident reports, citations, bookings, and inform and vehicle information, and other stuff based on probation and parole and court information such as warrants.

Okay. So it's not I don't know. We think there are some disruptive individuals. We can't pin anything on them, but they're you know, might be in your area?

Oh, if there's a police generated report, sir, which will be public record.

Police generated report. Okay. Okay. And then my last kind of get my mind around this. So what we have before us now is, like, a vote on whether we can use Crime Tracer or not. To to me, just based on my understanding of kind of the centrality of this to basically every modern police department, I don't mean this as a joke question, but, like, can you describe what would actually happen if we said no?

It's it's actually mandatory through Post and for the hiring practices of the police department.

That they sorry. Go sorry to cut you off, please, for the president.

And we use it for investigations, the hiring process, like I said, is required by Post.

Okay. So the state effectively requires us to be a part of this through Post and through various funding opportunities and the hiring process. Is that right?

That's correct, sir.

And just hypothetically, if that wasn't the case, I I this is not like again, this is not a leading question. I I don't really understand the day to day work of officers in in many cases. Just what would it mean for the work of officers if they couldn't access the software?

It's an investigative tool, sir, to help with leads and all kinds of investigations that we conduct. It's really data driven.

Excuse me. To to the chair, I would also add, that this is an extremely helpful tool, particularly as we talk about vetting new candidates coming into the police department. While individuals, may be involved, in the criminal justice system and may not have been convicted of a crime in a court, they may have engaged in in in activity or behavior that would be averse to the type of officer that we're looking to employ here in the city of Somerville. We wouldn't know that if it was, you know, if occurred somewhere in Georgia or another state if by chance we didn't have access to this level to be able to see if by chance their name, was, recorded in a police report.

Okay. I'll I'll yield there, mister chair. Through you, thank you very much for these answers and for everything that's in here. I I hope that I, was clear in some of the additional information that I'm looking to see in the impact report, and I'm looking forward to hear from my colleagues.

Thank you, councilor. And just to follow-up on that, you made an assertion, sir, that this was a requirement of the, mass post commission. I can't find that requirement anywhere. Is there documentation you can provide on that?

We'll provide you documentation once we have it served.

Great. I love a good citation. Yeah. I think I think my understanding of, couplings capabilities, most of it comes from a presentation that was released inadvertently unredacted a few years back, back when it was CopLink. A copy of that presentation has actually been presented to the city council in the past. And the facial recognition capabilities are very widely reported. So I guess I'm curious as to how our version of Crime Tracer doesn't include that facial recognition and image processing back end.

I I know Crime Tracer does not have facial recognitions or capabilities.

Okay. And, to the point that, I believe your question Which is councilor Yuan Campen, related to would be found in, three a or in three. Answer three there. Data contained in CrimeTrees here includes, in addition to all those, arrest reports, booking photos, vehicle information, warrants. It also includes field interviews and observations, which would be, you know, if they took the names down of everybody who was at a rowdy party that they had to break up at 4AM.

Those would be included in the report and would therefore be, an association in Crime Tracer with that address, and with the other people at that party. That is correct.

Right, sir? Because it generated reports, sir, it will be there. Okay.

Alright. I'm gonna yield to councillor Mbai. Councillor Mbai, you have the floor.

Thank you, chairman Scott. Yeah. I just you know, this is also, like, another tough one, especially when I'm looking at this the rise of fascism. You know? And we are also a city that is committed, you know, to municipal freedom.

So, like, it's about us access to this data and for what purpose because I think we all got a memo. It's even in one of those comments from the public, you know, that kids were adopted, you know, federal officer just for having, like, pellet guns. So can you imagine this is is this isn't this a technology that, you know, like, inevitably created, like, intended consequences for, like, something that I I can somebody speak to that? Like, because, again, for me, it's just a worry about, like, getting wrapped up, you know, tango with a within a, you know, a government that doesn't respect any policies. We might have our own policy, but as long as you're exposed to bunch of other folks, you know, you're connected to Boston.

Boston gives your data here. It it's just I I'm not I haven't really rubbed my head in terms of, like, the god rays. That's I'm not hearing a lot of that from this So especially, we call ourselves a sanctuary city. And yet, you know, we are all good people that don't have the same policy as us. I'm not sure about how how our values will be preserved by having this open access, you know, to data sharing consequences that will come with that.

You see, I can see this this technology, the use of like, giving sharing database to kidnap and deport our neighbors. Chelsea, a community that shared some of his commitment to has seen firsthand how data sharing can lead to devastating outcome. Last year, three boys were kidnapped by ICE after being brought into the police department and fingerprinted because they allegedly had a pellet gun. Can somebody give me, you know, can the chief comment to that?

He ventured.

Thank you very much. And, counsel, I wanna make sure I understand the context of your question and comment. Certainly, we don't you know, our engagement and our activity with our community is overwhelmingly positive. And as the lieutenant reported, does not result in, a generated, report, for which is used to, submit to a crime chaser. With with respect to that, when we talk about FIO reports, generally, are those are individuals that are of some type of unlawful design, whether it be a 911 call or whether, you know, we're investigating them for articulable suspicious facts.

With regards to the federal government, I think that they have engaged in a multitude of actions that we all find abhorrent and indefensible. I you know, we don't work for the federal agencies. We've been assured by the state that they don't share this information, so it'd be extremely difficult for us to to respond in that particular fashion. When we think about local law enforcement, it's just it's not within the purview just as, you know, here in Somerville that I would be able to afford officers to peruse and go through crime data and crime trace and discriminately and dispatch them to other jurisdictions to arrest persons on low level warrants and or engage them in other ways. So it just it it it's not practical that we use it in that way.

It certainly wouldn't arrive to a level of efficiency in the use of police resources. And we too have a committed mission to ensuring that people are not needlessly captured in police reports and exposed to the criminal justice system. So we use all of our resources around alternative responses in that space as well as ensuring that we don't capture needlessly again person's information and generate a police reports. The the overwhelming majority of our responses are positive, and they do not result in a police report.

Oh, thank you, chief. No. I believe you, and I believe what you're saying. I is when it's out of your hands. Again, my main point is I don't wanna empower, I mean, a legal system, you know, because if it's out of all, I just kinda like sometime you read this stuff, you're like, wow.

I I cannot believe what I'm reading. Against, for me, it's about access, who has access, you know, to the client data. The database, it's or if it's restricted now, it's one thing. You know? If, let's say, you know, who has access to the past, maybe the past, it has its own you know, federal government probably had access to the past, but if it doesn't have access now, it's just something to know just so that we know that, okay.

There's been you know, maybe in the past, there was something. Maybe now new policies have con you know, they are more I I'm more interested in and making sure that, you know, we do things right as much as possible to the best of our abilities and understanding. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate your comments. And as always, we we have effective policy, certainly the men and women of the Somerville police every day uphold those same values. So we appreciate it, and we'll continue to do that work to ensure that our community and our community members are not needlessly exposed in that in that space, particularly to, you know, service providers that don't submit to, our value set and how we go about, the discharge of law enforcement duties. Thank you, chief. Thank you, chairman Scott.

Thank you. I'm just looking to see if there are any other hands. Not seeing any at the moment. Just one question. The instance of Crime Tracer, that Summerville is currently using, is that gen two or gen three?

I do have it somewhere here in my paperwork, sir. I believe it's

well,

you believe that it's 10 to be able to confirm. You guys don't know.

I believe it's gen three, sir, but we will confirm that for sure.

Okay. I think that'd be helpful, just to understand the different capabilities that are that are within, CopLink, Crime Tracer. Crime Tracer. You know, the Sound Thinking, website, the company that owns Crime Tracer, is possibly one of the absolutely slowest websites I've ever I've ever been on. But, it does have a lot of documentation about the use of the the AI chatbot, in Crime Tracer Gen three.

But the example given is that an officer could just say, I need to find a John Smith, with a red truck, and that then crime tracer would go and look at all information in the in the area, to identify who who that individual that the officer thought he saw might be and where to find him. Is is that is that a functionality you've seen?

It'd be a functionality if there was a police report generated with those those specific topics. Yes.

Well, fortunately, Crime Tracer has access to the, I think you said, 389, agencies? 369, sir. 369 agencies worth of data. So if there was any interaction with a John Smith or a Red Truck in, Commonwealth, it would be would pop up there.

Yes, sir.

Oh, okay. Alright. I I think the the capabilities in Crime Tracer are, truly extraordinary. And I say that, just in a the scope is hard to believe. I would love to have, more information about because in here, it says that there's no training needed for this.

I would really like to understand, what the full capabilities of Crime Tracer are. Secondly, I like, as you said, I would love to get documentation on I I would love to get documentation on when ICE was exclude by when the Department of Homeland Security lost their access to Crime Tracer and what action, created that. So was that a an act of the governor, or was that a law passed at the state level, or was that simply an internal policy? So if I could if I could get that information and, my brain's putting it's the hour is late. I asked for one other thing. Can you remember what it was?

I don't, sir.

Oh, well, it's a good thing we got it on camera. I'll have to go back and look it up, and maybe we can both take notes. Yeah. I I I think those are important things to understand, so that, you know, the the main purpose of these surveillance technology impact reports are so that people in the city of Sunbelt can, look at it and understand what the system is, what the system does, and that there are guidelines here about, you know, data retention, public access, all all of those things that we've been considering. In the case of a technology that's already been implemented, it would require a ordinance of the city council, to prohibit the use of a specific technology, as as we said at the top of the meeting.

So this is just trying to get a fuller picture available in the spirit of transparency. Oh, that was man, I had it, and then I lost it. Councilor Davis, you and I share a brain. Do you recall?

Right. But Didn't

say that I did, miss Chuck. Sorry.

Alright. So I I think there is a long way to go on this, so I look forward to, some of those questions that councilor Young Campan asked getting answered. It seems like the appropriate thing to do with this is to also keep in committee and await a resubmission. So thank you to liaison Radasi and the folks from the police department who are here tonight to answer some questions, and, hopefully, this will guide the production of little more information and a more thorough technology impact report. So we will mark that one as being kept in committee as well. Thank you, sir.

Thanks.

Alright. And that brings us to the end of our agenda at six minutes behind target on our time here. I apologize. That was my fault. So we only have one item to take a vote of approval on. I believe that it would be item number one, the approval of the minutes. All the other three are being kept in committee. Correct?

Yes. Chair three, can I just confirm we're gonna keep in committee agenda item two, three, and four, and mark work completed agenda items five, six, seven, and eight, the public comments?

That sounds great.

Okay. Then, yes, we need one roll call for the committee minutes, and we can do that with adjournment.

Alright. Well, then on the auspicious occasion of my fiftieth birthday, I will move for adjournment.

Alright. And on approval of agenda item one, approval of the minutes of legislative matters committee meeting of 03/17/2026 and on adjournment. Councilor Davis?

Happy birthday.

Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes. And happy birthday, chairman Scott.

Councilor Yun Camping?

Happy birthday.

Councilor Strezzo?

Yes. And yeah. Sure. Happy birthday, mister chair. Councilor Scott.

Yes, please. And thank you to all of my colleagues and city staff who are here tonight as well as members of the public who contributed to the discussion. For our next meeting, the agenda has already been posted. That will be on May 5. So just as a procedural matter, we are getting an extra meeting in thanks to the, calendar.

That legislative matters committee meeting will be covering a variety of a variety of responses to the topics that have been requested here. I believe we have a set of rules that are going to be before legislative matters committee at our next meeting and the secondhand, ordinance. We also have anticipated for the following meeting, the one in the May, to be the, rental registry ordinance coming before us, and I know folks inside the administration are working hard on that. And it is my anticipation that at the May, we will be bringing up the welcoming communities ordinance, which was recently, the updates and modifications to welcoming communities ordinance. So we do have a pretty full plate, but I look forward to a productive May.

Thank you, everybody. We are adjourned.