Confirmation of Appointments and Personnel Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. My name is JT Scott. I'm the Ward two city councilor here in Somerville, Mass and serving as chair of your legislative matters committee of the city council. Calling this meeting to order here on Tuesday, February 17 at 06:02PM, and pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote participation, and the audio video recording will be posted to the city of Somerville's website shortly after its conclusion. To enable that to happen, we will go ahead and take a roll call to establish a quorum.

This is roll call. Councilor Davis? Councilor Mbaugh? Councilor Yankampin? Here. Councilor Strezo? Present. Councilor Scott? Present. With three counselors present, we have quorum.

Alright. Thank you for that. And, we've got ourselves a bit of a long agenda, but not hopefully too long in terms of time. It's split up into largely two sections, which is the review of some ordinance modifications to bring the city into compliance with the newly adopted charter from the last municipal election, and then the review of some surveillance technology impact reports, which some of which were submitted previously and then had some requests for updates and modifications. So we'll be adopting some of those and, placing some others on file.

But before we get to it, our first three items are approvals of the minutes, from May 6, from and from December 2, as well as minutes of the charter review special committee meeting. I guess that would be the last one we had, so we weren't didn't have a chance to approve those minutes in committee. So, are there any comments on those first three items, the minutes of May 6, March 18, and December 2? Alright. Seeing them, we'll go ahead and, lay those on the table for approval, and we'll move on to item number four on our agenda tonight, which is, an amendment to chapter two, article five, division one of the code ordinances to add a review of multimember bodies pursuant to the requirements of the city charter.

We are joined here tonight, by legislative liaison, Brendan Salisbury, who has been doing a great deal of work to, review the code and, bring us up to speed and, implement the requirements of the new charter. So, let's see. I've got this pulled up. Madam Clerk, if you could pop up the the PDF just so we're all on the same page, that might be nice. If you'd like me to, I can do that as well. But, yeah, here we go. Alright. Liaison Salisbury.

Thank you, mister chair. For the record, Brennan Salisbury, legislative and policy analyst for the city council. This is actually a very simple one. As you may recall, as part of the new charter, there is a required review of the charter, the code of ordinances, and multiple member bodies every ten years. As part of the special act that established the charter, it did establish a particular, composition for the initial review of multiple member bodies.

The charter itself does require that this body be constituted by ordinance. I will flag that this would be the only body in the city that would be constituted by ordinance once the administrative code goes forward. So that is something that we will likely be looking to change in the future just to maintain, sort of the the the intent of the charter. But for now, it is required by charter to establish this by ordinance. And so this is largely just a copy and paste.

There are a couple very minor things that are in here, that differ slightly from what was established by the, special act, which is that we do put some specific dates in there for the constitution of the or rather the convening of the committee, as well as a deadline, for the submission of the report. While those things were generally kind of, I would say, hinted at, in the charter, there is no explicit deadline for the report. So we just added those in there to make sure that there is actually, a clear standard for when these actions should be taken.

Alright. Just a quick question on that. I believe wouldn't the, wage theft ordinance still be a multi member body, established by ordinance?

It would not. No. The the text of the charter is explicitly clear that the organization of the city may only be accomplished through administrative order.

So what happened to that ordinance then?

It the ordinance remains on the books. The charter did include a continuation of governance and continuation of law, provision, within it. So until an administrative code is established, any of the ordinances that are currently on the books will remain in effect.

Alright. Well, then I guess we will so is does this create a future conflict then, if explicitly these bodies aren't allowed to be set up by ordinance?

I for this one specifically, it does not, because the charter is very explicit that this one needs to be established by ordinance. I believe that that was, an inclusion. It's possible that the rather than speculating about the origin of this, I will say, that there is no conflict because the charter explicitly says that this one, is established by ordinance, and where general provisions conflict with more specific ones, the more specific ones prevail.

Alright. Well, are there any questions from members of the committee about this language? Alright. Everybody apparently likes your work, in La Salisbury. Well, I've I've reviewed it. Makes sense. Hopefully, we can actually get this committee seated and have folks, begin the work. And to that end, I'm gonna go ahead and recommend, approval on this item. Is there any discussion on the motion to recommend approval? Alright.

Then seeing none, we'll lay that on the table to recommend approval with a single vote at the end of the meeting. That'll move us on to item number five on our agenda, city clerk submitting an amendment to section 10 dash 20 of the code of ordinances to align the constable appointment process with the provision of the revised city charter. Analyst Salisbury.

It's probably best to just keep my camera on since I'll be talking about all of these back to back to back. Mister chair, as I noted to you before the meeting, I I aired on this when it was submitted to the council, and I would make a recommendation, that if the council if the committee is so inclined, that an amendment be made to this to strike the entirety of the section. While previously, I had been, I had submitted this with the simple strike through, removing confirmation by the city council as that does not align with the provisions of mass general law. Further review of the mass general law makes it pretty explicitly clear that the city council doesn't have any, say in the appointment process for constables, if the general law is to be accepted. And so, really, this entire section should come out.

Now was the acceptance of the city, that master law made official with the adoption of the charter, or would that require a separate action?

That requires a separate action. That is the next item on the agenda.

Alright. So that said, the policy aim here going back into the wayback machine was to ensure that the constables serving, serving papers and conducting evictions in Summerville would be required to be Somerville residents with the hope that having members of our community, in those roles would allow for a more neighborly exercise of those powers. The mass general law leaves the discretion for, for appointment of constables, entirely within the the executive's power, does it not?

That's correct. I'll say to to if I if I if you'll allow me the liberty of interpreting your statement as a question, with regard to the policy aims, I will note that because there is not currently a there is not currently enabling legislation available to the city for the appointment of constables. Currently, the city cannot appoint constables, and only the acceptance of the mass general law would allow for the appointment of constables. At it's my understanding that at the current juncture, process server and evictions would be accomplished, through the, assistance of the Middlesex sheriff's office. And so it is certainly I will leave it up to a a conversation with the, city attorney, at a future date whether it would be a reasonable whether it would be a a reasonable standard to employ to, use a residency requirement when evaluating, constables as a part of the appointment process.

But to the extent that that it is, it would be a part of the administrative code.

Alright. Are there any questions or concerns from colleagues about the the language here? And although I just wanna also highlight that your recommendation at this point is simply to strike the entirety of section 10 dash 20.

That would be correct, mister chair.

Okay. Councilor Ewan Campan, you have the floor.

Thank you, mister Scheer. I just wanna make sure I'm following. So the next item on the agenda, not before us now, is accepting the mass general law process of doing it, which, if I'm reading correctly, says, basically, the mayor appoints constables and the mayor with the consent of the says board of aldermen, I assume that also means city council, can remove a constable for gross misconduct. So while it would get the city council out of the confirmation business for constables, there would still be a removal provision for gross misconduct. And I just wanna confirm, mister chair, that that's the case. Were we to get strike this and accept the next one?

That's true. Although it would that that provision would have to be it as it reads to me, it would have to be begun by the mayor, and then approved by the board.

Well, I'll just say I'm I'm in support of it, having been on confirmation of appointments through several years of, frankly, quite just confusing, possible reappointment processes. Seeing as this kinda brings us into compliance with the charters, I understand it. The the mass general law process is seems good enough for me.

Alright. Anything else from members of the committee? Well, then what I'll do is I will move to amend the item before us by by changing by changing the text to simply say the code of ordinances, city of Somerville is amended as follows, by deleting the entirety of section 10 dash 20. Handler Salisbury, that that seems to me a proper form for accomplishing what we are trying to do here. Does it sound right to you as well?

That would accomplish the intent. I will make an amendment to this to reflect that intent prior to the city council meeting.

Alright. So let's go ahead then on the motion to amend the item before us. Let's take a well, let's ask if there's any comment on that. And seeing none, let's take a quick roll call on the amendment to the item before us. Madam clerk?

Sorry. I thought we were pausing for additional comments. Okay. So on approval of the motion or the movement to amend the item before us by striking the entirety of the text in ten twenty, councilor Davis. Councilor Mbaugh? Councilor Yuncampin?

Yes.

Councilor Strazo? Yes. Councilor Scott? Yes. That was approved with three counselors in favor.

Alright. Wonderful. And then with that, done, the item as amended is before us, and I will move to recommend approval of that item. Is there any discussion on that motion? Well, then seeing none, we will lay that item on the table for approval in a single vote at the conclusion of the meeting, and we'll move on to picking up item number six, I believe, which is the, city clerk requesting acceptance of NGL chapter 41, section 91 relating to the appointment removal of constables.

This is the language we just discussed. I'm inclined based on the discussion so far to move to recommend approval on this. Is there any discussion on that motion? Alright. Then seeing none, we will lay item number six on the table for recommending approval with a single vote at the conclusion of the meeting.

And we'll move on to item number seven, city clerk submitting an amendment to the rule of city council to align with the provisions of the city charter. This is a fairly long document, but the change, if you're looking for them, is down on page eight in rule number 57. Analyst Salisbury, please.

Mister chair, this is a relatively simple one. As you may recall, the, initiative petition or, group petition, was previously largely undefined as to what would be accomplished by the vote of 50, or signature of 50 residents of the city. The new charter did establish that a a group petition does require the holding of a public hearing within three months. It does also contain a provision that states that there cannot be more than one public hearing on any given issue within a twelve month period set by the discretion of the president of the city council Rather than requiring future presidents of the city council to, at the submission of every group petition, say, great. Now the twelve month clock starts.

We thought it would probably be best to put it in the city council's rules. And so as you can see, rather than setting this based on the time that a public hearing is held, because there is a three month period within which that hearing must be held, the decision was made to start the twelve month clock upon submission of the item rather than when the hearing is held.

I love it. Seems like a pretty natural streamlining and sets the, sets the bar very clearly for everybody involved. So there any discussion on this recommended change to the rules of the city council? Alright. Seeing no discussion, and I'm, inclined to move, to recommend approval of, this item.

Seeing no discussion on that motion, we'll go ahead and lay this item on the table so that it can be approved or voted to recommend approval at the conclusion of the meeting in a single roll call vote. And that will then bring us to the conclusion of our simple simple charter alignment items and bring us to the surveillance technology impact reports. On the agenda, there are six of these items, and we have so it's the three that were from last year's submission, and then I believe numbers eight, nine, and 10 here. That's twenty six zero zero nine two nine three and nine four are the newly updated ones. Thank you again, Anna Salisbury, for all your work on those alignments.

I believe we do have Kat and Sheehan here tonight with the surveillance technology impact reports. I'm gonna go ahead and pick up items eight through 13. I'll go ahead and read all of those in. That's requesting approval of surveillance technology impact report for ball cameras, thermal imaging, monoculars, and under door cameras. We'll pick them all up at one time so we can discuss them all at one time.

With that said, welcome, captain Sheehan. Thank you for going back and reviewing these at the request of president Davis at our last meeting. Is there anything other than the the raw text here or any other back and forth that happened before resubmitting these? Maybe captain could also help us out. I don't know. Anybody from the SPD.

Mister I'm I'm sorry, mister. It's, captain. Just having a little issue on my phone. So, yes, we had some, some suggestions from, councilor Davis, and we've incorporated them into the new, to the new versions. I think it answered all the questions that he had. I don't know if there's any any further questions.

Alright. Well, I haven't received any any further requests for modification from counselor Davis. When I took a look at them, they looked alright to me. But that said, even if they are moved to recommend approval, this evening, there will be an opportunity for council Davis, he does have remaining concerns, to sever the items and send them back to committee if there are concerns. But before we do that, let's, see if there's any other comment from members of the committee. Councilor Ewan Camden, you may have the floor.

Thank you, mister chair. I just I'm I'm in support of these. I just wanted because it's a new council, I actually see one of our, recently elected colleagues in the audience. I just wanted to talk through kind of how how the committee has been processing these. So these are reports that are submitted by the administration, and the council cannot edit them or amend them if there are concerns from the council that, you know, would affect our ability to vote in support of them.

The process for that is we talk about it in committee, ask questions, and then there is a newly submitted one comes back in with those changes. At our last meeting, I said, and I'm forgetting maybe other colleagues said as well that, you know, the the kind of overarching concern with the surveillance oversight ordinance is about it isn't about, like, nitpicking specific law enforcement techniques as much as it is making sure that anything that has a surveillance capability is not overbroad, doesn't impinge on civil rights, privacy, etcetera. And from my perspective, these particular requests are, like, straightforwardly not a concern of mine for mass violations of civil rights or privacy. These are, you know, targeted, kind of clearly explained what they're for. And then in that context, councilor Davis and, forgive me.

Maybe there are other councilors as well raised kind of specific improvements and clarifications that they'd like to see just in the explanation of how they work, how they're regulated. So that's what we have before us tonight. I'm I'm all set with these. And if it's the will of the committee, I'm happy to move to recommend the new ones, which is eight, nine, 10. Is that right? Yeah. The ones that start with 26. And then if if there are questions in the full council, obviously, those can be dealt with then there.

Certainly. Certainly. Well, this is the, and and just to put a put a even finer point on it, the goal of all of this, in our surveillance technology impact ordinance is to ensure that the public can go and look and see what the policies are. For example, in the under door camera report on page two, you can see the authorized uses and the rules and processes that are required to authorize use. It's they're not it's not that all of our officers are issued with little wire cameras.

They can stick under anybody's door. There has to be has to be authorized by the SRT. The special commanding officer has to be present for it. And so this is just a way, for for the council to have an oversight on the, introduction and adoption of these technologies and also for members of the public to be able to look at it at any time and understand, what's at use here in the city of Summerville, Hopefully, being secure in the knowledge that if it's not on our list of approved technology, it's not being used. Captain Sheen, I see you have your hand raised there.

Yes, mister chair. I just wanted to say that if, councilor Davis does have any more suggestions or clarifications, we'd be more than happy to, to look at those and make those changes that he he's requesting. That's, not an issue with us.

Yeah. Of course. Always been, very accommodating to, counselors' request for clarification, expansion in these reports. Analyst Salisbury, I see you have your hand raised. There is something you need to, inject.

Mister chair, my apologies. I would normally not, speak up on these, but I realize that I have been remiss. A number of members of the committee over the years, had requested that there be a central location for the storage of surveillance technology impact reports, and I realized that while I had created it, I had neglected to announce this to the committee. So if counselors or members of the public are at any time inclined to take a look at these in one central location, they are available online at our Encode Plus, online portal for the code of ordinances under the other city documents tab, surveillance technology reports.

Well, now when I go to that website and I click on the, ordinances, oh, other city documents right there at the start. Surveillance and technology impact reports. Excellent. For members of the public who might be looking for that, if you Google city of Somerville ordinances code of ordinance, you'll find it. It's also available, I believe, in a link from the, city clerk's main page. Is that correct, Annalise Salisbury?

The city clerk's main page, the city council's main page, and from anywhere on the city of Summerville website, if you open the government tab, there is a link to city ordinances that will jump you directly to that site.

Gotcha. And, other city documents is right there in the middle of the title menu bar once you get there. So, easily available for everybody. Now I normally don't, well, you know, it was always easier when we were sitting around in the committee room, but I do see a member of the public, has a hand raised here. I'm inclined to sponsor a member of public to ask a question or make a comment here.

And let's see. That would be, counselor Wheeler. Since we are running at below quorum tonight, we should not be, hitting any any problems with, inviting counselor Wheeler to speak briefly. Madam clerk, I don't seem to be able to enable, to promote council Wheeler. There we go. Council Wheeler.

Thank you, chair. I'll be super brief. I appreciate all the work that goes into these, surveillance technology impact reports. I know it's a lot. I just wanted to point out something as somebody who's relatively new to reading them.

The the ball cameras, one, for example, tons of great information, and I noted that question seven that's about cost has a very thorough answer that touches on the total dollar cost and makes it clear there's no net cost to Somerville because that's all coming through a grant. I've just noticed with a few other, surveillance technology impact reports, some of those either, say none or or say, oh, there's there's no cost because it's coming for a grant. And I'm wondering if, if there's kind of one way or the other that we prefer to interpret the sort of requirement to include information about cost?

Normally, it's in terms of the as I'm at least in my recollection, it's about the we've focused more on the ongoing costs of maintaining. So for example, you know, a contract with ShotSpotter or something of that nature, but I'm I'm open to being corrected if anybody on the council or in the committee has a different recollection of that. But as as you noted, they do also include the initial purchase cost and then make a note that that is being offset at the time of acquisition by a grant. So, does that does that answer that sufficiently for you, sir?

Yes. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Alright. Well then, let's go ahead and well, let's see. Counselor, you and Kempen had a motion made to recommend approval of eight, nine, and 10. I would also then make a similar motion to place items eleven, twelve, and 13 on file. Is there any discussion on those motions?

Mister chair, if I may, we wouldn't place them on file or actually, you know what? I'm gonna take that back. I think you have placed the ones on file that you didn't approve. But let me confirm before we

Well, we'll give you a moment to look that up.

My apologies. Normally, when it's referred for recommendation, we do not recommend it, but I have an inkling now that I'm saying it out loud that you may have done something different with these. So just one moment.

I can see, for example, items 250452, 250752, several of these. Yeah. You did place case, the mayors had withdrawn them. In some cases, they've been placed on file.

Okay. Thank you for indulging me in that. We will place those on file.

Oh, I I like getting the procedure right. Thank you for double checking it. So let's see here. With that said, I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda items. Does that sound correct to you, madam clerk? Yes. Alright. Well, then let's pull all the items that were laid on the table, to recommend approval. Let's pull all those back before us and, take them up in a single roll call vote. And just to be clear, I believe that is going to be items, two through 10 on, oh, not two through 10.

We yeah. Yeah. On the agenda this evening, items, one through 10, actually. All the committee meetings, minutes as well.

Okay. So an approval of items one through 10 and on adjournment. Councilor Davis? Councilor Mbaugh? Councilor Yuncanpin?

Yes.

Councilor Trezo? Yes. Councilor Scott? Yes, please. Those items are recommended to be approved, and we are adjourned.

Wonderful. Thank you, council Wheeler, for your attendance and for the other members of the public. I see here, thank you, captain Sheehan and captain D'Alovara from the police department and, of course, to all city staff that comes to support the council in this work. It is my hope that the administration will have settled out a little bit, and we'll be able to get on to the more substantive policy items and ordinances that are sitting in legislative matters box coming up here, if not at the February, then certainly starting in March. I know we're all eager to make a lot of progress together. Alright. Thank you, everybody. I will see you at the next city council.