Confirmation of Appointments and Personnel Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

Alright. Welcome everybody this evening to, this meeting of the city of Summerville City Council, committee on legislative matters. I'm JT Scott, your ward two counselor and your chair for legislative matters this session. We are meeting here on this Tuesday, May 19 at 06:03PM Pursuant chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting is being conducted via remote participation, and the video and audio recording of it will be posted to city's website shortly after the conclusion of the meeting. We I wanna thank everybody for joining us this evening on a delightful summer thunderstorm evening.

If you do hear delighted squeals outside, I promise that's just my kids losing their mind running around in the rain. To go ahead and begin, I know we are joined tonight by clerk Fisher Casiol. If you could start us off with a roll call to establish a quorum, please,

madam. Glad I can. Councilor Davis.

Here.

Hey. Councilor Baugh.

Who's that?

Councilor Ewen Kampen?

Here.

Councilor Strazo? Chair Scott?

Present.

Alright. With that, we

have four members here, so we do have a quorum.

Oh, wonderful. Wonderful. Our first two items are approval of minutes. We had two meetings in our in our last batch. Although, this does say April 5. I believe this is the approval of the meetings of May 5 and the approval of the minutes of the April 28, meeting. So a little bit of an error on the agenda here, but if we could, are there any discussion on those two sets of minutes? Alright. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and lay those on the table for, approval. And, yeah, there it is, May 5. Excellent. Alright. So, we will go ahead. It's just a scrivener's error. I'm pretty sure we don't need to amend anything.

We have two substantive items before us tonight. One is a, welcome update to our welcoming communities ordinance, and one is a discussion on the establishment of the rental registry and energy disclosure ordinance, which was, submitted by the previous administration, just prior to their conclusion. So we'll go ahead by picking up item number three first. That is ordinance two six zero five two two, posing an amendment to section two dash six to the code of ordinances, the welcoming community ordinance to further enhance civil rights protections in Somerville. Now, councilor Ewencampin, you were, I believe, lead sponsor on this.

And so if you'd like to give an introduction and sponsor any members of public to introduce the changes that you are proposing tonight, I give you the floor.

Thank you very much, mister chair. I I wanna just dig into this and hear from colleagues and from staff. But before we do so, I was hoping to sponsor a member of the public, Gideon Epstein, who's in the audience, who is counsel with the ACLU of Massachusetts, who aided us in the drafting of this, and have him give some very brief introductory remarks.

It sounds like a splendid idea to me. Madam Clark, Fisher Casial, could you, promote him up or unmute him so that he can give us a brief introduction?

I'm here.

Oh, alright. Already here. Well then, mister Epstein. Why don't you Thanks

so much.

Go ahead.

Yeah. Well, I appreciate, counselor for inviting me to give, some introductory remarks and to the other cosponsors of these amendments. I had the chance to address the full city council about a month ago, and one of the things I said at that meeting is that these amendments, represent some of the most consequential things that, local lawmakers can take at the municipal level, to safeguard immigrant immigrants' rights and more broadly the civil liberties of the broader community in Somerville. And I think, one particular area of these amendments that I wanna highlight, and it connects so much with, the other work that I do at the ACLU of Massachusetts is, these amendments requirement that city lawyers review, ongoing city contracts or new city contracts that come about and review existing city contracts when they come up for renewal. And in particular, you know, that area is so important right now because we are seeing municipal surveillance technology contracts.

For example, contracts between about 80 Massachusetts municipalities, Somerville not included, and a company like Flock Safety that we know, and we have clear evidence that, you know, they are directly contributing to civil immigration enforcement, whether that's providing data to ICE or providing, you know, license plate reader information that reflects, driver's location information, to other local law enforcement. And I I think it, you know, speaks to Somerville's values and leadership that Somerville's not engaged in this data sharing network that FLAC has going on like so many other municipalities are. But the language in the amendment in these amendments would, make sure that the actions that Summerville has taken to safeguard immigrants' rights in the past are now reflected in law, and, you know, we'll have thorough review. And, I think that, contract review provision, it's it's, you know, building on other provisions in these amendments that would more explicitly prevent, information sharing with federal immigration enforcement authorities and other law enforcement engaged in civil immigration enforcement efforts and would also, build on other provisions that safeguard safeguard Somerville residents' First Amendment rights, which are so often under attack, in today's day and age. So I just wanna thank, counselor Yuan Kampen again for your work on this on on these amendments, and look for looking forward to, you know, answering any questions that, members of the committee might have about these amendments drafting.

Alright. Thank you for that. And, madam clerk, you if could have the record reflect that we are joined by councilor Straso. Wonderful. So, councilor Ewencamp, and how would you like to to go through this? I've I've obviously reviewed this and have some, thoughts myself, but mostly quite laudatory. Did you want to step through this, item by item, change by change?

Mister Scherer, why don't I just, very big picture, kind of introduce what I see as the most substantive parts of this, which is basically two sections of the proposed amendments, and then I'm sure that staff and members will have their own thoughts. Does that sound good?

Sounds great. And then I will go to IGA and then to colleagues.

Excellent. Well, first of all, let me just emphasize that this was a very collaborative approach with call counselor link, counselor Hart, and with the administration. So thank thanks to all of them. So I just wanna draw everyone's attention first to the new section three. It's a bunch of red text in the draft.

And this is says role of city staff in law enforcement action. And it, you know, basically says, in plain language, no one from the city, unless they are required to do so by federal or state law, can assist, cooperate, or allow time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel, or other resources to be used to facilitate an operation by federal or out of state agencies seeking to arrest or otherwise penalize people for engaging in protected First Amendment rights or Massachusetts declared rights, including assembly petitioning speech. This is you know, file this under, like, ordinances that we never thought we'd have to file. But this is just saying we're we're not gonna participate in any of the federal overreach that we are, you know, all seeing with our own eyes. And the other kind of large substantive section is 13, and this is what mister Epstein was just referring to.

It has to do with reviewing contracts, grants, etcetera, and it requires the city solicitor's office to review these and to make sure that they do not conscript the city into violating the constitution, put simply. And so those are there there are other changes, and I'm I'm happy to get into the details on any of those. But these substantively are the two main sections of the ordinance that we're proposing amendments to. And I'm happy to, you know, open it up to staff, colleagues that have questions, thoughts.

Alright. Well, let me start by sending it to, Lihazan Raghdasi, representing the mayor's office here this evening, and then, obviously, happy to hear from our colleagues. Liaison Radasi.

Thank you, mister chair. I just wanted to thank the sponsors for introducing this and working alongside the administration to produce these amendments over several months, and make sure that the ordinance reflects the shared values of the city. And if it's alright with you, I was hoping to give director Nagel the, if if you're alright with it, the floor to talk about some of the work that Soya has been doing, and and share some of the steps that have been taken to implement the mayor's executive order, which this these amendments, are gen are generally reflect.

Alright. It sounds great. Always a big fan of director Theresa Nagel's work and out of her staff. So, director Theresa Nagel, please.

Thank you very much. And, through you, mister chair, starting with some of the things that we've been doing in compliance with the executive order that mayor Wilson signed earlier this year, we have been working with economic development and our law department to ensure that we can get out the necessary signage both for, businesses as well as for private property owners so that they can loudly and clearly say that they understand their rights and they understand that without a judicial warrant, ICE federal agents of any kind cannot violate and and trespass private property and that business owners also have the right to deny access into their business or organizations have the right to deny access to business within this idea of, like, Fourth Amendment places. We have also been continuing to provide know your rights trainings to the community, but have also now trained city staff on their rights and, very importantly, their responsibilities as city staff in Somerville. And within this, something that I really wanted to to highlight particularly within section e order number three is that we have been very clear with city staff that employee safety is paramount. And the guidance that we are providing is they need to comply with our current regulation, our ordinances, and the values that we have in the city.

And let's be quite frank, the law because it is still the law federally, state, and municipally. And also that we understand that if any employee feels threatened or fears for their safety, that they have to ensure their safety first and foremost. So really being very clear that every individual safety be that of our employees or be that of our community members, it supersedes requirements that we are putting forth through whether it be the the trainings that we are giving folks and the clarity of what the processes are if we are to have federal agents come in city property to conduct their operations, but that we would not expect for them to put their lives on the line or put themselves in harm's way, if not complying with the demands of these agents, where to put them or our residents at risk. In addition to this, we continue to answer questions and and work along with our wonderful police department to ensure that not only are we complying with the law and ensuring that there is safety and security in our communities, which also mean respecting civil liberties and rights and human rights, but that our community members know this and understand this.

And so we we continue to to try and serve as a bridge, a trusted bridge to help folks understand that when they see police on jackets or the gear that some of our federal agents tend to wear, that they should not conflate that with our local police. Yeah. I'll I'll keep it there and and brief and answer any questions that that anyone might have. Thank you.

Alright. Sounds good. Let's see. I'll start with councilor Mbah. Councilor Mbah, you are first up in mind.

Thank you, Cheer Scott. I just wanted to echo your sentiment in the beginning. I'm a big fan of, director Nager as well. Good to see you. I was I'm surprised that you're back. You know? I thought you should be taking a sick leave or something, but good to see you. No. This is and, also, I wanna thank councilor Yuen Kampen, you know, for leading this. I'm glad that, you know, mentioned, like, in the beginning when when like, sometimes it's always good to the fact that we have this con open communication is so helpful so we don't duplicate, like, effort.

So this has been really this has been great. I guess this is abs this is really nice, and I can see, like, you know, several provisions, you know, now expand, you know, protections around, like, data sharing, you know, ICE access to facilities and participation and all whatnot. I guess my my I I just wanna get more clarity in terms of, like, the kind of oversight. You know? Like, I just wanna make sure that we keep having honing in in terms of, like, oversight.

And so I guess what oversight or accountability and training mechanism again that, you know, I'm sure that spoke about that, but we'll be put again continually to ensure that employees and our officers consistently you see, I'm using keyword, you know, that is understand and follow, you know, kinda like this new requirements. Like because you can see that they've been optimized. But, again, there's been you know, some we had some loss in the book. But now that everything has been revised, like, how do what is that oversight mechanism, you know, that has been that you're planning to institute to create that accountability and training, you know, that will be put in place to ensure that, you know, city employees and our our officers consistently understand and follow these new requirements.

Fair question. I see, liaison Radasi would like to give an answer to that. Liaison Radasi?

Thank you, mister chair. Through you, I'll let, director Nagel speak a little bit more to the training, but, just did wanna flag. The provisions of this ordinance are consistent with our existing policies, and the mayor and the administration share a lot of the values that went into these amendments. So just wanted to highlight that. And and, again, this isn't, a divergence from past procedure or anything. We're very much reinforcing existing policies and positions that we've already had.

That's understandable. But, I think the question of what are the accountability mechanisms to ensure that, these policies get followed is a relevant one. I mean, there was just another story today about a local police department providing surveillance camera footage to ICE without against town policy. So, I think the question is still a relevant one. I see Jeff Bember would like to speak to that, and then I'll go to director Theresa Nick.

Chief Benford does not wanna speak to that.

Mister Chen, my apologies. I I would, I I would, defer to, director Nagel, and I I will follow her up. I know she was recognized, and I will follow her.

I I think until we actually have any civilian oversight in the city of Somerville, which is something we are still lacking, you are still the, primary oversight for the police department. I think it'd be relevant.

Yeah. I'm happy respond to it. I was just, out of courtesy. Her name was mentioned prior to mine, but I'm I'm happy to jump in. Thank you very much, for the question.

Greatly appreciate it. Certainly, for the police department, we've done a number of different things, to recognize did I lose? To recognize this value set and the importance of this ordinance and how not only are we police, but how we operate as a city. And there are a number of different things that we've done and put in place to ensure that we are responsive to not only our community, but to our department members, ensuring that they get the most important and up to date information, partnering and working with SOIA and other city partners to ensure that as Director Nagel so aptly mentioned, serving as a bridge where by virtue of the very discipline that we represent, there are natural barriers over time through policy and practice that has kept us separated from our community. So she's been a welcomed and very much appreciated partner in that work.

Within the police department, I have identified Deputy Chief Donovan who was unable to be here tonight. He is the point of contact at the executive level for ensuring that we're in compliance with all the provisions of this ordinance, as well as the different steps that we've taken within department to ensure that our officers are informed and what the expectations are for them under the law as well as under our rules. Additionally, newly appointed Captain De Oliveira in the Community Relations Division has been working closely with Sawyer and is really part of our operational lead and ensuring that the information and the expectations of executive management are really transcending down the organization to our operational practitioners and our police officers and frontline supervisors. Lastly, would mention the good counselor asked about training. We do in service training annually.

And as part of in service training, we revisit our welcoming ordinance annually to talk about the provisions and the expectations. We've put together helpful tips for our officers so that they have information in an expedited fashion if presented with a call for service. It's extremely difficult and not to get tunnel visioned on these calls. So we try and provide it at a high level so that it's immediately reflective and accessible for the officers and they have access to the information. And then lastly, I would mention our training documents that we share during in service, which occurs daily.

We've done this consistently for the last year and a half since this administration has taken office. We've used that as an opportunity and a quick opportunity to share updates and consistently remind officers again of the provision of the city ordinance as well as our department rules. So, I will pause there and not just at a high level. Those are some of the things that we've done internally to apply accountability and oversight, but also to ensure that our officers are getting access to the relevant information as they go about doing their work.

Alright. Councilor Mbah, is that, do you have any follow-up on that before I go to other follow ups on this question?

No, chair. I think I think the director also probably has some needed to substantiate. So I think no. But thank you, chief, for that. You know?

Alright. Councilor Strazo, is this, directed to the chief's response? No. Doing okay.

No, mister chair. Getting in line for for next question.

Great. Then I will I will then invite director Theresa Nagel to provide any additional context.

Yes. Thank you through you, mister chair. One of the most important ways that we are ensuring that there is accountability follow-up and that what we are doing is practicable is by ensuring that it is, in fact, able to be practiced. And part of that is providing very clear guidance to staff about what it is that they are supposed to do and what is just not part of their role. What is part not not part of their responsibility.

We have found this to be incredibly effective because, obviously, this is this can be so overwhelming, when we are talking about federal agents showing up in our city and taking our neighbors, our community members from us, and also risking them taking our staff. Like, this is all the same community, and it is something that is incredibly emotional. We're talking about people's lives here and their ability to remain within Somerville, and within The United States. And it because of the emotional nature of it, it is easy to get overwhelmed by what we're asking people to do. So we have ensured that the the procedures that we have when any event occurs are very clear and that the the majority of the responsibility lies on leadership and not on frontline staff who may themselves be at risk.

So that is one way that we are ensuring that that folks are able to follow with every single one of the the guidelines that are being put forth, whether it be, within our welcoming community ordinance or within any of the the different steps that we've taken, particularly since this new administration took office, this new federal administration took office. Additionally, I would add that we are we at SOIA are regularly available for trainings. We continue to provide trainings whether that be for staff. We've actually been adapting the original training to particular needs of particular groups of staff given the the sensitivity or type of work that they might do to really equip folks with the necessary tools. And we plan to be offering these regularly and just make ourselves available, to really adapt in whatever way is needed.

I think that oftentimes when we're thinking about accountability and oversight, it is easy to just look at, you know, is is there a body? Is there a person, that is ensuring that people are following the rules? And what I have seen happen time and time again in different organizations and in different context is that most of the attention goes to that and not in ensuring that these are rules that can be in fact followed, that are in line with the law, that are in line with our commitment and our values to our community, and that are in line with what we're reasonably asking of humans in situations of duress to act upon. That is where we have really focused the bulk of our work and are finding it to be quite fruitful. And I have to add on on a personal note, it has been so rewarding to be with my fellow colleagues and hear their, thought processes, their concerns because overwhelmingly, it's about how do we how do we show up.

And I I think that that's just also very important to recognize.

Alright. Thank you for that. Councilor Mbaugh, did you have any conclusion or, follow ups there?

No. Chairman Scott, I'm telling you, director Nager never disappoints me. You know, she went above and beyond. Thank you, director Nager.

Alright. Wonderful then.

And and chairman Scott, can I just take this moment to also appreciate Gideon X team as well for the work that he's put in, you know, just to say thank you, you know, for everything that, you know, is put into strengthen this ordinance?

Yeah. Wonderful. Of course. Counselor Estrasso, I believe you have the floor now.

Thank you. Are we ready for, well, ready to introduce a new thought on this? Are we ready to go? Let's do it. Alright.

And go. I I am interested in suggesting an amendment to section thirteen thirteen b two and including places of worship because as we know and as has known that, a lot of not only are members of our community afraid to show up to their places of business and their favorite restaurant, but also places of worship. And there are numerous cases of ICE targeting places of worship for that here throughout the nation, but closer. So, I think that makes sense to me. But I wanna hear from my from my colleagues on that.

Okay. If I

could just get a clarification. So in 13 b one, it's a protection against engaging, against, you know, targeting people for engaging activities protected by the First Amendment, which would include assembly and religion. I don't

see religion specifically. I see provision of food, medicine, clothing, shelter, transportation, health services, legal advice, representation by or under the direct supervision of an attorney, and it goes on to talk about that. But it does not mention houses of worship. And I know, that's why I'm asking, your thoughts on this, but I do think that's a valuable thing to include.

Right? Then I think, you know, I would why don't we defer to let's see. I see analyst Salisbury has a drafting thought about that, and then I'd, see if, attorney Epstein, had a thought about its inclusion. Or

Right. Because I know that it is a religion, and I know that, or or that religion and where that falls under first aid, which can, can be argued. Either way, please continue.

Analyst Salisbury.

Thank you, mister chair, for the record. Brennan Salisbury, legislative and policy analyst for the city council. I would say that the the there's no I don't think that there's a particular need to call that out here because these are about specific actions regardless of where they take place. And so the the location of them, I think, would actually limit this, including the specific location like houses of worship. Because as it stands, this is regardless of where these actions take place.

They are protected actions under this ordinance. And if we were to start adding in specific locations, we would it would behoove us to add in every location that we think would be appropriate to be covered by this. We could certainly do including at, you know, x place, but I think that the inclusion of a specific one and calling that out in particular actually does do us a disservice.

Alright. Councilor Davis, did you have something on this point in particular?

Mister chairman, my hand was raised just, to generally get in the queue, but I but since you asked, I I agree with Emma Salisbury. I'm I'm gonna gonna reference the Starbucks rule in in my list of points to make, but I think it applies here as well. Better not to say one thing because then it's interpreted that you include it elsewhere. Keep keep it more generalist would be my preferred approach.

Alright. Are there any other thoughts on that, consideration from counselor stress?

Yeah. And it's and I and, mister Chair, I'd like to hear, from Soya on this as well.

Alright. Director Theresa Nagel, your opinion's been requested here.

Absolutely. I for the record, I am not an an attorney. But in terms of the targeting of places of worship, yes, of course, not only are places of worship targets, but people's personal religions are target. I would say that because of the inclusion of the First Amendment in the first point, that is likely to to cover for all of this. And I would also add, not that we should be only focusing on, you know, what already preexists in at the state level, but with the state's executive order that explicitly calls out places of worship as places where, there there cannot be, these types of detentions, and where ICE should consider them places that are safe for our community, that we also have that additional backing.

So not to say, through you, mister chair, councilor Strezzo, that the point that you're not bringing up is isn't absolutely salient. Agree with you 100%. It just seems like it would already be covered under the first part.

Thank you, director for saying what I was trying to say much more eloquently. And I do see Solicitor Amara also has a hand raised. So since we're getting lawyer opinions, Solicitor Amara.

Well, I figured you might as well get one from a lawyer. Right? I agree with everything that's been said, and I question and would not wanna act on whether what negative implications it could have to do that and arguments that might be problematic. But I do believe that the behaviors are what we are targeting, and wherever they occur is where they are protected. And there is no question but that houses of worship, like, a whole host of places are being targeted and that are supposed to be safe and aren't.

But the ordinance goes really far substantively to protect people and their rights without calling into question going too far.

Alright. Thank you for that. Can I ask

a lot of, solicitor a question on that point or or for whoever wants to address it?

Sure, please.

Thank you. So I guess, you know, to to take the, you know, the the substantive intent here, the the spirit of council Chazo's, you know, thoughts, the, oops, where did we go? The the language in sorry. In 13 b one, you know, which is what has been cited here as it's you know, activities protected by the First Amendment or the cited articles of Massachusetts declaration of lights of rights. You know, if if I'm gonna if we're gonna quibble about the drafting, right, and we're say that that would, as as stated, include, you know, size of religion.

You know, the phrasing here says, in including assembly existing outside petitioning and speech. Right? And elsewhere in the document, we use including without limitation. But for the one place where we had said that and it's now deleted, which is gonna be a question I'm gonna have later. When I'm looking at a document, I always worry that if we say including that that that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as an as an exhaustive list, and and that is therefore excluding anything other than the things that follow the word including.

So if I had the pen here, I would write the words without limitation in between including and assembly. So I I guess my question would be, was you know, is is that intentionally not the way it's it's phrased, or is there, you know, is there and if so, why? And if not, then could we just add that to make sure it's, you know, clear that we're including the concerns that were raised by council treasurer and anything else that might be, deemed to be to fall under the the First Amendment or the referenced sections of the Massachusetts declaration of rights?

Wonderful question. See, analyst Salisbury, I saw your hand shoot up there. Maybe you have a drafting comment.

Mister chair, you know that I do. Count mister chair, through you to councilor Davis, I will admit that the reason that it is struck in one place and not in another is simply because we did not touch the complaints section, but I would be inclined to strike without limitation there in keeping with the drafting manual that was produced, which does very clearly state that our intent when using the word including is a non exhaustive list. That document is, of course, something that you, as a body, have accepted and have stated is is part of your intent when drafting ordinances. So my inclination would be not to add without limitation in because that would be in conflict with other ordinances that are that have been drafted, but rather to remove without limitation from subsection f.

Alright. I love a good style guide discussion. And, fortunately, councilor Davis, the pen is in fact in your hand. We are the legislative matters committee. Solicitor, if you if you don't mind, would you like to hear solicitor tomorrow, or would

you I'd like to just respond, if I if I may, to to that as chair. And and, you know, you know, I'll start by, you know, expressing my, again, my gratitude to to analyst Salisbury for his work in helping us to find best best practices for drafting. As I'm sure he will recall, I specifically objected to to that point and expressed my disagreement with it. And and and and I believe also stated my intent to continue advocating for drafting with clarity, which I think this this discussion quite perfectly crystallizes the the need for for that type of a drafting approach. You know?

And so if if if an offshoot of this is that we need to go back to the drafting guide and and have that conversation again, I'm happy to engage in that discussion. But as as the point has been raised and as as the language, I think, one could objectively say, you know, has been interpreted in a way that that raised the concern that something is not included in that the the the ordinance as it stands does use the phrase elsewhere. I'm inclined and and as it is also on my list of things to raise, like, why did you take that out in in another section? I I think it's more clear with that. I think it the the reader better understands what we're talking about.

And, you know, I I guess I would defer it to to attorney Amara as to how a court might interpret that, but I don't I I suspect that a court might look more to judicial precedent, you know, the jurisprudence that's out there rather than our style guide as as the as the deciding factor. Though, I I I suspect it it may be informative as to legislative intent, but, you know, that's not necessarily I I wouldn't necessarily wanna hang a hat on that, mister Chairs, is, I guess, what I'm what I'm trying to say.

Alright. I guess I will go to Solicitor Amara, and then, we'll return to councilor Strazo who led this off. Solicitor Mara?

I wish I could say that in my experience, every piece of legislation has been consistent throughout in its use of terms. I cannot. This is no exception, and it's not uncommon particularly when you're working off one draft and focusing on changes. I also believe that in terms of clarity, conciseness is the trend. And I have absolutely no question in my mind about our ability to adequately defend including is not exclusive.

Because Because if you mean exclusive, you better say exclusive. Right? Because you will always have an argument when people wanna broaden something. So if you do not want it broader, you make it perfectly clear that it's not. And I agree with, legislative liaison Salisbury that this is in keeping with the more current way of drafting. And I do not think there is any problem with it the way it is drafted in a perfect world. I also don't have a problem taking it out later, but we really were trying not to go beyond what the changes were.

Alright. Well, I guess that'll be, will of the committee question for a little bit later. Councilor Strazo, did you have anything further?

Thank you, mister chair, and thank you for all the the thoughts on this. I I love the dialogue. With with what counselor Davis says, I support that, and I I would be interested. And and I I hear what everyone's saying, and I've been listening intently. But I would feel comfortable including that. What, what counselor Davis is saying.

Oh, okay. Alright. Then, opening this up to other colleagues. Do other colleagues have questions, thoughts, concerns, or amendments to consider?

Mister, I mean, I I have other unrelated actually.

You can I'm sure you have a list.

Directly related to the first one's directly related to this, but to this concept. Are.

If you are

If it's my turn to go, then I will I I will. You have it.

May really quick, Mister chair, are you would you, with your brain process here, would you prefer amendments happen now, or would you rather just have the general conversation and then hit amendments after? What is?

I'd I'd like to conclude the discussion, and then based on a totality discussion, we can consider amendments, based on the whole context of it. So I'd I'd like to hear what councilor Davis has to say.

I hear you. And, through you to councilor Davis, bookmark that conversation we just had.

Councilor Davis, you do have the floor, sir.

Alright. Thank you, mister chair. I am making note of that section as we speak. So my first comment was this exact same point in section, e four, role of police in immigration enforcement. And the question was, why are we moving removing the words without limitation?

I think I've I've heard the answer that is a a style decision, a a a a a made to to align with the the aforementioned style guide on a point with which I do not agree. So, yeah, will of the committee, will of the council as to which approach you wanna take. Just which whatever we do, we ought to be consistent, which we are currently not. So I'll I'll leave that for future, deliberation. In that same along the same lines, and, again, citing the the Starbucks rule, espresso unias exclusive alteris or something along those lines.

The the addition in both section e let's see. Where did it come with first? E three and then e four, the concept of accept as required by federal law or a court order. I didn't see that added anywhere else, and I I didn't see that we said that anywhere else. And I note that we do have and I specifically remember having this discussion in the in the the the last major overhaul of this that that I might lead in 2019 or something, whatever year that was, that would have been '19 oh, whatever it was.

The the existence of section I to you know, which isn't isn't exactly on point, but it's pretty much on point. It pretty much says the same thing, I think. So my my question the drafting question was, you know, why in in e three and four add the accept as required by federal law or court order and not add it to every other section? Do we do we mean it as in in those sections, but we don't mean that to apply to the other sections? Are we somehow to to to my eye, that that creates some ambiguity as as to its relationship as to the applicability of section I to the entire ordinance.

And so I just wanna understand if there was a and and there may be a really good reason for it. I just if so, I wanna understand what that is. So to councilor Yankapan, to attorney Mara, to mister Epstein, whoever can address that.

Mister chair, I think I would defer to liaison Salisbury. I mean, I think the answer is this is where we made the most substantive changes, but I I don't have a good answer for a a substantive reason of why to have it here and not elsewhere.

Mister chair, with due respect to councilor Yuan Kappen, I don't actually have an answer for this because I do believe that this was added at the insistence of the administration.

You are muted, mister chair.

Alright. Well, we do have representatives of administration. Would anybody like to fess up? Let's see. Liaison Raddas.

Thank you, mister chair. My understanding is that because these directly pertain to civil immigration immigration enforcement, we just wanted to be really clear about the limitations that exist if it's required by federal law or court order so that we weren't leading members of the public that might be looking at the ordinance and think that this would do something that it actually cannot do.

Alright. So it sounds like it's for excessive clarity here, councilor Davis.

So if I may, mister chair, I mean, I I guess I I go back to my initial question. Is there a concern that that section I, doesn't accomplish this? And and if so, is there disagreement that adding what is purported to be clarity actually might create create ambiguity because there's now questions to whether that concept applies to every other section where it's not mentioned.

Analyst Salisbury.

Mister chair, if I may answer half of that question, I cannot speak to, I, and its applicability and whether this goes further than that or if it is redundant, I will leave that to the city attorney if necessary. But I will say that I if it is redundant, I am inclined to agree consistent with my penchant for conciseness, that it should not be included.

Alright. Does anybody wanna make a case for arguing why councilor Davis shall not strike this? Alright. Councilor Davis, I think you've gotten as much answer as you're gonna get on this.

Yeah. So, mister chairman, if I may, you know, I I think, like, think there's a fair argument that could be made that that I maybe isn't isn't as clear as it might be. And and if if there is a concern in, you know, in administration, you know, as to this concept in these two places, I assume they they also would agree that to whatever extent something is required by federal law or a court order that that anywhere else in in the document, it is know, it says we're not gonna do it, like, that that same caveat would would apply. You know, perhaps there's a an improvement that could be made to I so that it does, you know, so it does apply. I mean, it's one of the I mean, objectively, like, it is what it is.

Right? And we we I think I think, at least, as one of the the key drafters one of the main drafters of of the the existing ordinance, certainly, it was my intent that if something is required by federal law or a court order, we'll do it. It's we're not saying we're not gonna do that. That was never you know, it was never sort of my intent to to to have this ordinance convey that. So I I I very much agree.

I just think it's a drafting point. And so, you know, I I I think it might be, and I don't know what your intent was, mister chair, in terms of moving this forward, but, you know, this seems like it might be an opportunity to if we were to leave this a committee to maybe follow-up and and see if we can, a, drill down a little bit to what what the rationale was and, b, maybe improve eyes so that it it might, capture that intent without, unnecessarily creating unintended ambiguity, if that makes sense. But, again, I'll yeah. To my colleagues.

Yeah. I mean, I I again, before we get into amendments, I kinda wanna get the totality of the discussion. If, you know, people are in broad agreement here and there are simply a few drafting, amendments we made here, I certainly don't have a problem, you know, considering those amendments and approving it this evening, and moving it to the council with a recommendation. That said, if there is a lot of work that's that felt that needs to be done, certainly happy to send it back and bring it back for our next, legislative matters meeting, understanding, of course, that our legislative matter schedule is going to be, let's say, abbreviated due to the upcoming budget season and resets. Yeah.

But Mister Cher, I if if I may, I I don't disagree. I think that's a perfectly reasonable take. And and given that we do have a week and couple days before our next council meeting, I'd also if if if you'd like or if if our colleagues would like, you I'd be happy to have have those conversations in the interim. And if anything comes up between now and then, you know, that is consistent with this discussion. Right?

We wouldn't certainly we certainly wouldn't suggest that we should adopt anything that we haven't fully discussed here in in committee. But, you know, if there was language that that is consistent with discussion that might be in order with you know, it's something that we could, you know, we could present in in a week or a couple days. I've I've said, oh, I think you know, I've shared my thoughts on this one. If you want, I have one more point, and then I'll just shut up, and and we can we can have the full list. I'm also happy to shut up now and hold that last point as you wish.

Well, I I love getting the full list. I also, just wanna say that I think that sounds like it could be a very appropriate approach, in the in the interregnum between here and our next council meeting to take the feedback that's been considered and ensure that consistent with the discussion made here that language changes get made and then resubmitted. But, I do see we've got council Ewencampin, and then, boy, we've got a bunch of lawyers wanting to jump in here. So, council Ewencampin, I will give you privilege of place as an actual member of this committee.

Mister chair, first of all, I just want to say that I love this. I am, you know, it's funny. Like, we worked on this for a long time, and I always knew that this was gonna come to committee, and we were going to hear a lot of really important drafting feedback. And I just take a great amount of pleasure from this. This the first ordinance I put in this term, so I'm enjoying this greatly.

And I thank councilor Davis. You know, I think I feel like the argument for including it, as was said, is I think an unusually large segment of the public will be reading this section. Right? I think this is, like, very live in people's minds, and I think that is why in our discussions, it wound up there, right, to to be clear because nonlawyers are gonna be reading this, and we don't wanna give them the wrong impression. I'm totally compelled by the argument of yeah.

But from a legal drafting perspective, which is what this document actually is, it potentially creates some ambiguity, and I'm not at all, you know, wedded to to keeping it there. I I think there's an argument for keeping it there, but, you know, as has been mentioned, councilor Davis kind of led the drafting of this initial ordinance and is extremely familiar with it in totality. And I think that perspective is really valuable. And I'll also just say as a as a tag here, I'd also have maybe a proposal for how to address the concerns raised by councilor Strezzo, which is just to include in the list of activities that's enumerated in one there and to include religious expression. That's something that that mister Epstein had had suggested to me.

I don't I don't know if it's strictly legally necessary. I I don't think that it is. As we discussed, it's probably covered. But if we're going to be listing things, I very much understand the the desire to include religious activities and would be happy to include it in that way.

Yeah. I think that was what I was getting at, originally was that since this is covered by first, First Amendment activity, that probably is where it would need to go. Alright. Well, I saw a whole host of lawyers, although I only see one now. So Amara, and then I will go to, counsel. Solicitor Amara?

Yes. I think, Jay from my office was going to say pretty much the same thing I am is. I don't think either of us are opposed to, if there are suggested revisions that are non really substantive that are more stylistic, that those be, discussed out of this meeting and worked out so that we don't do them on the fly.

I love saving everybody's time. Alright. Let's see here. Councilor Strezo, did you have a follow-up?

Yes. On that, I do support, counselor Ewen Kampen's suggestion of adding that. I think that's it's also helpful for the general public if we do have people afraid of going to to mass and worried about an ICE raid in there. That I think I think that's good for our constituents.

Alright. Councilor Davis.

Thank you, mister chair. I I on that point, would have no objection to that addition. I guess I I will note just because I think it's important to to to say this when when the issue comes up. And we said this we repeated this often several years ago when we were working on the the underlying ordinance, which is that, you know, nothing that we can do here, you know, should be interpreted as as as, you know, making people feel, you know, completely safe or protected from the types of enforcement actions we've seen from the federal government. As we know, we there's there's only so much we could do, and, you know, it's it's it's part of why we, you know, moved away, and this was not the city's sort of initiations.

The ACLU's recommendation time was to sort of move it away from sanctuary, to sort of the walk in community because, you know, we don't wanna give folks the sort of a false impression that we want folks to to just fully understand the the the lay of the land and and that while, you know, we can well, well, we can decide what we what, you know, city resources will be used for and and in what manner that we decide. Yeah. That that doesn't necessarily you know, we don't have any legal authority to stop the federal government from doing various things. And so just worth saying, you know, for for better or worse, you can agree or disagree with that, and I know some folks do are out there, but it that is what it is. Mister chair, if I may just I'll I'll throw my last point out there.

It's another drafting point, and and I think I I should note that the fact that, you know, largely my comments here are are more sort of drafting nets than real big substantive points is it should should certainly be taken as a credit and and to councilor Kempen and to everyone who who put work into this. You know, I I'm in full agreement on on the substance. I'm curious as to why we removed the severability clause, and I'd love to hear the rationale for that. So that's the very last sentence in in Jay.

Alright. I saw analyst Salisbury very quick on the draw here. Analyst Salisbury.

Counselor, am mister chair, through you to councilor Davis, I am so excited to answer this. That is because there is a global severability clause in our code of ordinances, actually. I don't recall the section off the top of my head, but it is in chapter one of the code of ordinances, and it does cover every single section of the code of ordinances. And so at every opportunity, when we are making amendments to the code of ordinances, you will see me removing severability clauses.

Miss chair, through you, to analyst Salisbury, thank you, for that. And I I understand the the rationale, and and I don't necessarily disagree with that. I just wanna note to my colleagues that we very much had this discussion when we were drafting this ordinance, and and we're very much aware that that that that provision existed and decided to keep it here anyways. Sort of on the same philosophy of that I think was just made for including the, you know, acceptance required by Fred Alon in a few sections here and not the other. So, you know, it sort of puts me on the opposite side of the argument, not that I'm making the argument.

I just sort of pointed out the the discussion at the time. So it's it it will require me to agree that that we should change the decision we made a few years ago. And and I'm not I'm not I'm not opposed to doing that, but I'm not quite there yet. So I'll I'll I'll leave it at that for the moment, mister chair.

Thank you, counsel Davis. As always, my esteem for you as an attorney, includes your ability to argue both sides in a given

Noting that, of course, I'm not acting as an attorney in this role in any way, shape, or form.

Of course. Celeste Amar, you still have your hand up. Was it relevant to this point?

No. I apologize. I just failed to lower it.

Okay. Alright. Well, let's see here then. I guess I'm the only one who hasn't spoken yet, but I can see councilor Mbaugh. And councilor Yuan Kempen have injuries. So, councilor Mbaugh.

Thank you, chairman Scott. You know, I think the more I hear about, like, all this, you know, like, how to, like, you know, tighten the knots, you know, I the one big thing that I'm, you know, looking at this the the I mean, there's, like, a few stuff that, you know, wasn't really, like, a stickler. But if you look at, like, you know, section f, g, and h, you know, it rely heavily, you know, on internal enforcement and reporting by the administration and police department. So we could as well amend these sections, you know, to establish an independent, you know, civilian oversight body, you know, and also an annual public hearings, you know, before the city council. Like, there there could be a number of stuff that we can add, you know, in mandatory, you know, audits for all ICE interactions and timelines for investigating complaints and all whatnot.

Alright. So if I'm hearing you correct, you're you're thinking there's, room for the addition of more, text that, explicitly creates a structure for, oversight and reporting.

Yes. And, also, disciplinary consequences for employees who valid, you know, the ordinance. You know, that could be you know, I mean, if we are going down, you know, this space, we may as well just kinda, like, really put in stuff that, you know, would would actually make it have, you know, more more more pop more, like, more more more beef, you know, to the bone.

Mister Sheikh, on this point, do you mind if I respond?

Please, counselor Yemenkamp.

So through you, thank you very much to my colleague. I I just wanna note a lot of work and thought went into the enforcement section based on pretty extensive conversations internally. Happy to go into the details, but I would just say that this was basically copied and pasted from our surveillance oversight ordinance and our facial recognition, both of which I consider to be very successful and have kind of threaded this needle around collective bargaining issues and, how violations of ordinance can can be addressed. So I'm not particularly in favor of opening this can of worms, but, obviously, it's up to the will of the committee.

Alright. Yeah. I'd say for myself, I think it's an interesting thought, but one that I would, given given the work and where this is at right now, I might encourage, as we are doing here, revisiting the ordinance, to maybe that seems like a larger set of creation in terms of oversight capacity that might wanna be, might be better addressed in a separate revision. But, counselor Mbah, you you still have

a Yes. No. No. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Appreciate, you know, the insight. Thank you, chairsco, for indulging me. And then another thing also that I was thinking also when I was reading this ordinance, I just realized, like, you know, multiple sections, you know, contain, like, really very broad exceptions such as, like, except as required by federal law or or a court order. If you look at that, like, e three, you know, section e three, e four, I think, has it. I think e nine, and I think also e 11.

And, you know, so this provision, you know, clarified that only criminal judicial warrant you know, I think we can amend we I mean, if we like, this is just the last one I'm thinking about. We can amend it to clarify that only criminal judicial warrant signed by a federal or state judge may authorize, you know, corporation. So that way, it explicitly state that, you know, it it kinda, like, just make it, like, one one stop shop. But, again, it's not like, honestly, it's not a stickler, but I would just like, the more you look at it, the more you think you know, say, okay. It could be this way.

Lost your audio, though, canceling. Oh,

can you hear me okay?

Maybe am I the only one who lost that audio?

I can hear, counselor Mbaugh.

One moment. I'm sorry. I'm I'm, pardon me. My my speaker died. It was not you, sir. Please.

No. No. No. No worries. No worries. You know, again, this is just about, like, just closing loophole, but I I mean, like, I also don't want us to kinda, like, get down also, like you know, I just it's just a thought. You know? If it's not of a if not, that too much of a big deal, that's you know, I mean, I'm happy to also pass.

Alright. Councilor Ewen Campan, I saw you had your hand up first after that.

Mister Scheher, I I have a separate question for solicitor Amara when we're done with this.

Alright. Yeah. I guess, councilor, I definitely, let me just say I'm personally very sympathetic to that, set of concerns, especially with regard to oversight. And what I would say is perhaps we perhaps you and I and counselor Ewen Camp and, Gord, you and I can work on, a set of further amendments and strengthening to, as as part of a ushering in more civilian oversight capacity. I think, just given the tightness of our our timeline and how right now we're trying to get something done before, before we go into a legislative recess, I might say let's, let's punt that to later, but, I'm very much in in agreement with you in terms of the intent.

Thank you.

Alright. Let's see. I saw counselor Ewan Kempen had a separate set of questions. Counselor Trezo, is this direction updated? Or

Mine is on this. I don't know who that was speaking.

Yes. I I was also gonna say

Alright. Then I see councilor and councilor Davis on the direct point we were just addressing, and then we will return to councilor you and Kim.

Okay. Well, the it's always great to to examine the structure and and really put that forward. We've had a lot of active snacks on when that has happened in the past. And why I think that's great to suggest, I I couldn't and wouldn't support that where it stands right now, where this is. I think it's a slippery slope.

I I think what a lot of what's what this already has is is pretty is already good. And, we're we're we're we're we're talking about amendments to something that already exists. And and any potential structure in place of civilian oversight, etcetera, is assuming that that a structure a strong structure is already in place to accept that, enact that, and continue to enact that for decades to come, which is still highly uncertain. So at this point, I would not be willing to support that.

Alright. Councilor Davis?

Thank you, sir. Sorry. I couldn't find the, unmute button for a minute. Yeah. So just briefly on the on the the language that I had raised earlier about acceptance required by federal law or court order, councilor Bo's point question sort of sparked a question in in my head, and and this is probably something that we could deal with in the context of potentially an improvement to section I, but in in the spirit of wanting to make sure we talk about all of the issues, I I wanted to raise this here.

In looking at the definition of administrative warrant, which is a defined term in this document, And I think this, mister chairs, would be, I guess, projected through you to the city attorney. Would let me rather than question, let me just sort of raise my concern and and ask for thoughts. You know, as we're thinking about language and and and perhaps using this federal law court order as a starting point, Is there would I you know, I have a concern that that maybe a court order because we're we're very specific about defining an administrative warrant and and the handling of administrative warrants, etcetera. And then but then we use this concept of a court order, which seems really all the respect is just a bit a lot more loosey goosey than sort of the, you know, the the the other language we've used. And I would worry that that maybe administrative warrant could be considered a court order.

I think one one one might read it that way or perhaps misread it that way. So I wanted to get the city attorney's thought on that and and and at least as it as it relates to potentially rework we we work in section I to make sure that this concept is is more clear and applies throughout the document. Might we be more precise to, you know, to effectively exclude administrative warrant where where it is our intent to do that.

Alright. You know, councilor Davis, can I hand you the chair for a moment? I'm having some technical difficulties, with my audio, so I will, allow you to to follow-up on that, and, I'll return shortly.

Well, I've met my question through you, the chair to the city attorney and vice chair stressor. I assume you can take the chair. Sorry.

Vice chair Strazer. My apologies.

Would you like me to try to answer?

Through through the chair, I would I would value your thoughts.

With all due respect, I'm having a hard time following your question without seeing it in writing. It's been very clear through everything we've tried to do on this topic, be it in here and every place else, know your rights trainings. There's a clear distinction between an administrative warrant and a judicial warrant or a judicial order. An administrative order does not come from a court. And so that I don't see it as being confusing.

But I think if we were to have more discussion on the topic, I would prefer to take it up with some of the other things because we've been very clear in everything we've done, executive orders, what we've seen others, surrounding cities do has been administrative versus judicial.

Okay. Through through the chair. Thank you, attorney Amar. So I I guess alright. So your your your point would be that the the words so the the phrase that I'm concerned about what was or court order in in that new language that was added in in in section e three and four and and whether that could be misinterpreted as including administrative warrants.

But your point is that the definition of administrative warrant specifically says that it's it's something that is issued by an executive officer, not or or or by by an officer, not a a judicial sorry, judicial officer. In fact, we said a court order is by definition by that definition, not a court order. So okay. I I I'm satisfied with that in in in addressing my concern and and as we talk about whether there's whether to roll that concept from from the the new proposed language in in e three and four into a new section I. That's that's what you know, we will we will that will inform the the drafting process as we if if we do present something just so folks understand what that might look like.

Thank you, madam chair.

If I may, madam chair, I have a question for solicitor Amara based on a conversation we were having a while ago about severability. Seeing no objection through the chair. I maybe I just missed it. Is it the solicitor's opinion that there's a global severability clause? And this is I'm just interested in this, you know, in all the ordinances we pass, you know, from the perspective of, do do we just never need to include that? Is that consistent with the solicitor's, opinion?

You know I'm going to have a hard time with the use of the word never, but I will defer to liaison Salisbury. My understanding is that you do have that general clause in the ordinances, and it covers everything in the ordinances. So we do not need it. It would be redundant, in my opinion. Would it be harmful? No. But in an effort to try to create clarity going forward and because we have these global provisions to make it clear that we don't need to use them when we're making amendments, I I do agree with liaison Salisbury that it's not needed.

Okay. That that's all I needed to hear. Thank you very much.

Alright. Thank you. My apologies for that, minor disruption. Vice chair, where were we in the flow of discussion? Is there somebody still waiting?

Mister chair, I I think the floor is clear, and we're eager to hear your thoughts.

Alright. So just to summarize the conversation here to this point in terms of unless there's something more that needs to be, discussed on that severability provision. I see the piece about removing the without limitation language in g four, the question as to why an e three and four, including an exemption when it's already cited in I, and then the suggestion that councilor Yuncampo made to include a mention of exercise of religious freedom in one a in the in the First Amendment section. Sorry. Not of one a, but of b one 13 b one.

So I think those are the outstanding things that we need to have, some revisitation before, I guess, a clean resubmittal for our next council meeting. Is there anything else, in terms of the will of the council that we seriously wanna have addressed before this comes back to us in a clean resubmission for our next council?

Master chair.

Councilor Strezo. Did we

might've had a a hiccup with the interwebs. Did we discuss the councilor councilor Davis' proposed proposed language

changes?

Council Trezza, what I'm referring to right now is the process by which, councilor Davis would work with the drafters and legal department to, handle all of those between now and our next meeting so that a new submission could be provided, which would address all of these concerns rather than have us do it on the fly this evening.

Okay. So your so your plan is then your plan is to have this presented at the next are you planning to discharge us from committee tonight? Work on it and then proposals and then a discharge from committee with with amendments to be presented in next city council meeting, mister chair?

This would not, strictly speaking, having have to be just, discharged without recommendation. It would be new submission of clean text, would be my would be my intention. But that's just my intention. Councilor Davis?

Thank you, mister chair. Happy to defer to to the will of of my colleagues. You know, I I in my thought, it it might be you know, to the extent that there is agreement among the committee, it it might be helpful to particularly if we are going to take up a new submission, you know, the night it first appears, it might be helpful to to have a motion from the committee at least on the substance, you know, so that there's clarity as to what whether we whether that was what we intended or not. I think, certainly, I I would I would very much support if if councilor Grazio intended to make the motion to amend section e 13 b one to add religious expression as as was noted. I think I'm gonna keep my mouth shut as it relates to the without limitation other than to say, I think it does appear one other place.

And if we're gonna if we're gonna not use it, we should not use it use it. So I might I might move now since I have the floor to that the the our the city council's legislative legislative policy analyst work with a law department in a in in revising the document to to remove any other reference any other use of without limitations so that it's consistent across the document. And I'll stop there, and then, of course, want to recognize for the the other motion. But let's take up one at a time. Would assume you wanna do, mister Sharon.

So I'll put that first motion on the floor just to which is to to remove the remaining use of without limitation in in any anywhere else that appears in this document, I think, is only once. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So, before before entertaining the motion, I guess my inclination would be rather to, I I haven't heard a lot of disagreement here in the committee. I think the tone and direction from the conversation is clear, and I think the largest points of disagreement are generally style guide disagreements between yourself and the policy analyst. So my inclination would be rather than a series of specific, directives or amendments, simply a broad directive Yes. For the policy analyst and law department to collaborate with council, to provide a drafted update for the next committee or for the next council meeting. But if you feel you want to get into the weeds here, we certainly can.

Mister chair, I completely appreciate your, your eye towards efficiency. Given that I I by my count, I think we've just got two. I I I I'm inclined to to leave my the motion that I've made on floor. It's this one, and then I think there's one other, and then then there'll be no question as to whether the whether the document conforms with with with this discussion. As it has been a lengthy one, it'd save our colleagues the the chore of watching the whole thing to make sure that they did what we asked them to.

God bless. Alright then. The motion here before from councilor Davis is Yeah. Requesting that the policy analyst and law department, go through to remove, the without limitation languages in all the places where it appears on document as it is already covered in section

it it should it just leave out the last part because

Oh, okay. Sorry.

We've been advised that we've been advised that we don't need it, and it's better without it. And while I still disagree, it just Alright.

Removing the without limitation language for a clean reason, though. On that motion, I hesitate. Counsel, analyst Salisbury.

Mister chair, just as a procedural note, and for the sake of of your sanity and everyone else's, else's, I do just want to note that it would be my preference to receive specific directions as I will be out of office starting on Friday of this week and will not be present for the city council meeting. And so a general directive will likely not be able to be accomplished by me in the very short amount of time that I have remaining in the office.

That is I believe that this motion is a temptation to violate Salisbury.

I was just verifying that that that would be my preference. That's all.

Great. Colleagues, is there any further discussion on this motion? Seeing none, let's call the roll on that motion, please.

Alright. This is roll call on the motion. Councilor Davis? Yes. Councilor Mbaugh?

Councilor Ewen Kempen?

Yes.

Councilor Strazo?

Yes.

Chair Scott?

Yes, please.

Alright. With that, that is all votes in the affirmative.

Alright. And then I believe the other motion that was there was one from counselor Ewen Kampen to, include, exercise religious freedom in the 13 b one clause. Is that correct, John?

Was to include religious expression Religious expression.

Thank you.

After assembly.

Alright. Then I will frame that in the, in a request to the analyst and, law department to include that language in a clean resubmission, to the council rather than amending the document before us. So, on that motion, is there any further discussion? Alright. Seeing none, let's call the roll on that.

Alright. The second motion for the, religious expression language, councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Mbaugh?

Yes.

Councilor Ewen Kampen?

Yes.

Councilor Strozzo?

Yes.

Chair Scott?

Yes.

Alright. Again, that is all votes in the affirmative as well.

Councilor Davis, do I see another motion from you?

Thank you, mister chair. Perhaps not a motion, but I just wanna make sure that I ask while we're here in in open session if, you know, colleagues have strong feelings one way or the other on the removal of the the two specific added instances of acceptance required by federal law or order in favor of and perhaps a revision to be drafted revision to section I to to maybe better capture that that concept. I'm I'm happy to work with with council on that point, but that would be the only person the the only person with which either of us could could have a conversation once this meeting closes. So I wanna make sure that we're you know, that I hear others if if there are other opinions on it that I hear it here.

Yep. That sounds good. I certainly don't have a need to be included in that conversation. Understand the intention clearly. And if the goal is to clarify the drafting of section I to be able to remove the duplicative pieces in e three and four. That's fine by me. Let's see. Are there, thoughts on that? Councilor Mbaugh?

Thank you, Chesscott. Councilor David, I guess, is it are you following up from my my initial comment about, you know, the noticing, you know, like, the the broad exceptions, you know, that uses such as except as required by federal law or a court order. Is that and we can okay. That's good. Because

Mister mister chair.

Yeah. Oh, sure.

And Thank you. Since since since the councilor addressed me directly, I'm through you, mister chair, to councilor Bah. No. I'm following up on on my initial question my initial point that I raised, prior to your question on the same point, that I was concerned that the inclusion of those two those two, provisions, in those two sections, but not elsewhere, created ambiguity, and perhaps it would be better to address it, more broadly through the existing section I. And so that would be my intent if if we decide that's the right thing to do, you know, having heard the the the argument here, I wanna redo the document more carefully.

And as as as the attorney noted, maybe not do this on the fly, but, and then, you know, whatever this whatever suggestion is made, I I you know, either I or councilor can't could could explain that to the full council, when this comes up,

at the next meeting.

So it does it's not directly, but it is related there, counselor.

Okay. Thank you. So and then we can move, you know, I mean, to clarify, like you know, we can amend this provision now to clarify that all a criminal judicial warrant signed by a federal or state judge may authorize corporation. That way, we can close all this other loophole because it would explicitly state that ICE detainers, administrative warrants, notices to appear, and civil immigration subpoenas are insufficient grounds for detention or information sharing facilities or cooperation. So, you know, if we really wanna close the loop loopholes that could otherwise allow voluntary collaboration with federal immigration enforcement, we need to clearly, you know, like, state our intent to

I I think the point is well taken and can be, could be covered in this, but open to hearing discussion on it. Liaison Radasi.

Thank you, mister chair. Sorry. I don't wanna add more complication to this. I just really as, city attorney Amara said, prefer not to start doing amendments on the fly for something like this and really make sure that we're being thoughtful about how we're addressing this. So I'm happy to work with or the lot lot work with the law department and whoever from the committee would wanna have this conversation, but just wanna make sure that we're not starting to throw around language without, full consideration.

Yeah. Thank you, liaison. That is exactly what I'm trying to do is get this conversation offline so they could be handled before our next council. Councilor Davis?

Yeah. Mister chair, I I I I appreciate your effort to sort of bring this conversation to a close. And I guess on that point, I I would point out to through you to the good counsel at large that that there is a significant language in the document right now that addresses administrative warrants. I I'm not sure that the language that we're talking about here is really relevant to the what I sounds to me is the issue that you're concerned about. I I think that to my eye, the document addresses the concerns that I think I'm hearing because there is, as I said, there is a full definition of administrative warrants, and there are multiple sections that specifically address those.

So I'm know, it's not my intent to revise section I as in the way the provisions that we just discussed is my not not my intent in any way to address the concern that that that you raised there because I think the document already addresses that. I guess I'll I'll stop there, mister chair.

Yeah. On on that point, chairman Scott, that's why I see I was quiet when councilor Davis, his the first amendment that he made and the city attorney said, there's other document. I I mean, I still defer to, like, councilor you and Camden because they said these documents are copy and paste. So, councilor Davis just made an amendment to one section, and there's duplicative, which is completely different from the other section that he said I I'm not sure. I'm that's why I'm still reading.

I'm trying to, like I have, like, two different stuff open in front of me. I'm not sure, like, what how that the the amendment that you made in the beginning, I was still unclear, like, how that is and how that isn't be repeated, you know, in other sections.

Councilor Davis, perhaps you can, help councilor Mbah.

Thank you, mister chair.

Yeah.

The the proposed change to language that I've suggested would remove the addition of the the two proposed additions of acceptance required by federal law or court order and and more clearly state that concept in section I so that it applies to the entirety of the document where wherever it would, by by its nature, apply. That's about all I could say, mister chair. I think if there's if there's more to it than beyond than that, then I think we probably need to keep the same committee and and have that discussion, but I don't think there is. I I I think the document does what we're trying to do other than the things that we've specifically taken votes on and then that one change. So my my my preference, mister chair, if you're is to, you know, let keep this one in committee for a a future placing on file once we've taken a vote on the or if you wanted to have a more a cleaner and a deferred legislative policy analysis, we could refer without a recommendation such that it could be done away with next Thursday alongside a a a new revision, but that's an administrative preference that I don't really have a strong opinion on.

Just as a procedural matter, I'd be inclined, rather than discharging without recommendation, which might lead to some confusion about whether or not we are proposing amendments to the existing text. I'd rather keep this in committee, request a clean resubmittal of the next council meeting, and then we can place this on file in a future meeting. Counselor Mbah and then counselor Strauss.

Sorry, chairman Scott. I think my hand I don't know. I my hand should have been down. I'm just reading some stuff here. Sorry.

Okay. Great. Councilor Strezza. Thank you.

On councilor Davis' suggestions, the original suggestions of these two language changes and having our legislative analyst revise that and move forward, I would I, support that. I would like to forward with that. And I think, again, that this is a modification of an already existing ordinance that has been planned, thought out, considered, researched, etcetera. And I think it's in a good place where it is at this very second. I respect my colleagues' opinions and thoughts on this, but that is where I stand.

Alright. So I believe we have made, all the appropriate motions and given the directives to to the policy analyst and law department. There was one final outstanding one, which was, a motion from, councilor Davis, I believe, for for for considering removal of the exceptions in section e three and four and considering any needed revision to section I to accommodate that. Is that correct, Councilor Davis?

Mr. Chair, I believe that the intent, the discussion that we just had with in terms of proposing a new section I, you know, it wasn't my intent to make a motion on that. It was more just to hear the hear the discussion here, certainly. If you prefer the Duffy, I I will be taking on that. I'm happy to make that motion, but I think that this one probably falls a little more in the well, let's let's let's work on it and and include that submission and then explain.

Because I think, as I said, I I I'm actually you know, there's a universe where once I look at this this specific point now hearing the answers to my questions, maybe maybe we take a different route. And so my my intent is to put forward what I what what I think, you know, in collaboration with counseling camp and everyone else is the best response, then explain that, to folks next Thursday based on our discussion here.

That sounds like a great, solution, councilor Davis. Then I propose we stop beating the horse and, place, keep this item in committee and move on. Are there any further discussion on the item before us before I do that? Alright. Well, then seeing that in the context of the discussion, the motions have been made, I look forward to receiving a clean draft at our next council meeting, which hopefully, we can take up and explain to our colleagues and vote on.

Alright. With that done, let's move on to item number four of our agenda this evening. That's item number two five one eight two two. This is requesting ordainment of an amendment to chapter seven of the code of ordinances to establish a rental registry and energy disclosure. Now in full transparency, this is an item that the council had discussed for a very long time in terms of the creation of a rental registry.

This was work that had been undertaken by the previous administration. And, then on the very perhaps the very last meeting, before going on the way out the door, this was submitted. It has been sitting in our box since, and there has been, I have certainly been engaged in some conversations with the administration about, how they would like to proceed here. I know there is still a desire expressed by many members of the committee and the council at large to move forward with a rental registry ordinance. So I have placed on the agenda this evening so that we can hear from the administration as to, their, feelings and intention regarding this and to have a conversation with the committee about how we would like to proceed as a legislative body.

So with that said, I will recognize liaison Radasi, who was a member of both previous administration and this one. Liaison Radasi.

Thank you, mister chair. So just wanted to say that the administration is still fully in support of this policy and would like to move forward with it. However, we are not, at this time, ready to discuss tonight. We recognize a lot of the work that's been done over the past few years, including by the rental registry working group and also counselors and staffers who were previously part of these discussions. So we are currently working to identify which department will be overseeing and enforcing the elements of the rental registry as this work involves collaboration and coordination of multiple departments.

And we'll have more qual clarity around the outstanding pieces after the budget process, which will outline changes in the current departmental structures. And this is really just to make sure that as we're moving this forward and doing this right, that some one department has ownership and is able to enforce the provisions of this ordinance. So at this time, the administration would like to request that any conversation on this wait until after the reorganization that will be happening as part of the budget process.

Alright. I'm curious to hear my colleague's thoughts to that particular response. I will point out that, at at my request, there was a convening of city staff, and, I believe councilor Syed was also present for that discussion where the status of the rental registry ordinance that had been submitted was discussed, and that was on April 9. So now this has been before us as a council for approximately six months and presumably before the administration as well. And, so it is the administration's position that there is, not enough information to proceed at this point.

Mister chair, I think it's it's, a need to dedicate resources by centralizing this in one department to be able to lead this effort, which we are not able to do at this time until the reorganization happens.

Alright. Councilor Davis.

Thank you, mister chair. So, you know, thank you for putting this on the agenda. You and I spoke about this, and and I I very much agree that it was it's appropriate to have this year because I know there is a lot of interest in the public to move this forward. And I think just in the interest of transparency, you know, my my opinion was that it it makes you know, there's there's no reason not to at least have checkpoint here. So let folks know that we haven't forgot about it.

The administration hasn't forgot about it, but it's just not at a place where we can move forward yet. This is you you mentioned that this was submitted at the end of the last administration. Of course, as you know, as chair, this was the the the first iteration of the rental registry was submitted, I believe, during the cartoon administration. This goes back many, many, many, many years. And and there's for for whatever reason, this this concept seems to be one that it's sort of put forward and then, oh, ho.

Wait a minute. You know, it's complicated. We don't know we can do it right. And and I will say, I appreciate the desire to make sure we can get it right and that we can actually enforce it. And while I'm frustrated that we're here literally years later and and still talking about it, I I I don't disagree with the administration's, you know, request that, you know, we need to to we need to have a plan to enforce it.

And and if anyone thinks that that isn't necessary, I I only refer you to the vacant property ordinance as as an example of what happens when an administration isn't isn't on board with moving forward with something and doesn't have a way to enforce it. Yeah. Of course. Look forward to that, actually, at the end of end of the law that's enforced someday. In the meantime, though, I you know, all due respect to administration, I I I agree. I understand. I'm I'm appreciative that they are looking at this. I do understand that there's going to be some reorganization changes, and it and it it strikes me as perfectly logical that they get that figured out before we plow forward with this too much. So while I You mean

not me.

Restate my frustration and and as well as my my my significant interest in moving this forward. I I trust that the administration also shares that that that view, and I look forward to working with them on on making it a thing once we've got all the right pieces in place. Thank you, mister chair.

Well, thank you for that, councilor Davis. And I appreciate your reference of the vacant property ordinance. I could also reference the truck skirt ordinance and the leaf blower ordinance and several others that this council has passed during our shared tenure here, which have never been enforced in many cases simply because the administration disagreed with the policy, preference being expressed by the city council. And so that place I'll

take the accession to the sidewall ordinance, but we can have that discussion over a glass of whiskey sometime.

That sounds great.

I

I will say that we have I have observed that there is there has been a clear path of the city council. When the city council is advocating for a policy position, the executive of the city disagrees with, the passing of an ordinance is mooted by the fact that the administration devotes zero resources to actually implementing that policy or enforcing that ordinance. And while that is frustrating, I think it would it is a mistake, philosophically speaking, to then abdicate our role in terms of pushing these policy, proposals and implementing ordinances. Because at the point at which the public asks, why hasn't someone does something? I would much rather be the person who can say, well, as I, as a legislator, have created the laws, have created the framework, and have, with the assent of my colleagues, established a law.

And the fact that that law is not being enforced is entirely a function of the executive of the mayor because the only accountability in those situations, given that we lack a lawyer and are not in the practice of, applying for a writ of mandamus, the only recourse we are told is electoral. So rather than abdicate our responsibility as legislators, I do feel it is relevant, to pass ordinances with however broad a mandate they are and then, delegate to the executive the executive's responsibility for implementing those laws, for enforcing those laws. And whether that enforcement sits within one department or two departments, three departments, or a collaboration of departments, or in fact, an entirely new department, that's something that the administration, the executive, in our current form of government has broad discretion in how to implement, and, in fact, the entire budgetary discretion in how to do so. So, my inclination when it comes to these things is not to simply wait until we have convinced the executive, convinced the mayor and mayor staff that our policy goals are laudable or supportable, but rather to express the will of the council and then rely on our expectation as a society that the executive will faithfully execute the laws that are passed.

Now that's my personal preference, although I understand, the need to defer to collaboration when it comes to making things happen. But I do I do believe that is an important important piece of our function as legislators. So, I am happy to, if it is the will of this committee, to, place this once more on the sideboard and wait and see what June brings us or July or August, that's that's fine. But I will say as one member and as the chair, it will be my inclination, to bring this up at the beginning of our next legislative session, in August or after the recess, I should say, in August, in September to make this conversation move forward. And if the administration continues to not believe in the implementation of it or not have a path forward in how to implement it, I will focus our discussions, on the desired policy outcomes and in drafting the legislation in the broadest possible way to implement those policy outcomes and then rely upon the executive to either implement the will of the council and the laws as faithfully passed should be faithfully executed or to simply not, either by veto or by, let's say, executive intransigence.

So that's that's my thought on councilor Davis and colleagues. I'm open to hearing anybody else's thoughts on how to proceed on an item that has been sitting fallow for far too long. Well, I neither hear a clamor of agreement nor disagreement. Does anybody else have any further comment on it?

Well, mister chair, just do what we do at HCDE and leave it in committee. See you in August.

Well, there we have it. Hearing a motion to leave this item in committee.

There we have it.

I guess I'll see you all in August.

Mister chair, we will all see each other far earlier than that.

Then with that item being left in committee and, hopefully, my clear intention, communicated, That, I believe, brings us to the end of our items this evening. Counsel, are you in camping?

Mister chair, just don't wanna miss the opportunity to say I I appreciate the urgency you're placing on this. This is something I very strongly support have supported for many years. Obviously, understand that, you know, the the administration has to do some work to get their ducks in a row to take this up. But I I agree with you wholeheartedly that, you know, it is part of our job is to make sure that the urgency is understood and that this is prioritized. I appreciate you doing that.

Thank you, councilor Yuncamp, and I appreciate that. Councilor Mbaugh.

Yeah. Thank you, Chirskot. You know? You know, councilor Yuncamp is always a tough act to follow. First, this was even my item that I submitted many years ago. There was even a press release by the Kyrgyzstan administration on that. You know? So, know, I'm just like, so many things that you know, sometimes you don't even know where something is until you see you find it again somewhere. You're like, wow. At least I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward and really harmony on it.

That's all. I just wanted to just, you know, appreciate you for, you know, being, you know, like, the the steady hawk, you know, on this policy conversation and the urgency that we need. Because this is also in line, not just on affordability goals, climate goals. Like, it it tied to so many things that we've been trying to address. So it's not like one piece.

This is it's about, you know, making sure that, you know, people that have houses here that are dilapidated, and the the there's all these pieces that if they it will help them also constrain them. Then it's not like we also have grants, you know, that we can also, like, incentivize people to actually bring their houses up to court. It's not, you know, on to complain. So they oh, it's like a win win. I don't understand what the problem is. And then people will be exempted, like because remember when we're having this conversation, people say, oh, wait. I don't want you able to come to my house. I'm like, if you live in your house, you'll be exempt. You're taking care of your house because you're there. We know that you take care of your tenants.

So it's not you know? So this is kinda like a an a small I don't think that this is, a heavy lift to to carry this through. This is, a win win for everybody. So, no, I just wanna say thank you. I I mean, I cancel you and got me going. I was just like, okay. I'm just gonna just chill and and the hour is late, and let's just kinda, like, let let's just flow. But I I guess I just wanna say thank you for doing this and for continue to, you know, put your thumb on the scale on our relevant policy, you know, discussion that we need.

Thank you, councilor Mbaugh. I think there might be a theme for the second half of this year of 2026 where I bring back all the dead ordinances that have been that have been left fallow. And I also appreciate the reference as a hawk. I do not have a proper keening call or cry to to accept that. But, yeah, I'm sure the the Hawks of Union Square also are cheering in agreement right now.

So with that said, we do have two items for approval. That's the minutes of May 5 and April 28, and then a motion to adjourn as well. So let's go ahead. I will make the motion to adjourn and, the motion to approve those two items, and I believe we can take a roll call vote to, approve all three of those at once.

That we can. Councilor Davis. Yes. Councilor Mbaugh. Councilor Mbaugh, you're muted.

Oh, yes.

Sorry. Sorry. Councilor Yunkenpen. Yes. Councilor Strazo. Yes. Chair Scott?

Yes.

Alright. With that, those minutes are approved. It is 07:53, and we are adjourned.

Alright. Thank you everybody for your attention and effort this evening, including all city staff, and, we'll see you shortly. Meeting is done. You.