City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, everyone. This is a meeting, a special meeting of the City Council. It is Monday, July 27th, just about 633. I am Lance Davis presiding. I use he, him pronouns. Note that pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting of the City Council is being conducted via remote participation. We will post an audio recording, audio video recording. transcript or other comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Somerville website and local cable access government channels. Clerk Henderson, would you please call the roll?

This is roll call. Councillor Ewen Campin.

Here.

Councillor Link. Here. Councillor Scott.

Present.

Councillor Klingon. Present. Councilor Schozo?

Present.

Councilor Saeed? Here. Councilor Wheeler? Here. Councilor Hart?

Here.

Councilor McLaughlin? Here. Councilor Umbau?

Present.

And Councilor Davis?

Here.

With nine members present, we have quorum.

All right, thank you. This meeting was called by the mayor for the purpose of discussing the topic of body-worn cameras. There are a handful of items on the agenda, including a public hearing. And I want to note that there's, at least in my mind, there's some question as to whether a mayor can call a public hearing of the city council. was made aware of this after the public hearing was, was noticed. Um, and, uh, you know, in my opinion, as president of the council, it's, it's a good thing to hear from the public before we have this conversation. And certainly having the conversation about the topic is within the mayor's right. So I didn't object to the calling of the public hearing, but we're going to make sure we're clear about whether that can happen in the future. Um, I didn't want to set any precedent here. Um, but again, as I said, I, I, um, you know, consented to the, uh, to the public hearing going forward. Um, uh, and to be clear, the, you know, the law department, the mayor did consult with the law department, uh, and was advised that this is within his rights. I'm not sure if I interpret it the same way, but we're all good. I just want to make it clear at the outset, uh, that, you know, this, this public hearing is going forward because, um, I, uh, allowed to go forward as, as council president. Um, and in the future we'll, we'll provide a little clarity there as to, uh, what can and cannot be asked of the council by the executive branch. That said, we are happy to be here. There's a number of folks in the audience, so thank you all for joining. We look forward to hearing from you. There is a communication or there are, I guess, slides that the administration is going to present. And I believe, I'm just checking, I believe they are, oh no, that's not the right one. I believe they're attached to, where is the item number? Clerk Henderson or Director Najim Williams, can you help me find the slides that were attached so that members of the public can also navigate to them if they want to look at them on their own rather than through the shared screen?

Yes, that is item number 26-1222.

1222. So that's the mayor's request that the city council hold a public hearing. Okay. So if you click on that, if you're in the city council website through legislature, click on that item, then there are attachments, the special meeting, BWC presentation. So that's what we'll be hearing about in a minute here. Unless there's any objection from the council, I will I will allow the administration to go forward with the presentation so that we can all hear the context first and then members of the public can give us their thoughts with all of that, having all that information at hand. So given that, then why don't we, if there's no objection, let's take that item 26-1222 out of order. And I will recognize Mayor Wilson to begin the discussion. And then Mayor Wilson, if there's someone you'd like to hand off to to continue that presentation or information sharing, please feel free to do so. So seeing no objection, Mayor Wilson, you have the floor.

Mr. President, if you don't mind, can I put that into the record, please?

I'm sorry, yes. Go right ahead. I should have done that, and I neglected, so thank you for keeping me on task here. Go right ahead.

This is item number 26-1222, requesting the City Council hold a public hearing regarding the implementation and use of body-worn cameras by the Somerville Police Department.

Mayor Wilson.

Thanks, Mr. President. Through you to the Honorable Counsel, I want to thank you all for convening here tonight during your summer recess. Given all the work that every single one of you has put in over the past months and months of collaboration on this, it was really important to give you all the opportunity to hear from the public, discuss the opportunity here before you, and to give this the up or down vote that it deserves. Next slide. Our community is tired of waiting for action on commitments to police reform that were made six years ago in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, and I'm right there with them. As a counselor, I worked with Counselor Kelly to put together that roundtable on civilian response programs that have been implemented elsewhere. I consistently called for standing up a civilian oversight body, and I worked with the law department on picking the body-worn camera policy back up off the table to get that work going. The message I hear from the community and my message to this council is that the time for studies and listening sessions and task forces about this is long gone. It's time to act. Next slide. Now, some folks might prefer to tackle these reforms one at a time, but I'm impatient to deliver on these long overdue promises by our city. And that's why we've done what we've done in our first months in office by starting a clinician co-response pilot back in the spring. We're currently looking to grow that program with another grant this year by creating and funding the Police Accountability Program Director position in the FY27 budget that will run civilian oversight. And with this body, the work on the body-worn cameras that started back in the winter and is at a major final checkpoint here tonight. Also, we've been working on a school liaison officer as part of a larger community policing initiative. Stay tuned for more news on both of those fronts later this year. Next slide, please. Body-worn cameras are a really key component of the recommendations that came out of the Public Safety for All Task Force's work, and they're a consistent best practice in conjunction with a strong policy around their usage. The most recent survey of our community found that 9 out of 10 Somervillians see body-worn cameras as an effective tool for police transparency and accountability, and plenty of research and successful use cases back that up. Greater transparency and accountability keeps communities safer. Better quality evidence supports justice for victims and keeps communities safer. New and better opportunities for officer training keeps communities safer. But we all know body-worn cameras are only as effective as the policy around them. So we've been hard at work with this council to ensure Somerville has a policy in place that reflects what we've learned from what has worked and not worked in other cities. Following the guidance of the ACLU, NAACP, neighboring policies in Boston and Cambridge, everyone around this virtual horseshoe, and the advocacy of our residents who really dug in on this, we now have a policy that I would hold up against any other cities. Next slide. Let's be real. Meaningful police reforms come with fiscal costs. And if you followed the budget process last month, you know money's tight. So when the state announced the final round of body-worn camera grant funding, we moved fast and we won a nearly quarter million dollar grant. That grant funding fully covers all the upfront costs of a body-worn camera program, as well as the first year and a half of all non-staffing costs. And as this council knows, Those standard compensation increases collectively bargained years ago for officers to wear body-worn cameras were fully funded at that time with transfers into the salary and wage stabilization funds. There's no impact on the general fund of implementing this program in FY27. And the decision is completely separate from any FY27 budgetary decisions. Again, fiscal year 27 costs are fully covered by the grant and by funds put away years ago for this purpose in the Salary and Wage Stabilization Fund. If stewardship of public funds is important to you, it will never be more cost effective to implement body-worn cameras in Somerville than this moment. The cost of this program will be phased onto the general fund starting in FY28 as the person will have to present a balanced FY28 to this body in just 10 months. I wouldn't be here before you tonight asking you to approve this if I were worried about us regretting this decision come next summer. During my administration's months in office so far, I've been working with Chief Benford regularly on realizing departmental cost savings operationally and through collective bargaining. And we're going to continue that work in an effort to balance out the cost of this program. Additionally, the chief and I are committed to reducing the department's overtime budget as shown by the hiring that's happened so far this year. When those recruits are through the academy and in place, that recruitment push combined with the focus on retention should help reduce overtime costs. And on the revenue side, we're now seeing signs of life on the development and life science teneting fronts. I'm pushing hard for hotel development in Teal, Davis, and Union Squares, also as a boon to our finances. And just last week, I received word of another significant leasing of previously vacant lab space in our city. And movement on tenancy of long vacant life science spaces is picking up. And we're continuing to work hard marketing Somerville as an attractive spot for life science on the revenue side there. Next slide. I understand the desire from some folks to get the civilian oversight piece in place first before bringing in body-worn cameras. We should reassure anyone concerned that the body-worn camera policy you all helped create over the winter and spring specifically contains provisions granting a civilian oversight body access to body-worn camera video. And you approved a budget last month that funds the creation of a civilian oversight program for police accountability. I'm not going to get into bargaining strategy here in open session, but I can tell you any civilian oversight will need to be collectively bargained. And we know for a fact that having body worn cameras in place will make that discussion go much, much easier. If civilian oversight is your most important police reform, a vote for body worn cameras tonight is a vote for making the process of implementing civilian oversight here faster and easier. Next slide. Cambridge found themselves scrambling to pursue body-worn cameras for their police in the aftermath of the death of Syed Faisal three years ago. They now have body-worn cameras on their police. This past week, Madison saw an officer-involved shooting result in the death of a resident with no body-worn cameras in place and therefore no vital video for that investigation. In the press conference after that shooting, the Madison mayor promised immediate funding for body-worn cameras and their Common Council president promised speedy approval of that funding by the council. We have an opportunity to make sure that we're not looking back with regret in the event of the unthinkable here in Somerville. We have the opportunity to implement next month a body-worn camera program with a top policy that we know will make our community safer and our police more accountable. Let's learn from these examples next door and this past week to make sure that we're in line with all of our neighboring communities and yes, Somerville Housing Police right here in Somerville by implementing a body-worn camera program that brings vital transparency to police interactions with the public. If we find ourselves back here later this year or early next year looking to implement a body-worn camera program after creating a civilian oversight authority, we'll be doing so without the nearly quarter million dollar grant and with significantly higher equipment costs. Body-worn cameras just saw a nearly 30% increase in cost this month. Thankfully, we have quotes at the previous lower prices that will be honored. So I want to thank you all again for being here tonight and for the opportunity to speak on this. I'll turn it over now to staff. We're going to go deeper on some of the areas I touched on, and then we're here for any questions the counselors might have for us. Up first is John Hillman.

Yeah. Sorry, we're just getting the camera on here.

There we go. Good evening, Mr. President. Through you, my name is John Hillman. I'm the Public Safety for All Project Manager for the City. As has been discussed here, my position came about after a decade of intentional discussion and community engagement regarding the tactics and programming for police oversight and accountability. Be it in 2015 with Mayor Curritone's push for body-worn cameras, to the city's 2020 declaration of systemic racism, the call for greater oversight, including body-worn cameras, to the council's approval of a 2021 police union contract that included a body-worn camera policy, to the creation of my role in response to a two and a half year community process. There has been no shortage of community feedback and discussion and viewpoints when it comes to this topic. The community-driven PS of a task force report, which guides my own portfolio of work, named the implementation of body-worn cameras as a top priority for Summerville. That recommendation also came concurrently in tandem with the work of the civilian oversight task force. which noted a clear use and role for body worn cameras for any future iteration of a Somerville public sale over safety oversight entity. I've had the opportunity to speak with nearly all of the task force members who participated in the crafting of these recommendations, including body worn cameras. They described a long and protracted process of deliberation, discussion to ultimately produce a consensus on the future of public safety here in Somerville. This led them to once again recommend body-worn cameras for the police and did so in a public presentation of their recommendations in February of last year. All of those materials and presentations are publicly available online for people to check out. That level of engagement and guidance remains true today. When I shared our intention to pursue this grant acceptance to support the broader goals of public safety oversight, task force members were eager to share guidance and opinions on next steps. That engagement has been spurred by via feedback on our surveillance technology impacts report, technology-specific surveillance use policy that are before you this evening. That's seen city staff like myself appear before this council and committees to answer questions and ensure that we're as responsive as possible these past five months of deliberation. Through those engagement points, the council has been vital in partnering with us and the community to strengthen this policy.

So I similarly expect- If you could just pause there for a minute, just for a moment, please. Would the clerk please note that Councillor McLaughlin joined us right at the beginning of the mayor's comments. I think we have all members here now.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Please continue. Thank you, Mr. President.

I similarly expect folks to be just as engaged on our efforts to stand up a new police accountability board here in Somerville in line with the recommendations of the Civilian Oversight Task Force in the coming months. Next slide, please. This successful grant process through this body-worn camera grant has afforded us the chance to look holistically at the package of recommendations in the Public Safety for All that impact one another. So the administration has publicly stated its commitment to this new police oversight entity multiple times, including in my own appearance before the Public Health and Public Safety Committee on July 1st of this year. We've already shown that commitment through the creation of a new council-approved position in the FY27 budget to lead this new oversight body. This police accountability program coordinator is going to work hand-in-hand with SPD to coordinate all body-worn camera footage and access as it pertains to the goals of oversight and transparency. We're committed to working with the council to develop an ordinance for this oversight body and ensure that cameras are a key plank and tool for oversight in the future. You know, critically, this council approved a BWC policy with the SPSOA and the adjoining policy documents that include direct access for camera footage for this potential entity as part of its oversight responsibilities. I would also say for those concerned about the lack of a local oversight body in the short term, I would note the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training, or POST, Commission holds subpoena power to request unredacted camera footage at any time for review. Our city will still be beholden to POST as a statewide police oversight body now and in the future as the city deploys body-worn cameras. So we've reviewed all other major functioning civilian oversight entities across the nation, and we could only find one out of 128 functioning bodies in the nation that don't have body-worn cameras. That one municipality, Madison, Wisconsin, which, as Mayor Wilson referenced, is now swiftly moving forward to implement a program following a recent officer-involved shooting just weeks ago that sparked community outrage in the absence of footage. So as we work on standing up civilian oversight here in Somerville, the use of body-worn cameras is very likely to be an inevitable topic as we continue to pursue police oversight here in Somerville. So just to close, I would say the truth is we've seen police oversight entities fail time and time again across the state and across the United States. And most often, that's because they lack the tools and mechanisms to make them effective and sustainable. So for those that are hopeful that we as a city can buck that trend and create an oversight body that lasts, I would strongly recommend you consider body-worn cameras as a key first step in that effort. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to hand it over now to our attorney, Matt Sergue, to speak a little bit more on the specifics of the policy.

Matt. Thank you, Council President, through you. Matt Sergue, Labor Council. I want to start by thanking the council and the community members for coming out tonight to speak on this important topic. This hearing is the culmination of years of work by the city's unions and elected leaders and both parties' bargaining representatives. And on behalf of the folks at the bargaining table, at least, I want to say how much we appreciate you taking up this item tonight. My role here, and I'm here to speak about the city's body-worn camera policy and how it informs the other documents the council is being asked to approve tonight. The first iteration of the city's body-worn camera policy was finalized in March 2021. Policy came about as part of contract negotiations with the city's police unions for contracts ending fiscal year 2022. The body-worn camera component included an agreement that included a 2% salary increase for officers when the cameras were deployed. This is not unusual. A wage increase or stipend for implementing a new technology especially one that has significant impact on employee oversight, is common. As we saw in a previous slide, all of our neighboring communities have similarly provided compensation enhancement to officers when body-worn cameras were implemented. The city's first attempt to implement a body-worn camera program came in June 2022 when the prior administration put forth a budget that included money for a body-worn camera program. The Council at that time cut that funding while specifically articulating its concerns with the existing body-worn camera policy and how the existing policy did not align with the values of the City of Somerville. Since then, the City and its bargaining representatives have been working with the unions to negotiate revisions to the body-worn camera policy that would be acceptable to the City Council, the community, and the City of Somerville at large. Last fall, we learned the state's body-worn camera grant program was going to be discontinued. So those of us who had been working on this program for years organized an effort to try and take advantage of the program in its final year. We knew being able to accept the grant would require a lot of work in a short amount of time, but the consensus was that if this program was ever going to get off the ground, we needed to create the best conditions possible for it. We submitted an application to the state in December 2025 and engaged with both police unions and expedited negotiations to see if we'd come to an agreement on a body-worn camera policy that better aligned with the community's values. Those negotiations resulted in a fiscal year 25 contract for the superior officers with a substantially revised body-worn camera policy. While we made significant progress towards an agreement with the patrol officers union, no agreement was ultimately reached in time to accept the grant. During the course of these negotiations, the city's bargaining team received extensive input from the city council during four lengthy executive sessions between March and May of 2026 in one-on-one meetings with counselors. And we received direction and input from community advocates, most notably through an April 24, 2026 submission to the finance committee titled minimum policy requirements for police use of body-worn cameras. Body-worn camera policy that resulted is more robust, cohesive policy that is consistent with nearly all of the policy recommendations we received throughout this process. What we're showing now is a slide that demonstrates what was in the former policy and what's in the new 2026 SPSOA policy. The 2021 policy was a concise three-page document that resulted from extensive negotiations with the impacted police unions alone. The 2026 policy is a significantly more detailed 10-page policy that includes key provisions advocated for by the city council and the community and called for in the ACLU of Massachusetts model body-worn camera policy. The revised policy now identifies enhancing police accountability as a goal of the body-worn camera program, defines permissible law enforcement uses of body-worn cameras and incorporates many other terms called for by advocates, including if, when and how officers should use cameras in private or sensitive locations with the goal of balancing the individual's right to privacy with the fundamental law enforcement purpose of the police department. It includes restrictions on officers recording First Amendment protected activity, which is prohibited unless the officer has a specific and articulable reason for recording the incident. The new policy includes rules regarding internal access to camera footage, meaning access by SPD officers, and external access, meaning access to members of the public, the media, and police oversight bodies specifically. Our policy is the only policy in the area that we have identified that specifically states that police oversight authorities will be granted access to body and camera footage. Finally, the policy also includes a data retention schedule ensuring footage is preserved consistent with legal requirements and the fundamental purpose of the footage, but no longer. The 2026 policy has unique components driven by research and the advocacy and engagement of the community. The bargaining team researched body-worn camera policies from around the state and the country, understanding the community wanted strong protections for civil liberties. The policy we found that best lived up to the standards advocated for in Somerville was that of our neighbor, Cambridge. Like the Cambridge policy, the Somerville body-worn camera policy of 2026 permits officers to review footage before writing police reports. Some advocates have argued that officers should not be able to do this. However, it's the view of the police and city administrations and the Middlesex District Attorney's Office that in most cases, the need for accurate and detailed release reports is paramount. And officers should use every tool in their toolbox to write the best reports they can. Where the Cambridge policy deviates and where we deviate as well, is that under the 2026 body-worn camera policy we're discussing tonight, when an officer uses force in a manner that results in death, the officer, a potential defendant, does not have the opportunity to review footage before giving a statement as no other defendant would either. This dynamic, we believe, strikes the right balance between the need to provide quality law enforcement services and the need to achieve justice when officers use deadly force. Other unique components of our policy includes the protections for First Amendment protected activities, a specific reference to access for police oversight bodies, a robust requirement that use narratives be submitted by officers anytime they exercise discretion that's permitted under the policy, but the exception to the general rule, and detailed access log provisions, making sure we have a clear record of everyone who is requested and accessed by your camera footage. Public access to footage was also a constant subject of discussion. Body-worn camera footage is a public record, and requests for those records will continue to be processed under the 2026 policy by the law department as public records requirements are. By law, the city has to respond to those requests in 10 business days and provide a complete response within 25 business days. When reviewing public records requests, the law department must comply with legal requirements of the public records law. in a way that accomplishes both transparency and accountability while protecting the privacy of individuals and information contained in these records. This is a significant responsibility that the law department takes seriously. Records we possess and distribute implicate the privacy rights of minors, victims, defendants, and other vulnerable populations. In this case, captured on a body-worn camera. The law department must respond to these requests with available staffing in the time periods permitted by law, while balancing the competing needs of the department. Given the serious consequences of premature or inadvertent disclosure of this private information, body-worn camera policy maintains the public records law timelines for responding to requests for body-worn camera data. The reports and documents that you're specifically being asked to review and approve tonight are a surveillance technology impact report and a technology-specific use report. These reports are based on the 2020, the content of these reports as submitted tonight are based on the 2026 SPSOA body worn camera policy. Council approval of these documents are a condition of the city's acquisition of surveillance technology, which body worn cameras are. These documents serve the purposes of the surveillance technology ordinance by ensuring transparency, accountability, and oversight, and most importantly, privacy protection in the city's use of surveillance technology. By the terms of the city ordinance, the city may only deploy body-worn cameras in a manner consistent with the technology-specific surveillance use policy, which again is based on the 2026 SPSOA policy. That policy may be amended from time to time with approval of the city council, but we cannot deploy body-worn cameras on terms not approved in a TCEP, such as those included in the 2021 body-worn camera policy. That's the bargaining history, the substance of the body on camera policy, and the tech use and surveillance technology documents we're submitting before you tonight. I'll remain available to answer any questions about the policy, the bargaining history to the extent we can discuss it, and any other questions of the council.

Good evening, Mr. President, and through you, I'd like to acknowledge Mayor Wilson, my city colleagues here with us tonight and that have worked with us diligently, the full city council, and certainly my SPD colleagues. My name is Shemaine Ben-Ford and I am the chief of the Somerville Police Department. Transparency, accountability, and public trust are common themes that you will hear throughout this evening. Training opportunities from body-worn cameras in general will help us in training through in-service our officers at no additional cost to the department. Better protection of victims of domestic violence through documentation of disposable evidence, such as bruising, will also be a distinct advantage of the body-worn camera program. My lived experience has given me firsthand knowledge of the compelling value of video. The tragic killing of George Floyd shocked the conscience of all Americans. But it was the death, excuse me, it was the beating of Rodney King that validated complaints and gave voice to complaints of marginalized members who weren't believed. And while none of us are defending the deplorable, some of the deplorable actions of immigration enforcement, even DHS or immigration enforcement ICE has prioritized the deployment of body-worn cameras. Based on our expectations and the likelihood that we may be called to different locations where ICE may be executing their authority and their actions, we would want to have this as a tool and a resource to help us in our responsibilities. Next slide. Body-worn cameras are a valuable and common tool used in policing. There are significant cost-saving benefits to implementing body-worn cameras. Providing unbiased evidence, to inform potential lawsuits and prevent costly false accusations, more efficient in conducting and closing out investigations, it will help reduce significant staff person hours, and we pledge to work smarter with the resources we have. They will also help to validate proof of victims' claims, as well as provide exculpatory evidence for the police. Body-worn cameras' capacity to reduce excessive use of force or other violations reduce potential costs for legal settlements. As has been reported and shared this evening, Somerville is one of only a few municipalities in the Boston region without body-worn cameras. Arlington, Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Medford are all municipalities bordering our city that have deployed and used body-worn cameras. Additionally, when requesting mutual aid, it is highly probable that many of those jurisdictions would come into our city to assist us while we're in body-worn cameras, like as when we're trying to produce security plans for our porch press celebration. And the city of Somerville, North of Somerville Police Department will have very little oversight and control over that data and that footage because we don't own it. And lastly, as has been reported this evening, the Somerville Housing Authority Police Department were forward in their thinking and has deployed and have been using body-worn cameras for the better part of nearly five years now. Next slide. As was shared earlier in 2023, Attorney Marsha Gazerosian, who represented Saeed Faizal's family and led an inquest for more information around the case, said if McMahon had been wearing a body-worn camera at the time of the shooting, it could have brought more clarity to the case. The Cambridge Police Department went on to say, we know this will be another tool that will go a long way to build trust and transparency with our community. And more recently in North Andover, the unfortunate shooting of an off-duty police officer. Judge Jeffrey Karp noted in his decision, perhaps the Commonwealth could have easily met its burden if the officers had been wearing body-worn cameras. Next slide. the phased implementation of the body-worn camera program. If the grant is accepted, the Somerville Police Department will begin working on the phased implementation of the body-worn camera program with the superior officers at the end of the summer of 2026. The overview of our anticipated body-worn camera functions and capabilities include close proximity to the division commander who is responsible for all resources on a shift, and ensuring that cameras are properly documented, downloaded, and are properly functioning at the beginning of each shift. The program will be managed by a single superior officer in phase one of the body one camera implementation. Overview access will be controlled by an administrator who sets the defaults, access control, as well as permissions. If and when an agreement is reached with the SPEA, representing the patrol officers, then SPD would hire an unsworn civilian to help manage the body-worn camera program. This program would then have two staff persons, a superior officer, and a single civilian body-worn camera manager overseeing the program for a total of 119 officers with cameras, 31 superior officers, and 88 patrol officers. Most municipalities have multiple staff persons assisting with the efficient management of the body-worn camera program. In closing, as the mayor has stated, his administration has identified body-worn camera as well as other initiatives as priorities. Body-worn cameras will help position this department and our city and our community for 21st century policing. It will be in line with the value set as a community. And I ask and respectfully implore passage of this program this evening. And I too will be available with my other colleagues for the discussion and any questions that may come. Thank you.

So we want to just give a quick little overview of what the grant is going to be covering. As you can see here, the $231,000 state grant covers all upfront installation costs. That includes the setup of the technology, the software used to enact the program. It also covers the first full year and a half of subscription fees with any potential vendor. That also means any needed maintenance and required upgrades in the first year and a half of the program rolled out is covered by this grant. While there's not gonna be any additional costs to the city in FY27, it's worth noting at least that the grant cannot be used for personnel costs or salary increases. So here's what you can see the grant will specifically cover in years one and two of the program. It's pretty straightforward. I mostly want to highlight here that not only does this grant cover all the costs for the first year and a half subscription-wise, but in particular, it covers the costly upfront installation costs for these cameras. You can see there in the top left corner, the costs are nearly the cost of a full year of subscription costs. That's why the state created this grant program in the first place. In essence, year one requires two years of costs to get the program off the ground. That's why this is so important that we move forward with this.

Matt? The next slide here shows the salary component, which the grant will not cover. The grant's terms are very clear that it covers technology and equipment costs. It does not cover salary components. So we've estimated the salary cost increase as shown in the middle row there. The first year is... 105 with an asterisk, the next year is an approximation and approximation all around 105, the reason being salary costs historically increase over time with COLAs and the 2% will be hit with COLAs in future years to the extent the city and the union agree to COLAs for fiscal year 27, 28, 29, cost of living adjustment. So the salary cost estimates in full transparency are based on present wages and subject to future year polis. In the event that SBA comes to an agreement, it's important to clarify that the 2% for patrol officers comes in the form of a new step in their salary scale. So presently, the officers have a four-step salary scale. The form the 2% takes for them is a new fifth step that that officers with eight or more years of service are eligible for, the cost of that new step, whenever implemented at current rates, is $110,000. We currently have approximately 47 officers, by our estimation, that would be eligible for that step. And as noted, if the patrol officers were to agree to this and the program were implemented in this year, the funds for it in fiscal year 27 would come from the salary and wage stabilizations.

And then lastly, I just want to quickly note that if and when this program expands with an agreement with the patrol union, we're going to seek to establish, as Chief Benford mentioned, a position with council approval for the creation of a civilian position in SPD to oversee this expanded program. That position is currently estimated at $117,000 a year, which includes fringe benefits. The monthly cost for that person is approximately $9,750 per month in FY27 if and when this phased implementation is expanded to patrol. It's prorated to the date of implementation within the fiscal year. These SBD funds mid-year would come from lag money created by academy delays for new patrol officers. It could come from additional state aid that's available to the city. It could also come from the salary contingent fund if no lag ultimately exists with the creation of the position. And I want to hand it over to Mayor Wilson to wrap us up.

So Mr. President, through you, why are we here tonight? We're asking you to do three things. First, have this discussion here in open session to vote on the STR and the TCEP, ideally approving both, and then to ideally approve that body-worn camera grant. It's an opportunity to move forward decisively and in a cost-effective way with community safety goals in mind and fulfill some long overdue promises on the city's part. Next slide. Thank you all. Mr. President, staff and I are available to answer questions from the council.

All right. Thank you, everyone. To my colleagues, any questions that you'd like to ask before we hear from members of the public? Not seeing any hands. We certainly will have time for discussion after this. I see Councillor Whaler. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. President. I don't have this super well formed already, so please pardon my mealy mouthness. One of the things that I have been following and wondering about is what will be the content of the next patrol officer's bargaining unit contract that comes before the council for fund appropriation. And several people have brought up civilian oversight. I think I will only speak for myself, but I would very much like to see a language around relationship with civilian oversight. present in any contract that comes before us, though I am not one of the negotiators and don't have any power over that negotiation. And I would also like to see some of the savings and shift differentials that I think was also mentioned. Those are things where if we already had those before us, if those things were already agreed to, for me, this discussion would be substantially different. And so I just want to put a general question there about the prospects for those elements and the degree to which we can hope to see those, if it's possible to comment on that, because those are tremendously important for me in these questions. Thank you.

I see a hand up at City Hall. Is that someone that wanted to respond to that?

No, thank you.

Sorry, we're not hearing the audio.

Excellent. Thank you, Mr. President. I think we might give this to Mayor first and then back to the folks here at City Hall.

Mr. President, through you, yeah, I want to be careful what we say in open session here because we are talking about collective bargaining strategy here. But yeah, suffice it to say, we're going to be looking at a significantly longer duration of a contract than what we took up here earlier this year when the goal was let's narrow the scope and let's see if we can get to an agreement on a policy over body-worn cameras. I imagine Attorney Sirigu has... I'm actually I'm a deferred attorney in terms of how much he's allowed to say in open session on this. He'll know better than I will. But I'll just say I hear Council Wheeler loud and clear and I tend to agree as well.

Thank you, Mayor and Council President through you. Yes. You know, unfortunately, the answer right now is we can't really say much about what's going to be the strategy, the proposals, the contents of future collective bargaining. I can say we are constantly bargaining with our police unions. We have negotiations scheduled and coming up. And, you know, the mayor has made his policy prerogatives on this subject clear. And so we will pursue those with to the best we can in collective bargaining. Fortunately, at this time, that's all we can really say.

With respect to the first part of your comments, Counselor, the Mayor has been very clear with his comments in working collaboratively to come up with greater efficiencies for our deployment and operational model. And we hope through staffing as well as additional efficiencies and changes above and beyond what we've already done to hopefully create greater flexibility and or potential reductions on resources where we may be able to utilize them in other areas to help fund and support priorities.

And Mr. President, can I add, we're really ramping up SummerStat as a performance measurement tool, and we're really excited to see what that can yield in terms of insights into how we can better optimize operations, I will say.

Okay. Councilor Whaler?

I'm good. Thank you, Mr. President.

All right. Any other questions before we hear from the public? All right, seeing none, then I will declare the public hearing to be open. We have a number of folks in the virtual audience here. If you would like to speak, then use the Raise Hand feature, which you should find at the bottom of your Zoom screen there. If you are having any difficulty, you should be able to... Actually, can I send a note? If you can, you can try and send a note to the clerk. If not...

Yes, we have quite a few people ready to go.

Yeah, I see that folks... I'm concerned about folks who are maybe... aren't able to find that or have some difficulties send it uh send an email to me or a text to me and um at and uh we'll we'll go from there hopefully everyone can find that feature it's pretty straightforward and i see as you've noted quick henderson uh a bunch already um as is typical uh our standard process we will um ask you to limit your comments to two minutes so that we can uh have an opportunity to hear from everyone who'd like to speak this evening. Please do respect that timer, which you should be able to see on the screen. It is a matter of respect and courtesy not only to us here, but to your fellow members of the public. We want everyone to have an opportunity to speak, and we want us all to still have our minds be fresh as we hear your comments and as we continue the discussion afterwards. So please be respectful of everyone and limit your comments to two minutes. So with that, I will go in the order that the application tells me you have raised your hands, which we will start. So I'm going to... name, say three names so that you can be ready. You should be able to unmute yourselves on your end. Is that correct, Clerk Henderson? There's nothing else we have to do on our end, right? I would have to allow them to speak and I can do that. Okay. Well, then if you could, if you, thank you. If you could, it's been a bit since I did one of these online hearings. If you could stay one step ahead of me there as we get to the next person, allow them to unmute themselves, then folks, you will have to unmute yourselves on your end as well. So we'll start with Alex T. Then we'll go to Denise Lowers and then Derek Rice. So Alex T., if you can unmute yourself.

My name is Alexandra Thorne and I live in Ward 5. I'm asking the council not to approve the purchase of body cameras or the current STIR or T-SUP at this time. The mayor is trying to fast track approval of expensive surveillance technology with complex implications for privacy and police power. forcing this special meeting during council recess disregards the council vote to return the issue to committee and his choice to submit the latest documents just two business days before the meeting dismisses the importance of public review or council deliberation i'm part of a citizen group that scrambled to review the relevant materials and release notes to the public before thursday afternoon it was extremely frustrating to suddenly learn on friday morning that yet another stir had been released The mayor seems to feel that the lack of planning on his part should constitute an emergency on ours. The mayor's artificial urgency exploits the common perception that body cameras are a tool for police oversight. But in reality, what we are talking about is warrantless surveillance. The STR specifies that body cameras will be used to determine probable cause for arrest and to document crime scenes. Police will also record conversations with the public during ordinary police activities. Most footage will of course have nothing to do with police brutality, but the current stir says that police must hold footage for a minimum of six months. On the other hand, conversations with police personnel may only be recorded with permission from the police chief. The stir also allows police to record public demonstrations if they suspect one person might commit a crime. Recording a crowd engaged in First Amendment speech is especially concerning in the age of facial recognition, AI summaries, and federal overreach. Please don't rush this decision.

Great. Thank you. Next up will be Denise Lowers, followed by Derek Rice, and then Ben Struhl. Wait a moment here. There we go. The timer reset. Denise Lowers, go ahead.

Yes, hi, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and the city council and also Chief Bamford for being here tonight. So my name is Denise Lowers. I live on 35A Memorial Road, which is right at the Mystics. I am part of the Tenants Association, the Mystic Tenants Association board member, and I'm here to speak not from what I see on TV, not what I see on videos, it's from my own experience. I live in a community that deals with the most It's the most violent part of the city. We deal with gunshots all the time. We deal with different types of violence. And for me, having this grant, the state grant, for the city of Somerville body cameras is fundamental. For many years, I've been listening to the many members of the city council asking for accountability, transparency from the police department and saying no, voting no for this body cameras is absolutely essential. doesn't make sense to me. This is part of transparency. This is part of accountability. I am an immigrant. I deal with the immigrant community. I see last year it was horrible what we dealt with immigration. They steal out of the streets. They are at the courthouse every single day. And if we don't have a civilian reporting what is happening like we know the Somerville police they cannot get involved with that with the state federal agents but if we don't have a civilian recording what is happening, how we're going to move forward. If we have a police with body cam, at least we can check on that. That's accountability. That's transparency. So I emailed the city council today. I asked, I'm urging to vote yes on that, to approve this grant. Don't throw down the drain. We need that. Again, I'm not speaking from what I see in videos. I'm speaking from what I see in my own neighborhood. Thank you, Denise. Your time is up. All right. Thank you.

All right. Next will be Derek Rice, followed by Ben Struhl, and then Alexander Gard-Murray.

Derek Rice. Thank you, Derek Rice. DM pronouns, Craigie Street. The council's heard too much from me, so I'll direct my comments to my neighbors here today. I appreciate that there's a range of opinions on body-worn cameras, and I hope we'll reach a decision consistent with collective community values. But what I cannot abide is having my community force-fed solutions to complex problems under the cover of false narratives. So I'd like to clarify a few things. You may hear that these policies are consistent with expert recommendations. That is false. They do not meet the recommendations of the ACLU of Massachusetts, the American Bar Association, or the State Body Camera Task Force. notably on police reviewing footage before writing reports. Reasonable people can weigh these differences differently, but any claim that our policies fully meet these recommendations is false. You may hear about the role of body cameras for civilian oversight of police, but just to be clear what was already stated by the city, we have no civilian oversight body in Somerville today. You may hear about public engagement on the topic of body cams in Somerville. This is hugely misleading. The 2023 police staffing study called for a robust public engagement process, online comments, public listening sessions, direct engagement with community groups. This never happened. Public records requests show that the public safety for all task force camera recommendations came from internal discussions with city officials, not from public engagement events. Any public engagement that did happen was despite of the administration, not thanks to it. A small group of us worked to surface these closed door discussions and demand a public hearing. I'm not sure we'd even be having this conversation if we had not raised the alarm. I'm supportive of acting with conviction, but please don't falsely imply some grand public engagement process took place when there's no evidence of it. You may hear about months of deliberation or there has been some undue delay, also misleading. most of that deliberation happened in secretive executive sessions because the city chose to negotiate with police unions before engaging the public the items in council were never delayed they were rushed thank you for the opportunity to speak i wish you all the very best as my neighbors thank you uh next up will be ben stroule then alexander guard murray then emily bayou

Ben, you're up. Hi there. I think I've spoken to most of you. I'm the executive director of the University of Pennsylvania Crime and Justice Policy Lab. I am one of those experts the previous speaker was talking about. At least he cited me as an expert in the past. I've reviewed this policy. I've asked a legal studies person to review this policy at the University of Pennsylvania. It does fit the state body-worn task force recommendations. And I've also talked to hundreds of people in the community about this. I was kept on the Public Safety for All task force much longer than expected. I'm a resident of Ward 5. That's where I've lived for a while. And we've had lots of conversations. There hasn't been any objection to this until the idea of it being tied to raises for police officers came up. Mostly I've heard from citizens like Denise who are really in favor of this policy as a really valuable form of transparency and accountability for the police department. I've talked to jurisdictions all across the country about this. I advise the mayor of Baltimore, mayor of Philadelphia, mayor of Oakland. A lot of you have heard from me on that. And what I've heard from people when they talk about these cameras is it's something that brings a feeling of hope to communities, as now we have some evidence to start working off of, to work together better as a people. We've been discussing this issue, as many counselors know, for a decade. And it's something the NAACP says, it's a no-brainer. We should have body-worn cameras. I think most of you understand the policy is really solid behind this. And that's because of the work of the people on council who made it that way. I know some of you worked at this really hard to get it in this good place. I think the time to act is now, and I really hope you do.

Okay. Thank you. Next up will be Alexander Gard-Murray. then Emily Bayou, and then Kimberly Pitts.

Hi, it's Alexander Gard Murray. I was a member of the Civilian Oversight Task Force, along with Councillor Davis and many others. And I had the privilege of reading and hearing the opinions on oversight shared by so many members of our community in that process. And in particular, I helped develop and write the provision about civilian oversight body having a role in accessing body worn camera footage. And Based on all that, I'm asking the council to approve the motions put before it tonight. Given the long process that led to these recommendations, the huge amount of public input that we gathered through surveys and public meetings, I respectfully disagree that this is being rushed or fast-tracked. I totally agree that in an ideal world, we'd have the oversight body in place and contracts with both unions in place, but in an ideal world, we wouldn't need oversight or police, and that's just not where we live. I think that having a body worn camera policy is a critical complement to the work of a civilian oversight body. I think that if we miss this chance to get grant funding, if we miss this chance to do this with an administration that wants to see this happen, I'm worried that a civilian oversight body, if we get one at all, will end up being It really hampered without an oversight body. I'm sorry, without body worn camera access. So I think that if you believe in the transparency and believe in the mission of the civilian oversight body, then I think you should take the recommendation we made seriously and the recommendations of public safety for all task force seriously and make this happen. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Emily Bayou, and then Kimberly Pitts, and then Ray Santana.

Hi, I'm Emily Balliol. I'm in Ward 2, and I'm asking to speak actually just to express a specific fear that this is causing in me. I think the recommendation's of the task force and the logic of body worn cameras are pretty clear. I appreciate them. I also appreciate all the work that everyone on this call did to make sure we could meet a fiscal year 27 budget. My fear is fiscal year 28. And I'm extremely worried that in fact, we're going to be here in 10 months and that people are going to be explaining cuts that we have to make to elder care services, to the schools, to food security programs, in order to make things work. So my concern is that we waited too long on this and we're taking on an enormous cost that we don't have necessarily a good path forward for funding, especially in light of many federal cuts, NIH, NSF, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps that are still flowing through and are gonna hit harder in about six months. That's all, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next is Kimberly Pitts, then Ray Santana, then Kevin Foster.

Good evening. My name is Kimberly Pitts. I live in Ward 3. I was a member of the Public Safety Task Force. And first, I want to respectfully say that we did make sure that everyone in the community had a voice in this. I'm going to keep it short and I'm going to keep it brief. I wrote a letter to the counselors so they're well aware of how I feel and where I stand. It seems like listening to Mayor Wilson this evening, we have a perfect storm of funding. We did see where Madison, Wisconsin failed and the uproar that that's causing because they didn't have body cameras. And our community always asks for three things. Trust, accountability, transparency. Transparency and body cameras allow us to have that. I hear a lot of people, you know, every time we put something forward, we put in all this work, we pay all these task force, we give these recommendations and then we're stonewalled with the finances. And I understand things have to be financed, but we have an opportunity right now to roll out a test period for the next two years to see how this will work. We have to be in the here and now and the present. It's wanted, it's needed, it's necessary. And I'd rather pay the price upfront now where we have this perfect storm of funding to roll out this program and get an idea of how it will work. And, you know, it gives us an opportunity to see what will and what won't work. And I implore the council to vote yes. for body cams. And I also implore them not to allow this grant to go to waste. These monies are, you know, a lot of work went into getting these monies. And as a constituent member of the board, I think it's best for the overall community. Thank you for my time.

Okay, thank you. Next is Ray Santana, and then Kevin Foster, and then Maria Beeman.

Hi, I'm Rae Santana, Mystic Tenant Association president. I think a body-worn camera is the fine line between justice being served and the truth being left to the speculation. I'm sitting here listening to everybody, scared, worried. Cuts are already being made. If that's what you're scared of, cuts are being made every day with this new administration. We're in 2026. It's about time that we get body cameras that serve the community. We speak often about community, about what the community wants, what the community needs. But when it comes down to standing up for the community, I don't see that happening. Body-worn cameras is what's gonna help the residents, the community, to have some sort of justice, some sort of accountability from both sides, whether it be the police officers or it be the residents that need that sort of accountability to sit here and say that body cameras is something that you don't want. It really shows where your mind is. 2026, there's a lot of crime. What's going to stop somebody from getting justice if there's no type of video footage? You talk about privacy, but there's cameras everywhere, whether it's a body cam, whether it's somebody's cell phone, there's cameras everywhere. I just hope that you guys vote on adding this information on this. Thank you.

okay thank you uh next is kevin foster and then maria beeman and then david gibbs hi everybody uh my name is kevin foster he him pronouns on putnam street um yeah i i've had some written comments but i think i'm just going to go off the dome a little bit given the new information i heard tonight um There's a metaphor used by the mayor of a chicken and egg situation. I actually think it's more of a cart before the horse. I'm really questioning how a civilian oversight task force that doesn't exist yet, can't have a say in how the body-worn camera policy is actually developed. And instead, all this policy has actually been developed in the back rooms between the city and the police unions. I don't think that's justice. I don't think that's fair. I don't think that's transparent. Also, the ACLU Massachusetts does recommend that officers can't review footage before writing initial reports. That's different than our policy, as far as I understand. But also, this situation has... develop so quickly that I don't know if something's different because this isn't clear or transparent. I also think it's a nice, quick bite here where we have $200,000-ish in grants right now. But later down the line, we are going to be paying $428,000-ish in the police budget every year when we just had a year of extreme cuts and extreme level budgets for the schools, that's not justice. That's actually all of our resources going to the cops. Cops still murder people with body-worn cameras, I'm sorry to say. That might add a layer of accountability, but the policy behind those cameras actually matter. Thanks so much.

Okay, thank you. Next will be Maria Beeman and David Gibbs, then Sean Donahue.

Thank you. Hi, this is Maria Beeman. Hope you can hear me okay. Thank you for hearing from me. I also served on the Civilian Oversight Task Force. And outside of that participation, I have personal work experience as a criminal defense attorney that informs my support for usage of body cameras. So combined, these factors prompted me to write a letter to the city councilors last month. And in the interest of making sure that letter gets into the public record, I'll just read that here. Honorable members of the Somerville City Council, I'm writing to express my support for release of the state grant funds that will enable the city of Somerville to finally implement use of body-worn cameras by the Somerville Police Department. I believe body-worn cameras are an important tool for increasing accountability, enhancing transparency, building community trust and supporting the fairness and integrity of the criminal legal system. I'm a Ward 3 Somerville resident who served on the city's civilian oversight task force as part of the public safety for all community process. In its 2025 report, the task force made recommendations regarding creation of a police accountability entity tailored to our community's needs. As I understand it, the city is moving forward with establishment of such an entity. Access to body camera footage will be enormously valuable to that body in reviewing individual complaints, identifying policy and practice issues, and facilitating informed conversations with the community about the SPD. Now I'm out of time. That's too bad because I want to just tell you too that as a defense attorney, I see I'm off the letter now. I saw cases from Cambridge and the Encore Casino, for instance, where officers had body worn camera and jurisdictions where they did not. And I will tell you that from the standpoint of accuracy and fairness, it is far preferable when body camera footage is available. Cases that were Or, you know, some of my cases, police reports, alleged conduct that body camera footage later revealed to be inaccurate or incomplete, resulting in the charges being dismissed. That's important. And in other cases.

Your time is up. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I do support use of the funds.

Next up is Sean Donaghy, then David Gibbs, then Sean Donaghy, and then Sam Altman.

Did we lose David?

David, I saw your hand up there. Are you still here?

There. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Very good. Go ahead. So it's going to be David, then Sean Donahue, then Sam.

Thank you. My name is David Gibbs. I'm a Somerville resident, and I oppose the city's application for state funding for police body-worn cameras. I've been a nonprofit executive director for the last 25 years. I've read and applied for countless grants in that time, and I have felt the impulse to follow the money and apply for funds even when they don't meet the mission or fit the timeline of my organization. That is precisely what this proposal will do. Apply for a grant on the state's timeline even though it would require us to adopt BWC policies that aren't what we want and in advance of the community initiated public hearing on this issue. Police body cameras are part of a larger trend of increased technological surveillance and expansive law enforcement overreach. Police infrastructure increasingly is being used to victimize innocent marginalized community members. Our time and resources would be better spent on the implementation of unarmed emergency response solutions that the residents of Somerville have called for repeatedly. Some argue that body cameras increase police accountability and thus increase our safety. but the only entities being helped by the system are the billion dollar corporations that make and market it. We should not be chasing a state grant that would force us to implement an unproven technology that we know increases the intrusion of the carceral state into our lives without the community oversight structures in place to ensure that it actually benefits us. Instead, we should focus on addressing root causes such as reducing inequality or making specific investments in housing, healthcare, and education, and building strong networks of community members helping themselves through mutual aid and self-empowerment. I urge the council to reject this proposal and the related policies. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next up is Sean Donaghy, then Sam Alterman, then Irma St. Louis. Hello.

Thank you. I'm Sean Donaghy. I'm a resident of Summerville for the last 10 years. I currently live in Clarendon Hill. In the abstract, I am pro body cameras for the police. I think they can be a great tool for police accountability. However, I do think our current approach is half-baked and incomplete, mainly because it lacks the oversight and accountability mechanisms that are important to actually review the footage and hold officers accountable. And there will not be proper oversight until the Public Safety Oversight Commission is established and fully appointed with appointees. I think this is something that the City Council could address tonight and solve this issue and actually provide meaningful oversight as part of this initiative, right? We've already had the Civilian Oversight Task Force that has come up with the plan and the recommendations that we could adopt and implement immediately. We could also appoint people to the Public Safety Oversight Commission tonight. and I'm pro-body cameras, but I think that this effort is, again, putting the cart before the horse. And I would propose to the council, I would ask, if we are paying more for the police to utilize the body cameras, which may be a requirement of the contract, how do we ensure that they are actually utilized? And without a proper oversight commission, like the Public Safety Oversight Commission, there will not be that accountability mechanism to make sure that happens. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Sam Alterman, followed by Irma St. Louis, and then Jamie Picante.

Hi, my name is Sam Alterman. I live on Bartlett Street in Ward 5, and I am asking the council to vote down this proposal. Four years ago, a first-term mayor came to the city council and asked for a bunch of money to implement body cameras and incur long-term recurring costs to the city. And that city council voted 9-1 to say no, because they felt that the policy did not measure up the recommendations of ACLU Massachusetts, which they felt was very important to meet. And here we are again, four years later, once again, with the first term mayor trying to implement a body worn camera policy that does not meet our community's needs. The policy that's proposed would allow officers to write reports after viewing their footage, which allows them to figure out which ways they could get away with bending the truth. The best practices supported by the American Bar Association and the ACLU are that reports need to be written separately from viewing the body camera footage. As we heard tonight from the administration, they've decided they simply disagree with the experts on that one. I'm also very concerned that this process generally just seems very rushed and I know we're hearing this isn't rushed, but looking at this policy document that was shared, there's a number of typos. The first amendment protections are not actually properly nested within the relevant section. So I'm not actually sure where that would fall within the governing text um and ultimately we're talking about policy that if it's implemented it's gonna then have to be changed through a collective bargaining process which means it's basically going to be set in stone unless the city decides to put a lot of effort into changing it i understand that there are costs to waiting but there are costs to rushing and doing it wrong and i urge the city council to take the time to actually get the policy right

Thank you. Next up is Ermis St. Louis, then Jamie Perconti, and then Mike Gintz.

All right. Thank you very much. Hello, everyone. My name is Ermis St. Louis, assistant professor at Northeastern University. I study policing generally. And I had the pleasure of serving on Somerville Civilian Oversight Task Force. And I just want to say a few words about body-worn cameras based on my reading of the literature. Available research shows us that body-worn cameras for sure are not a cure-all. They're not a panacea. They don't automatically improve accountability just because officers are wearing them. However, they do provide us with something that's quite useful, right? And that's for both sides, right? A reliable record of, you know, officer-civilian interactions. And studies consistently show that body-worn cameras improve documentation, so like the accuracy of evidence, reduce complaints, and strengthen evidence, especially around cases where there are questions about what happened, right? But of course, body-worn cameras are not, you know, the end-all be-all, right, is only part of the story. And so whether they improve accountability really is largely dependent on policies, right? For example, activation, footage access and retention, how compliance is monitored, public as well as officer privacy, and meaningful civilian oversight. That is why I don't see body-worn cameras as a standalone reform. I see them as just one part or just one important piece of the broader accountability system that Somerville has been building over time. And I understand there are concerns about cost and implementation with a policy. Those are legitimate, but research suggests that those are reasons to implement body-worn cameras carefully, but not reasons to avoid using them totally. And so with all that said, my hope is that you all adopt body-worn cameras moving forward.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Jamie Perconti, then Mike Gitz, and then Seth Stromwasser.

Hi, my name is Jamie Perconti. I live on Parkdale Street, and I'll just say we need to get these policies right, and I ask the council not to approve the items before them tonight.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Mike Gitz, then Seth Stromwasser, and then Allie Oh.

Thank you. My name is Mike Gintz. I live in Ward 2. I'm very frustrated that the mayor's eager action on public safety is a long list of things that divert more city funds to the police or invite the police more directly into the lives of constituents. City residents have been clear that they want investment in non-police alternatives. Constituents have for years been pleading for alternative emergency response, and the city council has approved it multiple times, including when Mayor Wilson was a city councilor. And it's galling to see the administration continuing to deprioritize it while trumpeting action. Body-worn cameras are frequently public safety theater. Police often turn them off or never turn them on. Footage gets lost, trapped on hard drives, or ignored. At worst, it can even pose surveillance or privacy risks to the public it is supposedly protecting. The idea that an officer at a protest or public demonstration will have their camera off so as to not be a public surveillance hazard and then will pause to turn it on before violently confronting protesters is completely ludicrous. The grant money that keeps being mentioned covers only a year. It's essentially a loss leader for increased salaries and continued shoveling of funds to the police. City presenters in this very meeting are in one breath talking about how valuable the grant is because cameras are expensive and then ignoring the post-grant costs. I want our city dollars instead going to real public safety. I want investment in affordable housing, in food pantries, in sheltering and counseling the unhoused, in support for immigrants who are being terrorized by our own federal government, and I want alternative emergency response so people in crisis can call somebody who won't show up with a gun. In closing, the police chief raised earlier the example of the Rodney King video as an example of the power of video in instances of police violence. I agree, and I also add that that video was not filmed by the police, nor were the police able to review it before the public saw it. We do need oversight and accountability from the police, but we won't get it from this proposal, and I urge the council to vote against it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Seth Stromwasser, then Ali O, then Steve H. Hello, my name is Seth Stromwasser.

I live in Ward 2. I would like this council to not approve these items tonight for three reasons. The policy has not been thoroughly debated, the financial cost of the program is irresponsible, and I would like the council to demonstrate to the mayor that he cannot simply go through the motions when it comes to public feedback on his policies. Firstly, the policy. At the city council meeting on July 9th, all 10 present councillors voted to not approve the items and to send them to committee, demonstrating that they would like more time to work on the policies surrounding this program. Surveillance technology is not something to be taken lightly, and I support the councillors spending as long as they need to understand the impact of giving these tools to the police department. Second, the finances. The city just laid off 16 staff, including some working on racial and social justice, and some who are actively organizing a union. The mayor framed this as an unfortunate, last resort decision to keep the budget balanced. Whether or not you think body-worn cameras are beneficial, the city cannot afford it, and it's insulting to the laid-off workers to claim otherwise. Lastly, the democratic process. We are lucky to live in a democracy and have the opportunity to have a say in what our government does. We all need to be working to protect that process no matter what. A group of residents, myself included, submitted a petition requesting a public hearing about body worn cameras, which will likely happen in September. The mayor wants to move ahead before that hearing can happen. And while we are having a hearing right now, today's hearing was announced less than two weeks ago during the summer recess and without notifying that group of petitioners. This is not how I would do it if I were trying to ensure everybody could have a say. Also, providing new versions of long and complex documents for the public and counselors to review just days before a public hearing will not lead to productive feedback. I urge the council to not approve these items and give our community time to fully engage with this topic before we proceed.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Ali O, then Steve H, then Carolina Almonte.

Hi there. My name is Allie Overbay. I live in Ward 2. I am asking the Council to vote down this issue. As someone who has been closely following this issue through various City Council and Committee meetings, I am deeply frustrated by the manufactured urgency this issue has been given. I understand the City would like to take advantage of this grant funding, but I ask Councillors to consider at what cost. In a literal sense, this is an added cost to a City that just laid off 16 employees. And by unnecessarily expediting this issue, and specifically this public hearing, in the name of a discounted body-worn camera program, this also comes at the cost of damaging public trust and constituents' ability to participate in an issue that would have a direct impact on their public safety. While I am glad the administration is working toward improving the policy, releasing yet another version of the stir only a few days before this public hearing is not a good faith effort to engage the public on this issue. Councillors and constituents both deserve an opportunity to get this policy right before implementing a body-worn camera program, and I urge Councillors to not move forward with body-worn cameras until we do so. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Steve H, then Carolina Almonte, and then Matt Lavallee.

Hello, folks. Steve Huff, Ward 5. I'm in general in favor of Somerville having body-worn cameras. I'm not in favor of going about it in this fashion. I'm not terribly compelled by the sudden, oh no, the grant's going away, so we gotta run and do it right now, right now. I've been following this conversation since, you know, goodness, years ago at this point. And we've had a lot of time during which we have done very little. And so, yeah, it's galling to now hear that we gotta hurry up and there's no time to consider carefully. So I think let's have the public comment session in September. Let's take the time to think about it and write a good solid policy. And if there's no way to roll out body-worn cameras without getting this one grant, then I'm sorry, I think we cannot afford them. Thank you for your attention. Counselors, I'd also like to call your attention to the fact that my spouse, Crystal, who you may know, also sent in a public comment, and I hope you'll take the time to read it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up is Carolina Almonte, then Matt Lavallee, then Jonathan Doveth.

Good evening. My name is Carolina Almonte. She, her pronouns. I previously served on Somerville's Civilian Oversight Task Force, and I currently serve as the proud executive director of the Cambridge Police Review and Advisory Board. I am here to support Somerville's implementation of a body-worn camera program as an important part of the city's broader commitment to public safety and transparency. As it was shared earlier, Cambridge began implementing body-worn cameras in March of 2025. Although the program is still relatively new, the footage has already become a very valuable tool in our civilian oversight process. One of the greatest challenges in reviewing complaints involving police misconduct is determining what actually happened during an interaction. Body-worn cameras can provide both video and audio evidence, creating a more complete and objective record. This can help clarify disputed facts, resolve complaints more efficiently, and identify concerning conduct or patterns, and ultimately lead to our goal of supporting fair outcomes. Civilian oversight is only as effective as the information available to it. While Somerville is still on its path to its own civilian oversight body, access to relevant footage allows board members to review more thorough investigations and make informed recommendations regarding policies, training and police practices. I've already seen evidence of this in the last year. Body-worn cameras can also strengthen public trust, as you know, particularly among residents who feel vulnerable or maybe hesitant to report concerns. They can also protect officers from inaccurate complaints and document the realities of difficult public safety work. For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the city councils to support this important step forward. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Matt Lavallee, then Jonathan Dovyev, and then Jasmine. Jasmine is PC.

Matt? Hello, everybody. This is Matt LaValle. I live in Ward 6. Hello to President Davis, who's my own counselor, and to the rest of this body. Some of you might remember me from the year 2020 when I submitted a petition with about 4,000 signatures on it about our police department. And I say you might remember me speculatively because the occasion of this meeting indicates to me that a lot of things have been forgotten since then. One fact that seemed to be in currency and usually universally agreed to everywhere was that body worn cameras were maybe an OK idea for law enforcement, but without a fully empowered, fully staffed, totally established civilian oversight board, they were close to useless and really just something to spend money on. Another thing that we noticed back then was that when a city government makes promises about things like this, the ones that they make about expanding the power and the pay of police departments tend to come true, and the ones about holding those same police departments accountable and protecting the civil rights of citizens tend to not come true. The way that this is done is that you wait a long time until everybody seems to forgot what they agreed upon, and then you make up an excuse, and then you shuffle stuff like this from the back door when nobody's looking. I asked Mayor Wilson why we were doing this the wrong way, and what I was told was that we were paid $230,000 to screw this up and do it the wrong way. Is that the price of democracy in this city? I don't appreciate that at all. So listen, let's get the whole thing staffed up. Let's get the oversight going on the rest of the issues about this. My colleagues will tell you much more about, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a horse before the cart here. That's the way we ought to do it. Thank you very much. Bye.

All right. Thank you, Matt. Um, we seem to have lost Jonathan, Jonathan W, uh, If you're here and still would like to speak, raise your hand again. Or if you come back in, I'll keep an eye out. I guess if you're not here, you won't hear me. If he comes back in, Clerk Henderson, let's keep an eye out for Jonathan. But in lieu of Jonathan speaking, then we have Jasmine Taylor Perkins and then Holly Hilliard.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Great. All right. Hi, my name is Hasmeen. I live in Ward 7. I'm asking the Mayor and the Council to oppose the proposal for the body-worn camera program because of its ensuing financial impact on the City of Somerville and the lack of a civilian oversight board. First, while the proposal provides funds for a pilot, it is temporary. The City of Somerville will then be responsible for paying an estimated $400,000 a year budget to implement and maintain the program from fiscal year 28 forward. Already we have seen how high finances have impacted the city budget and our community and our neighbors. Recently, the mayor made a decision to lay off 16 city employees, many of whom were working on DEI projects that would have served our constituents. And speaking of serving our constituents, there is no civilian oversight body that exists at this time. It would take years to select, implement, and measure such an entity, time that is not sufficiently allotted in this proposal. Please, I urge the mayor, councillors, and city to not approve the body-worn camera program and instead focus on measures that would reduce crime instead of just recording it, such as measures for affordable housing and protecting not cutting jobs of our neighbors. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you. Next, we have Taylor Perkins, then Holly Hilliard, then Isaac Feitler.

Good evening, Taylor Perkins from Ward 4. I had previously written a letter to the council, which I will read now for the record. Honorable members of the council, I am writing regarding the upcoming vote on whether the city of Somerville should adopt body-worn cameras for police and to accept a grant from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to support this adoption. I am a resident of Heath Street and served as a citizen representative on the city of Somerville Public Safety for All Task Force. Additionally, I'm a single father with a four-year-old daughter and identify as a mixed race African-American resident. While I write you in a strictly personal capacity, I have served for the last 10 years as associate director of the Boston College Joseph E. Corcoran Center for Real Estate and Urban Action and have expertise in community-engaged public policy research. As one of the leaders of the Public Safety for All Task Force and as co-chair of the drafting subcommittee, I am well-positioned to speak on the process behind our recommendations. We engaged in a robust community-driven process over two years. that was grounded in conversations with all Somerville stakeholders, data, and engagement with experts from around the nation. Our final report was written independently by the task force, and I have spoken publicly in official venues with the community several times regarding the final report. Body cameras are a common sense program that would bring Somerville in line with local, regional, and national standards. Cameras record the facts of police interactions. Without a camera, these facts must be reconstructed, a process that is imperfect. The benefits of this program far outweigh the direct costs and complexities of implementation. Someday, a tragic interaction may occur where the facts are significantly in question as has happened previously across the nation and in communities nearby. If Somerville police at the time were not equipped with body-worn cameras, not only will all parties in the community involved be deprived of the opportunity to have the facts captured, but the city will likely face significant public scrutiny for not having adopted local, regional, and national best practices. Thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Holly Hilliard, and then Isaac Feitler, and then Chris Dewan.

Good evening. Holly Hilliard, resident from Ward 4, and I'm asking the council to vote down this initiative. I broadly support body-worn cameras, and I think that they serve an important role in community policing. However, the timeline on which this vote was put forward leaves an incredibly negative taste in my mouth. This process has been rushed and reasonable concerns such as police access to body camera footage prior to writing reports have been put aside in the name of expedience. A policy or guidance changed only two days in advance of the meeting, public comment and vote being carried out in the same day, a session called with less than two weeks notice during a recess, a September public comment forum that would be made irrelevant if this policy were to pass tonight. This policy is being pushed through SLAPDASH to meet a state deadline. This initiative is not ready, and I ask you to not approve this policy. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. I'll note that I see some names, some hands up with names that folks have spoken before. If there's a different individual on that Zoom, then I'll recognize you. Next up, we're going to go to Isaac Feitler, and then I see Kevin Foster. Kevin, if you've got someone else there to speak, then by all means, but we're going to ask everyone to only speak once. So, Isaac, go ahead, and then we'll come around and see what Kevin's got going on.

All right, can you hear me? Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Okay, great. I'm Isaac Feitler, Fitchburg Street Ward 2. I believe the Somerville City Council should not approve the body-worn cameras for Somerville Police Department at this time because the policies are not yet ready and we do not yet have effective civilian oversight. I believe body-worn cameras can be an element of improving justice, but implementing them before meaningful civilian oversight squanders that advantage. Somerville should not settle for a surveillance technology impact report and a technology specific surveillance use policy that do not meet the recommendations of the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. In particular, if body worn cameras are intended to enhance justice, it is critical that officers must not have the right or the ability to review body worn camera footage before making written reports. Officers as witnesses and their statements are good enough in courts of law without body-worn camera evidence, although body-worn cameras could certainly improve things. So body-worn camera evidence should not replace officer statements in that way. Somerville should be able to learn from the differences between the officer statements and the body-worn camera evidence to inform long-term future improvements to laws, policies, and the court system. Somerville has an opportunity to be a leading community in civilian oversight and implementing BWC with inadequate policies before implementing civilian oversight in Somerville risks locking Somerville into a complacency that does not improve justice for all. The sky will not fall if the council approves the STR and TSSUP at this time, but body-worn cameras do not prevent harm by themselves. If body-worn cameras are urgent, civilian oversight is more urgent, and the need for body-worn cameras should help drive the civilian oversight process faster, not supersede that need. I ask that the council not approve the STR and PSSUP at this time. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Kevin, I see you've dropped to the bottom of the list. I'm not sure if that's a Zoom glitch or not, but we'll get to you when we get down there. So for next up, let's go to Chris DeJuan, then Ryan Gilmore, then Max Bales.

Hello, councillors. I am Chris Duan. I live on Ivalue Street in Ward 2, and I urge the council to go ahead with your decision from just three weeks ago and table both of these policies and the grant before you tonight. They need no more work, and there is no rush. I currently serve as the chair of the city's committee to review multiple member bodies, though, of course, I'm speaking only as an individual tonight. And based on several months of work with my colleagues on that committee, I can assure you that we do not have any board committee commission or similar that would independently oversee the police. I looked. More seriously, we have lost the thread. Six years ago, in the midst of COVID, amidst our collective rage over the deaths of George Floyd and so many others, we had a chance to lead. The energy there, we started down the road in 2020 and 2021 with a council-led process. Some of the people who led that are still around the horseshoe. We learned about nonviolence response. We learned about smarter staffing practices and robust oversight. We invested in a first in the nation Department of Racial and Social Justice that was coupled with a social justice fund that unfortunately, to my knowledge, I think is still unused. Here we are six years later, under time pressure in a proxy fight over a quarter million dollar grant and a small raise. Meanwhile, the police budget still includes $2 million of squishy overtime, which is load-bearing and keeping policing going in the city at all. All the officers I talk to are overworked, bitter about being defunded. This is not working for anybody. And I hear the argument that we have to do this to save money on lawsuits because officers are likely to employ excessive force if they're not wearing cameras. Do you even hear yourself? This is what you've got in favor? Does anybody really believe that buying these cameras or not will change that? We have to get our act in order. We have to focus on fundamentals, address the real problems, reject this grant, commit to doing the work, build real trust, and I promise the money will work itself out. I will close with the observation that if we put the commitment into police oversight, we put into curbside composting, we would have years of experience under our belt to inform this debate. Thank you.

Okay, next up is Ryan Gilmore, then Max Bales, then Tamara Gratzky.

All right, thank you. Yeah, I would urge the council to not move forward with this, with this Y word camera program. Like many other people have expressed concerns about the lack of an oversight committee. And I feel that as is often the case, a grant money for some sort of surveillance will be approved and then an oversight committee will mysteriously never materialized because there isn't a state grant backing it. I also am concerned about the fact that the grant or that the proposal as it's written gives a lot of latitude and discretion to the police officers about when they record, who can see it. It's often phrased as what is reasonable and oftentimes that definition of reasonable is what is reasonable to other police officers, which is not always the same definition that normal people would consider reasonable. Yeah, and I just would, again, like to address that if the concern is police oversight and accountability to keep us safer, we should have a committee. If we want to prevent crime, we should address the causes of crime, such as support for some social housing, alternative nonviolent response. And yeah, I think we should really, yeah, not feel pressured to move forward with this just because there's some money available. And I yield the rest of my time. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up, Max Bales, then Tamara Gratzky, then Emily Doran.

Can you hear me? Yes. Hello, my name is Max Bales. I'm a proud Somerville homeowner and You know, I'm just a little bit uncertain by how quickly this has happened. I certainly agree that body cams are fantastic for the police force and as well as the public. And I think we definitely should implement some sort of system, but I'm really uncertain about how quick everything has been put through and the actual effectiveness these cameras will have. If we don't input good systems behind the cameras, their implementation won't actually be that useful for the citizens. I'm also concerned about the budgeting of everything. We've had to cut a lot, and with the added stress this will have on the budget, it's...

It's concerning.

So I'll yield my time there, but I'm otherwise, yeah, you get my understanding. I'm concerned about how quickly this has been put through. Excited for the energy, though. Great energy.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Tamara Gratsky, then Emily Doran, then Jonah Abrams.

Hello, this is Tamara Gratsky calling from Ward 1. I would like to say that I appreciate the drive to increase accountability amongst police, but based on the information presented, I do not believe we have finished the deliberation process for this policy and its ongoing cost to our community. I urge the council to vote now. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up, Emily. Oh, that was Emily. No, that's Tamara. Emily Doran next, and then Jonah Abrams.

Hi, my name's Emily Doran. I live in Ward 2, and I want to say to my neighbors, do we honestly think that something the police are advocating for is something that's going to benefit us? And to my counsel, I urge you to oppose this proposal. When body-worn cameras were first developed over about 15 years ago, it was police departments themselves and prosecutors who wanted them. The purpose was to get as much of the public on video as possible, total informational awareness. And the data shows footage almost is never used against police, but they are used every day as leverage around the country to prosecute very poor and low level, poor people and low level crimes. In my opinion, body-worn cameras would be better described as mobile surveillance units, not accountability devices. They film what the police officer sees, not what the officer sees. themselves. And traditionally, this footage has belonged to the police. They control it. They release what they want, when they want. The presentation says this program includes civilian oversight. But at least to begin with, the Superior Office has overview access and controls permission. And protected First Amendment activities are excluded. But under what conditions can the cameras be turned back on? I have too many questions about the storage of this footage to even ask. um you know civilian oversight or not i call these um mobile surveillance units they don't make me feel safe and i think it would be better for the community to use these um to use monies um to fund um social service programs and that's it thank you okay thank you uh next up is jonah abrams and then if there's another person with kevin foster go ahead jonah

Thank you. My name is Jonah Abrams. I live in Ward 7 with my wife. I am urging the council to vote yes for this measure. I'm not ideologically anti-cop. I'm not fervently pro-cop. I want a lawful and orderly city, and I want the opportunity for there to be transparency and accountability in policing in our community. I realize that not everything is going to be in place from the get-go because we're If we're going to take advantage of this grant, we're under a time crunch to do so. And we can't just let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Getting police cameras on the bodies of our officers is a good first step to making sure police have the tools to do their job right and to make sure that we are able to hold them accountable and have some transparency when things go wrong. It cuts both ways and it's fundamentally a good idea. uh we start from there and then we build upon that everything does not have to be perfect to take the first step towards you know doing the right thing for our city so um that's all i have to say i urge the council to vote yes i am strongly in favor of this measure thank you okay thank you um kevin foster do you have someone else there with you that would like to speak

I think I'm here for Kevin. This is Charlotte Kelly, Ward 5, Cedar Street.

Can you folks hear me? Yep, we can. Go right ahead.

So I'm here calling on all the counselors tonight to reject the body-worn cameras. I was not prepared to speak, but given what I've heard tonight from all of my neighbors, from folks on the Public Safety for All Task Force, and folks who quite frankly have done their homework, it is very clear that the city of Somerville has not completed the task of of actually finishing a policy, implementing civilian oversight and getting to the point of which we can have this technology, which as Emily just previously said, is going to only over surveil our neighbors and help prosecutors back up police when they get into instances with our neighbors. At the end of the day, y'all, you all as city councilors have a fundamental responsibility to do the work to make sure when the mayor brings you policies, when the mayor brings you grants, when the mayor brings you opportunities like this, they are fully vetted, checked, up and down. You all have that fiduciary responsibility. You have that legislative responsibility. And quite frankly, the fact that this is still up for debate I left the council three years ago, and we have not resolved this problem. So I'm asking everybody, Mayor Wilson, Council President Davis, members of the Finance Committee, reject this item, go back, do your homework, and make sure we have a policy that's going to protect our neighbors that's going to keep our residents safer, and that's not going to shortcut body-worn cameras as a solution to the real justice that our neighbors need to keep them safe in their homes, safe in their streets, and safe from unsafe interactions with the police. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Jonathan Dovyev, and then Jen Harrington, and then Courtney Pollack.

Well, I want to thank Mayor Wilson for bringing us forth. I really support the measure. I'm very much for safety of the citizens and I listen very much to the minority people who are more at risk than some other members of the community. I think this is a good step forward and I commend and request that the council approve this. I grew up in the UK and have a lot of faith in the police. And so this actually protects them and it protects the citizens. I see it as a win-win all the way down the line. So I support this. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Jen Harrington and then Courtney Pollack.

Hi there, I'm Jen Harrington, Ward 3. I wasn't anticipating speaking tonight, so this is not going to be eloquent. What I will say is this is hard. I'm a pro police body cameras person. I think it's important, but I'm also a bigger fan of thoughtful planning, and I want an oversight committee with teeth. I just resigned from a city commission because I didn't experience strength in the experience or the belief that I was able to be an advocate for my neighbors. This is a body that has existed for decades. I don't see how an oversight committee will have a better experience unless power is built into the process. That's it. Thanks for listening.

Okay, thank you. Courtney Pollack.

Hi. My name is Courtney Pollack and I live in Ward 2. I'm here to ask the City Council to not approve the TCEP, STR, and Grant tonight and instead continue improving the body-worn camera policy before we adopt it. The public and the Council agree there's more to do before this policy is ready to adopt and over the past many months there's been consistent pushback from the City Council and the public that this policy is not ready. But we're here potentially acting in haste and potentially undermining the public hearing that residents petitioned the city to hold. Tonight's presentations and comments have talked a lot about the potential benefits of body worn cameras, and I agree with many of those potential benefits. But tonight's core question isn't about the merits of body worn cameras and whether to adopt them at some point. Tonight we're talking about whether to rush adoption of them so we don't lose grant money. This highly unusual meeting evidences that we're trying to rush this through to get a grant, not to adopt a policy that ensures the proper safeguards around body worn cameras. I think that we share a vision of public safety that mitigates harm and better protects everyone in Somerville. And I agree with the mayor that body worn cameras are only as effective as the policies around them. And it's clear that our policy is not yet where it needs to be. So I again ask the Council to not approve the TCEP Stern Grant tonight, to finalize a policy that we're confident can be effective, and to allow the public to be heard at the public hearing they petitioned for. Body-worn cameras could have positive impacts in Somerville if we move forward deliberately, and that doesn't mean necessarily drawing things out. This meeting makes clear the mayor can act with urgency to meet a grant deadline, so in the coming months I hope to see the same urgency about getting this policy right, and the same urgency to make tangible progress on civilian oversight and alternative response, in addition to body-worn cameras. Thank you.

OK, thank you. Is there anyone else in attendance who would like to speak on this item? If so, please use the Raise Hand icon. All right, I see Willie Burnley and Crystal Hough.

Go ahead, Willie. Hello, William Burnley Jr. here, Winter Hill Magoon Square, former City Councilor at large. And like the majority of speakers tonight, I am asking the City Council to reject this proposal because it does not meet our community standards, nor the standards of the experts the Council relied on to draft the Surveillance Technology Ordinance or to inform us about body cameras over the last several years. I'm also speaking as a black man who was one of the founding members of the movement in Somerville that pushed then Mayor Curtatone to quote, reimagine policing. In a budget year where staff has been fired, positions have been cut, and the schools have been underfunded, this discussion remains an infuriating distortion of justice and a window into our lack of vision. Despite the invocation of George Floyd's murder by police in support of this proposal, it is worth noting that the use of that footage was denied during the trial of his killers and that our local demands were never for body-worn cameras based on evidence and the lived experience of people of color. Without the strong civilian-centered regulations that this policy lacks, studies show that body cams are a tool that ultimately empower and enrich the police. In this case, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year when we are not even funding our schools properly. They are also more likely to convict civilians and hold officers accountable, which means that they do not even meet the supposed intended goal of its advocates. And studies show that they have a negligible effect on the structural violence of policing. So in short, they don't make communities safer, they empower the police, and they're more likely to convict members of the public who are being surveilled at any time a police officer is near them. For those reasons, I again am asking the council to reject these funds.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Crystal Huff.

Hello. Sorry, I just got out of class. I emailed my comments earlier. I just wanted to make sure that the council had time to register my opposition to this effort to rush through things. And I plus one to everything that Willie just said, which was the only commentary I managed to hear before going. Thank you everyone for participating in this process. Listen to Willie, he is smart. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in attendance that would like to speak on the item? I see Nishant Totla.

Hi, this is Nishant. I wasn't planning to speak today, but I have been hearing all the comments and One thing that I've been thinking about is there's been a lot of talk about the cost of the program. And I think that's like a really serious one. And I would also like to say that I believe that the costs are just like an underestimate. They are going to go up because tech companies or whatever companies get the contracts for these things, they will always inflate with time. So if the cost gets too much at some point, is there even a way to pull back the program and what would be the cost then like will police unions agree to pay cuts at that point of time if the negotiation is linked to that so i feel like there's just so much unknown about this and even the experts who spoke up i was hoping that some experts would uh also share like their concerns because you can't be 100% positive about it if especially if you're an expert and you've done research so yeah it just it just feels like I have no idea what's going on and why this is being rushed and the fact that I did not hear about it um I would not have heard about it if I hadn't checked my email. I just feel like if the city of Somerville wants to communicate something, it does a really good job, right? Like during winter. So yeah, this is just kind of odd and a big, big financial commitment for the city. So I'm inclined to say no, even hearing the people who... I have been talking about the benefits which which I see some merit in. So yeah, I would consider request the council to vote no today. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you. Next hand. I see Nate closer Hello.

Nate, go ahead. Great, thanks. This is Nate Clouser, 12C Warwick Street in Ward 5. I just wanted to chime in to say, I think the council should not approve this grant or any funds for body cams until the council itself has approved rules that would govern their use and that this council is convinced are adequate to protect the privacy of residents of Somerville. So don't approve the funds until you have approved final rules. Thanks.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else in attendance that would like to speak on the item? Please use the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. Only once. Going twice. All right, seeing no more hands raised, I will declare the public hearing to be closed. Thank you, folks, for all of your input. We now will take up items 261228 and 261229 together. um and i guess uh director najim williams is 261231 is that information that's the finance update but was that pretty much captured by the presentation that we heard at the at the outset or is there something additional on that item do you wish to share um the presentation provided earlier

gives the outline for both items 26-12-28 and 26-12-29.

Okay, so Madam Clerk, for item 26-1-2-3-1, let's place that on file. I think would be the right disposition of that.

Yes, I can read it into the record and then place that on file. Okay. So 26-1-2-3-1, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, conveying information on body-worn cameras, placed on file. Okay.

All right. Thank you. And then, yes, then let's take up items. Yes. I'm sorry. Look, the agenda doesn't have its normal numbers on it. That's why. With under item seven, let's take up now 26, 1, 2, 2, 8, and 1, 2, 2, 9 together, unless there's any objection from the members.

Mr. President, I just ask why we're not going in the order and taking up items. the grant 26-0378 first?

We could. My thought was that the discussion of the substance itself really is best focused around the two document submissions. If we're comfortable there, then I think the grant would be the next step. But if folks would like to lead in with the discussion on the grant, we certainly can do that. Is there any strong preference?

I'm okay deferring to you, Mr. President.

All right. My question, as I said, is I think that the two items, the impact report and the technology-specific use policy, I think provide us a nice framework to have a robust discussion. So that's sort of my intent is to allow a free-flowing discussion on the topic at large, I think. Yeah, I think let's do that if there's a concern. Madam Clerk, do you have any concerns about if we want to talk about financial items? I guess let's take up, we can discuss item five together, the grant, which is 260378. Let's, if you could read all three of those into the record so we can have an open discussion. And then as we decide what action to take on each of the items, we can take them up individually. Does that sound okay to everyone? All right, seeing some nodding heads and thumbs up. All right, so Madam Clerk, could you read those three items and we can have a discussion about the whole caboodle?

So item number 26-1228, requesting approval of the technology-specific surveillance use policy for body-worn cameras. Item number 26-1229, requesting approval of the surveillance technology impact report for body-worn cameras. And then item number 26-0378, requesting approval to accept and expend a $231,635 grant with no new match required from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to the Police Department for a body-worn camera program.

All right, very good. Thank you very much. Discussion? Colleagues? Counselor, you and Kampen.

Thank you, Mr. President. So I think my comments tonight are going to be a little bit redundant with the comments that I've made on this topic at previous meetings because my position hasn't really changed. So in the impact reports that we require for any new surveillance technology, there's question number seven has to do with the costs. And to me, this is the issue. The issue to me is, honestly, I have really appreciated the administration's willingness to work really in good faith with myself and with my colleagues on the policy side of this. Several years ago, as everyone here knows, I submitted a resolution explaining why I was not satisfied with the previous use policy for body worn cameras, outlining what I wanted to see in a new use policy. And... the administration engaged in really good faith with me over the last several years. And I know with many colleagues to try to reach those. I think we've made enormous progress on those. I voted in support of the collective bargaining agreement, which includes that use policy kind of reflecting that I really support the work that's been done on the policy. And I agree with the mayor that compared to other cities, it is a very good one. The issue for me is the cost. We're looking at, according to the document that's before us, this is just superior officers, doesn't even include patrol. And as I read it, it's over $300,000 a year, kind of in perpetuity. In our budget this year, when a number of advocates in the community were asking us to add some additional educator positions, I sort of held the line and said, under normal circumstances, I would love to fund these, but I can't this year. We just laid people off. I don't see where the money comes from. And, you know, that is how I continue to feel. I don't understand. Well, I do understand. Right. It's I think this is I don't think any of this is happening in bad faith. I think the administration is making a priority statement that they believe body worn cameras are worth this expense. I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to have. I just don't agree this year. I think this is in a normal year where the headline of the budget wasn't this is a really hard year. where we hadn't just done layoffs the first time that any of us can remember. I think I would probably be a yes. That is not the case this year. So I'll just leave it at that.

Okay, Councilor Link.

Thank you, Mr. President. So I'll sort of echo some of what the good counsel from Ward 3 was saying. We just saw 13 people laid off, 16 positions closed. We heard from the staff talking about how they were frustrated, stretched thin. We heard from constituents that they wanted uh and uh and from our school committee um colleagues that they they wanted more interventionists and we said it can't be done it can't be done and uh you know i i think that that It's important that if we say now that this can be done, why couldn't we say that the interventionists, you know, maybe we couldn't have gotten all of them. Why couldn't we get three interventionists? Why couldn't we get two? Right. But now we're saying that we've got this. That's one problem that I have, the financial aspect. And it's not just, you know, so, you know, we're talking about the superior officers, which, again, You know, it's not clear to me how often they're even going to be, you know, I know patrol officers have regular interactions with the public. I don't believe that we're going to get an effective body-worn camera program run by when just the superior officers are wearing their cameras. You know, we heard a lot about the civilian oversight and the lack thereof. You know, and we heard from People in Cambridge saying, you know, body-worn cameras are really great. We like having body-worn cameras. They've had civilian oversight for like a decade at least, right? We don't. We need civilian oversight. If we just give body-worn cameras, I don't see how we get civilian oversight. And, you know, we talked a lot about, we heard a lot about transparency and accountability. Look in the body-worn camera policy and find the word accountability. Not there. Look for the word transparency. It's not there at any point. Look for the word accountability. It's there once and only once. And it's in reference to internal SPD, internal investigations. We talked about how we heard a lot about how a future civilian oversight, if one was ever created, would have access to the footage. Look in the policy. And what do we see? We see that it's the civilian oversight has access according to existing policy from the SPD policy. There's actually nothing in there guaranteeing civilian oversight. What there is, is there's a guarantee that will follow a policy that's outside of this one. It needs to be in this policy. So I think that there's a lot, a lot of really good work has been done and I don't want to discount that. And I really do like genuinely appreciate the amazing effort that has been put into trying to get this going. I've heard the, you know, the old analogy of the cart before the horse. I think we don't even have a horse in this situation. If civilian oversight is the horse, it's just a cart sitting in a field rotting away. Um, so I don't see how I could ever, um, vote for this. Uh, but that's me. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, counselor McLaughlin and then site. Thank you, Mr. President. One moment.

So I, of course, support the grant for body cameras, as I've supported it for many years. I've been oddly silent on this issue, as many of my colleagues will probably know. And it's not for lack of interest or caring. It's because I'm conserving my energy. I feel like every week... there's a new reason to vote against money given to us for what I believe are good causes. And it's just, I can't keep up with, I don't have the energy to make an argument every single time this happens. My energy is drawn from improving things, building, creating, getting something new, moving forward, progress, the root word of progressive progress. And I've Would ask for some time here, because I have not spoken on it, but I wanted to take a walk down memory lane really quick, talk about the history of body cameras and the history of progressive policing in Somerville. I remember years ago, I introduced the concept of body cameras where I showed interest in body cameras because a resident in my neighborhood who worked for the ACLU recommended it as a positive way of addressing police accountability. And I saw a lot of common sense in that because I do believe when there's a camera on a police officer, they are way more likely to operate within the law and treat people with respect and know that there will be accountability if something happens. George Floyd was murdered in 2020. and a lot of things in the city and in this country changed. I introduced a resolution with Mayor Curtatone at the time to implement body cameras. That resolution was tabled because people did not want to discuss that at the moment. We wanted to discuss other ways to address police brutality in America. I didn't object. It went to committee, died, nothing happened. Years later, we had a civilian review. We had discussion about civilian review. The city council, we actually got a staff position to implement civilian review to study the possibility of it. It was kind of unprecedented because usually staff are not allocated directly to the city council. We actually learned a valuable lesson from that because now all city council staff report directly to the city clerk because this process did not work out. I appointed three people on the council to that committee to work with this person to develop a civilian review process. Two people performed those duties admirably. A third person was really not around to be there when the work needed to be done. And that's kind of the way things seem to go for me. There are people who work and there are people who tear things down. Body cameras were negotiated separately by the previous administration, and we had an opportunity to approve body cameras, but there was questions about surveillance oversight ordinance and how we should proceed with that. And the council did not feel ready to proceed with body cameras without the surveillance oversight being implemented. I did not object to that. We went along with it. We amended the surveillance oversight ordinance to include body cameras. And then we had a public safety for all process that took several years and came out with a recommendation for body cameras as one of several police reforms. Some of our colleagues voted against the position for that because of the decisions that were made from that community process. It wasn't one person who came to this conclusion that they threatened to cut that position. It was a community process, months of negotiations. I did not say anything then. And then we had months of negotiations very recently around body cameras. People had legitimate concerns about civil liberties. I let that process play out. I didn't object, didn't say disagree with anybody. i was just going to wait and see what happens uh and i feel like the city as council young camping pointed out did operate in good faith with us on that they got us to a point where i was hoping people would be willing to accept this 250 000 grant uh to approve body cameras so now we're here and the issue is apparently money but This was approved six years ago. This negotiated contract happened six years ago. If we did it then, it would have been cheaper. And if we do it in the future, it's definitely going to be more expensive. There's no way around that. And now I'm hearing that we can't possibly do this without having the civilian oversight already in place, something that I support, something that hasn't come to fruition for many reasons, just has not happened. So my question now is, if we had civilian oversight tomorrow, would people vote in favor of this? When knowing that it would be more expensive now, knowing that not only do we have to pay for the body cameras, we got to pay the $250,000 for it and the wage increases. I don't think that's an honest argument. I just don't know. Like, I don't believe that if we had surveillance oversight in place tomorrow, we would be approving this grant.

So this is frustrating for me.

As someone who really believes in police reform, and a lot of things that I've done have been focused on police reform, particularly among youth interactions, as someone who grew up in the city who felt abused and threatened by police myself, and have had friends and neighbors who feel the same way. I try to do things through reform. I was very proud of the core program, which I was reminded very recently came from a program out in Gloucester for jail diversion, substance abuse treatment, getting people off the street, follow up care. This is now becoming the precursor to the civilian response that everybody wants in the city. I support youth police dialogue through Teen Empowerment. We introduced Narcan to the city, which has saved thousands of lives, including people that I personally know. We introduced the Welcoming City Ordinance, which codified our sanctuary city status to make sure our police don't cooperate with ICE. And we passed the Surveillance Oversight Ordinance. Not my idea, but I supported it and I still support it to this day to make sure that all of our surveillance is accountable to the public and to us. And I just view body cameras as one of these many reforms that we could implement that I believe would make things better. Most of these items I just discussed happened before the murder of George Floyd. And in the past six years, I have not seen any meaningful reform come out of the city of Somerville regarding police issues at all. What I've seen is cuts to basketball tournaments, trips to the aquarium. We lost the Junior Police Academy and a recruitment program to get teenagers to join the police department. We talked about getting rid of ShotSpotter, which has saved at least one life in the city of Somerville and now in the city of Cambridge, might have led to the death of somebody. cutting the animal control officer, cutting liquor license positions, cutting paper supplies. This is where we've been for the past six years. And I don't view this as progress or progressive at all. I don't know. what to describe this at all. There's nothing about accountability, nothing about public safety in any of the efforts that the city council has pursued over the past six years. And we used to be a leader in police reform in the region. And now I just don't know what we're doing now. Just want to leave with a few thoughts, three thoughts for you. Most cities in Massachusetts that are not accepting this grant for body cameras is because the police don't want it. The police are still actively fighting this grant in other cities. We happen to live in the one city, or a city, even though we're surrounded by cities who have this. We live in a city where we've been able to negotiate this. One of the previous... The previous head of the patrolman's union was caught on tape pepper spraying someone in the face while they had handcuffs on. And the only reason we're not negotiating with that person right now is because he was caught on camera doing something wrong. And that's why I support body cameras, because he would never have done that if he had a camera on his neck. And that's why I believe that this is a meaningful reform. And the final thought is, you know, juries, if a case actually someone gets arrested, gets tried and goes to a jury trial, juries are more likely to believe the sworn testimony of a police officer because they view them as a trained eyewitness and an expert. And even here in Massachusetts, there are many people who will assume guilt for someone just because they were tried and sent to court. So I do believe that body cameras could be useful in these situations. And as far as the money goes, It would have been cheaper before. It's going to be expensive later. So that's how I feel about the money issue. I'm looking at a $250,000 grant that we could accept and at least have body cameras and work out the situation. If we pass this, then I think that it's a worthwhile adventure. If it fails, then I really just view this as a fruitless victory, that no one has helped, no one has saved. we have the potential of actually helping people there could be a situation where this body cameras are useful and i think it's more likely that the useful situation will happen than many of the speculation that i've heard about what may or may not happen i know what will happen is sometime in the near future an incident will happen where one person says something the civilian says something the police say something else there's no witnesses no one knows what happened and this body camera could have helped in that situation i think that's the most likely situation that's why i support the grant i would hope to have support in this uh but if not we'll just be another city the only city in the region that has not made this meaningful reform happen

Thank you. Councilor Saeed and then Councilor Mbah.

Through you, Mr. President. First, I would like to thank all the members of the public who spoke tonight and who took the time to join us. I understand the administration's position regarding the grant. I do not agree with it. I very much I appreciate the administration's efforts to engage the council as it relates to the work on the policy. I do think that we made a lot of progress, but the work is not done. I am pro body cameras. However, I will not support this grant. This process is being rushed. We're hearing it from the public. During this whole process, like the past couple months, there was very little public engagement that took place. In fact, this public hearing was a request from the public to have it, and we were supposed to have it in the fall, but here we are. And then, two, the civilian oversight body needs to first be in place before we approve funding. This is very important to me, defining the role of the civilian oversight body, its power should come first. And lastly, I'm also very concerned, like others who spoke to that, about the yearly cost involved, especially in these times.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Ba.

Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I think, you know, I've given it also like a lot of thought. And my comments will mostly you know, Miro, Councilor McLaughlin. I think as somebody who has been racially profiled also in the city, I get really confused with this conversation and where we are headed. If in turn we even have a goal in mind to get some, you know, but before I even, continue, I just want to thank everybody taking the time to participate in this process, especially our many community advocates, the activists, the residents, and even members of city staff and the police department who have engaged thoughtfully over the years. Because regardless of where people stand on this proposal, You know, the advocacy and participation have helped bring, you know, us to this moment. So I see this, you know, as something that we should be proud of because our democracy is stronger when people organize, speak up, hold their elected officials accountable. And that is exactly what, you know, they are all doing. So I really, you know, for me, This is like my dream city, like just to have people come and get engaged like this. And so I also want to really acknowledge that this has been, like Councillor McLaughlin said, a long conversation in Somerville. From the very beginning, as you probably already all know, I've always supported the concept of body-worn cameras. And my hesitation has never been about whether they have value. It was about ensuring that we fully understood the policy and financial commitment we're making and that we implemented the program responsibly. And I think it's also important that we accurately frame the cost, because it sounds to me like the total amount you know, includes more, much more than just cameras. In comparison, they talk about when, during the presentation, they talk about like equipment, software, data storage, maintenance, and all that. And so it just, for me, it's like, this is like that, a very comprehensive, you know, investment in body one camera, not merely just the purchase, but... And my presentation also, you know, looks like we've heard about it. It's pretty clear. I mean, I always take things for face value. I'm not there to kind of like, you know, judge, yeah, what is this tactic? Who is trying to pull a fast one? They've made it clear that delaying this decision does not make it less expensive. And cost increases over time, it will only increase. to inflation technology cost implementation so you know so we've had this tonight again that the state is ending the grant program so that's why i'm like where's the end goal like where we headed are we do we really want this or not and and uh it's been helping municipality offset some of this cause but In many respects, postponing this decision could leave some of you paying more in the future for the same program, unless we really don't have any interest. But quite frankly, this is something that we should have implemented years ago, like Councillor McLaughlin said. But today, nearly every municipality, as I was saying, in a little bit of research and asking questions, comparable to some of the body-worn cameras in place. And they have become a standard tool for modern policing, accountability, transparency, and public trust. So, I cannot believe that over the past several months, I've also spoken with many members of the black and brown community. So I've taken my time to go to the project, have conversations, even at Clarendon Hills. Again, this is something that I've really invested now. Yes, we need quantitative data. We also need qualitative data. This is a community-based interaction. So it's about community stuff. And so the overwhelming response, which it's really surprising, is nearly unanimous that we should adopt the body-worn camera. Even one of the residents said it should be a no-brainer. So many residents see them as a tool that protects everyone, members of the public, victims, And even police officers alike. So cameras can really provide objective evidence, help resolve complaints more fairly, increase accountability and strengthen confidence in our institution. But I really want to be very clear here that body-worn cameras are not a silver bullet. So I've always known that. That's why I say I've been. So they will also not resolve every issue related to policing or public trust. We need to get that on the record. It's a fact. They must be accompanied by strong policies, governing, activation, privacy, protection, just like people have spoken about it, public access, officer training, meaningful oversight. But they are an important step forward. You know, so I have listened carefully during these public hearings, heard from those who support the proposal, heard from those who have concerns. And I think, you know, I believe it is the right decision for our community to move forward. And so it's just, yeah, it's been really, it's just been sad, you know, just to see If we know the facts, what is the plan? If we don't have any plan to move to ever get it, that's fine. Because, okay, we now want to get it and that is more expensive. What is the plan? So I'm trying to just make sure that people understand my thought process, the way I analyze my, you know, because it's kind of like, Really, sometimes you really figure out where does the end go. That's why I kept looking at policies. We had like a whole presentation, which was like really robust. And then I was seeing like all this best effort, like, I mean, You're never going to get a policy right. Just get it out there. But again, we are somewhere. That's why I was like, OK, I'm not now looking at policy. I'm looking at the finances. And so it's almost like, oh, we should have even done this a long time ago. Yeah, we are. So I think I'll leave it there because it's very important that my constituents always understand my thought process. That is, you know, how I always want to approach legislation, you know, just so that people, you know, of course you can always extrapolate, analyze stuff, but this is where I am based on what I've heard tonight, based on the conversation that I've, that has evolved over several months. And I think, uh, I think the right thing for the community and the people that I've spoken to that this is going to impact them. You know, it's not just, you know, everybody like to speak for me, not for me. You know, I'm speaking for myself as somebody who was also racially profiled in the city, that this is the right thing to do in every other city. If Medford can do it, what about Somerville? Thank you. So Medford now has all this commercial property. They have so much money. I cannot even believe this, that we're having this conversation at this point. But it's okay. If you want to kill something, give it a bad name and kill it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Great. I have Councillor Wheeler, then Klingon, then Hart.

Thank you, Mr. President. So first, as my colleagues have said, I want to appreciate everybody who's been bringing their perspective to these questions. I've had a lot of conversations with many of you and spent hours with the administration staff, along with my colleagues, working to push this in a better direction together. There are a lot of moving parts here from all the different various components of the body-worn camera policies we want to the timeline on which party has to agree to what when and has the power to say yes or veto something when. So I want to highlight just a few key points that I keep coming back to. So first, there are real benefits to adopting body-worn cameras. The flaws that several members of the community have named are real, and cameras don't by themselves address every case of improper conduct by police. But most public defenders do say that they're useful. They say day in, day out. They provide some source of evidence that can be referenced in court cases besides just verbal claims. And so many of the cases that come up are pretty thin and really hinge a lot on verbal testimony. They make a big difference in those cases, especially when there's prompt access to footage and where policy and practice can ensure that prompt access. Second, this grant doesn't have to dictate our timeline. Losing $230,000 would hurt. But when we're talking about something that costs $446,000 in total, when you add up all the different pieces of this on an ongoing basis in the future, $230,000 only covers seven months or so of the program's ongoing year-to-year cost. I'm not excited about the prospect of possibly coming back to this and having costs be higher, but it's not a deal breaker, and I don't think it should be a deal breaker for anybody in and of itself. Third, even if we accept the grant and approve the stir and the stop or whatever people say that, the council is still going to have some veto points and ability to stop implementation from proceeding later because we'd have to approve supplemental funding for the staff member needed to administer the cameras. And we would also have to vote on funding for the patrol officer's contract if and when an agreement is reached. And last of these sort of things I'm trying to keep in mind, this is a point Ben Struhl made to me in a discussion the other day, that no city in the country that's anywhere near to Somerville's size has adopted body-worn cameras and then decided to drop them, decided it wasn't worth it. It's very likely that Somerville, especially with our much improved body-worn camera policy, would find body-worn cameras worthwhile if and when we do adopt them. Okay, so on balance, I do want us to adopt body-worn cameras, and I'm really proud of the improvements that we've made to our policy. It may not be perfect, but it really is better than nearly every other one I've ever looked at. But this year, we've asked every department to make sacrifices. We've said no to needs in our schools and no to needs elsewhere. We've laid off staff. Given the costs of body-worn cameras beyond what this grant covers, I think we have to say no here too for now. It's unfortunate that there's been no agreement so far with the patrol officer's bargaining unit that helps bridge that gap. And I very much hope that changes. It might change. It might change soon. But it hasn't happened yet. And also concrete progress on establishing civilian oversight, both in the administration's own processes in staffing and choosing members of that oversight body and in getting buy-in from the bargaining units in SPD. That'll go a long way towards demonstrating the usefulness of body-worn cameras for transparency. So I don't want this no, if that is how the council decides to be our final answer. But I do think that we need more work to come together before we move forward. And the last point I want to make is I think it's really important to respect the council's processes. There's been more than ample time to make sure that all these relevant documents were thorough and complete. And feedback and revision is not bad. It's good that we do that. But I think more preparation earlier could have made better use of our time. The situation that we're in is in the last council meeting, we sent the updated versions of these documents to committee. I understand sometimes circumstances beyond our control do compel us to speed up our processes. That's not necessarily bad. And in general, I applaud moving swiftly and directly for things that are worth it. But these circumstances have been known to us for months. And my strong preference is to review these using our established processes in the relevant committees and refer the stir and stop there. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

I have Councilor Klingin and then Hart and then Streza. Thank you, Mr. President. Through you, I just want to address one of the last comments that was made from Councilor Wheeler. When you talk about like months, like we're talking about a situation where we were asked to basically be part of a bargaining situation where like those bargaining meetings, they don't happen like They happen on a lot of people's schedule. So the idea that this administration inherited this grant, like this came in in November, basically after the election, and then is trying to get up to speed and still does something that no other, since I've been on the council, I've seen no administration cooperates to the level with this council to use executive session to basically have something so that we could make this by the deadline. I mean, that is the work that was put in. As far as government goes, I've never seen it work quite so fast. I want to really point out the fact that Councilor Ewen Campin said he's good with the policy, because that really, I think, is the crux of the matter. I'm hearing a lot of different arguments. I'm hearing a lot of different things. I'm hearing things from the public. Some things are a little, compared to what the presentation was and what the documents say, they're a little incorrect. on just kind of the way the day-to-day access to the footage and so on will actually play out. So it really does seem like it comes back for a lot of people to the money. And I want to acknowledge that this was a really difficult year. There were layoffs. But none of this money is coming from the general fund. This is all coming from the Salary Contingency Fund. Next year is another year. That's on the mayor to have to balance. We can fight it out. I see this discussion this evening as... I don't see us ever in the climate. I don't see us ever... agreeing to put forth $250,000 to fund body camps. I feel like if we had the will, we would do it now. I do also agree with Councillor McLaughlin. I feel like this is a lot of disingenuous arguments being made around and just feeling badly about when we still have obligations even when there are tough economic downturn years. The city doesn't stop. You know, we could have an emergency tomorrow and we're going to have to come up with money. And we're not going to say, oh, we can't fix that. We can't deal with that because we did this thing over here. Cities still have to run. And this is something that's just happened to come about and fall into our lap. And if we don't have the fortitude to be able to deal with it, I mean, that's what we're elected for. We have to have these tough conversations and make these tough decisions when they come up. I have faith and trust in our community and in our government that We can get this equipment, take this money, and still have a really robust civilian oversight body. I don't think with one, there's no other. I mean, that shows almost as much mistrust as I hear from the public about the police. Basically, if you listen to some people, you would think every police officer was a monster with big fangs and teeth. You know, they're just like us. They're people. And we have a lot of great officers on this force. And, you know, I understand. Believe me, I've been abused by the police as a kid. I, you know, I'm no fan of the police. You know, no offense, guys, but I'm just saying when I was a kid, Anytime they were behind you, you know, when you were poor, like your mother, it's going to cost you, end up costing us money somehow because you had the taillight out or something and you're going to get pulled over. Now we hear from people that we don't police enough. So I'm just confused that we're so knee jerk reaction. You know, look what happened in Cambridge. Faisal got murdered, got killed, and they immediately moved for body cameras. So I just want to say, like, if we can't bring ourselves to do this tonight, and if something does happen within the next 12 months, You know, if I voted no tonight, which I'm not, I would really, if there was no account of what happened and I had to go face somebody's family and say, oh, well, you know, they say this and they say this. And too bad there wasn't a camera there because, you know, we maybe would have had a good idea of what happened and it maybe would have been some justice. I think there's been more cops convicted since people started wearing body cameras than I've ever, you know, heard of, including in Boston recently. So we're really shooting ourselves in the foot here, no pun intended, in the sense that we are basically killing body cams if we don't vote for this, in my opinion. And everyone can say differently. I feel differently. I feel like if we don't have the will now to get this program, what I think is a good investment in terms of accountability for police, I think, is it the perfect solution? Like a body camera is, I hear some people say, you know, that police can use them against people, of course, but juries love body camera footage, okay? Because they're a set of eyes that doesn't have an opinion. And yes, humans have opinions and they look at these things, but like the defense attorney said earlier, body camera footage is, you know, it's the gold standard. And so I just think if we don't do this now, it's not gonna happen. And it does sound like it's most of them. I know I hear for some colleagues, it's the lack of civilian oversight. I tend to have faith that I think that the mayor has shown his commitment when he was a counselor and spoken about it. I think we should show a little bit of faith. you know, at this stage of the game, we were really just, by the way, I don't think anything was rushed. Like I said, I do think that there was a lot of, this has been going on since 2015. Curtatone was in the paper saying he was going to pursue body cameras. You know, unions are workers. Unions are unions. Whether they be police or whether they be janitors, everything has to be bargained for. And you can understand why, you know, anytime you're going to agree to, you know, every interaction you have you know, to put a body camera on you. And by the way, like when people talk about deleting foot, I mean, there's going to be, there has to be accountability on that stuff. And there has to be a touch log and there has to be a feature where like, if anybody touches footage that they're not supposed to, there's a record of that and there's accountability. So, you know, I do think we have to have a little bit of faith in us people in government and that things are going to play out well. in a way and not just shy away from this tough decision because we're in a tougher financial time and I'll start rambling. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Hart and then Councillor Strezzo.

Thank you, Mr. President. So this has been a really challenging issue to discuss over these past months. And my biggest concern has been, one, that the cameras were not just you know, a kind of one-off thing, but that they were a part of a overall commitment to and strategy of, you know, real movement towards oversight and accountability and transparency. And, and then also, especially the financial commitment. And so I have been, you know, I've continued to, you know, talk to people, look into this more and more, you know, as this process has gone on. And I do want to reiterate and highlight what Councillor Klingon just said that the funds that would be used to cover the The 2% in the contract have already been set aside and they are in a contingency fund and those funds would not have been able to be used to retain staff positions or to be used in the schools this year. So just wanted to highlight that for everyone watching. I am very heartened and hopeful about the mayor's intentions of the moving forward swiftly with the civilian oversight body. I think that the fact that there is the position, there's a position to coordinate that and move forward with that in the budget that we just passed. And, you know, I'm, I'm hopeful that that will be a key component of the work that the city accomplishes in the coming year. I also really think that while you can have civilian oversight without body cams, and certainly I think it's probably has some usefulness that it will be much more effective and much more robust and have much more power if there are police body cams. And then back on the funding side, one of the things we heard tonight in the administration's presentation was a commitment to look to offset costs of this program with police department budget savings. And that was something that was really, that I was looking to hear and I was glad to hear it. There was, you know, the, the administration said, Putting that out there in the presentation tonight, I don't think is is meaningless. And I acknowledge that it is a risk if we move forward with this and, you know, things the funds. don't materialize within the police budget or the Civilian Oversight Board, you know, runs into delays, you know, certainly those are those are big risks. But I I do think that that this is a good faith effort to move forward with the body cams and Even though I like I agree with a lot of the hesitations and reservations and fears that were expressed in the public hearing tonight and I really appreciate everyone being here tonight and and sharing their thoughts and experience I appreciate all the conversations I've been having. But overall, I think on balance, people do want body cams. And yes, I want to get it right. And I think, like other counselors have said, that we've made so much progress on the policy so far. And I'm hopeful that I don't think any of our policies are one and done. We keep revising them. New information comes to light. We have new experience. We learn. And we keep revising them. So that is why, even though, you know, I really have struggled with this decision or, you know, I'm in favor of moving forward with the body cameras. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Counselor Strezzo.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to try to be brief here. I think I've said a lot of my feelings on this issue over the numerous years and numerous meetings this year alone on this issue, and I will be supporting this. I think it is an excellent step for accountability, and I'm going to follow the lead of What police oversight has said that this is important, that the public safety task force for all have consistently over numerous years and many public processes throughout the years has said that this is important. helpful for our community. I'm going to follow the NAACP recommendations and the Black and Latino Caucus recommendations that body-worn cameras implemented with the structures we're assembling now will be effective for actual police oversight and actual transparency and accountability. So I support this. And I'm also going to listen to the many Somerville residents, 81,000 residents. I'm gonna listen to the many residents that have told me that they support this, especially in wards four and ward seven, who are used to talking about this and not being heard and not feeling like their calls for this as an important issue and their calls for accountability and transparency, including with police body camps is important to them. I'm gonna follow their lead. So I think this is a good step for our community and let's vote.

Thank you, Councillor Scott.

Thank you, Mr. President. Wow, here we are. I really appreciate folks calling back to 2020. I actually went and looked up Justice Somerville's demands from 2020. And when it came to their demands about policing, it was crazy. Number one, create civilian oversight and review committee. And then number two, remove cops from schools and stop disproportionately targeting children of color in our schools. And then, you know, nowhere on that list of their demands was body cameras. So I am also frustrated that Somehow, the city government has failed to move forward on civilian oversight, on really any meaningful reform after 2020, despite promises and good intentions from two previous mayors. I hope this mayor does better. But I do feel like it is extremely fair to say, show me. Trump, let's stand up that civilian oversight. Let's do it before we make the only outcome of six years a raise for the police department. I think I am excited to support these body cameras down the road with a better policy. And when there is an actual civilian oversight body stood up to use those, But as it is, we're not there. And I am exhausted. We have had these in committee. I have been in good faith engaging with the process of this council to refine language, get legal documents right, get policy right, even when I disagree. We, as a body, sent these documents back to committee. We have been summoned by our mayor to get a vote. He wants a vote. I wanted to vote at several of our last meetings. I have actually voted on these items in finance committee already. So be it, Mr. President. I obviously want to hear your thoughts, but just as soon as I've heard them, I'd be real happy to call a vote on this.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Scott. Thank you to all of my colleagues. Given that we are in a virtual meeting, I can't really step into Councillor Baugh's chair, but if you'll all allow, I'll speak on the item from where I'm sitting here. First, just to echo what others have said and to repeat what I said earlier, I want to thank the, I think, nearly 100 members of the public, if my sort of running tally is accurate. We're down to about 65 now, but that were in attendance and the several dozen that spoke. on the item, as well as those folks who have sent email messages. I read every one that I could find that I saw, and I really appreciate the input. As has been noted in a couple places today, the input from the public was really helpful and really critical. in at least moving this process to where it is now. We wouldn't, we would not be here with even the, you know, a reasonable question before us, if not for the work, frankly, that members of the public did. I'll speak for myself, for me. I, for a variety of reasons, have not I did not over the past month or so here have the bandwidth to engage at the level that I have prior to that. And I'm incredibly grateful for the review, for the input, for the comments that folks have provided. And I'll particularly call out Derek Rice, with whom I've shared a number of emails over the past few weeks. communication, the memo that was provided back in the spring before any of the details of this conversation were public was tremendously helpful. Attorney Sirigu and I sat down with that and looked through where we were and thankfully checked off a lot of things that we already had in what you now see as the policy and made changes. And, you know, Attorney Sirigu went back with, you know, with new or, you know, revised sort of changes that the city requested based on that public input. So thank you to everyone for that. It's really, really, really, as always, this city is so smart and engaged and it makes our job so much easier having all of you, you know, paying attention to all this stuff and helping us do our job. So thank you truly. This is a really frustrating situation for me as president of this council. And as someone who I think I'll be so bold to say has put more time and effort into the issues of civilian oversight and police reform than certainly at least as much as any one of my colleagues, I think I would dare to say. I spent countless hours working with Councillor Scott on the city council submission that we put forth in 2021. right in the heart of COVID there together with Councilor Ba. Requesting the formation of a civilian oversight body. And then working, leading the process together with Councillor Ewan Campin, with input from Councillor McLaughlin, Scott and others on hiring the city council's first two part-time staff, first ever staff, working with them on a robust public process to pursue the concept of civilian oversight. You know, As has been mentioned, that then sort of transitioned into Mayor Carter-Tillman's proposal to create the Racial and Social Justice Department, which sort of took over our efforts to no end. I then served on the Civilian Oversight Task Force that was mentioned by many of my colleagues on that task force during the public hearing this evening. And thank you all for being here tonight. Good to hear from you all again. Nice to have the band back together. And I also stepped in for Councilor Kelly, who we also heard from this evening on the Public Safety for All Task Force after her departure from the council. I've been a bit plugged in on all this stuff, and I have a pretty good sense of sort of where we have come from, the processes that we've undertaken, the degree to which all of the various issues that relate to, you know, re-imagining policing, as the coined phrase goes. I think we are here tonight both because we have sort of had our hands forced by an opportunity, but also because we have seen an unprecedented level of engagement from the administration with the council on this issue. previous version of a body-worn camera policy, which was in the prior, I guess it's still in the patrol officers, that was handed to us. The council had zero input on that. And it's one of the primary reasons why we ultimately effectively rejected it or didn't approve the funding to move forward with body-worn cameras at the time because that policy was nowhere near what it needed to be. And my position at the time was that It was based on what I knew at that point, body-worn cameras were something that we would benefit from having, but only if we had a policy that was robust and appropriate and to the best of our ability, fully addressed the various concerns that this type of technology, that are associated with this type of technology. Cut to the chase. as several of my colleagues have said, the policy that we have now before us, and for what it's worth, I'm focused primarily on the technology-specific surveillance use policy, because that, at the end of the day, is the final word. The way our surveillance technology ordinance is constructed, the STIR is sort of a summary report, I think, And, you know, a bit of a learning experience here on maybe what level of detail needs to be in the STER when you have a T-SUP, as has been the case with this surveillance oversight, surveillance technology oversight ordinance work. We're still learning, but my primary focus, and I, don't worry, I have plenty of comments on the STER as well, but my primary focus is on the T-SUP. As I said was likely to be the case the last time we talked about this, that I was present, these documents take a bit of time. They take a good bit of back and forth to get right. And this document is not at a place that I think it should be framed and put on a wall and we can be done with it. The question that I am struggling with and have struggled with for the past week or so is, is it at a point where I would be comfortable moving forward with the opportunity to accept the grant and not forego what the opportunity costs, which I think, as we heard, will be much more than the actual dollars of the grant if we decide to move forward with this type of a policy in future years. I would certainly be significantly higher cost. Are the changes here effectively, is the delta between what this document is now and where I think it could be with a bit more work, a quarter million dollar list of changes? I had several conversations today and I do wanna go through some of my key points here as may be no surprise to all of you. I wanna get into the weeds a bit because I wanna talk about where this document actually is, what it actually says. And as one of my colleagues noted, there were some misstatements at least to my ear from how folks read the document, how it was recounted during public hearing and some of my colleagues comments on it. I'm going to put the administration on the spot. And after going through these comments, at least the big ones, I want the administration to commit that if we decide to go forward tonight, and that's certainly not a foregone conclusion, if this council were to vote to approve this tonight, it would be my intent to expect and request a revision at our next meeting to clean it up. And I say clean it up because I do think that's where we are. This document does not, as has been stated, prohibit officers from viewing the footage of body wound cameras before they file a report, except in certain circumstances. I don't like that. I pushed back against that for a significant period of time. I came to the conclusion that we're not going to get that. Now, I know that I was able to go through that process over time, that the public has not had the same amount of time that you want it because so much of our conversations were during a collective bargaining discussion that was behind closed doors. I also am concerned that the only access to the public is through the public records law. my experience through my constituents primarily with the city's approach, and I say the city writ large because it's not, there are various different prior administrations and other departments within the city. I don't have a whole heck of a lot of confidence in the way that we have responded to public records law requests. And I had this conversation with Director Najee Williams and Director Hellman last week. And I think if the public records law, if the city responded to public records requests in the spirit that I think the public records law was drafted, I think it probably would work. And that's the only way this works without some revision to the policy. So I want to have that conversation. And there probably isn't going to be a way right now to come up with some middle ground. But there is some language change. There's some language in the STIR that talks about if If the footage becomes evidence and then defendants have a right to it, that's not in the T-Sub. It's just a probably drafting oversight. That ought to be in there. And as was alluded to, and as Counselor Scott, you have always dutifully corrected me on when I forget the details. If we don't like it, we can pass an ordinance saying that you can't use body-worn cameras anymore. And so as it relates to all of the uncertainty, if we were to go forward, just to be clear, that would be the council. In addition to his council, Wheeler noted appropriations requests that would come through. The way we stopped it five years ago was by cutting the money out of the budget for the cameras themselves. If we were to not agree to certain appropriations, I think practically speaking, the council has a number of tools in its belt to make sure the conversation is continued. Up to and including an ordinance that would prohibit the use of the cameras if ultimately this goes off the rails. So those are the two big things that I still have concerns about. I mentioned that there is some inconsistencies with the language of the star and the T-SUP. that should be clarified. One of the members of the public noted something that I also noted, that the language about turning the cameras on as it relates to First Amendment protective activities appears to sort of be out of place. I think it probably should be the next item on the list. It would be 2F following 2E. I think that's how it's intended, but it's not really clear. The words and the concept are still there. I'm not super concerned. I think we all agree on the concept, but it's a matter of the drafting to get that right. There's a few other points that are a little unclear. There's in Section 5, at the end of Section 5, there are two sort of orphan sentences that refer to this includes the establishment of police oversight and this includes the triggering of an attorney. I'm not sure what this is. I think I know, I think it's referring to some items of the list back up there, but we just gotta be clear about that. I'm not sure I can interpret it in a way that would be particularly troubling. It just should be more clear. And I should, I meant to leave with this and I forgot and I apologize. When I had a conversation with the mayor a few weeks back when this meeting was proposed, what I said was the only way this works is if the document that's in front of us is nearly perfect. And the document that we had seen at the time, the document that was at the July 9th meeting that I wasn't able to attend, certainly was not nearly perfect. It was a long way, not through any fault or any intent or any lack of effort. These things are hard. They're complicated. They take time. So. Everyone we heard, and it's the folks that we heard from at the top of the, primarily at the top of the meeting, Attorney Sirigu, Director Hellman, and others, and Chief Benford and his staff, amazing job getting this document to where it is now. I did not expect, when I read this, it to be anywhere as good as it is. Y'all understood the assignment and you made my job a lot harder because I thought it was going to be real easy to say we're nowhere close. We're still nowhere close. But we are. We're really, in my opinion, really close. I think the substance is here. And just in terms of the policy. So no surprise to anyone, that's what I have focused my time on is the policy itself because that's how my brain works. It's what I think I bring to this council. Yeah. From a big picture, I won't repeat. Counselor Wheeler, you rattled off just about every one of my talking points. Counselor Klingman, you hit the other big one, which is where this money actually is sitting right now, where it would come from, where it would not come from. Counselor Hart, you repeated that, as did Counselor Reza and others. I don't like that this... I don't like that our recess happened to fall when it did. If you shifted this whole process three months earlier, I think we'd be good to go. We'd have had a couple of committee meetings. I'd have sat down with attorney Sergu a few more times. We'd had this thing polished and we'd be in good shape. The fact is that we traditionally take a recess in the summer that put an end to our committee schedule. And that's why we're in the position where the mayor has called this special meeting. What I committed to, I'll speak just for myself, when this was first proposed was, this seems like there's not enough time to get this done. This is when the deadline we were told was in the spring, but we'll try. And if we can get it done and it's where it needs to be, then great. And if not, then so be it. So, to, I don't know, Director Najee Williams, if this is to you, to Attorney Sarah Gu, I did have this conversation with you all today, or maybe Mayor Wilson, if you want to handle this, but if we were to move forward with this this evening and it were to receive this being, you know, approving the documents as they're currently drafted so that the city could accept the grant, would you commit to submitting a revision presumably at our next meeting in August, or at least the one following that to address my, let's see it, just the drafting things and the clarifications and et cetera, so that we can have a policy that is, and oh, I should also mention, we need to be clear that the TSUP is the ruling document. So any department body one camera policy, the STR, anything else that's out there cannot differ, cannot deviate from the TSUP. The TSUP is the ruling document. As we know, we can't say something in the TSUP that is contrary to the collective bargaining terms, And we have the document in front of us that is consistent with that. So if we were to agree to it, it would be consistent with the collective bargaining agreement. But that's one of the other clarifications we need to make. Judge Najeeb Williams, I'll lead with you. Is that something that the administration will commit to doing? I've talked to everybody to sleep now.

Mr. President, can I speak on behalf of- Hey, Wilson, you're the boss. Step right in. Yeah, Mr. President, absolutely. All along, we've talked about this. People who don't want to see this happen have engaged on the T-SUP, and I think that that is awesome. People are united and wanting to have the best the best stir and tea sup that we can have regardless of how they feel about this program coming in right now. So I wanna thank people for that. And absolutely we will submit, we all want the best tea sup and the best stir, including the administration. So yes, we will submit a revised ones that address your concerns for that next regular meeting.

Okay. Ultimately my position is informed by what was initially my position, which is we need to have a policy that's good. This policy specifically mentions accountability and conducting internal investigation. So police accountability stands alone. It includes several references to a city-created oversight commission. It provides that accountability footage can be accessed that the city will provide and or release body worn camera footage in response to a lawful request, lawful subpoena or request by a police oversight authority. That stands alone. Those are extraordinary provisions to have in a policy. And if my recollection is accurate, that's something that for which there is little if any precedent in other policies. Having rambled on about how long I've focused on the oversight issue and others, I have never been more encouraged than I am right now that we're actually going to see change. We have seen CORE moved into its separate budget category. That was one of the key sticking points for investing in alternative response. Mary Wilson did that in this budget. We now have a path for a true alternative response program that we can invest in in the future. We have Director Hillman here on the ground, ready to put these recommendations into practice. As I said, the City Council has an unusual actual number of meaningful tools in its belt, a bit of power we don't usually have in this scenario. And I certainly will intend to use them if this stalls, if we don't see progress on these things. I'm going to stick to my word because I said if the policy gets just to a point that's reasonable, that it's as good as we can get it, but for some clarification and drafting, then I would support this. And so that's where I am. I hope the folks that disagree with me will understand. I've been back and forth on this since we started. And it really wasn't until I finished my whatever number of iteration of review on this today that I was able to get comfortable moving forward. And, you know, hearing from the people who represent members of our community and where the data show police tend to respond most often. Denise Lowers and Ray Santana and the defense attorney that Counselor Wheeler referenced, that work and the value of body one camera footage. If there's anything that sort of tips the scale, I guess I would say that's it. But I've been talking a lot. I've resisted the urge to go through point by point because I've hit the key points that I think I wanted to call out and make sure that the administration heard. I did talk with Attorney Sergu about several of these earlier today, so I know that there's no... substantive disagreement there. I see, so I'll stop. I see Councilor Link, you only spoke for a short period of time at the outset, and I've only spoken once. I'm happy to recognize you again. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. President. I actually just want, sorry, tongue tied there for a second. Just a clarifying question to one of your points, because you The you'd mentioned I'm the civilian oversight having access spelled out in in the in this policy, but the only thing that I've seen is so I can I'm looking now in section five. Item B, which is that. That. It all it only says that they will have access like a police oversight authority in accordance with existing department policies and procedures and applicable law like I don't see that spelled I don't see actual. I mean i've read this a whole bunch of times, so I it's possible I could have missed it in there, but. I didn't see that that was actually in there.

So if you read the next sentence, and this is an area where for a variety of reasons, every time you read a document, this is what I do for a living, every time you read a document, you can always improve it, right? So no fault to the drafters, no shade on the drafters. But yeah, the sentence you're referring to reads, body one camera recordings related to an ongoing investigation or in support of prosecution, right? shall be provided to the applicable law enforcement entity or police oversight authority in accordance with existing department policies and procedures and applicable law. The next sentence stands on its own. City will provide and or release body-worn camera footage in response to a lawful subpoena or request by a police oversight authority. That was language I specifically requested in one of my meetings with Attorney Sirigu to address the exact thing that you picked up on in the last sentence, that the scenario that's described in the first sentence is about an ongoing investigation, et cetera, et cetera. But if we have an oversight authority, and there's a request that's pursuant to their authority, then they will have that access effectively. And that was, you know, I was really happy that that made it in, put it that way.

Thank you, Mr. President. I think my brain shut off after reading that first very long sentence because I was like, what is this? But you're right. Yes, I see that now.

Totally understandable. All right. Any other questions for me, I guess, or other comments or thoughts?

No. So I guess I'll just say my last piece, which is very, very, very short, is that if we're getting commitments, I would love to see some sort of commitment around civilian oversight. that seems like to me, the, the, the thing that is important. Um, and I think the other commitment I would want is like a commitment that, you know, um, that we're going to see interventionists and, uh, it doesn't like, I'm not saying a number, but I'm, you know, I don't, I don't want to see. I understand that there's a small amount of $90,000, which is not the full amount that the is of what the, the raise is going to cost us for one union, let alone both. for that one time. And like, you know, so I just, I really want to make sure, you know, we saw a lot of can't happen, can't be done. And I, you know, I believe it. You know, I voted to approve the budget. So, you know, I'm not trying to say like, oh, that was a lie. But what I am trying to say is I'm deeply worried that we're going to hear that same line next year. And we're going to be looking at this, what could be a half a million dollar hole in our budget that we're trying to fill with really important programs.

Mayor Wilson, you seem to jump to hit the raise hand button before I could even say the council wanted to put you on the spot. It'll help if you unmute yourself.

Mr. President, I don't consider it being put on the spot at all. Happy to reaffirm a strong commitment to civilian oversight. We're really excited to really, really, really dig in on that with the council. It's going to be a big thing this fall. If y'all are ready for that, there's been some really good work that's happened on that today. It's been name-checked tonight. And I know... John is very eager to work with you all. My administration is tuned to craft the absolute best civilian oversight program that we can bring to the city. I didn't put that position in the budget to waste money. We put it in there to go do it. So let's get to it. Mr. President, there was a question about interventionists as well. Yeah, we're driven to, you know, had that come up earlier than May 20th, we might have been able to have a discussion about that. That was a surprise last minute inclusion by my colleagues on the school committee. I've already talked to, I was talking to the superintendent even, you know, while the budget process was going on about next year. And we share that desire to meaningfully address something that's really been laid out as a need for the district. So yeah, absolutely. That's a top priority for us next year.

Others? All right. Seeing no further discussion, the Surveillance Technology Ordinance provides that a grant may not be accepted until a STIR and if necessary, the STIR is the Surveillance Technology Impact Report, and if necessary, a technology-specific surveillance use policy are in place. So my suggestion would be that we take up the documents first, if there's to be a vote. And so seeing enough of the discussion, is there any desire to take the two documents up separately, or shall we take them up together? All right. See, no input. I'll suggest that we take them up together because they sort of walk together. And just to reiterate, I've got a bunch of comments. I'm going to sit down with Attorney Sirigu and or Director Hellman or whoever wants to talk about these things to improve the clarity of drafting and some of the things that I flagged that also were mentioned by members of the public to... to get the draft standpoint. And I'm also going to throw in some substantive things, as I mentioned, to see if there's some improvements that can be made without, you know, within the constraints that we have based on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. So with that said, Madam Clerk, on items 26, 1, 2, 2, 8, and 19, 261229, right? You got a hand up.

President, Councilor Wheeler has his hand up.

Oh, thank you, Councilor Chesil. Councilor Wheeler.

Thank you, Mr. President and Councilor Strezzo. Just a quick question to understand. If any of these items are voted down per city procedures and rules, there is a period in which the same item or an effectively identical item can't be reintroduced. Is that correct?

There is a period of... Yeah, the general rule, there's a period of months. And I think that... I don't see any reason that wouldn't apply unless Clark Henderson has a different opinion.

No, Mr. President, I don't have a difference in opinion.

As I best recall, it was six months.

I believe it is six months. I'm just looking it up right now to see. I am saying it cannot be brought up for six months, at least six months.

Thank you, clerk. Mr. President, this might be A superficial distinction, but the fact that the stir has a section that relates to cost, but the tea sup does not inclines me to prefer us to to take them up separately.

We can do that. I'll note that the structure of these two documents is prescribed in the ordinance. So the headings are what's required by each document. And I will note, as I sort of alluded to earlier, I think One piece of learning from this would be that when you have a technology-specific use policy, you maybe don't need as much detail in a STIR since you end up really just repeating and ultimately it's the STIR that is the actual governing document as between the two. Um, so. Council really would like to take the documents up separately. Um, I assume we want to have a roll call anyone. Oh, sorry. Councilor Hart. I see your hand.

Thank you. I just have a quick question. It's not specific about the. the vote right now, but just to review the timeline and make sure I'm clear, the grant requires that the cameras be purchased and in hand by August 31st. After that, is there a timeline for this beginning to be used? Or could we have What are our time limitations on revising the TSEP and the STIR, for example, and establishing civilian oversight?

Is that a question? Well, I see that in the City Hall there's a hand raised. Is that Dr. Najeeb Williams or Sergu or one of all y'all? It's the city I want.

Hey, no, this is Manager Hillman. I can answer that question quickly. The grant stipulates only that we need to have the purchase and in possession of cameras by August 31st. That is all the grant states.

I could piggyback off that a little bit, too, to the second component of Councilor Hart's question, Council President, through you. The TCEP is a local, the technology specific use policy is a local requirement that must be adopted before we accept and expend funds for surveillance technology. We would be asking the council to do that tonight. And if an amended policy were put forward and approved by the council in the month or months after that acceptance, there would be no state prohibitions on doing so.

Does that answer your question, Councilor Hart?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you. And I should also note, and I apologize for not pointing this out at the outset, especially for maybe members of the public who are wondering why we're not just making changes to these documents. Because of the way that the Surveillance Technology Ordinance is drafted, the STIR and the T-SUP are documents that belong to the administration. They can be approved by the council, but they can't be amended or revised by the council. at least not formally. Traditionally, the administration has taken our input and been very collaborative in submitting revised versions based on conversations, which is what I expect will happen here, which is what I've requested and we've been told the administration is willing to do here. But as was noted, until a uh until a stir and a t-stop is approved by the council the grant can't be the funding can't be accepted so um you know if i felt that this document as it stands was was materially substantively so far away from where we needed to be um that we'd have a lot of work to do and might not agree then i might feel differently but um I think it's a matter of drafting primarily. So that's my proposal. All right. Any further discussion? Colleagues? All right. Councillor Link. Just a procedure question.

Are we voting each item separately?

Councillor Wheeler requested that we take up the items separately. And so we certainly can do that. All right, thank you. I will note that, you know, well, correct me if I'm wrong, Attorney Sirigu, but I think that both the STERI and the TSAP would have to be approved in order to then accept the grant if we were to choose to do that. Am I remembering that correctly?

Council President, through you, yes.

Okay.

All right. Any other questions? All right, then the motion is for approval of item 26-1228, requested approval of the technology-specific surveillance use policy for body-worn cameras. Madam Clerk.

All right, that is to approve item number 26-1228. Counselor Ewan Campin.

No.

Counselor Link.

No.

Counselor Scott.

No.

Counselor Klingin.

Yes.

Counselor Strezzo? Yes. Counselor Saeed? No. Counselor Wheeler?

Yes.

Counselor Hart?

Yes.

Counselor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Counselor Mba?

Yes.

And Counselor Davis?

Yes.

With seven counselors in favor and four against that motion passes.

Thank you. Now a motion to approve item 26-1229, requesting approval of the Surveillance Technology Impact Report for Body 1 cameras.

Councillor Ewen Campin?

No.

Councillor Link?

No.

Councillor Scott?

No.

Councillor Klingin?

Yes.

Councillor Strezzo? Yes. Councillor Saeed? No. Councillor Wheeler?

No.

Councillor Hart?

Yes.

Councillor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Councillor Mbah?

Yes. And Councillor Davis? Yes.

The seven Councillors in favor, that motion passes.

Okay, thank you. That now brings before us item under item five under the agenda, which is 26-0378.

Mr. President, this is maybe a quibble, but I believe that was six in favor, not seven in favor.

On the second one, I believe I had six. Did I count wrong? I can redo it just to make sure. I counted six, yes. Six, yes, and five, no. All right, and then item five, item which is number 26-0378, requesting approval to accept and expend a $231,635 grant with no new match required from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to the Police Department for a body-worn camera program. Discussion on the motion. This is to approve this item. Councilor Ewan Kempin.

Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, I continue to think that we are committing to spend more money than we should on this program. But that said, having just approved the stir, it is clear that the city is moving forward on this. So I'm not going to vote to throw away good money for it. So despite my opposition at this point to moving forward on this, I'm happy to accept the free money.

Very well. Thank you for the discussion. I'd say none.

Madam clerk. This is to accept item number 26 dash 0378. Counselor Ewen Campin?

Yes.

Counselor Link?

No.

Counselor Scott? No. Counselor Klingin?

Yes. Counselor Strezzo?

Yes. Counselor Saeed? No. Counselor Wheeler?

No.

Councillor Hart. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. And Councillor Davis. Yes. Seven councillors for and and for against and that motion passes.

All right, thank you. Yes, Councillor Clendenin. I move to reconsider all three items in the hopes that reconsideration fails. Councillor Clendenin moves for reconsideration of the three items just voted upon in hopes that reconsideration fails. Does anyone wish to change their votes? Seeing none, reconsideration fails. Is that good enough, Madam Clerk, or do we need to take a roll call on reconsideration?

We can take a roll call for that.

Ah, phooey. All right. So roll call on reconsideration. So this is, let's make sure I get this right. Vote yes if you want to change your vote and no if you don't want to change your vote. Did I get that right? Yes.

All right. All right. Councilor Ewing-Campin?

No.

Councilor Link?

No.

Councilor Scott?

No.

Councilor Klingin? No. Councilor Strazo?

No.

Councilor Saeed?

No.

Councilor Wheeler? No. Councilor Hart?

No.

Councilor McLaughlin?

No.

Councilor Mbambo?

No. Councilor Davis?

No. That motion fails.

All right. Thank you. So that leaves before us, let's see, so the public hearing has, we've had the item 26-122, the mayor's request, we held that, so that'll be marked work complete, I believe, right? And then let's leave 26-1232. How is that, Councillor Scott, how did this one get back up here? Was this, did we... Well, this is comments. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. The comments on the public hearing. So the public hearing item itself is still, the citizen request for public hearing is still in legislative matters. These are comments regarding the public hearing tonight, which we've seen. So we will place those on file unless there's any objection.

Right, sir.

Did I get everything, Madam Clerk?

You did, Mr. President.

All right. Is there any further business for the council? There is none. No light items? No light items. All right. With that, Councilor Bob moves to adjourn. Could you please call the roll on adjournment?

Yes.

Councilor Ewan Campin?

Yes.

Councilor Link?

Yes.

Councilor Scott?

Yes.

Councilor Klingin?

Yes.

Councilor Strezzo?

Yes.

Councilor Saeed? Yes. Councilor Wheeler? Yes. Councilor Hart?

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Yes. And Councillor Davis.

Yes.

With 11 members in favor of adjournment, we are adjourned.

All right. Thank you, everyone. Good work. Thank you to everyone in the public. Go to the beach for a bit if you can.

See you in a few weeks.