Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I'm Ben Wheeler. I use he, him pronouns. I am the counselor at large, a counselor at large, and the finance committee chair. It is 6 p.m. on the dot, and I'd like to call to order the Tuesday, July 7th, 2026 meeting of the finance committee of the Summerville City Council. This meeting of a city council committee will be conducted via remote participation following Chapter 2 of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Acts of 2025. We'll post an audio-video recording and a comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Somerville website and local cable access government channels. We are joined by City Clerk Madeline Letellier. Clerk Letellier, could you please call the roll to establish quorum?

This is roll call, Councilor Link.

Here.

Councilor Strezzo. Present. Councilor Hart. Here. Councilor Scott. Present. Councillor Wheeler.

Here.

With all councillors present, we have quorum.

Thank you. We'll be taking up our eight-item agenda in the order posted. And as a general note, if I pronounce anyone's name wrong or get your title wrong or use the wrong pronouns for you, please don't hesitate to interrupt me. I want to get it right. Okay, so first committee meeting, committee minutes. We have minutes from a whole bunch of budget hearing and budget season committee meetings to approve. Let's take up items one through seven together. So I will read those. Item 1, 26-0943, approval of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting of May 26th, 2026. Item 2, 26-1142, approval of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting of June 9th, 2026. Item 3, 26-1143, approval of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting of June 10th, 2026. Item 4, 26-1144, approval of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting of June 15th, 2026. Item 5, 26-1145, approval of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting of June 16th, 2026. Item 6, 26-1146, approval of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting of June 17th, 2026. And Item 7, 26-1149, approval of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting of the whole meeting, Finance Committee of the whole meeting on June 23rd, 2026. Any discussion on these items? Seeing no discussion, these items are laid on the table to recommend approval at the end of the meeting. With thanks to the clerk's team for putting these minutes together. And that brings us to the only substantive item on our agenda, item 826-0378, requesting approval to accept and expend a $231,635 grant with no new match required from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to the Police Department for a body-worn camera program. So this is an item that we have discussed a whole bunch of different times. We've gotten some updated materials and heard communications from some city staff between the last Finance Committee meeting and this one, much of that in the General Council meeting. I wanted to just first check, I see that we have Chief Schumann-Benford. I know we also have Intergovernmental Affairs Director, I made it Najam Williams. Director Benford and Director Najam Williams, do either of you have anything to add that we have not already discussed in committee or in the council on this? No pressure.

MR. CHAIR, THROUGH THE CHAIR, NOTHING TO ADD, AND I WILL DEFER TO DIRECTOR NAJEM WILLIAMS FOR THE COMMENT, IF ANY. THANK YOU, CHIEF. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, LEANDRA NAJEM WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I WOULD SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T HAVE MUCH ADDITIONAL TO ADD HERE. I KNOW THAT MAYOR SPOKE TO THIS ITEM ON THE 25th, IF MY MEMORY IS Still correct. I believe that's correct. We're still in the haze of many, many of budget council meetings. So forgive me, but on this 25th, so the ask is still what was communicated in that memo and in his remarks that this item being discharged from the Finance Committee for deliberation option by the city council and just echoing again the administration's positioning that we are happy to call a special meeting in July to address this item and handle any other items related to the volume on the Canberra grants while the grant is still viable. I'm happy to answer any questions along with Chief Benford of the committee.

Thank you so much. I feel like there are a lot of different sort of factual things that we have discussed that are relevant here. I don't feel like it necessarily makes sense for me to go down a big list of them, but if we're discussing this and they feel relevant, I might ask to pause to sort of refer to some of those. And I also know there was a related surveillance technology impact report item that was discharged from the Legislative Matters Committee without a recommendation that will be on the agenda for Thursday's council meeting. So just having that stuff on the table, so to speak. Okay, members of the committee, any discussion or questions about this item? Councilor Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just note that in addition to the discharge items, there has been a new version submitted of those items as well. by the mayor, I think this is the third one, and it will be on our agenda in the regular order.

Thank you. Councillor Scott, I was watching some of that meeting, and I know Councillor Davis had brought up some concerns about the thoroughness of the content of the Surveillance Technology Impact Report. Just for my understanding, is the new version, as far as you know, is that what It changes, or are there other aspects that are being changed?

In my view, it does not resolve the issues that Councillor Davis raised, but Director Najum-Williams, I'm sure, can go more to motive than I can.

Thank you, Councillor. Director Najum-Williams?

Mr. Chair, I don't speak for Councillor Davis, but the administration believes that we need to be more responsive So the concerns that were raised in the discussion last week around the technology-specific surveillance policy for environmental damage and the surveillance environment. But if there are any questions, we are happy to revisit them. But I think that at this stage, the specificity of us was to have that more clearly with the language of the MLA that was reasonably appropriate.

And I'm sorry to, I don't mean to interrupt you, Director Nigel Williams, just in terms of a technical comment. I have no idea if this is an issue on my end, but the audio when you were speaking sounds a little muddled in that kind of digital artifact way, sometimes when something's not coming through quite clearly. And I think I got most of what you said, but I didn't want to Didn't want to let that go by without, without a comment. I don't really have any suggestion for what to do about it. Sorry.

Same issue on my end.

Okay. Thank you. Council link. Um, okay. Uh, members of the committee, other, other comments or suggestions. Um, I also entertaining motions, uh, for recommendation, not recommendation, uh,

I don't think anything has changed for the finance committee.

Okay. Well, not knowing if there's any sort of informal protocol around a chair moving to discharge an item. I'd be interested to know members of the committee's thoughts about discharging this item without a recommendation today. Councilor Link?

I maintain the same position that I had last time in that I think there's not really great grounds to... I'll start over. I don't believe that we should have discharged. I don't believe that with all due respect to my colleagues in legislative matters, I don't believe discharging before the process was complete was the correct thing to do. And I think that I am not interested in You know, we talked a little bit before about we didn't want to say the words like ramming something through, but I think it's an accurate description at this point. If we're just going to say that we're going to discharge everything about this without recommendation so we can talk about it all in two days. Before there's been a public hearing and honestly with not much time to review and ask questions, it doesn't seem like we're doing our jobs if we're just going to let this all go straight through. I understand the position of the administration. um however uh i think that there's a lot of information that we just haven't um properly discussed um at either the legislative matters level or at um you know as a full council and it just does not seem like the right thing to be doing thank you castle link counselor scott uh thank you mr chair

It is clearly the administration's desire to discharge this item without a recommendation. I don't think that's the job of the committee. I think the job of the committee is to make recommendation. So if you're going to entertain any motion tonight, I think as last time, it should simply be a motion to recommend approval and see what our colleagues think. I want to appreciate Councilor Link's frustration. Because, again, it's very clearly the opinion of the chair of legislative matters that this is not ready for prime time. However, if the administration would like a vote on this, I suppose they can have their vote. And I recommend beginning with unless it is your intention to keep this item in committee until the fall. Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Scott. Counselor Hart.

Thank you, Chair. Speaking to the financial implications of this grant, I don't feel comfortable recommending approval because of the expenses. Even though we have the grant to cover the technology, it would still require additional expenses for the 2% raise. And so given our budget constraints that we've just been through, and the, you know, difficult choices that had to be made, I don't feel comfortable from, you know, the Finance Committee recommending approval. Certainly.

Thank you, Councillor Hart. Not seeing other hands, my own perspective is very similar to what you just said eloquently, Councillor Hart. The total by my little summary math from the latest summary memo that we got is that the ongoing year-to-year cost would be $446,000 total, of which about $215,000 is in the 2% salary bump. 117, I believe, if I'm remembering correctly, is in the additional position. I think the body-worn camera policy that's in the Superior Officer Union MOA is a huge improvement over the previous version. And I think that's something that we should be proud of. I think there's a lot there that would be good. if we were to be able to implement body-worn cameras. And I think, in my mind, it's just a money barrier right now. This has been a tremendously difficult financial year. There's a lot of things that we sacrificed Every department in the city made sacrifices. And I think that it's just not the right time to commit to indefinite years and years of nearly half a million dollars a year. So that is my view as well. I am entertaining motions to recommend not approval. Counselor Scott?

Just to make it very simple, sir, I will move to recommend approval. That way, your vote is in alignment with how you feel about the item. If the vote does not prevail, then the item is discharged by being recommended not to be approved.

Thank you for the help with that clarity. I guess that is a little simpler. OK. I've been doing a little reviewing of the procedural rules. Right now, I am entertaining discussion about this motion. I would also entertain a motion for the previous question, which would have us do the vote right away. I believe this is the right procedure. Councillor Link?

On the motion, I agree that we should vote to approve with my intention to reject. We were told that we don't have... When it comes to interventionists at schools, we don't have two nickels to rub together. And I think that we clearly... If we don't have the money, we don't have the money. And I think the other... The other piece for me is that something that is expensive and has a clear and provable value is worth considering. I think we know we do not have a civilian oversight body. We know that to get one that actually has teeth, so it's a meaningful body, we have to negotiate contracts. We don't have any of the things that we actually need. I'm for body worn cameras, but I am not for body worn cameras with the current parameters. So I would like to vote.

Thank you, Councillor Link. I'm not seeing any other hands. Councillor Strezzo.

I'm going to weigh in. As I've said, I first... because we have been discussing this for at this point, what, five months now since this grant has come forward. So this has been a lot of conversations and meetings and executive sessions on this. And also a lot of thought processes even before this with the civilian oversight for all that some of us were here for. numerous years ago. I also feel that whatever the decision is, that a decision has to be made and however you feel about that is fair and I respect that. And I am going to circle back and remind everyone that we are holding to 81,000 constituents in our city. and however we personally feel about police or et cetera, that it is our constituents and their safety and their day-to-day lives and how it impacts them. And with that, we know that with the Civilian Oversight Board and with other steps that we know that body worn cameras can be helpful and have ever been a wrongful death or anything happen. As I think that it provides a transparency, body worn cameras provide a transparency to our community, healing. And again, just centering on transparency. This has been an ongoing conversation for some of the counselors who have been in our city for a while on this. This isn't just a new conversation or a new thought processes. And the values of our community, of course, are very important. But I want to send us back to the fact that we are beholden to our constituents, all of them. And the I think that just, as I've said before, I think that just whatever the process is, yay, nay, whatever, needs to be made. I don't... This is a grant, and it's a time-sensitive grant and all this. And I... I want to hear, Mr. Chair, you put forward a motion that this be discharged from committee. Is that correct? Was that a motion you made?

I was just entertaining motions any which way, but there is a motion on the floor from Councillor Scott to recommend approval of this item.

I think that... it would be fine to just recommend to discharge from committee. So, and of course, I suppose that if it just stays in committee, then I'm going to keep listening to what you all on this committee think on this, but I think it would be perhaps to just a better solution is to just discharge from committee as entirely and put it before the entire council for that vote instead of recommend for approval.

Thank you, Councillor Strezzo. Councillor Link.

Thanks, Chair. Can I just second the motion and we can vote?

Absolutely, I believe we don't need a second, but a second is no problem.

I think there's a need for a second, but Mr. Chair, so what does the clerk say about A second motion.

Well, I guess if... Oh, no, I think there's no procedural question. A second is not necessary.

No, it's not a second on the promotion. That's not what I mean. I mean, a second motion in addition to recommend for approval, recommending it being discharged from committee. I think we... Of course, if it's not discharge from committee, then it just essentially dies that no decision is made either way.

Well, I think what is possible here is if you or any other member of the committee wanted to sort of challenge that maybe what we don't want to do next is vote on approval of this item, I think you could... call the question, call for the previous question on this. We'll have a roll call vote on whether or not to take the vote on approval. If we do choose to take the vote on approval, then we'll take the vote on approval. If we don't choose to take the vote on approval, then I think we can entertain other motions. I've done a little bit of more research about this procedure. Is that something that you wish to move or shall we continue discussion?

Most of the counselors in this room have said that they want to keep it.

Chair, may I just step in here?

Please, clerk, go ahead. Clerk, you have the floor.

I'm not sure if I'm, and apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying, but calling the question stops the debate, and we have to vote on the motion on the floor currently. So it would be Councillor Scott's motion to recommend approval. So that is what's on the floor.

My understanding is slightly different from... That is procedurally correct according to Robert's rules.

So calling the question does not allow you to introduce a second motion when one is currently on the floor. We have to address that. To achieve what you would like to achieve, though, we could do similarly what happened in a previous meeting. You can take a roll call vote on this item. Someone can ask to... reconsider the vote we have to take a roll call on that to see if it passes or not and then we can someone can make another motion to discharge without recommendation or discharge to not approve whatever you choose but

My reading of Robert's rules and the city council rules are, Councilor Scott, I'm seeing, I'm getting the sense that you have a procedural point, comment to make about this.

But you have an actual city clerk here to explain the procedures.

Councilor Strezzer, I appreciate that. I'm just reminding the whole committee, I have the floor right now. Councilor Scott, do you have a procedural comment on this?

Yes, Mr. Chair, if you're willing to entertain it.

I certainly am.

What the clerk has said is certainly the custom is for somebody to simply call the question in the practice and past practice of the city council. that is a prompt to the chair to call for the roll call vote. However, that is not a binding motion or instruction. That is simply something that as the chair, you are allowed to make motions yourself. You are also at any point allowed to conclude discussion on the matter and call it to a roll call vote. So Councilor Link's request to call the question was a request to you as the chair to call for a roll call vote. However, according to rule 16 of the city council a motion has been made and the question is under debate before the city council no other motion is uh shall be entertained except for a series of them, one of which is a motion for the previous question. That's a mechanism by which members of the committee can force the chair's hand to end discussion. And a motion for the previous question recalls a simple roll call vote, as you said, at the moment with no discussion about whether or not to call for a roll call vote on the question itself.

So- Thank you, I agree with that interpretation.

Great.

Okay. One bit I wasn't quite clear on is, Councillor Link, was it your intention to call the previous question?

I do not believe I said that, but I would happily do that now.

Okay. There's a motion to call the previous question. Clerk, could you please take a roll call vote on calling the previous question, ending debate, and moving forward with a roll call vote on approval?

Sure, and this is roll call, Councillor Link.

No. Hold on, I have met- I'm calling the previous question on should we do a vote on approval? Sorry. No, wait, sorry.

So roll call on the previous question, Councillor Link.

I think there may be a point of order question from some members of the committee. I apologize, Clerk, if you would pause. Councillor Strezza, do you have a question of procedure?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just quickly call to repeat back what specifically we are voting on, yes or no.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I should be making that more clear. We are just voting on whether we should stop debate on this. and move forward with a roll call vote on approval. So this is not about approval. This is about whether we should stop debate on this and move forward with a roll call vote on approval. Councillor Scott, do you have a procedural question as well? Oh, okay.

Sorry.

It's not a hand. Thank you. I apologize for interrupting you, Clerk. Please proceed with the roll call vote. This is roll call.

Councillor Link.

Yes.

Councillor Scherzo.

Yes.

Councillor Hart. Yes. Councillor Scott.

Yes.

Councillor Wheeler.

Yes.

Okay. So you've all voted to end debate and take a roll call on the motion for approval on agenda item eight. Councillor Link. No. Councillor Schrezo.

Sure. Yes.

Councillor Hart.

No.

Councillor Scott. No. Councillor Wheeler.

No.

With only one counselor in favor, this item fails. It'll be discharged with the recommendation to not approve.

Thank you, everyone, and I appreciate your patience on the procedural aspect of that as well, as well as all the points people made about the substance of this weighty issue. That brings us to the end of tonight's agenda. Do I hear a motion to recommend approval of the items on the table? Those are all minutes items, and then to adjourn. I see Councillor Link is recommending approval of the items on the table and then to adjourn. Could the clerk please, if it's necessary, read the agenda item numbers of the items up for recommendation. If it's not, don't. And call the roll on recommending approval of those items in adjournment.

Roll call on approval for agenda items one to seven and on adjournment. Councillor Link.

Yes.

Councillor Schreiber. Yes. Councillor Hart. Yes. Councillor Scott? Yes. Councillor Wheeler?

Yes.

Those items are accepted and we are adjourned.

Thank you all. Have a good night.