Regular City Council Meeting

A quorum of the City Council being present, I wanted to call tonight's May 18th regular meeting of the Cambridge City Council to order. The first order of business is a roll call of members present.

Councilor Al-Zubi, present. Vice Mayor Azeem. Abston, Councilor Flaherty, present. Councilor McGovern, absent. Councilor Nolan, present. Councilor Simmons, present. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, present. present, Councilor Zusy, present, Mayor Siddiqui, present, you have seven members recorded and two recorded as absent.

For our rules, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance of Abel and pause for a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Per Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, adopted by Massachusetts General Court and approved by the Governor, the City is authorized to use remote participation at meetings. In addition to having members of the Council participate remotely, we've set up Zoom teleconference for public comment. You can also view the meeting via the city's open meeting portal or on the city's cable channel 22. To speak during public comment, you must sign up at www.cambridgema.gov slash public comment.

You can also email written comments for the record to the city clerk at cityclerk at cambridgema.gov. We welcome your participation and you can sign up until 6 p.m. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records this meeting and makes it available to the public for future viewing. In addition, third parties may also be audio and video recording this meeting. We'll now go to public comment. Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 20G. and City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once you finish speaking, the next speaker will be called. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time Thank you so much for joining us. Each speaker will have two minutes. We'll go ahead to public comment.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Our first speaker is John Hawkinson, followed by Young Kim, Alex Marthews, then Siobhan McDonough. John, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good evening, Councilors. John Hawkinson. As always, I try to address you only on matters of form or rules. And tonight, that is COF 202673, the rules package on your agenda as calendar on unfinished business number six. I'm troubled by the process here. The rules package proposes some quite radical changes to the form of city council meetings, like ending them at 9 p.m., which were not aired at the government operations meeting on January 29th. The point of the committee process is to allow the council and the public to participate in suggestions, not to bring them in from left field on a council agenda item that was not even published on time at last week's meeting. It was omitted from the Thursday agenda packet and not made available until Friday, so it was not even ripe for discussion last week under the open meeting law. Regardless, I'm troubled by the idea of taking the process used for committee meetings A fake two-hour limit that is so regularly extended it offers zero predictive value to members of the public and staff about the length of meetings. Indeed, it is more honored in the breach. I'm troubled that it's offered as a model for regular meetings of the council. On the other hand, the suggestion does have merit, if not the process used to get there.

A former city clerk suggested that Cambridge did it backwards, that there should be a time limit on business meetings at the council, but no time limit on committees where the real work should happen. Perhaps that's right, perhaps it's not. I am further troubled by the lack of an attempt to tackle the problem of public comment. Public comment is not a vote. It is not a popularity contest. It is an opportunity for people to be heard. But when that time is reduced beneath two minutes, all but the most expert and prepared people have trouble articulating anything beyond a me too. And of course, a me too type statement is not good input to the policymaking process. A poll you take at public comment reflects the efforts that the issue organizers have taken to turn people out, not the underlying merits of popularity of an issue. Instead, I would like to see you experiment with ways to shift public comment on divisive issues away from regular business meetings and into committee meetings. getting that balance right is going to be hard but the Newton Charter gives you the flexibility to do it you're going to make mistakes but don't let that stop you you need to experiment and try and fail a few times before you get it right But you don't appear to be attempting to make that attempt. Please work on that.

At this point, I think Councilor Flaherty's suggestion to do this as a committee of the whole makes the most sense. There hasn't been sufficient airing. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Young Kim. Young, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Young Kim, 17 Norris Street. First, on CMA number nine, the appropriation request for the Project Breast Summer Yeats grant I want to thank generous Cantabrians and other caring friends, including East Cambridge Saving Bank, who support the Health Team Food for Free raised $8,142 in this year's Walk for Hunger. This summer, each grant demonstrates the power of community support for food insecure neighbors. Second, I respectfully urge the City Council to table tonight's borrowing and appropriation votes on calendar items number 7 through 18 until the Finance Committee formally review CMA number 14 from the April 27th

City Council Agenda Concerning Project Level Capital Funding Visibility and Reconciliation as expressly contemplated by POR 2026-38 prior to additional capital appropriation. To date, that review has not occurred. Additional details are contained in my May 15th letter to the Council. Also, unlike last year's Financial Action Agenda, Tonight, the agenda contains neither Finance Committee's report nor an overarching fiscal year 27 public investment framework tying these borrowing items together.

proceeding together tonight without resolving these two issues risks undermining both the council's own policy order process and the broader oversight responsibilities reflected in calendar number five and six concerning the proposed city council public changes, including language recognizing committee responsibility for monitoring implementation of council policies. I strongly support the proposed.

Thank you. Young, your time has expired. You can please email the remainder. Thank you.

Can I wrap up one sentence? So you can email us the remainder. Thank you.

Thank you.

No, Young, your time is up. Sorry, we have many speakers.

Our next speaker is Alex Matthews. For everyone, if your time runs out, please send us your comments to citycouncil at cambridgema.gov. Alex, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Hi, my name is Alex Matthews. I am the co-chair of Digital Forth, and you all know how We and other civil liberties folks feel about the shot spotter system. And you've heard from me before on it. So tonight, you're not going to hear directly from me. I have a voice recording of a testimony of a Cambridge resident on the topic of ShotSpotter. I'm going to play it and I'm going to give you a translation as I go along. It's not coming through well on the microphone and that's okay. I can send it to you, but this is the translation. My name is Angela, and I speak today for the families of Cambridge who live in fear. I am one of those people. I live and work in Cambridge.

I have a mixed status family and I fear for my situation every day. Our City Council never voted to approve the ShotSpotter system, yet its microphones continue to listen. For our immigrant communities, many with uncertain immigration status, This secret surveillance isn't abstract. It is a real threat. Essential workers, neighbors who build this city, deserve to know what technology is watching them. Transparency protects the most vulnerable. I did not know about this until recently when I went to a local community meeting and found out. Why is it kept a secret? We need more transparency in Cambridge. I thought my family was safe here. Without transparency there is no trust. Without trust there is no real safety for Cambridge.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Siobhan McDonough, followed by Andrew Kim, Harriet Lindeman, then Virginia Suarez. Siobhan, two minutes. Please go ahead.

My name is Siobhan McDonough. I live on Walden Street. I'm a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and UAW 2320. I'm here first to speak in support of Charter Right 3, Al-Zubi. It's a non-binding first step towards democratizing Cambridge's executive branch. Democracy is a core Cambridge value. We have this proportional council. We have these public comment opportunities. We have an engaged group of residents. But there's this one glaring exception where our executive branch can veto spending and controls policing and city operations and is entirely unelected. Cambridge residents deserve to choose their leaders. I'm also here to speak in support of Charter Right 2, to remove the hidden microphones in working class, majority black and brown neighborhoods in our city. Every time this comes up before the council, you hear the overwhelming public opposition to these microphones. You've heard before about Commonwealth v. Dennison, a case where ShotSpotter

recorded a conversation and the court excluded it at trial. The court said there that ShotSpotter was effectively an illegal wiretap. And you might think that that would make some impression on Thank you for watching. Thank you for joining us. totally reliant on Donald Trump's Department of Homeland Security. This is unacceptable to the people of Cambridge as they tell you over and over, stop wiretapping Cambridge. take down ShotSpotter immediately. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrew Kim. Andrew, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Andrew Kim. I live at Dudley Street, and I'm with the Democratic Socialists of America. I'm here once again to talk about the ShotSpotter system. There have been so many ways that the people of Cambridge have voiced their discontent with the shot-solder system. People have voiced their distrust in the system and how it increases their distrust of the Cambridge Police Department. People have voiced how the contract with Sound Thinking was arrived at by means that removes Cambridge's control over their data and provides avenues for that data to be used to harm our neighbors. People have voiced how ShotSpotter has been deployed in a way to further inequality and Systemic Racism in Cambridge. There's even been evidence provided on ShotSpotter's ineffectiveness. According to publicly available data, its accuracy in Cambridge is 49%, which To make a digression, is terrible. That's worse than a coin flip. We shouldn't be getting out of bed for anything less than 80%. And ShotSpotters claimed 90% accuracy in their contract with Chicago.

And that's a heuristic they have failed to meet in that city during the entire... I've tried not to base my comments on ShotSpotter's capability since my opposition to the system is based on the distrust and danger it breeds between our community and the city government. and additionally the lack of any public input into its adoption. But it does need to be said that the system is broadly ineffective. Back to my larger statement, you have heard as a council significant opposition to the ShotSpotter system, which brings me to what I believe Thank you for watching. We are calling on you to perform your public duty and wield the powers of your station to represent us. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Harriet Lindeman. Harriet, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Harriet Lindeman. I'm a Somerville resident and recent grad of Harvard Divinity School. I'm here to speak on the policy order to end the use of shot spotter devices in Cambridge. And to make sure we hear from neighbors more directly impacted than I am, I will also be sharing a recorded note from a Putnam Gardens resident. He's unable to be here but feels that shot spotter surveillance puts him and his family at risk. I've also sent in an English translation.

En la última audiencia, los residentes hablaron abrumadoramente en contra de Shots Butter. ¿Saben por qué? Porque las familias de Cambridge, especialmente las inmigrantes, las de estatus mixto, las que trabajan en empleos esenciales, saben que esta tecnología las pone en riesgo. Fathers and mothers, fear that a false alert will lead to a police interaction that ends in a question about your immigration status. Niños y niñas, se merecen ir a la escuela sin que sus caminos estén vigilados por micrófonos que puedan grabar sus conversaciones. Hoy pedimos tres cosas. Primero, terminar la participación de Cambridge and Ches Potter. and remove all those microphones. Second, demand that the Council vote on any technology of future surveillance. Third, and finally,

Invest those resources in solutions led by the community. For example, souvenir programs, support for victims, and conflict mediation. True security is born when everyone, regardless of status, language, or postal code, can live, work, and take care of their children without fear. Listen to the community. Honor our values. Choose security with justice. My name is Anderson Campuzano, and I live in Putnam Gardens. I graduated from SRLS. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Virginia Suarez, followed by Kayla Goodale. Virginia, two minutes. Please go ahead. I think Virginia has switched over to Zoom. Virginia, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you for having me and I just wanted to say Real quick, I'm against the shot spotter and I wanted to name that some of us are really worried about going in person. And I think that it is valuable to just name that. Just like we heard from Henderson just now and from others that I've spoken to, they're really worried about going in person. I'm currently with a sick child and there are other reasons why I am not able to go in person but I am a black and brown person and so please consider me as if I were right there with you guys and saying to please take away the Chotspotter. They do not make our city safe. What would make our city safe is to have

To have spaces, to have resources distributed before things happen, not after things happen, but before things happen to provide spaces. For the youth to have jobs, for the youth to have places to be at, and that does not start with the aftermath. So please remove the shot spotter device. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kayla Goodale, followed by Andrew Feldman, then Stephanie Durand. Kayla, you have two minutes.

Hello, my name is Kayla Goodale. I'm a Cambridge resident and DSA member, and I live over at 339 Broadway. I am here again to discuss my support for Charter Right 2, the discontinuation of Cambridge's use of ShotSpotter. This council has heard many reasons the residents of Cambridge oppose the continuation of ShotSpotter over the past weeks and years and again tonight. I will reiterate them quickly. Shot spotter is unfettered surveillance on the largest populations of brown and black residents of Cambridge. Shot spotter is not accountable to the Freedom of Information Act. Shotspotter data has been thrown out in court in Massachusetts for violating our all-party audio recording law Shotspotter's approval did not go through the Cambridge City Council ShotSpotter is funded by DHS and undermines Cambridge's status as a sanctuary city and our commitment to not collaborate with ICE.

I'm going to keep it brief tonight because you have all heard this many times and I hope you take that into consideration as you move forward and then briefly I'm also in support of policy order number one that is on the agenda tonight thank you

Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrew Feldman. Andrew, two minutes.

Hello, my name is Andrew Feldman. I'm a Cambridge resident living at 2 Earhart Street, and I'm testifying to support the policy order to stop ShotSpotter. The Council has heard already from many voices asking for the removal of ShotSpotter, so I would like to share some brief additional thoughts. I know friends and loved ones who plan their daily movements to avoid flock camera surveillance systems because they fear being targeted by racialized policing, and I worry about ShotSpotter having a similar effect, making my friends and loved ones feel unsafe. Generally, when community members find out what ShotSpotter actually is, they are opposed to it. However, they may not feel comfortable speaking out publicly, as others have said. Second, emphatically, this policy order is evidence based, drawing on nationwide data showing that these microphone systems do not bring a benefit to our communities. A system like ShotSpotter, which is ineffective, does not address community members' concerns about safety and therefore is not worth the risks that it brings.

I hope that the Council will vote to remove ShotSpotter from Cambridge and remove these devices from our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Stephanie Durand. Stephanie, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me? We can. Okay. My name is Stephanie. I'm a near lifelong Cambridge resident. I'm a black woman who grew up in Newtown Court. I even went to school with Mayor Siddiqui just as proof that I actually am a Canterburgian. I urge the City Council to end its use of shot spreader in Cambridge. As a sanctuary city, Cambridge should not allow ICE-funded surveillance infrastructure to bypass our municipal autonomy and our democratic process. The city itself is not even a party to the contract yet these microphones have been installed here for over a decade in our neighborhoods which has sidestepped our local accountability and public consent. And I think over the past two years we have heard that people are concerned about consent. As someone from the community most impacted by this surveillance infrastructure, I find this very, very troubling.

Cambridge residents deserve transparency and oversight over its policies and not some backdoor surveillance partnerships that are tied to federal funding. from immigration enforcement. We should invest in community-based safety strategies that build trust and support with residents. We should not expand surveillance technologies that undermine our civil liberties and local control. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Gloria Coorsman. Gloria, two minutes.

Gloria Coorsman, 91 Montgomery Street, here to speak on Charter Right No. 2. Good evening and thank you for your time. I'm here to speak about ShotSpotter and why it doesn't belong in Cambridge. I'm asking for accountability, transparency, and policies that align with our city's values and with my own values as a member of the First Parish in Cambridge Unitarian Universalist. I also want to acknowledge the Black Response whose leadership and organizing inspired me to speak tonight. And let me be clear, opposition to ShotSpotter is not opposition to public safety. We are here for safety that works, safety that is community-centered, accountable, and grounded in evidence. Cambridge does not directly control ShotSpotter. It operates through the city of Boston and a federal Department of Homeland Security grant. That means Cambridge residents are being surveilled through a program with limited local oversight.

And there are also real concerns about where this data can go, including the possible sharing with federal agencies like DHS and ICE. And that puts us in direct tension with Cambridge's identity as a sanctuary city, as previous speakers have tonight have demonstrated. And then there's the question of effectiveness. Shot spotter generates false alerts 82% of the time and in most cases there's no confirmed gunfire and that risks unnecessary police deployment and escalation. And this technology is a constant form of surveillance. The microphones are always on and capable of capturing conversations from significant distances, even through walls. So when you combine limited oversight, questionable effectiveness, risks to privacy and civil rights, it becomes very difficult to justify continuing this program.

Cambridge can do better we should invest in housing mental health youth opportunity and violence prevention strategies that actually build safety and trust thank you

Thank you. We are at speaker number 12 of 53 speakers, Lois Markham. You have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

My name is Lois Markham. I live at 316 Ridge Avenue in Cambridge. I'm speaking about Charter Right No. 2. I'm here to register my strong opposition to the Schatz Water Surveillance System. There are so many negative aspects to this highly ineffective technology that I hardly know where to begin. One, it doesn't work as advertised. The Cambridge Police Department itself has acknowledged that it has an 82% false positive outcome. Two, it can pick up human voices, a violation of the Commonwealth's privacy laws. Three, the data, including human speech, generated by ShotSpotter is the property of a private corporation, not the city of Cambridge. Four, the funds to implement the system in Cambridge were provided by the Federal Department of Homeland Security, parent organization to ICE. That alone should make the city leery of what is happening with the data generated by ShotSpotter.

Five, it is deployed disproportionately in predominantly black and brown neighborhoods, creating the strong possibility of over-policing in those areas. and six, the city council, an elected body that is actually accountable to the voters in Cambridge, never approved ShotSpotter and has no control over its use. In closing, I would like to thank the Black Response, which started the stop for its tireless efforts to generate and disseminate research about ShotSpotter and to advocate for alternative, effective measures, methods of promoting public safety. Please, for the sake of all the residents of Cambridge, end Cambridge's participation in the ShotSpotter program. Equally important, make sure that all ShotSpotter microphones are removed from the city. and finally invest in community-led, evidence-based approaches to public safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Marilyn Frankenstein. Marilyn, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Marilyn Frankenstein, 43-year resident of Cambridge, testifying in support of the policy order to stop ShotSpotter. Councils heard all our concerns. Tonight, I would like to address Councilor Simmons' concerns about our testimonies last Monday. First, I am so very sorry for your tragic loss. I cannot imagine the pain that you will carry every day I want to emphasize that the coalition's struggle against ShotSpot is because of the overwhelming national evidence that it does not help community safety. Evidence from a number of cities like Atlanta, Chicago, and San Antonio, cities with a majority, people of the global majority, these cities have stopped using ShotSpotter. One scholar who testified against ShotSpotter at the April 29th public safety hearing grew up in Newton Court.

She is co-founder of the Black Response Cambridge, the group which is the organizer of this campaign to stop ShotSpotter. and the Black Response has proposed numerous ideas that do help community safety. Finally, I appreciate that lots of white do-gooders are quite condescending to people of the global majority. but there are other white people who realize that all our destinies are tied together, that we are not just allies, but participating comrades in struggles for justice. As Martin Luther King said in his letter from a Birmingham jail, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Please vote to remove ShotSpotter from our community.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ben Amato, followed by Lily Grob. Ben, you have the floor. Two minutes.

Hello, my name is Ben Amato. I live on Hurley Street in East Cambridge, and I'm here to talk about ShotSpotter. So ShotSpotter is a surveillance system constantly listening to black and brown communities here in Cambridge. It's taking advantage of people's very real trauma around gun violence and presenting unaccountable surveillance as a solution. And I say that as someone whose family has also experienced Gun violence, not explicitly here in Cambridge, but I just bring that up to say that I can relate to the trauma and the struggle of having gone through losing someone in such a violent way. But we know that increased policing and increased surveillance are not the way to solve these problems. The way to solve these problems is through building up communities and empowering working class people. As others have mentioned, ShotSpotter is not controlled by the city of Cambridge.

That means the city council and Cambridge police have no control over who the company SoundThings shares that data with. We don't know whether or not SoundThings shares that data with ICE, but I think that's kind of the concern right there, right? That we won't know. We don't have a say in whether or not they do that. This puts black and brown communities in Cambridge in very real danger. We know that ICE has sort of been given a mandate and approval for using racial profiling in their arrests. So if we have this surveillance system specifically in black and brown communities in Cambridge with data that ICE could in fact get access to, that's not protecting those communities, right? That's endangering them. That's increasing the likelihood that they might come in contact not only with Cambridge police responding, thinking that there could potentially be an active shooter in the area, it's also increasing the likelihood that they could come face to face with ICE

and agency that is explicitly targeting black and brown people. Thank you.

Thank you. We're at speaker number 15, Lily Grob, followed by Chris Murphy, then Sumiya M. Lily, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Lily Grobe. I live at 22 Beach Street in Cambridge, and I'm a lifelong resident here. I recently graduated social work school, and I'm here in my capacity as a newly minted social worker. to speak about Charter Right 2 related to ShotSpotter. I rigorously advocate that the Council support the policy order to end the city's use of ShotSpotter microphones and to remove the devices from Cambridge neighborhoods. As a social worker, it is my ethical duty to promote social justice, liberty, well-being for all. The use of ShotSpotter, which disproportionately targets marginalized black and brown communities is unjust and directly threatens the liberty and well-being of our communities. As a social worker, I work primarily with black and brown, low-income and immigrant children in their families.

More than ever these communities are living under immense fear which I see actively as manifesting as a mental health crisis for children and their families. Removing these microphones is a critical and necessary step towards restoring whatever sense of safety and trust we can for these families and bringing mental well-being to these children who are living in constant fear. We should be investing in programs that actually reduce violence and improve the safety and wellbeing of our communities, like youth programs and affordable housing. Again, as a social worker with a code of ethics to support social justice and the well-being for all, I support the policy order to end the city's use of shot spotter microphones and most importantly to remove all of the devices from our Cambridge neighborhoods. On behalf of myself, a Cambridge resident for my whole life and all of the communities in Cambridge. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Murphy, followed by Samia M., then Mariam Ahmad. Chris, two minutes.

Hi, my name is Chris Murphy. I live at 43 Royal Ave., and I'm back. speaking in support of Charter Right 2. So the Cambridge City Council has a history of opposing external sources of supposed security that go against the values of our city. For example, last October, the City Council voted unanimously to suspend flock cameras. The contract was subsequently terminated in December due to trust issues with the company. But back in September, the stated concern September of last year, the stated concerns with Flock were that ICE is active in Cambridge and they had taken actions in Somerville and other local areas that raised concerns about the safety of our community members and the legality of the actions taken. Additionally, the current federal administration was using surveillance data collected and sold by these companies to carry out immigration enforcement.

So given that you've heard both this week and last week and before that, a lot of residents expressing the exact same concerns Thank you for joining us. and this history of getting rid of external sources of supposed security goes back further. So in 2011, Then-Counselor Marjorie Decker brought forth a policy order investigating why the Cambridge Police Department was training with the Zionist entity on a trip funded by the Anti-Defamation League. After that point, no further training trips for the CDP occurred. So there is definitely history here with the City Council to stand up for things like this, and I strongly encourage you to get rid of ShotSpotter. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Samia M. Samia, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, I am here to voice my utmost support for policy number three on reviewing policy options to allow Cambridge voters to directly elect the mayor. As a longtime Cambridge resident, I've carefully noticed that we, the people of the city, have never really had a say in electing our mayor like the majority of cities across the country. I grew up in the city going to elementary, middle, and high school here and I've learned a great deal about what the importance of upholding democratic procedures is and in a way that is equitable for all. and centers people's lived experiences. I have witnessed how these people-centered processes can be very impactful. However, it has not made sense that we do not directly elect our own mayor, but the city council appoints one from its own members. Appointing a mayor internally can be quite biased and it only makes sense for the people of the city to choose who they want to be led by. Our voices matter too.

Cambridge is an incredibly small bubble, but we still set the precedent for so many other cities and states to follow suit with policies that are ultimately for the people. So this whole mayoral election process must be facilitated by the people. I strongly believe that the mayor automatically becoming the head of the school committee can be quite arbitrary as well because the appointed individual may not be qualified for that position. I urge you to push forth. Policy order number three to strengthen our local government and ensure the people's voices are fully heard. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Maryam Ahmad, followed by Paola Robusco. Maryam, two minutes.

Hello, my name is Mariam Ahmed, 42 Pilgrim Street, and I've been living in Cambridge for the past six years. And in case it is unclear to anyone, I am indeed a brown woman. And as a brown woman in this country, I have unfortunately been othered many times. As a brown woman who is a scientist, I have unfortunately been seen as the other many times. But I refuse to be seen as the other in the city I live in by the people I elected to represent this city. I am not the other. I am in fact your voter. So in order to move away from othering each other, I would like to point out some things that we have in common. You and I care about Cambridge in a way that brings us here together right now. You and I both live and work in Cambridge. And you and I speak to many different Cambridge residents every single day. And you and I do not wish to see a Cambridge that has gun violence as a part of its fabric.

ShotSpotter is not lowering gun violence in Cambridge. ShotSpotter is ineffective toward this goal inaccurate in its reporting of gunshots, inequitable for our most vulnerable communities, and invasive of the rights of Cambridge residents. If a public safety tool is inaccurate in detecting gunshots and does not reduce violence, then we have a responsibility to question whether the surveillance it imposes is justified. It isn't unheard of for a city to stop using ShotSpotter. Cities evaluate the cost, effectiveness, accuracy, equity, and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of whether ShotSpotter is achieving its stated aims. ShotSpotter is not achieving its stated aims while subjecting Cambridge residents, especially black, brown, and low-income communities, to expanded surveillance instead of investing in systemic reform.

As a result, I sincerely hope this Council re-evaluates the use of ShotSpotter because policies like this do not build trust or safety when they treat minority residents as the other instead of as equal members of this community.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Paola Rebusco, followed by Trudy Goodman, then Valerie Bonds.

Hello. I'm Paola Rebusco, 179 Spring Street. I support policy order number one because increasing producer responsibility and incentive for sustainability has an impact beyond Cambridge. I'll focus on Bill S-570. with the relevant example of Denevy Field No. 4. We estimate that the field's new infield contains the equivalent of 3.8 million plastic bottles and 2,000 virgin trees. Every eight years, this material must be ripped out, disposed of, and only partially recycled. This is a major cost for the city of Cambridge, and the use of all these materials affects us all. Policy order number one encourages research and better solutions to the documented problem of synthetic turf, and it offers the opportunity for the city to model climate-conscious decision-making. In this spirit,

Why can't Cambridge model good decision-making for its residents and other cities by investing in a well-maintained grass field at Ahern instead of replacing it with synthetic turf? which is a subscription to plastic, dead trees, and health consequences. I still have time, so I want to say that we are a city who is extremely lucky. We have lots of resources. and we can make the difference with all of these resources for all of our residents to keep them healthy and to keep them safe. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Trudi Goodman. Trudy has not joined us. We will go next to speaker number 21, Valerie Bonds, followed by Bonte Gannetti, then Rachel Bickelman. Valerie, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Going off script a little bit. When I came here today, I noticed the reserve parking in the back for those of you who have vehicles, and yet many of us who have vehicles can't find a parking space on the streets. Also, at the senior center, we have four members of the city council come to the senior center to talk about the wonderful things they've done for Cambridge, but none of them mentioned the senior parking fee exemption. Where's the transparency there? You had an entire audience of seniors and you didn't even bring up your position where the senior parking exemption fee occurs. Let me get back onto script. Shame, shame, shame. Cambridge seniors are being asked to absorb one more burden while the city ignores the burdens we already carry.

Many of my peers suffer falls because sidewalks are uneven and broken, icy or poorly maintained. Bicyclists continue to face danger because road rules and regulations are not consistent and enforced. and an elderly bicyclist was killed on Memorial Drive. The MBTA is unpredictable and when buses or trains are late, seniors with missed medical appointments arrive late to work, lose access to their services, and feel less independent. For seniors who still drive, the situation is also difficult. Gas prices remain high. Parking is limited, of course, unless you park at City Hall. Streets throughout Cambridge are congested and in many places unsafe. Driving is not a luxury for many older adults.

It is how we get to the doctor, the pharmacy, the grocery store, religious services, and community meetings. $75 is too much for anyone and the parking fee exemption is a recognition of the commitment that the seniors have made to this community for me as a septuagenarian over 75 years.

Thank you. Thank you. Please email the remainder. Our next speaker, speaker number 22, Bonte Gannetti. Bonte, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi, my name is Bonte Gannetti. I'm a mixed-race long-term community member and also a member of the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition. and I wanna speak on ShotSpotter. I wanna support all the speakers who've come before me and I wanna sit back and come from a place of thinking about values I want to live in a city where we're free of gun violence, where all residents feel safe, where we do not fear surveillance and overpolicing, where community members don't fear being deported, where community members are not worried about being displaced. and where the community feels connected to each other. I think that's something that all of us here can agree on. Now, I want to go to a little imagination exercise. Imagine if the federal government created an app and they said this app would record my phone audio constantly to detect gunshots with 49% accuracy and a very high false positive rate.

Would I want that app installed in my house? No. would I want this app installed on my phone constantly listening to me? No. So if this app didn't exist, if ShotSpotter didn't exist, would I want that installed on my streets? We voted to get rid of Flock last year. So imagine if ShotSpotter didn't exist. We would not be creating it. So I want us to work towards that world. We have the power today to step back and to get rid of this technology which doesn't go and take us towards the city we want. If somebody offered me behavioral health support for residents in our communities who needed it, economic opportunities for folks who needed it, care for trauma, more neighborhood support groups, Those are all amazing things and that's the world I want to live in.

So let's make that happen instead. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to go back to Trudy Goodman. Trudy, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry I'm late. You can blame the MBTA. Okay. I'm speaking against the surveillance equipment, and I'll tell you why. I work for the Department of Mental Health, It's been used in several communities, including where I'm originally from, which is Grove Hall, Dorchester, Roxbury. It just doesn't work. You know, it works something that's really old-fashioned, and I don't know whether we have the money to do this. Put patrol people on the street, men and women, who get to know the neighborhood and get to know the people in the neighborhoods. I think that would work more effectively than anything else. The stats are pretty bad on this particular form of technology as to how well it works, and I have a concern about where is the data going? Who is getting the data? How are they going to use the data? That needs to be disclosed, and it hasn't been disclosed well. So say I work for the Department of Mental Health.

I deal with people all the time who've recently been incarcerated and everything else. What goes on in low-income communities is that people need help, and they need all kinds of social services that need to be provided. Putting up microphones in communities that are predominantly low income. First of all, I consider it just a form of not helping people. and of seeming like you're helping people. Get out there and really, really help people. And it doesn't have to be anything large. As small as the city just showing up and showing up in substantial ways. But this kind of technology does not work. It does not help people and like I say, I'm concerned about who's going to end up with the data and how they're going to use it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Rachel Bickelman, followed by Dana Grottenstein, then Margaret Ann Brady. Rachel, two minutes.

Hi, my name is Rachel Bickelman. I live on Trowbridge Street. As we've heard, there's mounting evidence against ShotSpotter and its tendency to produce false alarm and clear public dissent here today. I think importantly as an Asian American woman, I recognize how the oppression that we face and that I face is not the same as black women, nor do I ever intend to speak on their behalf. But last week it was quite frustrating and hurtful to me to see identity politics and the different isms that we face create competition and comparison among us instead of solidarity and support. So I will reiterate that the black response found that Cambridgeport residents were not in favor of ShotSpotter And I think it's fair for homeowners and residents to opt into surveillance and cameras if that's something they want to do and something that makes them feel safe. I think it's unfair to subject every single resident in the city of Cambridge to hyper-surveillance, especially when we know over-surveillance does not work and puts our immigrant neighbors at risk.

My concern for false alarms is also how quickly these situations can escalate when there's fear and concern and with police with firearms are involved in a chaotic moment and how these often escalate situations and result in unnecessary and preventable violence. We can also look to the city of Baltimore as an example of how investment in community resources like bolstering our job programs apprenticeships investing in our communities like building schools, rec centers, libraries, pools, playgrounds, and how all of this reduces homicide and gun violence and can be emulated very easily in the city of Cambridge. rather than over-policing and feeding into the mistrust within our community. So I ask City Council to today, again, listen to the evidence, heed to your constituents, and end the use of ShotSpotter immediately.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Dana Grottenstein. Dana, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi there. My name is Dana Grotenstein. I work in Cambridge as a public servant and I'm here to speak on the policy order to end use of ShotSpotter devices. I will be sharing a recorded statement from a Cambridge resident who is unable to be here and who feels shot spotter surveillance puts her at risk.

I have also sent in a language translation. Dana, I'm going to, sorry, I have to stop you. So we actually have a rule 31B that says any individual appearing before the city council at a public hearing and claiming to represent another individual as agent or otherwise in the matter being heard shall file with the City Council a written authorization signed by the individual. Organization or corporation whose interests such individual represents. So this is one of our rules, Rule 31B. And so given that rule, Unless there's ever an authorization that's come to us saying that this person speak, unless there's a suspension, we cannot allow that testimony.

Okay, I have sent the translation to city councilors, so they have it, but yeah, it sounds like that's, yeah, okay.

So for the future around this, certainly we can share more information on what this actually means and what it would look like. but based on these rules we can't have that testimony shared unless there's that written communication so wanted to just say that so Thank you so much for joining us.

Great, thank you. I would just like to maybe instead verbalize that there are many people who feel fearful of coming to City Council to speak for fear of repercussions. As a Cambridge public servant, I see day after day the ways that we try to put technology In places to fix issues that are human issues and we need social programming that fixes or addresses the root causes of gun violence instead of surveillance. That's all I'll say for now. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Margaret Anne Brady, followed by Jocelyn Sobieraj. Margaret, two minutes.

Hi, I'm Margaret Brady. I live in Porter Square, Cambridge, for over 40 years. I'm speaking also in favor of Charter Right Number 2, and I urge the Council to end any use of spot shot or technology. By now, we have enough evidence that... Spotshotter doesn't make anyone safer. In fact, it puts more people at risk by increasing the policing of some neighborhoods over others. When black and brown Cantabrigians are more at risk for searches, surveillance, suspicion, that means we're less safe as a city. There's abundant evidence that shows that ShotSpotter is inaccurate and unreliable. Let's put our resources into the kind of investments that many people have been speaking about tonight that actually do reduce crime. In a dense area like Porter Square, where I live, it's much more likely that will be reliably reported by me or my neighbors than by this technology. In fact, I feel definitely less safe in the knowledge that I'm subject to yet more surveillance.

Given the fact that the federal government is willing to use any excuse to make things worse for places like Cambridge, why should we participate in the collection of data that has the potential to be used against us? In the time since this technology was first introduced, the city has heard enough evidence and community objection to make this an easy decision. ShotSpotter is completely out of line with our stated values as a city, isn't in line with our public process for how we make decisions about our city. We don't need to participate in the use of public money to enrich it. Yet another for-profit tech company that is undermining our rights as citizens. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jocelyn Sobieraj. Jocelyn, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Jocelyn Stoberi. I live at 465 Putnam Avenue, which is in Cambridge Port, which, as we know, is a and I'm speaking like many other folks here. I spoke a few weeks ago about this issue and you've all heard the points many times. The lack. I would say that as someone who lives in Cambridgeport, I am a white woman, but I do believe that this surveillance technology

It still really scares me and the lack of transparency really scares me because We've seen time and time again how surveillance technology can be weaponized and is predominantly weaponized against people of color. And I am scared for my neighbors. and I also don't like that it's in my own neighborhood. So I support charter number two. And then I also really hope that in the future, all considerations of surveillance technology should require a city council vote, even if The funding is from an external entity. The fact that Spot Shotter did not get a city council vote is horrifying to me in terms of the democratic process.

And with that, I yield my time. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Spencer Piston. Spencer, two minutes.

Hello, everyone. I'm an associate professor of political science at Boston University. Most of you know me as I've presented before the Public Safety Committee a few times. I'm not going to repeat the stuff that I've said there. One quick update. My understanding is from the horrible shooting last week, my understanding is that was about four blocks from a ShotSpotter device and there was no ShotSpotter alert. So that's the mild update on what I believe to be the unreliability of the technology. What I'm here today though to discuss is another purpose, which is to address concerns, especially expressed last week, that there aren't a whole lot of black and brown people represented in this ShotSpotter discussion. So I've got three responses to this. First is that there are black and brown people here today, and they have registered their opposition to ShotSpotter.

Second, the Black Response is a black-led organization and they are the ones, black leaders, running the anti-shot spotter campaign. Third and finally, a brief story. I gave a talk to the Cambridge Tenants Alliance recently and afterward an elderly black man came up to me and he said, feel my head. And I did not want to feel his head. But he took my hand and put it on his head and I felt a dent. It was a big dent. He said Cambridge police beat him up 26 years ago. I don't blame anyone in this room for what happened, but I hope you understand why he's not here. And I also want to be sure to mention that he opposes ShotSpotter. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Michaela Lelougas, followed by Alexandra Thorne, then Gail Sharpens here. We are at speaker number 28. Michaela, two minutes.

Good evening. I'm a nurse who works in Cambridge. I am commenting on policy order 202698. I'm urging the council to end the use of ShotSpotter and remove the devices. Thank you for hearing the community's concerns about ShotSpotter. I have talked to many Cambridge residents about ShotSpotter, especially in Newtown Court and Washington Elms. and community feedback was clear that the lack of transparency and privacy violations do not justify ShotSpotter's use. In one of my conversations with a resident of Washington Elms, he shared that he was a victim of gun violence and he believes his life was saved by the quick response of his community. and he does not support the community's use of ShotSpotter. I heard many reflections like that from the community. and it became clear that the use of ShotSpotter is not supported throughout Cambridge. I would also like to note that I am part of

The Coalition with the Black Response, and we've been in communication with the residents who provided testimony today. If we could receive, I know emails were sent with the translations If we could receive the written authorization so maybe they could complete that by the end of the day to get in for public comment that would be great because I would love for their comments to be considered here as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Gail Sharpens here, followed, I'm sorry, is Alexandra Thorne, followed by Gail Sharpens here, then Brooke Feinberg. Alexandra?

Thank you. My name is Alexandra Thorne, and I'm a volunteer for Digital Fourth and live in Somerville and spend significant time in Cambridge. Thank you, Councilors Al-Zubi, Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, and Nolan for filing the policy order requesting that the City Manager end data collection by ShotSpotter devices in Cambridge. I strongly urge the Council to support the policy order and recommend the immediate discontinuation. of Cambridge's use of ShotSpotter. I'm a researcher and a data scientist, so I understand, for example, the importance of developing a robust sample size, including evidence from cities with much higher rates of gun violence than Cambridge. which has shown that ShotSpotter is unreliable and does not deter gun violence. But I also understand, as a principle of good research methods, the importance of direct engagement with affected communities and really listening to what they have to say. I was therefore eager to participate in the canvases where the black response spoke with residents in the Cambridge communities affected by ShotSpotter.

What I observed in just one afternoon of canvassing is a fact that I think we all intuitively know, but sometimes forget. No group of people is a monolith. I spoke to an older woman who believed ShotSpotter was good for safety, but was concerned about privacy issues. I spoke to an older man who didn't feel comfortable with the surveillance despite having himself been shot years ago. I also spoke to a young adult who, as soon as I said we were talking to people about ShotSpotter, eagerly inquired, are you going to get rid of it? Don't believe that people under surveillance are all supportive of ShotSpotter. The truth is much more complicated. Please do the right thing and support the policy order to end the use of ShotSpotter. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Gail Charpentier, followed by Brooke Feinberg. Gail?

Thank you. I'm Gail Sharpentier. I live at Murdoch Street in the Port. I've lived in Cambridge and on Murdoch Street, actually, for 37 years. and I am here to support item, charter right item number two to basically delete ShotSpotter from our city. There have been at least two public safety committee hearings on this topic. We have ample evidence to show that ShotSpotter has an 82% false positive rate That means most alerts do not correspond to actual gunfire. I'm not saying anything new here today. Cambridge does not have a direct contract with ShotSpotter. Instead, it's through Boston and Department of Homeland Security grant. and the shot spotter microphones are always on. They're not just activated during gunshots.

The audio microphones can capture conversations at normal volume when I'm talking with my friend as I walk up and down Broadway almost every day from a distance of up to 50 feet, including through building walls, which is how the microphone is meant to function. I am very concerned that something could change, yes, that would not be good. And that could be, you could come back or some members here could come back to the community and say, okay, we'll give you a say. over what gets shared, or we won't share anything, blah, blah, blah. And I still don't want ShotSpotter. Even if you tweak... This item and to maybe meeting one of our demands or two. No, thank you.

Thanks so much. Thank you. We are at speaker number 31, Brooke Feinberg, followed by Daniel Wilson, then Nancy Seymour. Brooke, you have two minutes.

Hi, I'm Bea Feinberg, 338 Columbia Street. Let's go, CR2. As a longtime Cambridge resident, and I'm not going anywhere, an involved community member, I voiced my anger here in April about this intrusive system that none of my elected officials nor neighbors ever voted on. I shared my concerns on April 29th and those concerns were only amplified by that data and dialogue at the meeting. CPD read from old slides with anecdotal storytelling, loosely implying that one shot spotter call was helpful, but it turned out that was a coincidence and someone was apprehended unrelated to the prompt. Otherwise these slides were full of logistical fallacy and tired reasoning. It should be of grave moral concern to everyone on this council that the system is funded by DHS, the same feds that fund ICE.

I do not consent for my vulnerable neighbors in our welcome community sanctuary city to be at risk. I do not consent to being under constant surveillance by nature of just moving about Cambridge. Evidenced as fact, when CPD explained, they receive an audio recording a second before and after loud sounds. Our community has been pleading with you long enough. It's time. We deserve council's action now. Remove all microphones now. Pass legislation that Cambridge residents must never be surveilled without our consent.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Daniel Wilson followed by Nancy Seymour, then Glenna Wyman. Daniel has not joined. We're going to go to Nancy Seymour.

I'm here to speak about seniors and public parking permits. It's calendar number four. If the city needs to raise revenue, there are many ways to do so. without charging seniors for parking permits. This progressive tax creates yet another expense for many of us living on fixed incomes. In fact, a process that requires people to say they can't afford to pay for a permit is insulting and disrespectful. Now, although Cambridge is blessed with a public transportation system few cities or towns can equal, many of us need cars to drive to an increasing number of doctor's appointments, shop for groceries, and run errands. Aging also brings many decreasing mobility. So a car becomes a necessity, not a choice. I think that's all I have to say. I think it's pretty clear. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Glenna Wyman, followed by Ed Henley, then Natalie Elliott. Glenna, two minutes.

I am speaking first for dismantling shot spotter.

Hey Glen, will you just speak into the mic, please?

Okay. I'm first speaking about dismantling shot spotter. It violates state law in terms of two sides giving permission to being recorded. It reduces calls by community members who think that ShotSpotter is taking care of and detecting shots when in fact the error rate in terms of what ShotSpotter does is 80% inaccurate in both directions, detecting real shots and not detecting shots, as one of the other speakers just mentioned about the The Shots on Memorial Drive.

It's funded by Department of Homeland Security. which, by the way, so are the cameras that are in Central Square that I hope the council will move on to get those ones that were recently added in the last year or so removed. And so they ask. Remove all microphones from the city, require a city council vote for any future surveillance technology, even if funding is coming from an external entity like the federal government. Also, I'm against the artificial turf in my backyard and I think that poor people should be in on being able to opt to say they cannot afford

The parking permit and should be able to pay nothing if they check that, along with poor seniors.

Thanks, Glenna. Our next speaker is Ed Henley, followed by Natalie Elliott, then Jesse Baer. Ed, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Ed Henley. I live at 237 Franklin Street. I'm speaking as a member of Mass Senior Action, not necessarily for them, with regards to the cost of parking permits, especially for seniors and low-income Canterbridgeans. It appears that parking permits may have been initiated to make sure that residents had enough parking spaces when you lived in Cambridge as motorists from outside of Cambridge were making parking availability difficult. Not sure if there was any change, if there was any charge initially, but at some point it was decided to charge for it. That charge was the beginning of a possible slippery slope of increasing prices over time. Boston apparently does not charge for senior parking. Arlington allows one to park at meters for free at no charge.

It seems odd that when we own an automobile and pay excise taxes, that those excise taxes seem to pay for many other programs besides auto-related issues. We understand that financial need in these times is challenging, but paying for the financial things we would like to do should not come out of the pockets of those needing vehicles. to make their way in daily life with its many challenges for seniors and low-income peoples. Please do not add costs for parking permits for those of us in this category. With regards to Shots Water, we live in a world in many ways built on trust, when leadership at the highest levels continually betrays that implied trust.

and we should not trust that suggested solutions to everyday problems will not be used for other more devious agendas. Please stop Cambridge's use of sharpshot water. Please keep the current form of mayoral elections. We have learned what happens when a leader with a contrary agenda ends up in the leadership position. Those elected to be in City Council have been elected by the people and we live in a much safer way.

That's a much safer way. Our next speaker is Natalie Elliott, followed by Jesse Baer, then Malik Aban. Natalie, two minutes.

Natalie, before you speak, I went and checked with our solicitor on that rule once more and I apologize. This is not a public hearing technically, so if you want, maybe if you can let folks know, and then we can re-give the time. I apologize, that was a misinterpretation of the rule. We'll make sure whoever had spoken can come back and share that testimony. So we'll go to Natalie.

Natalie, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Natalie Elliott. I live on Hampshire Street, and I'm here to ask you as the City Council to vote in support of Charter Right 2 and to stop the use of shot spotter in our community. I'm concerned about the precedent we set as a city if we allow shot spotter devices to remain active and collect surveillance data in our streets. Without our city's ownership of the data, without a vote from the city council, and with direct perpetuating of systemic racism and inequity through the targeting of Cambridge's black and brown communities, as many speakers before me have already spoken to. When we allow the infrastructure for surveillance to exist in our city, our community and each of us becomes vulnerable to the use of this technology by anti-democratic forces like ICE So we know ShotSpotter is funded by the DHS, as well as vulnerable to the erosion of trust between our neighbors, our community, and with our representatives.

I want to thank my Cambridge neighbors and community members who have continued to be an active voice for public safety without surveillance, which is both possible and also necessary for our city to thrive. As many folks have mentioned, the Shaw sweater is not an effective or just tool for public safety, and I believe our city can be creative and caring in how we tackle safety and conflict. I'm calling on you as our councilors to act in accordance with what so many of our committee members have stood up and spoken out for, which is to end Cambridge's participation in ShotSpotter, remove all microphones from the city, require a city council vote for any future surveillance technology and invest in community-led public safety instead of unproven surveillance systems. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Baer, followed by Malik Aban, then Joe Quest-Newbert. Jesse, two minutes.

Hi. Jesse Baer, 10 Poplar Road. Last week, I testified about ShotSpotter. I didn't focus my comment on the racism of the system because I felt other people addressed that well. But during deliberations, it was basically suggested that everyone testifying about the issue was white. Now, I'm used to people assuming things about my race, so I'm not going to take that personally. What I do take issue with is the idea that anyone is not allowed to care about racism and black people. I have three nieces and three nephews, Every one of them is undebatably black, and I am allowed to care about the world they grew up in. My wife Akuna is black, and I care about her safety in the city where she's chosen to join me in making a life together. By the way, she wishes she could testify here tonight, but is working late at the library. I think the rule is that I'm allowed to say that she is against ShotSpotter as well now, so I'll end it there. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Malik Aban. Malik, two minutes.

Hello, I'm Malik. I live at 331 Harvard Street. I live and work in Cambridge despite, or I guess contrary to the opinions of some, I am black or brown. I walk by multiple shot spotter microphones, various surveillance equipment, really in the few blocks it takes to get to my local mosque, and inside I find even more waiting for me there. I'm sick and tired of the surveillance. I think I said that at the last ShotSpotter hearing and nothing has changed since then. The TBR, they did a wonderful job. Surveying the community, showing there is wide public consensus for getting rid of Shaw-Spotter, did a great job with the public education piece too. And I was actually really proud of my city councilors at the Public Safety Committee hearing a few weeks ago.

The questions they brought for the Black Response and the Shawspotter panel were great. I think like Councilor Nolan, her questions for the city solicitor were incredible. I think like showing that the surveillance ordinance applies to this and that A point no one has really mentioned which is interesting is that the federal funds that go to ShotSpotter are not earmarked for ShotSpotter. You can use them for other things. I think it's just in the purview of public safety. So there is a whole conversation where millions of dollars we're wasting on renting storage space on some computer in California could be spent. You know, getting people real resources they need right now in our community and I'm looking forward to this policy order passing, but also the future of what we do with this money. And yeah, that's pretty much all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Joe Quest-Newbert, followed by Teresa Kettelberger. We're at speaker 39.

Hi, Joe Quest-Newbert, 1222 Cambridge Street. I'm here tonight in support of Charter Right Item Number 2, Policy Order 98. We know that ShotSpotter is always listening and always recording. We know that it can pick up sounds such as human speech. We know that ShotSpotter is funded through a Department of Homeland Security grant and that DHS and ICE practice ever-increasing surveillance to target people they deem to be threats. We know that our ShotSpotter devices are located in areas with high concentration of BIPOC residents. This means that BIPOC members of the Cambridge community are more likely to be recorded by ShotSpotter and thus are more vulnerable to potential abuses of the data and recordings collected by the company as well as dangerous over-policing. Surveillance does not equal safety.

We do not need microphones on top of buildings listening to every loud noise in the vicinity and sending in police in order to be safe. We need strong social safety nets and to meet our community's basic human needs. That is what makes us safe. I urge you to support Policy Order 98 and our city's participation in ShotSpotter for the safety of our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Mayor, we're going to go back to Dana Grottenstein, who was going to play that recording earlier so that we can return the time to the speaker. So Dana, if you're on, please go ahead. You have the floor.

Hi there. Yes, thank you. I'll just play the recording.

Hola. I am Sandra and I live in Cambridge, Mucho tiempo los residentes, sobre todo los que viven en housing, nos sentimos vigilados y nos hemos sentido castigados cuando hemos quejado o hemos hablado en contra de algo Thank you for watching. These microphones from our neighborhood. We don't want another layer of surveillance here. Thank you.

and I will read the translation. Hello, I am Sandra. I live in Cambridge with my family for a long time. We residents. especially those of us living in public housing have felt watched and we have felt punished whenever we have complained or spoken out against something. So many of us do not attend these meetings out of fear of retaliation and out of fear of losing our homes. but I want to state that I do not want these machines recording us get these microphones out of our neighborhoods we do not want another layer of surveillance here thank you

Thank you. We are going to go back to the list. We are at speaker number 40. We have 15 speakers signed up left. Our next speaker is Teresa Kettleberger, followed by Harini Desikon, then Jacob Brown. Teresa, you have the floor. You have two minutes.

Hello, my name is Teresa Kettelberger. I live on Cogswell Avenue. I'm here to support the removal of ShotSpotter like many others. In my career, I have almost a decade of experience evaluating the accuracy of machine learning systems that classify audio data specifically. After reading many reports, interviews and blog posts from them, I've seen sound thinking make claims about accuracy, gun violence and racial disparities in policing that I would consider professionally to be dishonest. Two minutes is not enough time to go through it all. My opposition to shot spotter surveillance is not based on the accuracy of the technology, but instead I find this troubling because Cambridge is in the vulnerable position of relying on sound thinking's good faith when we use shot spotter surveillance. I'm not convinced that sound thinking has earned that assumption of good faith, and I don't think DHS, which pays for it, has earned that assumption either.

In the leak published by Wired, we learned that there are many ShotSpotter microphones on apartment buildings, hospitals, and even public elementary schools. When we place microphones in public spaces, we trade our privacy for increased public safety. As many have noted, this trade-off was not made with the consent of Cambridge residents. Increased public safety though is not a concrete result, but a promise made by a company whose interest in marketing their product puts them at odds with our community's more legitimate interest in transparency. Meanwhile, independent peer-reviewed research does exist and has found no improvement in the rate at which gun crimes are solved when ShotSpotter was introduced to cities like Kansas City and Chicago. Finally, I'd like to ask that microphones be physically removed if this passes.

Leaked emails in the past have shown that in other cities, microphones remained on and alerts continued even after those cities chose not to continue their contracts. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Harini Desikon, followed by Jacob Brown, then Mila Hallgren. Harini, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'd like to speak in favor of policy order number two and removing ShotSpotter from our communities. I think it's clear that a lot of our community members in Cambridge, where I live, especially those who are the most vulnerable, feel very uncomfortable with this added layer of surveillance. I think even beyond that, what's especially disconcerting about this is that this is not surveillance that falls into charted territory. This is all data that's being handed over. To a third party company and they're not a company that has any kind of investment in our community at all. They're a company that cares primarily about profiting.

And so to hand over all of our private information to this company, to hand over every little bit of the ShotSpotters always listening. is deeply disconcerting especially in this current era and administration. We have absolutely no idea what this could be used for. As people have said many times this is linked to DHS and ICE. We don't want them holding our sensitive information. and beyond that, this really doesn't actually increase our public safety at all. This has far too high of an error record and like ferments distrust in the community such that more tried and true methods of reporting safety issues are not going to go through if we continue to put in surveillance machines.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jacob Brown, followed by Mila Halgren, then James Williamson. Jacob has not joined. We will go to Mila Halgren.

Hi, my name is Mila Hallgren. I have been living and working in Cambridge for the past 10 years. I'm here to speak against the use of shot spotter surveillance. I currently work with young adults experiencing homelessness in Harvard Square. And in spending time with them, I have seen already an extensive use of surveillance technologies that are police and law enforcement already have access to. I've seen police and security officers dispatched based on the use of cameras to identify misconduct such as vaping in the vicinity of a building. And when these events happen and officers arrive, it presents, at best, an annoyance to these people, the most vulnerable members of our community, and more generally, fear

because these unnecessary interactions with law enforcement lead to racist arrests, they lead to violent arrests, and again, Thank you. and so forth. They're going to get, especially as funding drastically increases for security companies, AI surveillance companies,

We need to stand firm as a city now and say that we reject the further ensnarement of our most vulnerable citizens in these dangerous surveillance tools. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is James Williamson, followed by Neil Rohr, then Charles Franklin. James, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Thank you. First of all, I want to say something about an agenda item under unfinished business. authorizing a loan, seeking a loan for $10 million for design and construction of what are described as improvements from Along Mass Ave. I have no idea what these so-called improvements are. Everything city departments, individuals do is always described as improvements. But you know what? It isn't always an improvement. Certainly not for many of Thank you very much. We deserve to know what they supposedly are.

What are these people planning to do along Mass Ave. Is it going to be dedicated, you know, separated bike lanes on both sides of Mass Ave? Instead of maybe having the bike lanes on Bishop Allen and Green Street, for example. Anyway. But the main thing I want to talk about is the social housing item. And 13 people are appointed. Only two or three are tenants. Yes, it's not bad to have the people who are appointed be part of it. They have a lot of experience and expertise in financing. They don't have any experience or expertise in what it's like to live in the housing. and if they were doing such a great job why would we even be having a discussion about an alternative approach which is social housing by the way the memo says there's an There is no ACT representative.

So we need to expand the number of tenants and please don't misrepresent the nature of the current representation. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Neil Rohr. Neil has not joined us. We're going to move to speaker number 46, Charles Franklin, followed by Kit Haynes, then Aisha Wilson.

Good afternoon, Council. Good afternoon, Council. Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street. Everybody else has spoken on ShotSpotter, so I don't think I have anything to add on that. However, I will talk about our aquifer. I can't help to feel that we are spending good money after bad on our attempts to protect the aquifer that feeds Fresh Pond. We've spent money on land purchases, lawsuits, and PFAS filters all in an attempt to keep clean what amounts to highway runoff. Our water is so bad that according to a 2019 GBH article, it voids warranties. Let's finally admit that fresh pond water isn't fresh and just bite the bullet and switch to MWRA water 24-7, 365. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kit Haynes, followed by Aisha Wilson, then Marty Levin. Kit, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, so I'm a Cambridge resident. I've been here 15 years. I currently live at 101 Reed Street. First, I want to speak in support of elected mayor. We vote for school committees separately than city council. I would have totally ranked you differently all. uh then what feels like super arbitrarily someone from the city council is put on the school committee that's not a job we evaluated Canada for uh But primarily, I'm in favor of Charter Right number two. I realized that he said this earlier, but if ShotSpotter didn't exist and asked for approval, we'd have some questions. Questions like, where are the censors installed? If there was an indication that these would only be installed in formerly redlined districts, we'd object. If it looked like after this was the case, the company shared that they wouldn't share where the sensors were installed, we wouldn't think that was a solution. We'd also want to know how the sensors worked. If the police were told something, such as the sensors don't wake up until there's 120 def bite noise, and we later found out that there was a recording of speech that preceded that noise, we'd want to look into that before we install the devices.

Just like for Flock, our trust is broken, and as far as I can tell, no attempt was made to repair it. I know everyone's audio isn't being published, but published isn't everything. So to draw a metaphor that might help, as a millennial, I would never take a nude selfie and put it on the cloud. Not even not intending to share that. I've seen way too many cases where the company wasn't secure and then it's public with celebrities involved. Likewise, I never want to have my conversations recorded and saved to a private company. Sometimes I'm vulnerable in those moments. I'm sharing something intimate. Sometimes I'm just talking in ways that could be taken wildly out of context. If I'm doing a puzzle, I don't want to have recorded that I was looking for this dude's head, which is a puzzle piece and somehow have that end up. in a legal case. Similarly, I wouldn't even want to have a camera on if I'm in the bathroom and not wearing clothes.

That's too intimate to give to a private company, even if it's promised that they're not actually recording that particular Zoom meeting or that particular... So, thanks.

Thank you. Former Councilor Wilson is not able to join us. She will email her comments. We're going to move on to Marty Levin, followed by Charlene Williams, then Denise Haynes. Marty, two minutes.

Thanks for allowing me to speak. I've heard it said that if you want to know what a society is like, look at its prison system. You can also say, if you want to know what a society is about, look at the way elderly are treated. I think it's very shocking that we're even thinking about charging seniors for a parking permit. Why would we do that to such a vulnerable community? Elderly people, of which I am a part of, We face a lot of things that other people don't face. Many illnesses, emotionally, physically, financially. Why would we add to that burden? Let's make Cambridge a really compassionate place.

and that speaks volumes to all of humanity which may be looking at Cambridge and not charge seniors for parking permits.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Charlene Williams. Charlene, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Hi, I'm speaking actually on two things. One, the parking. I think seniors who can afford parking Parking, i.e. homeowners. I live at the bottom. Excuse me. My name is Charlene Williams. I live at the bottom of Avon Hill. A lot of rich people, they can afford it, and I think that's fine, whereas the... A single mother who lives in public housing and has children should not have to pay for parking, as well as seniors who don't have any money as well. That and then Shot Spotter. I just find that it's jarring that it's constantly on. It reminds me of George Orwell's 1984. Always listening, always watching. It makes me feel... Thank you.

Our next speaker is

Denise Haynes. Denise was not able to stay and we'll email her comments. We're going to move on to Sarah Bergman followed by Heather Hoffman.

Hi, my name is Sarah and I live on Trowbridge Street. I'm speaking in support of charter right number two. I am here as a concerned resident of Cambridge over the use of shot spotter in our city. I read shot spotter records frequently record false positives as has been stated before, and it seems like an ineffective way to solve gun violence in Cambridge. Instead, it sounds like it serves to surveil our neighbors, especially in predominantly black and brown neighborhoods. Over-policing our community and sifting through false positives sounds like a waste of our city's time and energy. This measure will continue to breed mistrust among residents and law enforcement and sounds like a recipe for future tragedy. I would like to add that I feel heartened to see how engaged my neighbors are. This is my first public comment, but the community of civil engagement in Cambridge has invited and encouraged me to speak to you all today in support of charter right number two. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Heather Hoffman, followed by Kailash Nakagawa. Heather, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. My usual comment about litigation. With respect to extending the term of the interim city clerk, I repeat what I said in your minutes that are there for approval. The city clerk rocks. With respect to the charter change to elect the mayor, I continue to question what this is for. There is just no information about what this elected mayor would be or why or anything. And I do hope that gets fleshed out. With respect to buying open space in Lincoln, yes, I like my water to be clean and all of that good stuff.

but it keeps reminding me that the only place the city of Cambridge likes trees is in Lexington and the only place that you seem to like open space is in Lincoln and I wish you would re-examine your Your choices. With respect to the parking permits, I am still disgusted at the way this was framed. It is It is so much like the people in Washington that we are suing in that first thing I talked about. You should be ashamed. With respect to the city council rules, First up, everything John Hawkinson said, I agree with and join. Secondly, I noticed that a big focus

Thank you, Heather. Thank you, Heather.

Madam Mayor, our final speaker, Kailash Nakagawa. Kailash, I apologize if I'm mispronouncing your name. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

You good? I live on Madison Ave. I have since birth, and I'm speaking against the usage of ShotSpotter. I also graduated from Stanford University with a degree in engineering. and one thing that I learned there was how technology is thrown liberally at all problems without proper evidence of its utility. I also learned that not only do companies make sales from lies, they make further profit from the data they collect. ShotSpotter is no different. It has not been peer-reviewed. The cities that use it do not own their data, and there's been no independent audit of their data collection practices. Companies regularly settle lawsuits because of their illegal data collection. Google's done it not so long ago because of illegally using our microphones. So what has ShotSpotter done to earn our trust? But now let me speak to you on a personal level. I'm a brown person and I feel the eyes of the police whenever they're around me.

My family has had many bad experiences with the Cambridge police where they profiled us and escalated calm situations. I don't want the police showing up if my car backfires, or I don't want them in my neighborhood If my neighbors set off fireworks, which I live near Russell Field, happens all the time. And lastly, I want to say, did it help solve the murder of Xavier Louis Drakis? He graduated from RINJ a year after I did. and was tragically killed by gun violence in 2021 by the Pemberton basketball courts. Did Chuck Sputter help solve his murder? It didn't. It's still unsolved. So I ask that we discontinue the usage of ShotSpotter and remove all the microphones associated with it. Thank you.

Thank you. That is all that we're signed up to speak.

That concludes public comment. Thank you everyone for their testimony on a motion by Councilor McGovern to close public comment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Public comment is now closed. We move on to the submission of the record. There are two minutes of the regular city council meeting held on. December 8, 2025 and December 15, 2025. There was a minor error, but that will be fixed in the final, so we do not need to do anything. We'll go ahead on a motion by Councilor Zusy to approve these minutes and place them on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Those two sets of minutes are approved and placed on file. There are no reconsiderations. So we'll move on to the city manager's agenda.

I will pull 1, 10, and 11, and then pleasure of the city council on others they'd like to pull. Flaherty will pull number five.

Anyone else?

Councilor Nolan?

Yeah, since it's related to five, I think pulling six at the same time makes sense.

We'll pull number six. Hearing none on the remainder, we'll go ahead and do a roll call on the remainder of the city manager agenda as there are preparations.

Al-Zubi, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Simmons, Absent. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Those agenda items are appropriated and placed on file. We'll go ahead to city manager agenda item number one. This is a communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, city manager, relative to a federal update, including an update on relevant court cases. And I just pulled this to make sure that if there's anything that you'd like to share, you can have the space.

Thank you to you, Madam Mayor. There hasn't been Many developments recently, but there are maybe a couple of things to mention, so I'll turn it over to Assistant City Solicitor LaPianca to give us just a couple updates.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, the city did join amicus brief filed in the Louisiana versus FDA case, which is the abortion pill case. Basically, the Supreme Court has put in place a stay pending the Fifth Circuit's ruling on the actual legal issues in the case, which will allow states such as Massachusetts to ship abortion-related medicines to Louisiana. So we'll still wait for a final outcome on that one. The other, we continue to participate in litigation related to the continuum of care

I'm happy to take any questions if anyone has.

Pleasure to have the City Council. Councilor Flaherty.

And through you, Madam Mayor. Has anybody seen, and I'm not sure if they've been filed yet, but the appellate briefs yet in the Harvard case? I'm just interested by it. I even looked myself, so I have no idea.

Through you, Madam Mayor, the Harvard case involving foreign students, there were, if that's one of the ones you mean?

Flaherty? I'm sorry, the one in the First Circuit with the federal funding where it's on page nine.

No, I believe that one, there was, they actually, Harvard has not filed its briefing, and I believe on May 12th or thereabout, the First Circuit entered an order saying that their Not inclined to give a further extension, but I believe they have an extension through June or July to file their brief. and the brief that we have an amicus brief in that we actually, our office filed in conjunction with the law firm Seyfar Shah We still have not scheduled, there are no arguments scheduled in that one yet. The intent of the First Circuit is to combine the foreign students case and the funding case into one argument. So no updates yet on when that's going to occur. Well, good luck. Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, thank you.

Thank you. Through you, Mayor Siddiqui. Following up some on that, we had the communication from MIT this week about the president indicating that hundreds of millions of dollars of funding are at risk. They are one of our largest I know the Harvard cases, there's many, many on the docket. Just announced that it had gone from spending double digits, $20 million on legal fees, to $120 million on the past year just because of these federal cases. Do we have a sense of how our cases are proceeding forward? Are there any in this that relate to the MIT funding as well? Because what they indicated is that not only this year funding is down, but that they anticipate in the future. It will be reduced significantly in that while they will continue to accept some graduate students, that the number will be down, I think, 10% to 20%. So is there something in these legal cases that are addressing that?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. We are involved in Commonwealth of Massachusetts versus National Institute of Health. But in that one, my recollection is the federal government has probably passed the period to appeal at this point, and that was a decision that enjoin the federal government's cap on all new grants. So that is an example of one that we're involved in or were involved in. Otherwise, not aware of any that we're involved in directly.

And just to add, I agree with Attorney LaPianca. We are not involved in any directly... regarding MIT's situation. But because MIT shares a similar status to Harvard, where the city has a significant interest, we will definitely look for opportunities to support MIT in any way that that we can and it's appropriate.

Councilor Nolan? Yes, I recognize this is a lot already on your plate, just like Harvard. The workload for the law department has also increased dramatically, and yet it's obviously critically important for our city and for our finances and for our residents across the board not to mention the larger issues of scientific inquiry and democracy which are at stake but literally just for our city's own financial and and residents health and well-being. I think I'm glad to hear that we will at least be following it and if there's anything that council needs to know about I trust that you will tell us. I understand the Some of the Harvard cases, the briefs are now not due until July, and so there was an extension. We're not sure when that will be filed, and there will be an opportunity for amicus brief at that point by a range of parties, including hopefully the city, so that we can address some of these.

and then on some of the funding and some of the cases related to overreach by the federal government, not just on funding but also Homeland Security and ICE. I appreciate all the attention that the city has paid to this and hope there's not further news as they do even more egregious flouting of existing law. Thank you. With that, Mayor Siddiqui, I yield.

Madam Mayor, I did have one more update regarding the United States versus the city of Boston. There was a motion to dismiss that was heard on May 13th. That is the one where the federal government is suing Boston. seeking injunctive relief that its sanctuary policies violate the Constitutional Supremacy Clause and we have an amicus brief filed in that one as well.

Thank you for that update. I don't see any other hands up on this, so appreciate the ongoing work. We'll go ahead on a motion by Councilor Nolan to place. City Manager Agenda Item 1 on file. All those in favor say aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. City Manager Agenda Item 1 is placed on file. We'll go to City Manager Agenda Item 5, a communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $450,000 to support the purchase of four parcels of land located within the town of Lincoln, Massachusetts. Flaherty. And since they're related, we can suspend on a motion by Councilor Nolan to suspend the rules, to also bring forward Six, which is an appropriation of $350,000 from the Mass Executive Office of Energy and Environment Affairs.

We'll go ahead and all those in favor on suspension to take those two at the same time. Say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. We're in suspension, so both those items are before us. I'll go to Councilor Flaherty, and then I'll go to Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. Just two quick questions. The first is, the second one's kind of silly, but the first is, are we actually taking title of the property? Because I saw on the documents we're taking a fee interest. And the second one is, I think I know what this is, and I've struggled to understand the map. But if you could describe it, I think it's right along Route 2 as you pass. You come down that road alongside the water and you take a right onto Route 2 and it's on your right. Am I correct? Is that what I'm looking at on the map? I hate to display my ignorance, but I really don't know.

Yes, through you, Madam Mayor. Yes, Councilor Flaherty. Yes, you're correct in the location. It's right off of Route 2 as you're going west, heading out of the city on Route 2 right after you cross over. where you can see our reservoir, the end of the Habsburg Reservoir. The property is just that wooded area off to the right, or excuse me, off to the left. As far as the title question goes, I'll refer to our watershed manager, Dave Kaplan.

Through you, Madam Mayor, yes, our intent is to own this land in fee.

Councilor Flaherty? Is there any follow-up from city manager?

Well, I think, oh, sure. I think in just as additional context, I know we've done this in the past. I believe this is the first time this term that we've come forward with a watershed protection plan Thank you very much. The overall context is that we have an extraordinary water department We are unique as a community in that we both have our own water supply and then if there's any issue we can just

It's a little more complicated than flipping a switch, but we can turn on a backup supply from the MWRA, but the cost is actually much higher in terms of just the rate that they charge Thank you very much. but the challenge is that the underlying watershed, we don't own a lot of it and so when the opportunity comes up, we do both look for other sources of funding but actually buying up some of those parcels to ensure that they're protected is a part of our overall strategy and it is more efficient than simply purchasing from the MWA. So I think we've done some of these before but that's the overall context. Have I missed anything, deputy city manager or director?

No, I mean, three minutes. The only other two things I would just add is that for folks that were around previous, we did do an executive session with council at that time. to the city manager's point that was in the last council session. And these things take a little time. And then just also point out that this is an amazing split between Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I think it's an excellent idea. and I congratulate you for making the deal. I think it's outstanding. So thank you very much.

We have Councilor Nolan and then Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui, and thank you to the staff who worked on this. I did remember that executive session and know that we had been apprised that this was at least a possibility in the past. It would be good to just be reminded of why it is important for us to buy this additional land. We already own, I think, 1400 acres of land. I completely understand and support and as anyone who follows me knows I for some reason weekly check our water levels just to make sure I can tell you. which is why we had that policy order to say we may be headed into challenging times because of the levels in our reservoir are still far, far, far below the 15 year average. However, I think what I'm interested in hearing is why is this land in particular something that's important for our watershed moving forward?

That's for you, Madam Mayor. Anytime that we have an opportunity to buy any green space that is in proximity and abutting our reservoirs or other watershed protection land, I think it's well worth it. for us to pursue that. And in this case, we're getting 52 plus acres for A total cost of $800,000, and we got a $350,000 grant for that. I mean, getting that much land, some of it Zone A, is, you know. Really unheard of, especially in our watershed area where development is happening very fast and property is very expensive. There are other advantages as well. This property is very unique.

It's kind of a three-prong situation, but our watershed manager, Dave Kaplan, is much more familiar, and I'll defer to him to explain some of the particulars.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. So to answer your question, we prioritize land that is close to the water resource. And with this purchase, we are Obtaining land over 50% of that acreage is within 200 feet of a... and many more. you know developed land more proximal to those water resources has a disproportional impact and a more it gives us a higher susceptibility to contamination so that's how we try to prioritize some of these land purchases.

Councilor Nolan? Thank you. And again, I love Cambridge Water. I follow it. And I also know and agree, and having read all the reports, that there are many times when warranties on particularly Cathay espresso machines are voided using Cambridge water because of the high number of total dissolved solids not through fault of our own but because there are the proximity to highways means that there's some levels of contaminants in it Thank you very much. To have those voided warranties in the city, but also just to communicating what it is that the profile of our water has.

I will note, yes, our water rates are lower, although our sewer rates are much higher, so the combined rate right now is pretty comparable to many of the surrounding areas, which may or may not change depending on whether we do in the future. So thank you. I very much hope we don't switch to MWRI water in a month or two, but if I was taking bets, I would say we have a pretty good chance of doing that based on the rainfall. So thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I yield.

We'll go to Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to say thank you for your forethought and resourcefulness in acquiring this land. I thought you had purchased 65 acres because it says 27 acres of surface water supply protection zone A, 18 outstanding resource zones. Close to a tributary and then 20 acres of woodland. So was it 65 acres or 52 acres?

Through you, Madam Mayor. I believe that's the total acreage of resources, some of which overlap.

that overlap. Okay. Well, anyway, still just doing some simple division. It's... It's just over $8,500 an acre. So that is really a good... Good price, I guess I shouldn't be saying that. But great, great work, and may that protect our water. Thank you.

Are there any other questions on this from the body or anything that needs to be said by city staff? So we'll go ahead, we'll do two separate votes. So the first vote for this item is for City Manager Agenda Item 5 is to Adopt the appropriation and adopt orders 5A, 5B, and 5C, and then place communication on file. So we'll do a roll call.

Al-Zubi, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor McGovern, Nolan, Yes, Councilor Simmons, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yes, Councilor Zusy, Yes, Mayor Siddiqui, Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We go ahead. The preparation has been adopted. So we'll go to city manager agenda item number six. We'll do another roll call adopting this order and placing the communication on file.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Nolan, Councilor Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Mayor Siddiqui?

Nolan.

I would like to move suspension for the purpose of reconsideration on the two votes that we just took pertaining to the vote on the purchase of land.

Got it. So, Councilor Nolan will be moving for reconsideration. And so, we'll have to do two votes. We'll first do the suspension and then go from there.

Councilor Al-Zubi. Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes, Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes, Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes, Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Now we'll go to the reconsideration.

Councilor Al-Zubi? No. No, Vice Mayor Azeem? No. No, Councilor Flaherty? No. McGuvern, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the negative.

So reconsideration failed, so we're all set there. We can go ahead and move on to city manager agenda item number 10. This is a communication transmitted from Ian Huang, City Manager, relative to a report on social housing. I'll entertain a motion by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler to also bring forward City Manager Agenda Item Number 11, which is a communication transmitted from Yan Wang, City Manager, relative to appointments to the Social Housing Task Force. And on that motion, all those in favor say aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. We are in suspension. I wanted just to say a few words before I turn it over to city staff who have been closely involved and take a moment to just quickly open with some context. I'm excited that we have these items before us we've been talking about

Social Housing and figuring out what that is for some time and so this is the beginning and so there's been a lot of growing interest in the topic. Thank you very much. Asking the city to start looking into this and to convene the housing committee to discuss this from the city council side. The vice mayor and I then held a housing committee meeting in December where we brought together the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition, the Cambridge Housing Authority, the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. to just set the stage a little bit and have more of a conversation about what social housing means.

and so the interest that came out of the conversation was evident and it carried forward to this term and most recently it came up as an area of interest for for all of us in a long-term priority setting process, which was led by Councilors Nolan and Councilors Al-Zubi as coaches of finance. To wrap what's before us, we have two CMAs that will allow us to establish a new task force per our updated charter, which requires that all multi-member bodies be approved by the Council, along with the high-level scope. That's before us. And so I want to just really thank the city manager and the team, Melissa and Jen and Chris, on their partnership in doing this. I want to thank... My colleagues who've been very involved, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler and Councilor Al-Zubi, and really a lot of community members who've wanted us to get here.

There's a lot of questions. I think we're all curious and excited to get to work. So I wanted to set that context. I'll open it up to my colleagues as well. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thanks, Madam Mayor, through you. I'm really excited about this task force. I'll try to be brief because we actually have an op-ed in Cambridge Day, myself and Madam Mayor and Zubi talking about the task force and, you know, uh, background behind it, where we hope to accomplish with it. If folks have more questions, want to learn more, that op-ed is in Cambridge day. I'll just say this is a long time in the making. Uh, folks have been organizing around for years around social housing including here in New England and we could talk a lot about different ways about what social housing is, in my mind, a big part of it is getting back public housing back to the roots, which is, you know, in the New Deal era, having mixed income public housing where people of all income levels, all backgrounds can live together in a Public Housing, have housing be a community resource, a place where folks of all different backgrounds can live together, and a place

where because there's no need to pay back investors, you can use the income from the rents to have great community spaces and green spaces and expand affordability, create additional social housing. I'm excited to have this come out of the policy order and as a next step around social housing. I want to thank Mayor Siddiqui, Councilor Al-Zubi, city staff for all the work on this and thank the members for the task force for being willing to serve. I really look forward to starting the work. I'll be back.

Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, and definitely appreciate what Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler said and what you said as well, Mayor. I'll keep mine also very brief. Social housing is Thank you. Thank you. I just want to express my appreciation for everyone who has been a part of this from the city staff. to the electeds that are here and to the community members as well who have been a part of this conversation as we continue to make progress on this and hopefully lead in Massachusetts on what social housing can look like So looking forward to approaching this thoughtfully and authentically, and yeah, I'll yield.

Zuzi.

I just wanted to say how excited I am about this initiative, too. It'll be exciting to see where you take this. And I like to hear my fellow colleagues talk about the importance of community spaces and green spaces for livability.

Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Councilor Nolan.

Just quickly, I think we're all excited about this. As the mayor laid out, it's come out of a long conversation from many different areas in the city, and in particular to highlight the idea of mixed-income housing and ensure that We have talked for a long time about about housing yet not always been in a position to understand how it is that we need that range including middle-income housing that is often something that we hear about in this chamber so very excited about this and glad that that the budget process that we led is move forward and that this clearly was a priority of of the whole city council. I think it's a priority of the whole city. So excited to see the work go forward and know that it's not going to be instantaneous, but also know that we have really good leaders at the table. and I want to say that the way the task force was put together, it includes a range of people who have been very involved and I'm grateful to my colleagues for serving but also the members of the community and the members of the city staff who are serving.

Thank you. Councilor Flaherty.

Through you, Madam Mayor, just obviously this is something that predated me in my term here, but I note that there might be an opportunity to add additional members. And I recognize that everybody there is very talented. who lives in West Cambridge. His name is Neil McCullough. He works at the Corcoran Center for Real Estate Development at Boston College. The Corcorans are involved in redeveloping Thank you very much.

For additional members, I think maybe he's someone I have no idea whether he'd be interested or has the time, but he's got the relevant experience, and if there's any chance to tap into him, I think it'd be very helpful. So I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Flaherty. So the city staff want to say anything before we go, before we vote?

Yeah, excuse me. Yeah, I would just say we're very excited to start this process. Appreciate the collaboration and the commitment from these task force members to work on this really important issue to define what social housing is. We can certainly look into additional membership. I think that... We can get back to counselors offline. I think I'm really excited about the range and diversity of the current committee, and I think it represents the... the right folks in terms of expertise and experience in different elements of What will be needed for this? I'm sure this gentleman is just as qualified. We're happy to look into him and see if there's a role on the committee as well.

Team manager?

Thank you for you, Mayor. We're very excited. You know, I think this is an exciting opportunity and I especially think the process that we're setting up very much appreciate the many people who are willing to serve on this task force. and I think there's a lot of innovation happening in the financing and governance of public housing, social housing. It'll be a really interesting journey for us to be I think in particular, I'm excited about the task force both answering some of those questions. How do we think about social housing in our community? What are the values we want to build in this? And how do we make it concrete and possible? And I think to be more concrete, what is a project that we could actually turn into reality? So I think that will be an important part of those conversations. and I'm excited about getting started. So thank you all for the work on this. I know a number of counselors have been really involved.

people in the community who have been advocating for us to look into different models for social housing and we're looking forward to the process.

I want to just quickly add that putting together task force invitations Bios, all that. I want to shout out my chief of staff, Minji, for really helping me do that. And so thank you, Minji. So we'll go ahead. The first vote will just be to place the communication... on file and we can do a voice vote on that for city manager agenda item number 10. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. City manager agenda item 10 is placed on file. We'll move on to city manager agenda item number 11, which is the appointments. And so we'll go ahead and do a roll call on these appointments.

Al-Zubi, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Simmons, Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Those appointments are approved and we'll go ahead on a voice vote place this item number 11 on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. That's placed on file. We are done with the City Manager's agenda items, so we'll move on to policy orders and resolutions. There are two policy orders. Pleasure of the City Council.

Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes. Councilor Nolan? Number one. Number one. And I can briefly pull number two. So we'll go to policy order number one, which is the city council support hospital 968. House Bill 886, Senate Bill 647, House Bill 1023, and Senate Bill 727. 570 and Senate Bill 571 to enact extended producer responsibility and product stewardship in recognition that these laws will Relieve municipalities of rising costs and incentivize producers to sell products that are less toxic and easier to reuse and recycle by requiring such producers to bear the cost for the proper recycling and responsible disposal of their products.

This was filed by Councilor Nolan, Councilor Sieniewicz-Wheeler, myself, Councilor Azeem, Councilor Nolan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I think these bills are very important in light of the work that the city is doing on so many of the issues that are related to extended producer responsibility and zero waste. It's part of our zero waste master plan to do a number of these initiatives and these are state level bills. We had in the past supported a couple of state bills related to this area and the DPW staff and Michael Oren Recycling and other members of the city staff indicated that They keep on top of these bills and said it would be helpful and important for the council to express their support for these bills since it would, again, make their lives a lot easier. And I also want to give a shout out to the advocates across the state who have worked very hard to bring these bills to the House and the Senate in the state legislature. MassPurg and others have worked tirelessly to try to bring some rationality and some, I think, reasonableness to

Thank you very much. to that staff who have worked really hard on these issues and also indicated that it would be really helpful for the council to be in full support of these bills. And that's I yield. Thanks.

Thank you, Councilor Nolan. Anyone else on this before we go ahead and adopt? Hearing none, we'll go ahead on a motion by Councilor Nolan to adopt policy order number one. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those against say no. The ayes have it. Policy order number one is adopted. We'll move on to policy room number two around the clerk being extended. I'm going to just move that we suspend the rules to allow the communication on this. from other city officers, number two, regarding the search process. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Those items are before us. I just wanted to thank everyone who has been involved, Councilor Simmons, Councilor Zusy, McGovern, and a number of city staff. As the communication outlines, you know, we've gone through a second process, and we right now are, you know, Just pausing and want to just thank Paula who's been, you know, with us and helping and really appreciate that.

And this group will reconvene. and figure out some next steps but wanted to just update the full city council since we all can't meet on what's happening. We'll go from there. Did you want to say something? No? Great. So we'll go ahead on a motion by Councilor Nolan to adopt the policy order. and then place that communication from other city officers on file all those in favor say aye aye those against say no the ayes have it The policy order number two has been adopted and that communication from other city officers number two has been placed on file. We now move on to the calendar. So there are a number of items last week that the council exercised their charter rights, so I want to just remind folks it's 7.50 p.m., A lot of folks did speak on some items already.

I just want to say I hope that we can all be We have the first item. This is that the city managers requested to confer. with relevant departments to immediately request in power to resign for the Massachusetts High Technology Council and consider options for transitioning the city of Cambridge out of Empower and transferring its retirement accounts into one of the city's other retirement programs should Empower continue to be a member. of the MHTC. This charter right was exercised by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, you have the floor.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'll be super brief. I'm going to withdraw this policy order and just raise some Discussion around broader issues that may require a broader policy order, but I think the cleanest way is to just withdraw this one for now.

So, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler is seeking unanimous consent to withdraw this policy order. We'll do a roll call. Discussion? Yes, discussion? Yes, thank you. And that's the motion. Councilor Simmons.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair, to my colleague, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, I really appreciate you withdrawing only because I think it does have Thank you very much. And I do think there may be a few other companies that we might want to say, you know, this doesn't stand up to our policies, practices, procedures, or how we want our money invested. So I just want to acknowledge the forethought in thinking. Let's take a step back. Let's spend some time looking at it. Do we want to take a broader look? So I just want to acknowledge your thoughtfulness on this. Madam Chair, I yield the floor.

We'll go ahead and do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

That policy order has been withdrawn. We'll go to the item number two under the charter right. This is that the city managers requested to work with relevant city departments, including the law department, to ensure that there is no new Data collected by ShotSpotter devices and all existing data shall be kept, used, or deleted only as required by law under our welcoming community ordinance and surveillance technology ordinance. The charter right was exercised by Vice Mayor Azeem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I only tried to write it because I felt like it was very emotional last week with the shooting and the tenor of the conversation, so I just wanted to give some time to, you know, Move past that and deal with this in a different light. So I don't have too much to say. I know that the commissioner had some comments and some examples of why she thought that was valid to Shotspotter, and then I had some comments, and then I'll turn it over to the rest. Thank you to you, Madam Mayor.

Exactly one week ago tonight, we gathered in this chamber to discuss what was one of the most brazen acts of gun violence in our city has seen in recent memory. And while I'm relieved that the suspect and the firearm used are now off the streets and those injured are on their way to recovery, what worries me is this. The underlying problem of gun violence in our community is far from resolved. In just the past two weeks, Cambridge police officers have taken three additional illegally possessed firearms off of us streets in completely unrelated incidents. These were all loaded weapons, some equipped with large capacity magazines. and in every case the individuals carrying them were convicted felons who never should have had a gun in their hands at all. They were armed and they were walking the same streets that we walk every day. Last Monday's incident was an anomaly. And frankly, we've been lucky. But lucky is not a strategy.

What saved lives that night was not chance, but preparations, But preparation, having the right tools and the right training, seconds after the shooting. Cambridge police officers and a state trooper were already providing life-saving care. Within minutes, Cambridge Fire and Pro EMS were on scene, continuing that care and transporting victims to some of the best hospitals in the world. Those seconds mattered. They made the difference between life and death. The two tourniquets that were put on by those officers saved that man's life. We cannot ignore this, and there have been at least 11 times when ShotSpotter detected gunfire in our city and not a single 911 call came in. Not one. That means 11 moments when no one reached for the phone. 11 moments when offices would have no direction. 11 moments when seconds were slipping away and ShotSpot was the only reason help was there at all.

One specific example that I'd like to bring up is in July of 2024, there was an incident of gunfire on Harvard Street. That critically injured a 48-year-old man. This is an excerpt from that report. An officer was able to find a gunshot wound in the victim's upper thigh between his groin and his thigh, which was too high for a tourniquet. He went to the medical bag and grabbed Kwik Klot, which is a hemostatic dressing. He packed the wound as much as he possibly could and applied pressure until another officer wrapped the bandage around the quick clot. Look. It is our obligation to do everything we can do to keep our community safe.

I as the police commissioner and certainly the city manager will be The ones standing in front of the community meeting answering questions about what happened and what are we doing to keep the community safe. We are literally going into a community meeting tomorrow night and telling them that the city of Cambridge voted down gunshot technology. Gunshot detection technology after an active shooter event. Why wouldn't we want to keep our community as safe as possible? Thank you. Councilor Azeem?

Vice Mayor Azeem?

It looked like the city manager was about to say something.

Go ahead.

Sure, thank you. Through you, Mayor Simmons, you know, I think the event...

I like the name. I mean, I just don't get the pay of the car, so there it is.

We're all getting up to speed. I get the respect.

There you go. There's something in it.

I would say last Monday's incident was... Thank you so much for joining us. The more normal, and it should not be normal, but the more normal gun violence that we do ultimately see as a community. We are a very safe city, and yet we are a city. And I had the police just pull some of the basic data over those last 10 years. And so Acting Commissioner Wells noted that there were 11 incidents Shotspotter 11 incidents doesn't sound like a lot over the course of 10 years.

But ultimately, in terms of what we experience as a community, over those last 10 years, we on average see about 11 incidents Shots fired incidents across the city per year. So each year, about once a month, we will have gunshots in our city. Over the course of those 10 years, on average each year, we have 4.7 victims of gun violence each year. And of those average 4.7, Thank you so much for joining us. but that's 115 instances of shots fired over 10 years of which 11 were ones that ShotSpotter would have activated. It would have allowed the police to respond. and we're not getting 911 calls for those incidents.

So it's about 10% of the time when a gun goes off, we are actually getting information that is actionable and that we can verify that there were actually gunshots fired. This is not a perfect tool and I think to all the conversations that we've been having, we do have to recognize that these tools do have trade-offs. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for joining us. and I think that's the same thing here. We don't need ShotSpotter to be 80% accurate, but when you look at the data a slightly different way, this is actually allowing us to respond

I think that's been the experience that we've seen in the data that we're able to respond more quickly. And even though Monday's incident was completely an anomaly, it reminds us that time really does matter in these circumstances. I think we will be having this conversation tomorrow with the community. And so I recognize that the council wants to act Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. have additional conversation we're about to go into a big meeting with the community and ask them how we're responding to the incident last Monday it does feel to me premature for us to take a vote tonight

Vice Mayor Azeem.

Thank you. I was going to say I myself am conflicted on this in that I think that there are really valid concerns that members of the community have come and brought up in that I do think that it's Not great that we're not hosting our own data. And I do wish that we were able to sign a different contract where the data was hosted in Cambridge and we had full control over it. And I do think that that is something potentially we could do. And I think the recording in general, a large number of people in the community have brought up, is nerve-wracking, and I agree, right? Like if you say, hey Siri, hey Google, set a timer for a minute, all of our phones will go off. and all of that data gets stored in the cloud and someone could get a warrant and get any of that access because all those interactions are. So whenever you go out in public, there's thousands of microphones that are listening, right? It's quite nerve wracking.

And I'll say it's interesting to be here and to be conflicted because I very much support having less interactions with the police. I've had quite a number of... Thank you. Thank you. You can choose not to enforce speeding, but then people get hurt as a consequence of speeding. You can decide to put up a police trap or a speed trap and have police officers pull people over, but then you have more interactions with the police. Or you could have a speeding camera. Those are your three options. And to me, I'd rather have less interactions with the police, but also enforce the thing. And so I think that that's why I am always conflicted about this. I both you know worked in the city as in you know I think that a lot of people feel like the city is pretty safe that's not been my experience entirely when I worked as an EMT the

You know, I worked on the same ambulance that Sean Collier died on, right? And then there was a shooting in front of my house where, you know, there was a girl who was playing basketball. It was a crowded, you know, game. And all of a sudden shots are fired. and someone is bleeding out right in front of you. Everyone else was just screaming and running and there was three people there. We're trying to respond and it's like really hard in that moment to be like, oh, should you focus on tying up the bleeding or call 911, right? You have only limited resources. And even in that case, one of the people was not ended up in jail and they came back a few weeks later and they committed domestic violence in front of my house and I ended up being the only person who got it on camera because I was on nerve after having gone through a shooting and then I ended up spending a good year of my next year going to court and testifying, like, hey, you know, I was the one who saw it. I was the only one who has the video, and here it is.

And, you know, it didn't hit me until those moments that actually, like, I thought, like, you know, there would definitely be some other evidence, but in fact I had the only evidence, you know. And so I would say that it makes me a little nervous. The summer is coming up, and I think that's in general when we see an increase in gun violence in the city. And again, I don't have very, very strong feelings. I think that there's ways I could be brought along in terms of hosting in Cambridge or finding other alternative creative solutions, finding a substitute. I just worry that every minute you don't respond to someone bleeding out, their chances of survival just go down quite significantly. But I would also say, you know, I feel like in general, my colleagues have made a decision and had hearings, and so I don't need to vote no, I'll just vote present, and I think that what's happening is happening, and my colleagues have reached a conclusion, so that's fine. Thank you.

and Vice Mayor Yields. I have Councilor Azeubi, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Simmons, Councilor Flaherty.

Thank you. Yeah, can I? Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I appreciate your comments, and I do understand the intention behind the tools to improve safety and prevent harm. I know the concerns that I have. Thank you. Thank you. I believe that there are better approaches that address the issue without creating the risks and I'm not sure the medical analogy fits. Going to a doctor for symptoms is based on an established evidence and personal risk Public safety technology should still be evaluated against measurable standards, whether that's accuracy or effectiveness or cost or community input before adoption. I do want to appreciate the community members who have put in work for us to have this discussion and to my colleagues who came in on this policy order.

I do believe we need to stop shot spotters usage because it does pose a privacy and safety risk for our residents, especially when the federal government has a relationship with the company and it's not reliable. There was once a time over a decade ago where there was an interest in this technology. But now we know more about its effectiveness and its consequences. This technology tool exists as something larger than our police department. It's got a higher false positive rate in our city and cities across the U.S., in which case I believe the benefit does not outweigh the risks of situations where our police department might be misled. In fact, our congressional representatives have asked questions out of concern around ShotSpotter and cities around the United States are also stopping their usage. Just more largely, I think it's important I say this as someone who witnessed the shooting this past Monday. and appreciates the quick response from responders and who has been checking in on neighbors with Representative Mike Connolly.

I believe we need more productive structural changes on the local, state and federal level for justice, dignity and mercy. I spoke to residents who are aware of our conversation on ShotSpotter and that are confused as to why we have this tool when it did nothing to improve the response here, especially when you consider the context of the situation. When we talk about How to improve safety for our residents. We shouldn't frame safety only through surveillance or policing. We have to be expansive and think about how people need basics to live. Violence is rarely a constructive path to progress. and it often reflects a deeper psychological, social and or structural pressure rather than one single cause. We can focus on every tool that we can provide to ensure justice is served after harm is done or during it, and we should engage in those conversations.

And, emphasis on the and here, we should not lose sight of the fact that the discussion of justice begins before the harm is done. Not only in the during and the after, justice is not a finite conversation on this earth, it's ongoing. and I believe that we can build a city that is more proactive about care and justice and less of ones of walls and defensiveness because we do share this life together at the very end of the day. and we're better off seeing each other as dignified human beings and I really do believe that once we no longer see that we've met our downfall.

I'll yield.

Thanks, Fatima, through you. I think what unites all the counselors here, actually all the folks who have taken part in this conversation one way or the other, is that we're united on trying to make our community more safe and as safe as possible. And I respect that and really bring that intention here. I respect that intention here from all the folks on the side of it and respect that we come to different conclusions with that intention. For myself, that's why I'm voting to end ShotSpotter technology, because I think it makes our community less safe. We know that it misses many of the actual gunshots and it's dangerously inaccurate and sends police into communities of color when there are no gunshots, when there are firecrackers or other loud noises. Al-Zubi. I also thought the heart attack example just didn't fit here. And I say that as someone who wants people with heart attacks to err on the side of caution and go to the hospital because my dad died of a heart attack.

We want people to err on the side of caution and would say that always for a heart attack because the doctors don't have guns and because a person having a heart attack is not being recognized by the doctor as a threat. That is not the case with ShotSpotter. We are sending people in with guns and telling them that the response is a dangerous incident that they need to be absolutely on alert on. And a lot of times it's not that. My father, as a large brown man who had interactions with the police, I think would see it similarly. It is just not a similar comparison in any way. In terms of what we'd tell the community tomorrow, I hope we could tell them that we're using things that work. In this case, in the incident last Monday, ShotSpotter didn't deploy. It didn't use in this situation. I don't know why we would want to tell them that we voted to keep the technology. that had no benefit in this situation there. Let's actually use proven technologies for all of the things and let's tell that to our community rather than doing some security theater and telling them we're deploying a thing that's not actually helping. It doesn't activate in a lot of the situations and is actually activating for a lot of the wrong things.

I don't want to tell our community that and pretend that we're doing something that works when it doesn't. The last piece, there's a lot of other really good points that have been raised in this discussion that I won't linger on, but I think the one piece I wanted to talk about is that when the city adds a bike lane, Housing Development, a park redesign. There is community outreach. There is discussion. We let all folks come in and say, you know, you're putting in these extra benches there. What do you think about the benches? What's the input you have? We have people for and against. We get all that discussion. We do that on bike lanes anytime we remove parking. We're having that for every time there's a new housing project. We never did that for ShotSpotter. There was never a chance for the community to weigh in. It was just deployed. The only response we have and engagement on this is from the black response. And we can look at those responses. Folks can disagree with the methodology. But that's the... Thank you for joining us.

The community wants this and we deployed it without ever asking them like we do for a bike lane or parking or housing or park redesigns. I'll be voting to end ShotSpotter because it doesn't make our community more safe and we haven't engaged them on it. I'll get back to you.

I have Councilor Simmons and then Councilor Flaherty, Councilor Zusy, and then Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When this was before us last week, I mentioned that I had my initial inclinations around supporting the policy order that is until we start talking to people or I start talking to people from my neighborhood. For those that don't know, I live in the port, lived there for 50 years. And so I think it's important. I do want to, before I... I just want to acknowledge and thank Commissioner Wells for mentioning the larger meeting that we're having tomorrow with the community. And by acknowledging, I certainly want to acknowledge you, Madam Chair, you and Rep. Decker who got right on it and had a community meeting because no one had formally reached out. up until that time. So thank you, and I had an opportunity to be there, and I think a few of my other colleagues might have been there as well, because it's important that we reach out to the community as swiftly as possible to let them know that

Simon, Skagg, can you speak into the mic a little closer? Just put it closer.

Be careful what you ask for. Never mind. Go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you very much. after reached out to the entire Riverside community, not just to 808-812. I just think it's important because it says that we were paying attention as a council to make sure we were reaching out to people. So I just wanted to put that on the record that that had happened. So my initial inclination was to support the policy order when I first saw it, and that is until I started talking to people from my neighborhoods. There's a few from Riverside. They did not know about ShotSpotter, so that's something that...

Thank you very much. is portrayed as making the neighborhood safe, but not replace it with something that makes the neighborhood safe. So that was something that people raised, and I think that's a fair consideration. If you think something is wrong, It's fine to speak up against it. That's what democracy talks about. But in some instances, people are saying, so if you're going to take this from me, what are you going to put in place? Because everyone in Riverside and in the port in particular are not fearful of our public safety folks. And I think that's worth being said. Now, we talk about all these horrible things that have happened through public safety. Cambridge is not perfect. The council is not perfect.

Anyone that wants to know, I can give you a list of some of the things that city council has done that has been less than kind to people, but that's not today's meeting. What I've learned from some folks that I had known was about the technology in the first place and how many people are felt. Incline to utilize that technology in the hope that it may be another tool that public safety could use to hold people accountable who engage in shootings that rob all of us of our loved ones. Anthony Clay, who my son, who has a long time been deceased, died. because the people who knew who shot him would not come forward. Now, some people might say, well, they're afraid of law enforcement.

I would say there's some people that are afraid of us coming here because if you have a difference of opinion, you're shouted down, you're disrespected, you're nullified. We can't do that. We all have to work together if we really want to bring community together. And community engagement takes time and it's really hard work. And so if we're going to be better at informing our community about things that we think are good or bad, we have to be better at informing them. where there are often people who have information are too afraid to come to city council, let alone the public safety department. They distrust the city government. They distrust us. We all have some work to do to make sure that people feel comfortable coming before us and talking to us about what they're feeling. But because of this, because of this resistance to come before the council,

The perpetrators continue to walk free. I don't think we ever found Charlene Holmes' killer. We have never found Anthony Clay's killer. I'm not here to bring up people's names because every time we do that, for the person that's still alive, it opens a wound. And I know that's no one's intention, to make people feel bad that already feel bad. The argument in favor of Shots Spotted is that it may help the police or law enforcement in gathering sufficient evidence so that even in the absence of witnesses' testimony, we can still hold people accountable. It's not a guarantee. It's not a promise of if Cambridge uses this technology, then we won't have any more unsolved shootings. But is another potentially important tool that we can use and that people in my neighborhood want us to use.

I mentioned last Monday my granddaughter. We live right next door to a park. There were shots in that park. She was afraid. I do my best to counsel to say it's going to be all right. Thank you very much. And as my kids tell me, walk the grand dog. I want them to be able to do that. So I do hear the concerns about privacy, although every time you walk down the street, someone's taping you in some way, as my vice chair, vice mayor had said. If you're on your phone, you walk past a Tesla, a ring doorbell. We're being surveilled all the time whether we like it or not. This is the world that we live in. and how this tech could potentially share information with ICE or the federal government.

I have not seen a community work more diligently and more intentionally about making sure that ICE does not invade our life. Thank you. of completely discontinuing the use of technology, might there be some middle ground? Can we ask our law enforcement department, our city solicitor, Thank you very much. where ShotSpotter is now an opportunity to say or give them opportunity to say well here's another level of surveillance we might like instead.

As I mentioned last Monday we do not have cameras on our On our light lampposts, but at Washington Downs and Newtown Court at a meeting with 30 or 40 people there, they said, we want cameras that the city would not install. But the housing authority did it because the people that live in Newtown Court and Washington Elms wanted it. And I'm sorry, I don't know. I don't want to speak for anybody that lives in Newtown Court in Washington Elms that's here, as I thought. And so... I would say rather than rushing to discontinue the use of the two that might prove beneficial, particularly without having the voices of authentic people. that are whose civil liberties that people keep saying that we don't want to violate but violate their humanity on a regular basis.

Is there something the council might be willing to explore to have a deeper, longer conversation I would respectfully ask that we lay this on the table. I would work with the motion makers if they are so inclined, with our law enforcement department, with the city solicitor to craft that language. Otherwise, I'll be voting present on this order. And with that, I yield the floor.

Councillor Simmons, just to clarify, are you making a motion to table right now?

I'm making a motion to table. Because that's non-debatable.

So it's a non-debatable motion when someone moves to the table?

I would hold it if my colleagues wanted to speak on it, but that's my inclination is to move. But I don't want it to be moved for a vote. When I want to move to table, I have more of an opportunity to discuss it.

So Councilor Simmons is moving to table.

What I was saying is I would like to table this matter. I know a vote to table cuts off debate. I want to allow my colleagues, but then I don't want someone to backdoor me and move the adoption when they know I would like to. exercise the ability to lay this on the table so we can further conversation.

So, procedurally, I'm going to, because Councilor Simmons is yielding because she wants some discussion, or whoever wants to... Here's what we'll do. If folks are going to yield, I'd like them to just yield so that we can just move to the vote. But if they want to get on the record right now, I'll allow them to speak. I had Councilor Flaherty next, and then I had Councilor Zusy, then I had Councilor Nolan, and then Councilor McGovern. Simmons has demonstrated intent that she would like to table but is yielding if folks want to say something. If they don't want to and they want to yield, we'll quickly... Flaherty.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity. For the past I've spent my life professionally as either a prosecutor or a criminal defense attorney. And even though I've been involved in Thank you very much. And I recognize, without any exception, the concern that individuals in the community have about the protections we're all afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. I truly do. I do that every day. I do that work every day. My client is the Constitution.

My individual clients in many matters, a majority of matters, are black and brown people from communities either from Cambridge or communities like Cambridge. I'm intimately familiar. With the lives they live, with the obstacles they face, with the hardships, with the dangers, with the specific instances of trauma they've all suffered in their lives, violence, drugs, dysfunction. I'm intimately familiar with it. I personally know people who have been murdered in Cambridge. It began with Corey Davis many years ago, and there's been a back and forth between North and the Port. My client I invited to come and speak last week, you may remember, Carlos Humberto David. He talked about the murder of his brother, Kensley, and how his family lived with the horror of that.

and that remains an unsolved murder. Anthony Clay I represented some of the people that were associated in that investigation. Xavier Jax, who was murdered at Ringe Park, which is now known as, I guess, Pemberton Court. That's where I grew up and played basketball my entire life. I can't tell you how many times as a young person in Cambridge I've personally observed a person with a firearm. and we are a safe city by standards. We're a city of 118,000 people and the number of shootings that we experience are less The many urban areas. But there's no question, no question that I think everybody needs to understand this. I live in the real world and people should understand. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Similar to what the cognitive behavioral therapy that we see in other organizations, and I'd like to see something like that here in Cambridge. Having said all that, I think it's important to understand, because I'm very familiar with electronic wiretapping and eavesdropping and 27299 warrants. These are warrants that are used to obtain court authorization surreptitious recording.

And in order to do that, you have to apply for a warrant and it has to be a designated offense and any violation of 272.99 is a felony in Massachusetts if you surreptitiously record. I think it's important to note that Spot Charter is not a listening device used by law enforcement. And I appreciate and understand the concerns of most of the speakers in the community that there's a possibility I think it's a false narrative to believe that ICE agents, who I think were all very well aware of their criminal conduct recently in the United States of America. We don't need to talk about it and I'm the first to stand up and denounce that. But I think it's a false narrative to think that federal agents are monitoring

I appreciate the concern. I appreciate... I want to recognize, and I think it's important, for everyone to recognize. And the Commissioner said it. That was a brazen act of violence last Monday. A brazen act. And a person... And I'm speaking about me, a person who watches and is concerned, not just locally, but across the state and nationally, about these types of violence. I've done a lot of thinking about...

I've done a lot of thinking about it. It's been sort of my life's work. And understanding that that was probably I think the most shocking event in my lifetime in the city of Cambridge. But despite that, law enforcement ran towards the danger and saved lives. And ShotSpotter has been a tool that has saved lives. Beyond the River Street shooting or the Harvard Street shooting, there's a young man named David Snow who almost died in Somerville shot. And the only reason why he received the first aid and the life-saving care was because of shots brought in. 9-1-1 call. I think it's important to recognize as the city manager did say that there is always a balance between rights and privileges and

What we're protecting with our privacy rights, and we do it Thank you. and we see it in the updates from the city solicitors and the city managers report in the amicus precept that we file. But I think it's important to recognize that this is not a law enforcement tool that's used Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. to situations involving violence that result hopefully in either a viable investigation, arrest, a conviction, or lifesaving measures that can lead to the really the saving life measures that we've seen here in Cambridge. And with all of that, I think there is an opportunity with this council to really consider What it is we're doing with this, and if there is a way to maintain the tool without infringing people's privacy rights, Then I think we should do it, as Councilor Simmons said.

And the reason why these spot charter devices, as people have mentioned, are located in areas where black and brown people live, Well, just as Councilor Simmons has said, the people who live in Washington Elm's Newtown Court, Walden Square, don't want bullets flying in the street. The shootings happened there because the feud involves the people who live there. So I would join in my counselor's intention at the conclusion of everyone's yield to lay this on the table. So I yield my time.

We will go to Councilor Zusy and then Councilor Nolan. I won't be able to speak with the same

I will tell you that I came into this meeting tonight thinking that I would be supporting this policy order. Not because I think Shot Spotter. I'm not convinced it's evil or that it listens. I agree. I think there is a false narrative. And I don't think it reports to ICE. But I also... Thank you for watching. in the toolbox that will help them to solve crimes. But I am concerned about who has access to whatever data ShotSpotter collects.

I was not able to attend the public safety meeting on April 29th and I'm so sorry, but I did watch it and I thought it was a fabulous meeting. And going into it, what I was concerned about is what Councilor Simmons has been saying again and again and again is, have you spoken? to the families at Newtown Court at Washington Elms. Have you talked to black and brown people? And I ran into Stephanie Gerard and she said, yes, I have. And I think Stephanie's wonderful. But when I listened to the meeting, What I heard is, I think she asked people, well, are you for ShotSpotter if it listens to your conversations and reports you to ICE? and people said no. They did not feel comfortable with ShotSpotter if it did those things, but we're not sure that it actually does those things. So I think it's an excellent idea to lay this on the table

until the community has a meeting with the folks tomorrow and to really hear what they have to say. because I think it is important to hear from the community most directly impacted by the technology crisis. before we make a decision. So I think it's a wise thing to have a little bit more data and to be asking the right question, which is, or without a leading question, without saying, this is listening to your conversations and reporting you to ICE, say, Do you feel that this tool, even though it's imperfect, does it make you feel more safe? I guess that's what I would like to hear back.

So I think this is a great idea to lay this on the table until we have that data. Thank you.

I yield. Councilor Nolan, then Councilor McGovern.

Thank you. many of my colleagues. I'm conflicted. It's very hard. This is very hard to think about. Are we doing something, depending on which way we go, that is I think that's a positive thing. Gun violence is in Cambridge. It has happened a number of times. We've heard the statistics. Of course, not very often. Certainly compared to other cities, it's far, far, far less. We have had many, many meetings about ShotSpotter over I think it's now a few years that we've discussed this. and there is documentation that there are very serious issues with ShotSpotter. As I think all of our colleagues in the community and the city manager and commissioner acknowledged, we are a very safe city.

I do not believe and do not see any evidence that ShotSpotter makes us any safer. or that it helps solve crimes. It just, we've never seen any of that. We heard tonight at least from many people in the city who did say from various, they heard the call like, They said, we want to hear from people who live in public housing, who are in communities. And they came tonight to this chamber, including two in Spanish, which we don't often hear. I understand enough Spanish to understand exactly what they were saying, which is they were not interested in it. But the questions matter. If you're asked, do you want ShotSpotter to continue because it's listening to you, then it's going to be a different answer than If you want a tool to keep you safe. But I think those are two polar opposites. And I think that's part of the problem that we have to be very careful about how the questions are phrased. Time of response definitely matters.

And yet for last Monday's startling and horrifying act of violence and shooting, ShotSpotter would not have saved anyone from getting shot, nor prevent shots. It was due to the bravery of the first responders as well as a retired Marine who had a weapon and a legally held gun. So I encourage the city to make it clear at the community meeting tomorrow, depending on where this goes, that every single one member of the city council is doing its best and stands with the community to be a safe city. I do not want any inclination or any idea that people who vote how they vote are not doing what they think is absolutely the safest for the city because I think that would be splitting the city and completely inequitable unfair and not a collaborative moment for us to understand that we may come across we may have different opinions on it but we are all doing everything we can to keep it safe.

So is ShotSpotter used by federal agents? Probably not now. But the whole point is it could be used that way. We have proof that it could be. You know, this council ended the use of flock cameras, which I had supported ending them. And yet that doesn't mean I'm against all cameras. I have long championed the use of cameras for traffic violations. So I think we have to understand the nuances here. that you can be in favor of having a tool like ShotSpotter but not necessarily in favor of this particular version of it. The point is I'm not and I don't think any of us are against technology even if they have some surveillance implications. But in this case, I do stand by cosponsoring this policy order to stop using this very specific tool because of the concerns and the documented issues with it. And when there's a better tool, which I believe will actually happen, I think there will be a tool that addresses the concerns and has completely city-owned and controlled data and doesn't raise the questions and concerns of ShotSpider.

So I would definitely consider supporting that and would hope the whole council would come forward and say, yes, now this tool is one that has been vetted and is much better than the one that I personally think we should not be using.

Thank you, Councilor Nolan-Yields. We'll go to Councilor McGovern.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. First thing, Acting Commissioner, I want to thank you and the Cambridge Police for last Monday and for the work that you do. I think I often in some circles catch heat for saying that I think that the Cambridge Police Department is an exceptional department. I don't think we're perfect, and I think one of the things that makes us exceptional is that you don't think we're perfect either. Thank you very much. I think we can sometimes, certainly in politics today, it's just there's no gray, there's no... You can be critical but also be supportive.

I think of that as a parent. Sometimes I don't always tell my kids what they want to hear because what they want to hear is not necessarily what's right for them. And so you can be critical and you can maybe be not supportive in one instance, but that does not mean that you are unsupportive in totality. And so there's a lot of gray in these conversations. In terms of gun violence in the city, we've heard a lot of people talk about unsolved cases. I was at the hospital. I'm going to get a little emotional. Thank you for watching. who was the one I was working with who in tears telling me what happened.

And I raced over. So I get it. And as Councilor Nolan said, I really, really hope, and this goes both ways. If somebody votes to keep ShotSpotter, I don't want anybody who disagrees with that vote to go out throwing accusations at people that they don't care about. immigrants, or they don't care. This council cares about people. And we may have some differences in certain issues, but Community to me is you can disagree with someone and still care about them and still care for them. And this, you know, if I vote to get rid of ShotSpotter, I don't want anybody talking about how I don't want to keep Cambridge safe. This is my goddamn city. I was going to say what David Ortiz said, but I didn't. And grew up in this city, and I have kids in this city.

And for anybody to suggest that I don't – and I've worked with kids in this city my entire life. and for anybody to suggest that I don't care about safety of the people of this city come say it to my face. But similarly Your vote on this, if you vote to keep ShotSpotter, I'm not going to say that anybody who votes to keep it doesn't care either. That's cheap and it's political and we should be better. I'm also not someone who's against the use of technology. Technology is important, and I think when used properly, technology can be really important. But this is where I start sort of to shift on this particular issue. I don't necessarily agree or don't agree, and I've been involved in these conversations for a few years, and I've always been on the fence about ShotSpotter.

I don't think it's listening into everybody's conversation at their kitchen table. Nor do I think the city is going to be less safe without it. And so for me, what this comes down to, and this is where I pivoted on Flock. was about the information, the control of the information, the access of the information not being in our hands. And under this current federal administration, that scares me. I may feel differently, and God please, in three years under a different administration. But right now, having had countless meetings on this, I still land in the place that A lot of the things that we're talking about are not things that ShotSpotter would have prevented or helped. So if we're talking strictly about ShotSpotter,

I don't think we're going to be less safe if we don't have it. So I'm going to vote for the order. I do agree and I hear what both Councilor Simmons and Councilor Zusy had said about some of the data around it. I do think how you ask a question when you're taking a survey or you know we get countless petitions on hundreds of subjects and you read the petition and it's like well of course I would sign this because the way the person wrote the petition makes it sound like a no-brainer when really it's actually more complicated. Nobody writes a petition that has So I'm a little skeptical of some of that data. But if we're going to make a decision about it, at the end of the day, I don't think it makes us any safer.

I think the risks are great, particularly around the control and the access of the data. So I will vote for the policy order that I'm a co-sponsor on, so that's not a surprise. But I do want to thank you, though, Acting Commissioner, and the Cambridge Police, because I don't share quite the same concern that if you arrive at a call, it's therefore going to end in a bad way, because that's typically not what happens, really. in Cambridge. And I think that's important to say as well. So that's where I am on this. And I guess I'll yield right now.

Thank you. I'll speak briefly and then we can go ahead to Councillor Simmons. You know, I'll say that I want to just commend my colleagues for having This discussion here, and there's been a lot of discussions, and I think there are various points of view on this. That's kind of democracy. And I do want to commend our Commissioner and our first responders for the response, not just Monday, but many, many instances. And I'm grateful for just the care that has often been exhibited and I appreciate the community conversation that we're having tomorrow and I think we'll be there too. These are not done. I called you Commissioner

Thank you so much for having me. We want to get people the information. We want to make sure that their questions are answered. I really value that. To Councilor McGovern's eloquent point, I think even if we disagree, I think there's a way we can disagree and still be part of the Thank you very much. These conversations, and I think a lot of what my colleagues have said on both sides is very, very compelling. And I think where I land is the data that

There's a lot of evidence in other cities that have canceled contracts. I do feel concerned about a lot of what has been shared and I think personally there's reasonable doubt for me there. And so I am prepared to vote tonight. Thank you so much for joining us. Everything I've seen. So... I think our job is to inform people of what our decisions mean and why we take them. And I'm ready to do that. I think some of our colleagues are ready to do that. But I still want to stand with you

and but you know I think you know That's just where I land, and I respect where my colleagues have also landed on this. So we can go ahead on Councilor Simmons' vote to table, and then we'll see where that lands. and then we can go from there. So Councilor Simmons has moved to table. It's a non-debatable motion. We'll go to the vote.

Councilor Al-Zubi. No. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? No. Councilor Nolan? No. No. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? No. No. Councilor Zusy?

Uh, yes.

Yes, Mayor Siddiqui.

No.

No, and you have four members recorded in the affirmative and five recorded in the negative.

So the vote to table fails. So we can go ahead. Any discussion before we go ahead and adopt this policy order? On a motion by Councilor Al-Zubi to adopt the policy order, we'll do a roll call. Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem.

Present.

Present. Councilor Flaherty. No. No. Councilor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons.

No.

No. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Present. Present. Mayor Siddiqui. Yes, and you have five members recorded in the affirmative, two recorded in the negative, and two recorded as present.

The policy order has been adopted. We are going to move on to policy order number three, that the city manager be and hereby is requested to work with the mayor's office. Law Department, Election Commission, and other relevant city departments to engage the Collins Center in assisting the city in reviewing policy options for allowing Cambridge voters to directly elect the city's mayor. The Charter Right was exercised by Councilor Simmons. Councilor Simmons, you have the floor.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I said last week, I do understand why this is the call on center, correct? Yes. Why people are interested in... And if we're going to continue the discussion about how we choose our mayor, it is important that we also ask the Collins Center to examine what the role of mayor is in relationship to the city council, the city manager, and the school committee. and what that ought to be. I do not think we can separate the mechanics of choosing a mayor from those other deeper governance questions Thank you very much.

Seniors, working families, lower-income residents, and those who speak English as a second language must not be an afterthought in this conversation. The charter review process spanned a great deal of time. The people on the commission worked incredibly hard and there were still so many people in the community that had no idea that this was being discussed. That should tell us something. Yes, people have an obligation to pay more attention and we also have an obligation to work. Thank you very much. That the city manager be in the hereby is requested to work with the office of the mayor, the law department, election commission, executive assistant to the city council, and other relevant city departments to engage the Collins Center in preparing a neutral review.

of the unresolved governance questions that emerged from the recent charter review process, including but not limited to the method of selecting the mayor. The role of the authority of the mayor, the relationship between the city council and the city manager, and the public engagement process that would be necessary before any further charter amendment is advanced and be further ordered, that this review shall summarize The prior Charter Review Committee's considerations of these issues, identifying where consensus was reached and where it was not, and outlined legal, electoral, administrative, financial, and community engagement considerations. that would be needed to be addressed before the City Council considered any additional charter changes and be of further order that the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back to the City Council on this matter. In a timely fashion, I yield the floor.

Madam Mayor. We'll go to Councillor Sibena Wheeler.

Thanks. Just a brief question for Councillor Simmons. I had asked Councillor Flaherty if this amendment passed, if that would change his vote on the policy order. I was thinking he was the lead sponsor. And apologies, I'm realizing you're the lead sponsor. Councilor Flaherty said the amendment, if it passed, it wouldn't change his vote on the underlying policy order. If the amendment passes, I would support this amendment if it would allow you to vote yes on the underlying policy order. If this passes, would you vote yes on the underlying policy order or would you

I have to see it. It's not in front of me right now. You're talking about the one that you offered initially?

Yes, Councilor Simmons, it's in the book.

If your amendment passes, would you vote yes on the overall thing? Okay. Councilor Simeone-Wheeler?

I have to go look at it. I just don't remember it.

Okay, we'll come back to you, Councilor Simmons. Why don't you take a moment? We'll go to Councilor McGovern, and then we'll go to Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. Simmons, and Councilor Flaherty. Is this, maybe you need time to, are you adding these orders on to, I guess sort of a similar question, are you adding these orders on to I'm looking for that so that I can see and compare and contrast.

I need a moment.

I could be fine with these, but I also am fine with the other ones. So if this is being incorporated in, that's Yeah, Councilor McGovern, thank you.

So, Councilor Simmons, we want to know from you, I guess, where this would be coming in. Is this a substitute order? Where in the order it is? I have a few people who have their hands up. Councilor Nolan and then Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you through you, Mayor Siddiqui, to the Council. My concern about the amendments are that we've already done this. We have a 180-page report from the Charter Review Committee that summarized every single vote taken that was very extensive, that worked with the Charter Review Committee, the city, that did all of this, which is... We already have a summary of the prior charter review committee consideration of every single issue. And the reason this is before us is there were some issues that were not fully discussed and were referred to committee. So the charter that passed were all the other issues. So this policy order, which I'm glad is on the table, really is, there were just a couple of leftover issues that had not been fully discussed. And my concern about this is that we would be

requiring extra work that doesn't need to happen that it would not move us forward that it would delay the process. because, again, we have already had an extensive, incredible summary done by the Charter Review Committee. They spent, what, a year and a half, I believe, deliberating, Many, many meetings. I want to honor their work, and I feel like this dishonors their work. So that's my concern about this. The original language that we put forward makes much more sense to me that we would be moving forward with a very specific, tailored question that had been left unresolved that was referred to committee that was brought up in the charter review committee and I wouldn't want to reopen every single other issue that had been discussed and I want to honor the work of the charter review committee and not have to redo it.

Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I share some of the same concerns that Councilor Nolan brought up. I'd just be curious to hear a little bit more. I'll yield my time just to hear more from Councilor Simmons.

Anyone who hasn't spoken on this, we heard a good number of folks last week, so we don't necessarily need to relitigate.

Okay.

Councilor Simmons, back to you.

Thank you. So nice to have you calling me. In the spirit of collaboration, I would do that because I want us to work collaboratively on this. I'm not trying to be obstructionist. I remember the process. I also remember the charter review process. I also know that we're going to be I reviewed the The minutes and the tape. So I've got a lot more informed about this. And so, again, in the spirit of cooperation, if you... support these amendments that we're offering. And then we can have a full and robust conversation. I'm just concerned because the Charter Review Committee didn't bring it forward to us. And so that's part of my concern. And I also hope that we will get better at

Thank you. We did adopt where the mayor no longer sits as a chair. There is some nuance that we did not have at the time that conversation was being had. I yield the floor.

Vandermeer, Councillor Serena Wheeler.

Thank you. If we're adding these in addition to the policy order, I'm happy to do that. And Councillor Simmons and Councillor Flaherty are going to vote yes on the policy order. After all, happy to compromise and work with colleagues on this. We have Councilor Flaherty and Councilor Zusy.

Just Madam Mayor, through you, very briefly, I didn't read the entire Charter Review Summary, but I did read the letter that was authored by, I believe it was Kathy Bourne, that said the Charter Review Committee met maybe 36 times and they were never able to reach the required two-thirds support to bring the question forward about whether or not Mayor should be something that should be considered. And then I did a little bit more digging, and it appears to me that technically there's some real difficulties with this, with... having an election with proportional representation and a properly elected mayor, both policy-wise and technically-wise. So it's a very complicated undertaking.

to even consider this because obviously we all know that the proportional representation policy and goal is to ensure minority representation and if we were to then elect or consider electing a mayor popularly, I mean there's several different ways we could think about doing this, that flies in the face of a proportional representation system for electing a duly City Councilors, City, sitting City Councilors. So if we wanted to do a proportional representation vote for Mayor from either the body of the City Council or the City As a whole, that's also another layer of complexity. So I think it's, to City, to Councilor Simmons' point, it makes sense, I think, this amendment makes sense.

to identify the specific issues. My question, and I guess, I mean, obviously, I wasn't a member of the council at that time, but is the call-in center because I've heard different reports. Is the Carlin Center the right body to do this work considering proportional representation? I know they did some stuff in Worcester. And the information I received about the review in Worcester was that it's entirely unworkable. But I don't know. So I guess with the amendment, maybe we'll be able to frame the issues, present it to the Collins Center, and see where we're at.

Councilor Zuzi? I'll be voting present on these amendments and I'll be voting no on the policy order because I feel like last year was dedicated like half of the year was talking about multifamily housing ordinance and half of the year was talking about the charter. And after many, many discussions, we advanced the charter. The legislature advanced a home rule petition in supporting our amendments. And then the whole city of Cambridge, our voters, voted to adopt our new charter. So I feel as though we have so many real things to do. I will tell you, I feel the budget discussions really made me feel good about the city. City Manager Yan Wang, you should be listening. because you're doing a great job. You're doing a great job.

I feel like the budget... My takeaway was that we're doing so many things that are right, but we really need to be... focused on amending the multifamily housing ordinance. We need to be protecting, adding greater tree protection. We need to be rezoning Central Square.

Can you come back to the policy order?

Yeah, so back to the policy order. I feel like we have real work to do and this is a distraction. We already spent half a year debating these things. It's time to move on and really focus on advancing the city and voting on things and focusing on things that actually will advance the good of the city rather than like re-legislating everything that we've legislated.

Thank you. I yield. Okay. So we have these amendments before us. I think, Councilor Simmons, you want them to be added to the list of the ordered. I think... They kind of... I think the First Order can be replaced with the First Amendment... and then we can keep the second ordered in and then you have to then substitute the last two because If you pull it up, because we didn't strike some of this, it's kind of a lot of similar language, so...

Can I ask the study solicitor question? Yeah, go ahead. I would like to get the study solicitor to weigh in on this. The intent in accepting this was to The whole intent of the policy order was to allow the city to contract with the Collins Center, start the discussion with them. Is there anything in the amendment that you think would preclude that? In my mind, it is just adding sort of additional things to consider. Would wanna get your UA in as a city solicitor. Would this still allow the original intent of the policy order to go forward?

Yes, thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. I think you need to keep the second to last whereas, which is asking for the identify the funding so that the Collins Center can be engaged. Another comment looking at the first ordered paragraph here on the amendment is that this may not need the call-in center to summarize the unresolved governance questions. So some of this work we may be able to do within the law department before you bring in the call-in center to help. So just something to keep in mind that we're happy to work with you on.

Thank you. Just make sure that we're adding these to the policy order to keep all the language in the original policy order is, I think, what I would want to make sure. As long as we're keeping the language in that last whereas, I think we're okay. We can replace the first ordered if we need to replace something as long as we're keeping that last whereas.

Go ahead, City Manager.

Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, I think the only maybe question to the body and I think where there may be some Potential clarity between the amendment and the original policy order is whether the amendment is meant to the summary of Unresolved governance questions in that review, is that meant to inform the scope of the work that the Collins Center would be contracted to support? I think in some ways the original policy order seemed A bit more specifically focused on bringing the Collins Center in to support reviewing policy options for allowing Cambridge voters to directly elect the city's mayor.

To the extent, and I think that even the original whereases were a little bit implying that there were other recommendations or topics that were referred to government operations for further exploration, for instance, changing the voting age, other topics that didn't end up going to government operations. It was not necessarily clear from the ordered language that that was in scope. the question in terms of the new orders in the amendments would the review that is being prepared inform A decision about the scope of work or is it simply meant to be a review in the context of only talking about a direct election for the city's mayor?

Simmons, please correct me if this wasn't your intent, but my understanding is all the orders were just about this question of The election of a mayor and that when you in your language here said a review of the unresolved governance questions that was reviewing the charter committee's work. I agree that the charter committee talked about this. We just want to review that discussion. We're not opening up new topics. This is all about the mayoral election. That was my understanding. It sounds like we're on the same page.

So looking at this, I think we can replace the first ordered with... The amendment and then yeah and then we can keep the second ordered here and then add in Megan, you're nodding your head.

of the original. That's how I took it.

Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Just kind of a clarification or through you either to the city solicitor or Councilor Simmons. I think that second order about the review is I'm still struggling to understand how that's different from the 80-page report from the Charter Review because they talked about all their issues, where consensus was reached, where it was not. They outlined considerations. I could support this, but I worry that by putting it in there, it means we're going to create another review. Oh, if it's just looking at the report they already did, that's fine.

What's the pleasure of the City Council?

Move adoption of the amendment.

Yes, so we'll do this piece by piece. So we're going to replace the first ordered with the first amendment here. For the first ordered amendment by Simmons, Councilor Simmons and Councilor Flaherty. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. That's replaced. We're going to keep the second ordered in the original. We're going to take out the be it further because that will get relocated. And we'll add, we'll substitute the last ordered in the original. with the two orders before us here. So then we'll have one, two, three, four orders on the plate. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes, it says summarize the prior charter review committee. Okay, so we'll go ahead and do a roll call on those amendments. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Okay, there is one no by Councilor Zusy. For all of it? For those two last two, yeah. Okay, so we have an amended policy order before us. We do have one more amendment. This is by Councilor Al-Zubi. Councilor Al-Zubi, you have the floor.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I'll be brief. I know talking about the structure of our government is important, and I know we just amended, so I sent in a new amendment. based on the order we just adopted that's new and substitute it so that the language itself replaces mayor with executive. and that comes from a place where I believe residents should be able to elect their own executive based on the principle of what democracy should look like and this is, out of clarity, this is about a system and not a person. When we elect our ceremonial mayor, we miss the structural problem and can possibly confuse our residents, although I will concede that it might give us counselors more procedural clarity on the back-end piece. I'm looking for there to be clarity on what this means in the policy order since it is referring to options at the end of the day, so I do hope it passes. But if it does not, I'll be voting present. I'm happy to explain the amendments if they are.

So Councilor Al-Zubi, we replaced that order with that.

Right, so I'm amending that amendment.

You're amending that amendment. Okay. You're going to amend it back.

So this is new? This is not what people have circulated?

So I had an original amendment, but I just adjusted it so that it's responsive to what we just passed.

It's not what was circulated. Okay, I see it.

It's not what circulated. It's on the screen before us. I wasn't looking at the screen. Okay, so this is what we have an amendment that we passed. Simmons. So look at the Councilor Simmons amendment in your packet. Councilor Al-Zubi is amending that. Correct, Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yeah, I just took the language that I originally was going to propose and adjusted it so it's in line with what Councilor Simmons' amendment had.

I was going to add a question to Councilor Al-Zubi about her amendment. Yes, go ahead. So are you suggesting in this that a method for people to, because when I hear executor, I think of the city manager. So are you suggesting that people to change this so that the public elects the city manager?

Correct. This is coming off based on the principle of what I believe democracy should look like.

Okay. I'm not going to vote for this. I mean, that's a whole different ballgame than anything. And I've already said that I support the city manager, former government. I do think there's a better way to choose our mayor rather than how we're doing it now. But I would not vote for the public electing the city manager.

Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes, quickly. I think it's, now that it's been clarified, it's not as confusing, but I am not going to support it. I do believe there's a balance issue. I do think having a city manager and a mayor, it should be differently balanced for the city manager and the council, but since this would then preclude that discussion, I will not be supporting it for the same reasons that Councillor McGovern just said.

Are there people on this amendment? I'll just say that I think on my end, when I think about the intent behind the original, I think it is to review the role of the mayor, but not to change the form of government. We discussed it last term and there was not support at that time and I don't think there's support now. So I'll be voting no on that. That's all I have to say on that. Anyone on this before we go ahead on the roll call? On Councilor Al Zubi's amendment, we'll do a roll call.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? No. No. Councilor Flaherty? No. No. Councilor McGovern? No. No. Councilor Nolan? No. No. Councilor Simmons? No. No. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? No. No, Councilor, I'm sorry, Mayor Siddiqui?

No.

No, and you have two recorded in the affirmative and seven recorded in the negative.

The amendment fails. So we have an amended policy order before us. Hearing no one else, we can go do a roll call on adopting the amended policy order.

Okay. Councilor Al-Zubi?

Present.

Present. Vice Mayor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes, Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan? Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have seven members recorded in the affirmative, one recorded in the negative, and one recorded as present.

The policy order as amended is adopted. We are moving on to the fourth item. that the city managers request a report back to the city council on the projected fiscal impact of maintaining the current exemption for seniors along with any administrative steps necessary to do so. Charter right was exercised by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, you have the floor.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Through you, there is an amendment by substitution that I am bringing with Councilor McGovern. I will say that policy is shaped by reality and data. It's also shaped by compromise. This is a compromise. It keeps the increased permit fee that more accurately reflects the cost of parking and at the same time makes a checkbox that would make the permit cost zero dollars for anyone who says the cost would be a hardship of them regardless of their age. I'm happy to support this because I don't think that many people will check that box. Running the numbers, even if 50% of all residents checked that box, one out of every two people, it would still be a better policy than the current $25 permit fee structure. and it improves our current policy over the visitor permit because right now the visitor permit costs the same thing as actually getting a parking permit which makes no sense and this would would have different fees for a resident parking permit and a visitor permit. This would still be better policy. I think it would be, if we pass this, it would be good to review in a year and see how many people are checking that box and see if it is

5% or 55%. I think it'll be closer to 5%, but it'll be important to see those numbers and take a look. But that is what policy and governance is. I hope we can all live with and I hope we can

Simmons, and I'll yield back.

We did this as a substitute order as opposed to amending the order. It got rid of the whereases. I think we get into a lot of Sometimes the whereases are helpful and sometimes you can nitpick the whereases all day long and you get caught up in that when the real meat is what you're asking the city to do. So we just kind of cut to the chase here. This will do, we think, what we believe, is that this will, in effect, keep the senior exemption so seniors who need that exemption will continue to be charged zero dollars. Zero. Not 25, not 75. They'll be charged nothing. But it also expands to Low-income people who are not seniors. And again, this has been something I had been talking about from the beginning.

I don't think anybody was doing this as an attack on seniors, although I know folks felt that way and I I'm sorry that we did something and worded something in a way that created that because we could have worded it better. But at the end of the day, what this was for me was I want the people who can afford to pay full price to pay full price and the people who can't to not have to, regardless of their age. And actually, when I've talked to seniors about this, Folks who have testified against going to the $75, and I explained that to them, they actually, a lot of them have agreed that people who can afford to should pay more and the people who cannot afford to. should pay less or nothing. I know there are some folks who wanted it to be $25. Some folks wanted to keep the whole thing at $75. This, I think, is a good compromise. Seniors will continue to pay $0.

If they check that box, as will people of any age. I know there's some feelings about having to check a box and what that means. I don't know another way to do it. We've been thinking about this for weeks. We don't want to ask people to prove that they're low income. You talk about invasive. I don't want anyone to have to bring pay stubs or tax returns. I mean, we absolutely do not want that. and so you're kind of left with either you exempt everybody and it's free for everybody and nobody has to prove anything or if you're going to have a system where some people pay more and some people pay less there has to be some way to determine who's going to pay less or in this case zero. and the least invasive way I can think about that is that you just check a box. And we do this all the time. People of any age, you have to check all kinds of boxes when you're doing stuff online, when you're applying for things, when you're applying for credit cards. I mean, this isn't, you know.

This is not an unusual thing. But I do believe and heard a lot from the seniors, and look, this is a difficult time right now with gas prices the way they are and everything, groceries the way they are, that Even $25 may not be a lot to me, but it is a lot to a lot of people, regardless of their age. And I want to make sure those people don't have to make those tough decisions. So this, I think, is a fair compromise. Again, any senior who cannot pay the full price will get a free sticker, as is the case now. So happy to answer any questions. and I'll yield for now.

Thank you. I have Vice Mayor Azeem.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I am a little bit... I was nervous about this in that I felt like the first thing was like, you know, we had our $25 with our senior exemption. Then we raised it to 75. Then we were like, we want to bring the senior exemption back. Then we said, You know, we're actually going to start and saying, you know, anyone who's low income, they can also get an exemption. But then we were like, we don't want to prove it's low income. So anyone who says that they have a hardship, they also get an exemption, right? And if you ask me, like, hey, Do you have an extra 75 bucks lying around? I'm not like feeling great about having 75 extra bucks, right? And the reason I feel like I'm a little like able to support what we're trying to do here, but I also like worry that like, you know, like, Not saying it's definitely going to be 50% or anything, but if 50% of the people decide to check the box, that's $1.5 million. This has all of a sudden become a very high-impact decision. from a fairly small one.

And so I had a question for the city manager, who I apologize for dragging back in here, but I was just wondering, what were we planning to do with the additional revenue raised? Because my understanding was this was part of the budget conversation.

City manager?

Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, I may have to get back to you in terms of to what we may have specifically allocated. I mean, I think also Overall, there's a number. I mean, it would more be a question of if we didn't have this, what would we do on the cost side? I mean, I would agree with you that Thank you for having me. My inclination would be to expect that it would be used liberally. And similar to the prior experiment we ran on towing, I think the expectation was that

Thank you for joining us. I think in terms of this proposal, and I won't speak for the traffic department, I think they can take a look at this, think about it, and bring back a fuller response. But my quick initial reaction would be we should expect significantly less revenue.

Okay, Vice Mayor? Azeem?

Yeah, so I think it just depends on where you start counting. I'm sure that unless two-thirds of people opt out, you'll have more revenue than you do today, but less than we expected once we passed the 75 originally. So I would say that, like, I mean, I would be fine with just having a senior exemption back and then keeping it to 75. I feel like if we wanted to keep it to 25, that would also be fine, but I feel like we've gotten a little too generous. in this case here, where I feel like we could end up with a worse outcome or a very similar outcome to where we started with this without all the emotional turmoil. And I know that's not satisfying to anyone because we've spent so much time on it, but I really do worry that... We got some pushback and we want to be as generous as possible and then we all of a sudden don't have a million and a half dollars that we were planning for.

Vice Mayor Azeem Yields. I have a few folks. I have a number of folks who would like to talk to this. So I have Councilor Zusy, Councilor Simmons, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor Al-Zubi.

I am open to this as a one-year pilot to see what happens. We'd need to see what sort of revenue it brings in. I agree this is all like counterintuitive because we're having fiscal challenges, right? and we need to bring in money. I felt like this whole conversation has not been rational at all. Originally, when we were talking about asking seniors to pay $25, that's like just $2.10 a month, which isn't very much. But then there was such intense pushback. because it seemed clear that some seniors saw it as a great privilege to have the exemption. And I think what's really going on, and this is what's really not rational, is that, again, people are really just so frustrated because we keep taking things away, right?

There are fewer parking places. They're feeling a loss of control, so they like getting that exemption. I'm not exactly sure how I'll vote in the end, but I'm sort of open to this as a pilot. But I feel like it would be more responsible to keep the $75 for most people. 25 people if they can't pay the $75 and to allow the seniors, give them a pass with disabled residents for this year. I think that actually would result in more revenue. But let's see what the rest of you have to say. Councilor Simmons.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is an issue that's now been before the City Council in various iterations, several times over the past several weeks, and therefore... I don't have much to say that hasn't been already said. My opposition to imposing a fee on the seniors remains steadfast, although I do want to acknowledge and say to my colleagues McGovern, and Sabina Wheel, I do appreciate thinking this through and being willing to compromise and bring it down to $25 with a check-off box, but I'm an optimist. Thank you. With a checkoff box. So I'm still very much opposed to any fee of any kind. The problem with the checkoff box, my fear is They're not going to, people are not going to understand. They're not going to take full benefit of it.

You know, the check off the box for what when I've not been paying for it at all. Just We don't want to charge seniors nothing. You don't have to check a box. What we've been doing for time immemorial, we're going to continue to do that. Seniors are not going to get the message. Thank you very much. I appreciate the checkoff box. I just want seniors to get the benefit they've always had without having to do anything other than show up and ask for the permit. I yield the floor.

Councilor Flaherty.

Through you, Madam Mayor. Is it Councilor Nolan's turn? No, it's you. My turn? Okay. Through you, Madam Mayor. Ladies first. But I will say that this amendment does two things. and not one. And what it does is it agrees to an increase to $75 for the resident permit parking fee, which I'm opposed to, and it also Allows for the senior exemption to remain, which I'm in favor of. I will say the reason why I'm opposed to it is because we had a hearing on it and I learned that the Department of Transportation's revenue is about $22 million. Fund other departments within the city.

And I don't think it's justified for us to increase our residential permit parking program by 300%. When the department generates $22 million of revenue, $11 million or $11.5 million of that is for parking violations. The additional revenue is through Business Permits, Meters, Garages, etc. And it's clear it's a money-making operation. And some of the data I looked at from the presentation, I don't have my notes in front of me, from the Department of Transportation was, I think parking enforcement officers were estimated to spend 14% of their time on the resident permit program

which translated to just under $2 million in parking violations for that specific purpose, plus the fees that people spent who were lawfully enrolled and the resident permit program, which is almost equal to the amount that the Department of Transportation said that this overall program costs. So I don't understand Thank you very much. In Cambridge, who's over the age of 65, we should just send them a sticker. Send them a sticker in the mail. You don't have to check off anything. You don't have to pay anything. Just send them a sticker. And it really is.

A traditional and well settled exemption that I think is warranted. And then we can deal with low income people through another system. It makes no sense to me that we're increasing the residential parking fee. I yield.

Councilor Al-Zubi?

Hi, thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, just we'll be brief. I want to appreciate the amendment from Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler and McGovern. In fact, I would like to be added as a collaborator if that's possible, or if not, at least if the amendment passes, I'd love to be added on that amended PO. Thank you.

So Councilor Al-Zubi would like to be added to this and so we can go ahead and do a roll call on that. Okay, voice vote if folks are okay with it. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Councilor Al-Zubi is on this.

Councilor Nolan. Thank you. We've talked about this for a while. A few things. There's already a checkoff box if you're a senior. I use it. So it's already there on the website. So there's no change with checkoff. It's just is whether this checkoff is now available for more people is how I see this policy order. and it would be very simple it is as we've always said proving your income is something that is actually we you have to do in so many other areas of the city so I don't think that's Thank you very much. Just to remind us all, we already voted on the 75. That was already done. So unless we're rethinking that.

And it was based on a recommendation from two and a half years ago from the city staff saying they recommended the $75. I just want to remind us all of that history. While it is a tripling of the fee, if you really want to correct the math, it's a 200% increase. That's not a 300% increase. And more importantly, it would go from 25 to 75 for most people. and that's in a city where private parking is $100 to $400 a month. So I still... As I've said before, view this as a steal or a deal for the 75. And for 25, if you already own a car It is minimal. And I have talked to, we got several emails today from people saying we're happy to pay the 75, that's what it should be, including seniors, one senior in response to The senior action saying, hey, come and tell the city councilor, you know, we should keep it free. And the person said, well, I'm a senior, but I actually think I should pay because I can pay the 75.

So to remind us all, the reason I'm so Thank you. Thank you. from folks who don't own cars to people who do own cars. So I think that's inequitable on the face of it. would love instead, and I don't know if I can offer an amendment to an amendment, instead of the last line being for free, to say for $25.

You can offer an amendment to an amendment, playing Jeopardy. So we'll go ahead and put your amendment up, which is... And we'll have to vote in the order of the amendment. So this is to receive their sticker for $25. Take out the free.

Right. And the idea is any senior of any age, any person for whom they can just check it off and do it. But I still think it makes sense. And that's what they're paying now. Unless you're a senior or handicapped, you're paying that now. What this would do is for some people who are already paying 25 to say they're not. And again, it's all about we're in a time of fiscal crisis. It's a subsidy. At least 40% of the residents in the city don't even own cars, so they're effectively subsidizing. And when people say, well, I pay for the public schools, that's a public good. Thank you for joining us. Be equitable and fair in our allocation of costs across the city, and that's what the $75 does. So I think even the $25 is a compromise.

Okay, discussion on Councilor Nolan's amendment. I have Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler and then Councilor McGovern.

Thanks. I'll be brief and real. There's lots of good argument for this. I don't think we have five votes for this. I think we have five votes for the original. I want to get something done, so I'm going to be no on this amendment.

Councilor McGovern.

Thank you. I'm going to vote against this. Again, I think listen to the folks who have come out. Listen to seniors who have said that even $25 is a hardship. That's why we put in free so they won't have to pay anything. This is what compromise, you know, I mean, I know people are going to say I don't want to check a box or I don't want to do this, but this is what compromise is. I mean, if you look at where we started to where we are now, Seniors are still going to get to pay $0 if that's what they choose. And so I'm going to vote against this, stick with the original amendment that Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler and I put in. There was talk earlier about just going to $75 for everyone and keeping the senior exemption. I would not support that because then that would mean that low-income people who are under the age of 65 would have to pay $75.

And how can we sit here and talk about $25 being a hardship, and then we're going to raise it to $75 for other people and say that's not a hardship? So if you are low income, you don't have the money, you should get the exemption, period. And so I'm going to stick with the free. Thank you.

I have Councilor Flaherty.

Just very briefly through you, Madam Mayor, to argue that this is a subsidy of people who don't own cars. is inaccurate. because if anything, the Emerson College test says the reason why this is not a tax and a fee is because the city is allowing people to park their cars on the public way. That's the services the city is giving them in exchange for the payment. for a resident permit sticker. But the money from the Department of Transportation goes to fund other things within the city, including Street improvements like separated bike lanes, also use of the public way. So if we're logically thinking about subsidies, the argument can be made, and I'm not making the argument, the argument logically can be made,

that people who are participating in the resident permit parking program are in fact subsidizing people without cars who make use of the separated bike lanes. That's the logic of the Emerson College test. It's not my logic. It's a supreme judicial cause, and it's borne out by the City of Cambridge budget.

Al-Zubi, and then Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. I just also again wanted to echo Councilor McGovern's points. I will be voting no on this because it should be free and I mean, out of respect for Vice Mayor Azeem, I was going to call the question, but I think I'll yield to that.

Okay, there you go. We're just going to go to the vote on this amendment, and so we'll do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi?

No.

No. Vice Mayor Azeem? No. Yes, Councilor Flaherty. No. No, Councilor McGovern. No. No, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Simmons. No. No, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. No. No, Councilor Zusy.

No.

No. Mayor Siddiqui?

No.

No. And you have two members recorded in the affirmative and seven recorded in the negative.

So we're back to it being free. So we'll go ahead and do a roll call on this item. Amendment before us. Discussion? Yes, Councilor Nolan.

Yeah, the discussion is just to remind us all, this has nothing to do with the Emerson test. The city itself has said that the actual cost of doing the program Cost $75. It has nothing to do with any of the other revenue or expenses of the Department of Transportation. It is definitely in there for if you're not collecting that $75, somebody's subsidizing you.

Any last, we can guess, Vice Mayor Azeem?

I just wanted to say, I will be voting no on this, but I will separately vote if this fails for the senior exemption. I just feel like we're going to lose too much revenue. So I just wanted to explain. Thank you.

Okay, we're going to go ahead on a motion by Councilor McGovern to adopt this amendment. Do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. No. No. Councilor Flaherty.

No.

McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Cambridge, Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. And you have five members recorded in the affirmative and four recorded in the negative.

So the amendment passes. That's the vote, right?

Yes.

Yeah. So the amendment passes. Now we have to vote on the underlying. Yeah, it's actually six. It was five to four. Five to four. The four were Councilor McGovern, myself.

Oh, the against, the against. The four against was Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor Nolan, and Councilor Simmons.

Yes. You voted no. Yeah. Yeah, she voted against your amendment. Okay, so now we have to do the last thing, which is to Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, we're going to vote on the underlying motion.

Yep, I'll make that motion.

Yeah, so it's a motion to adopt as amended by substitution discussion. Vice Mayor Azeem.

I would love to add an order that just says to do a one-year review on how many people opt out or apply for the hardship.

So Vice Mayor Azeem is adding an amendment verbally. We'll get that written up. That ordered that their city manager do a review of on the how many people opt out of our checkoff. and the impacts on city budget or anything?

Yeah, yeah, I'll write it and send it. You'll write it.

Okay. Councilor, I mean, Vice Mayor Azeem is writing an amendment and we'll wait for that amendment. Do other people have amendments? I'm just wondering. It's almost 10. Yes, Councilor Simmons? The earlier vote was on the $25 check for things. Sorry, can you speak into the mic? It did not pass.

It did not pass.

That failed, and then the second one passed. Yeah, that original one to your question, Councilor Simmons, that was 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 folks who voted no on the $25 instead of free, and then two people voted yes. and then on the charter right, the one we just did by substitution, Four people voted no and five people voted yes. So now we have another amendment, which is by Vice Mayor Azeem. It should be coming up. Yes, discussion?

Councilor Zusy.

Yeah, I just wanted to correct. So I think for the amendment, Patty's amendment to change free to $25 Seven voted no and two voted yes.

That's what I said.

Okay, great. Thanks.

Naomi, you're putting it up? Okay. Thank you so much. This is what happens when everyone exercises their charter, right? And we have the meeting again. Okay, Vice Mayor Azeem, be it to the added ordered would be for the city manager to do a one-year review on how many apply for the hardship exemption and the impact on city. Finances. Discussion? Yes. Councilor Nolan? No, no discussion. Okay, so let's go ahead and do a roll call because I hear no discussion on adopting this order.

Al-Zubi, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Simmons, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The amendment is passed, so now we have an amended... Al-Zubi,

Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem. No. No, Councilor Flaherty.

No.

No, Councilor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes. Yes, Councilor Simmons. Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, and you have seven members recorded in the affirmative and two recorded in the negative.

All right.

Move reconsideration, hoping the same will not prevail.

Councilor Zerina-Wheeler moves to reconsideration. We have to do suspension, so we'll do that first, and then we'll do the reconsideration vote. On suspension. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. Consular Flaherty is recorded as a no on suspension. So now we're going to the reconsideration vote and we need to do a roll call for that.

Al-Zubi, no. Vice Mayor Azeem, no. Councilor Flaherty, yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern, yes. Yes. No. Is it yes or no? No? No. No. No, Councilor Nolan. No. No, Councilor Simmons. Councilor Simmons is absent. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. No. No, Councilor Zusy. No. No, Mayor Siddiqui.

No.

No, and you have one member recorded in the affirmative, seven recorded in the negative, and one recorded as absent.

Okay, so we've done our reconsideration vote. We have to move on to a few more items. We're almost there, people, so just, it's 9.48, let's We will get out by tomorrow. So we're going to the item number five. That a special committee of the City Council be formed to conduct a full and complete analysis of each of the proposed changes to the rules of the City Council with the goal of a transparent understanding of each of the proposed changes and implications. The Charter Right was exercised by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. I would like to suspend the rules just to bring forward six at the same time, which is the communication from Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler transmitting the proposed 2026-2027 rules of the Cambridge City Council. That charter right was exercised by Councilor Flaherty. So all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Both these items are before us.

I am going to go to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks Madam Mayor. There are amendments here from Councilor Nolan and Councilor Al-Zubi. Maybe together I'm down to support The amendments there, which make some small tweaks to public comment length, move the end goal time of the meeting to 10 p.m. instead of 9 p.m. Some small changes there, happy to accept all of those. will know with all of the rules that they can be suspended by a simple majority of the city council. So if we're getting close to 10 p.m. and we need another 15, 30, even 45 minutes, an hour, we can suspend the rules to do that, to just get done on Monday. This is just things that we think are best practices to try out If they aren't working, we can always change them. They are our own rules. This is not set in stone and irrevocable. These are things we're gonna try. I'm down to accept the amendments and try these tweaks to the public comment. and other processes. And again, most of the rules are things suggested by the law department.

I know Councilor Flaherty had a policy order here. I think when I exercised my charter right last week. Councilor Flaherty noted that maybe the charter right serves the purpose of the policy order. Wanted additional time to speak on that. We have had a whole additional week. Have had time for... So I hope Councilor Flaherty would just withdraw the policy order because we've had more time. If not, I would just like to vote that policy order down because we've had a lot of discussion about the council rules. and then to vote on Councilor Nolan and Councilor Al-Zubi's amendments and adopt the rules this evening.

So yeah, I do think we should dispose of the motion by Councilor Flaherty and Councilor Simmons on the special committee. and then get to the amendments. So discussion on the motion from Councilor Flaherty and Councilor Simmons. Councilor Flaherty?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I said, go ahead. Oh, but you asked me to say something.

Councilor Flaherty and then Councilor Simmons.

I have the floor? Through you, Madam Mayor. So, the City Council has always operated according to the City Council rules. with a Monday night meeting beginning at 5.30. Historically it has been done this way. And that's important for two reasons. It's to allow people to participate, community members to participate. People work. People have family obligations. People have professional obligations. They have civic obligations, coaching baseball or taking a kid for a bike ride. All of these things interfere with people's lives being able to be members of fully informed Thank you for joining us.

to observe, not during business hours, but to observe the city council actions and votes during a time when they're free. from their professional obligations. That's one reason why it's important to do the meeting at 5.30 on Monday nights. The second reason is because we encourage people who have obligations to seek to maybe serve on the city council. Citizen legislators are an important part of our history as a country. From our existence, we have had citizen legislators that bring to bear all of the experiences they have from the different walks of life and to change the council meetings would impair the ability of people who work full-time like myself outside of the council from bringing their

Thank you very much. Even some sort of a 9-to-5 job would automatically See this rule and say, I can't serve in the city council. I can't run the city council. So all the people who wanted to serve in the city council are being disenfranchised because of this rule change. Furthermore, Specifically to my individual situation, I've got obligations. If I tell a Superior Court judge I've got to be in City Council because we have meetings and he's scheduled to trial, well... I can't just say, Your Honor, I'm going to skip your trial and I'll be in the City Council where we're deliberating the increase of a resident permit parking fee in Cambridge.

I mean, that's just not going to happen. And when I ran for city council, as many people when they run for city council, they understand what the parameters of this job are. and the parameters of this job were clearly defined Monday nights, 5.30, no exceptions. And subcommittee meetings, committee meetings, as you can make them during the week. and political obligations beyond that and it's a lift but what we're doing is if we're enacting this rule change the I don't know how many people voted for me may be disenfranchised because I'm on occasion not going to be present for a city council meeting because of my commitments, my professional commitments, and my ethical responsibilities to my clients. There's no way around that.

and the people who voted for me will be disenfranchised. So that's the reality of this rule change. And for those reasons that's why I'm asking that a special committee of the City Council, the whole body, be established. Thank you very much. unless they're retired or they just have free time and they're not working. And so I think it's a very important rule change that should be discussed by the city council whole. And the other collateral impact of all of this

and I'm sure everybody understands this, it impacts the ability of city staff to do other things that they're doing during that time period. Arranging for committee meetings, conducting the administrative and supervision of the various departments in the city, keeping the lights on in the city of Cambridge. There's no reason why we can't have a meeting at 5.30 every Monday night with public comment and conduct our business. Thank you. I yield. On that note. To the kittens.

Councilor Simmons.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm with you. Let's go. The proposals changed before us represent a significant departure from how this council has operated for decades. And whether one agrees with every individual proposal or not, I think it's important... to acknowledge that some of these are not minor procedural amendments. These are changes that could substantially affect how meetings are scheduled, how deliberations occur, Thank you very much. Thank you. The rules of the City Council help shape not only how we govern internally, but also how the public engages with and experiences this body.

I believe Councilors and residents alike deserve the opportunity for a thoughtful discussion. Thank you very much. How any changes align with Massachusetts general laws and plan a formal government under which Cambridge operates? So at the end of the day, I don't think taking additional time for review. weakens this process. I think it strengthens it. A thoughtful deliberation is a part of good governance, especially when we're discussing changes that could have a lasting impact on the operation of the council for years to come. Also, just as I thought it through, I initially thought, you know, having bifurcating the meetings was a great idea. After I've sat and thought about it, I no longer think that way. I think similar to what Councilor Flaherty has said, people are accustomed to

Thank you very much. support what the Councilor Flaherty and I have brought in. And with that, I respectfully yield the floor.

I'm just going to say something really briefly. I think irrespective of where this goes on the policy order, Flaherty can strike that rule down from the actual rules. People are making amendments to the rules. I personally don't want to hold up... A lot of the other rules because they're pretty straightforward and so I'm not going to support this because I do think there's been I think aside from the schedule piece of it there's a lot of other ones that I think Thank you very much. and Councilor Flaherty at that moment, you can make a motion to strike that rule and we can discuss that. And I know that the city manager, and staff have been kind of behind that Tuesday. We've been in discussions around that Tuesday.

If they want to say something on that, just for context, they can. but I think I just want to explain where we are so we're not going around in circles. I'd rather just get to the actual... substantive roles in front of us. So I had the vice mayor. I had Councilor Nolan and Councilor McGovern and Councilor Zusy.

I was going to say I concur with the mayor. I was going to say the same points. I would only add that I think that all the other rules sound fine. I did not know about Councilor Flaherty's difficulties with scheduling. I would say that... If you had kept some of your talking points a little shorter, it could have been 9.30 right now, and maybe we would have gotten out on time. I think happy to discuss that. I would be fine with delaying the rule for the two meetings if you wanted till next term so people know. But I do actually think it would significantly improve our ability to have these meetings. Thank you.

McGovern, and then Councilor Nolan, and then Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. Yes, I would just assume sort of vote through the rule stuff tonight and get it done. And I can save my comments on where I stand on that until we get to that point. So I would not vote for this, just not because I necessarily even disagree with the Councilor. I probably am going to vote with Councilor Flaherty on that particular rule. But I'd rather just get through it. I mean, part of the reason we find ourselves in these situations is because every week we say, oh, the meeting's going too long, and then we kick the can to the next week, and then the next week gets, I mean, we just, let's take care of business, clean it up, get it done, move on.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Nolan?

Right, are we talking about both things?

We're just talking, well, let's just dispose of this first, this policy order.

Okay, and then separately we'll talk about the rules? Okay, so I... Yeah, I agree. I always like talking about the rules, and I think it is important to have some discussion about ones that change. This has been talked about in government operations. I do think it's important for us to move forward, so I don't want us to set up a special committee. We can always bring forth rules changes any time during the year. Zusy,

Oh, my. I just wanted to build on what Councilor Flaherty had said earlier, because I think there is a problem with cutting off at 10. I know that's next, but I feel like we need to discuss that further because I feel like then you can't have committee meetings on Tuesday afternoons, which is a problem. We have less time. And then I think we may want to add something also about like if something is charter-righted. I don't think maybe we shouldn't accept public comment on the item that was charter-righted the second time because Otherwise, we have two hours of public comment and most of those people, we just heard from them the week before saying the same thing. I feel like mostly you've done a great job. I think the amendments are great as well. I think mostly we've got it, but I think we might want to spend 40 minutes when we're all fresh at a different time.

I do think it will make for better meetings.

So you are not, are you supporting the policy order?

I am supporting the policy order because I think it would be good. I think we owe it to the public. I think we owe it to ourselves to discuss this when we're fresh at maybe a 40-minute meeting, but it'll be at at a time when we're all fresh.

Okay, so I've heard from everyone. We're going to go ahead on a motion by Councillor Simmons to adopt policy order number five. We'll do a roll call.

Al-Zubi, present, Vice Mayor Azeem, no, Councilor Flaherty, yes, Councilor McGovern, no, Councilor Nolan, no, Councilor Simmons. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? No. No. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui?

No.

No. And you have three members recorded in the affirmative, five recorded in the negative, and one recorded as present.

So the policy order does not pass. Okay, we're going to go to the next set of, which is the rules, and there's a few amendments. I have Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Mayor, I'll try to make this brief. I have a series of amendments to make that come on the floor with Councilor Nolan. I'm happy to walk through each one really just at the very end of the day. Thank you very much. So the first one that you see is related to making public comment rules straightforward. This way residents can expect to have two minutes on most nights and in an exception, they would have one. That's between one to 60 speakers having two and anything more than 61 would be one minute. and then for the committee meetings that would be one to 30 speakers having two minutes and then 31 plus would have one minute. So that just applies to the committee hearings. On the second amendment, this clarifies that public comment is not discretionary, just that the chair can dictate when it happens.

The Third Amendment speaks to moving the time back to 10 p.m., which I believe is a better spot at ending our time than just nine. Happy to hear discussion on that. And then the last amendment is giving the chair the ability to assess where the conversation is before making judgments on time and discussion. So striking the language there on whether we can ask two questions or how many times we talk into saying it should be at the judgment of the chair to say, Typically, you'll be afforded five minutes per recognition unless the chair decides that in order for efficient conduct of business that we need to adjust things. That's all.

So, Councilor Al-Zubi, if we scroll up, your first amendment for regular meetings and for committee hearings, this is to Rule 23D. for public comment, correct?

I would need to double check.

Because it's not listed here.

Yes, Councilor Nolan? Yeah, I can talk more about, I think we're talking about the amendments, right? Yes, 23D. The first one is not one that I was co-sponsoring, but the number three and four were ones that I put forth to the clerk, and then Councilor Azzubi put forth basically similar language. So those are definitely co-sponsored and I'm happy to support Amendment 2. Amendment 1, I'm comfortable with the Thank you very much. for 30 to 60 speakers and then one minute once you get to 60 speakers. So it definitely decreases the amount of public comment, but it keeps at least the possibility of some being able to. So I will not be supporting that one, but the other ones I would support.

We'll go amendment by amendment because that's the easiest thing to do. So yes, Councilor Al-Zubi to clarify.

Yeah, so for the first part on the regular meetings, I believe it'd be under Rule 23D and for the committee hearings, it'd be under Rule 31B. Yes, okay.

Okay. So discussion on this? Councilor Simmons on Amendment 1?

No.

So this amendment, Councilor Al-Zubi, you're saying for one to 60 speakers, they would have two minutes. 61 plus, it would be one minute. This is for our regular meetings. So if I hear no one else, this is an amendment to Rule 23D. We should do a roll call to approve that amendment.

Al-Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? No. No. Simmons. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, and you have eight members recorded in the affirmative and one recorded as absent.

Amendment 1, to the regular meeting to rule...

I'm sorry, one recorded is negative.

One is negative, yes, but it passes for the regular meeting to rule 23D. So then we move to, for committee meetings, this is... to rule 31B. And so that's, if there's one to 30 speakers, they'd get two minutes. 31 plus, they'd get one minute. Discussion? This is in community hearings and how much time people get. Yes, Councilor Nolan?

My understanding is it would also be at the discretion of the chair to change that, which is what we do now. Is that still...

I think the roles right now... We typically, yeah, so if we do three minutes, so we're reducing the... Right, but the discretion of the chair can change that time the way I've always... Yeah, you can suspend the rules always, right?

City Solicitor-Bearer?

To you, Madam Mayor, in the current Rule 31B about public comment at hearings, We talk about when it's a hearing that's required by law. So that's like the ordinance committee meeting on zoning petitions because that's required by law that there has to be public comment. But then... We say for matters where a public hearing is not required by law, the chair shall determine if there will be public comment and when it will occur. So right now there is discretion whether to even allow public comments.

Yes. Discussion, Councilor Nolan? Right, but the question is if we change it to... Those that there will be, will it still be at the discussion of the chair to change that timing if they so choose?

If there's... So... Amendment 2, suggested by Councilor Al-Zubi, removes the discretion of the chair to determine if there'll be public comment in a situation where it's not required by law. And so then I think you would have to move to suspend the rules to vary the length

Right, my question is not whether there would be the length of it, whether the chair could say, I'm going to give you more time, because that's the practice that's always been when...

It would be through suspension of the rules because the rules set out specific times in committee.

And that rules within a committee as the quorum of the committee?

So, I'm sorry, let me just clarify. Councilor Nolan's talking about the First Amendment, so the second part of that. Clear? Okay.

Yes. Yes, through you, Madam Mayor, but... I think she's then also referencing the second amendment. So if that discretion is removed entirely, Is there still discretion as to the length of public comment and the way these rules are written right now? No, there is not. And so the way to vary the length of time would be to suspend.

Okay. Do folks understand that? So we can go ahead and do a roll call on the second part of this amendment for committee hearings. And this is to Rule 31B.

Al-Zubi, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Simmons, Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy.

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Al-Zubi, the next one.

Sure. Yeah, I can just remind everyone the Second Amendment is giving, again, a clarification that public comment should not be discretionary, just that the chair can dictate when it happens. So it's striking that language. saying if there will be to say when in that way what city solicitor Megan Bayer is referring to. Just clarifies that.

Any discussion on this, Councilor Simmons?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. Just so I understand this, I think my colleague is saying that the chair will determine...

The chair shall determine when public comment will occur.

And it happens. Yeah. Okay. In council meetings and in... Smaller Committee Meetings, like across the board.

This is for public hearings. Public hearings.

Public hearings. So ordinance. Finance.

Finance, yes.

Okay. Very good, got it.

Yes, Council Member McGovern.

Thank you. So I'm fine with this, but I'm also just wondering how these go. One of the things we often hear, everyone does it a little bit differently in these meetings, so sometimes people put the public comment at the beginning, some people do it after the presentation. I wonder if it's just Is it easier just to say that public comment will come at a particular, Naomi's shaking her head at me, will come at a particular time in the agenda of a committee meeting so people are more clear on that? Because some people have complained. Oh, you know, other people, other counselors do it differently. I don't know.

Well, Madam Mayor, a point of information to my colleague. It says public hearings, so I'm just trying to understand. We're talking about public hearings, which I think the solicitor is saying meetings that require public hearings. I just want to be sure. There's regular meetings and there's public hearings in the committee. So what is your interpretation of what my colleague has put forth?

Solicitor?

Thank you.

That's why we shouldn't be doing it now. Through you, Madam Mayor. So my interpretation is that that we have interpreted Rule 31b to apply to committee meetings. It specifically talks about public hearings, and sometimes our committee meetings are public hearings as required by state law. Again, like the ordinance committee when they're hearing zoning petitions. And so rule 31B talks to in those instances, there has to be public comment. because there are due process rights at stake. But I believe the council has interpreted Rule 31B to apply to committee meetings

More broadly than just legal public hearings and then uses the time for public comment there to be what the time is set to at committee meetings.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, Councilor Simmons.

I guess my question then is to the amendment maker. What is her interpretation? Is she just talking about public hearings, or is she talking about public hearings, committee meetings, and council meetings?

Yeah, thank you, Councilor Al-Zubi. Yeah, thank you, Councilor Simmons. This is specifically for public hearings, which under the framework of the rules would be understood as a committee hearing because under Rule 23D, Our regular city council meetings are defined as regular and are special meetings. By the language of this document, public hearings are understood as committee hearings. At least that's how I've read it. So this is referring to committee hearings.

Thank you. I'm just trying to be clear because we kind of all have a different interpretation of committee hearing versus public hearing plus a council meeting. So if I understand that this is just for public hearing.

Yeah, just a quick further clarification that under the rules under 23, I think Under 23A, the order of business already dictates where public comment goes for regular meetings, so we wouldn't even be able to engage with changing it. It would just be for committee hearings.

I have the vice mayor.

I just wanted to ask the solicitor how this would impact a committee meeting that's resuming from a recess, because I think typically what happens is we're talking about something controversial, the first meeting, is all public comment, and then we recess, and then that's actually our chance to discuss it, so I wanted to ensure that we can do that still.

Solicitor?

Through you, Madam Mayor. I don't think this would impact the ability to recess and have it still be the same meeting that just picks up at a later time. So you already can have done the public comment portion.

Vice Mayor? And then a roundtable, I think, is not covered by this. I wanted to ask about a roundtable.

There's no public comment on roundtables.

I just wanted to assure that this does not change that.

Yeah, through you to the chair. That is correct. Roundtables do not have public comment.

And so they would not need to. Cool. All right. That was it. Thank you.

Councilor Zusy. Will we be able to end the meeting in 20 minutes or 30 minutes as we currently can if this passes?

Yes, we would be. Anything from you before we go ahead and vote on this? Councilor Flaherty?

Last question for the solicitor.

Is it... Just speak into the mic.

Oh, sorry.

Is that on?

Is it lawful to include a clause, and I'm not suggesting we do it now, but maybe we contemplate this, include a clause that no individual shall be permitted Even if they have submitted a written authorization to play a recording of another individual's testimony before a public hearing special, meeting in the committee or regular meeting in the committee. Is that lawful?

City Solicitor.

Through you, Madam Mayor. I think it likely is because it's a content... Correct. Okay. Thank you.

So what's before us is this amendment. Hearing no one else on this, I would go ahead and vote to adopt. and cut out if there will be and include when.

Councilor Al-Zubi. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan. Yes, Councilor Simmons.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. Yes. Yes, Mayor Siddiqui.

Yes.

Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

That amendment passes. All right. Now to the big one. This is Amendment 3. And this is the 17A. This is the whole schedule piece. So, yes, Councilor Al-Zubi and then Councilor Nolan.

Yeah, so again, this is the part where Councilor Nolan spoke to last meeting. This, I think, is a better time. I think this is a great example of maybe why we should end at 10. But again, if we pass this, we also have the opportunity to extend the meeting if we need to and vote on that as well.

I yield.

Councilor Nolan.

Yes, I would actually have kept it 11 or 12, but definitely 10. 9 feels far too early, and as noted, we could just suspend the rules and extend beyond 10, which we would be doing tonight if we needed to.

So before I go to Councilor McGovern, I think it's important just to want to have a city manager speak on this, but that the kind of some of the intent behind it. It was necessarily not about bifurcating the meetings, was my understanding.

Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, I think we had some conversations, particularly in regards to The productivity of important discussions late into the night, especially when you're thinking about 11 or 1130 o'clock. And that is the case where we've had a lot of policy debates that have ended up making really important decisions. And at that point in time, I think everybody's a little bit tired and we're kind of getting to the end of our evenings. Thank you so much for having me. Some city councillors do have day jobs and have to wake up in the morning. All city staff who are staffing these meetings have day jobs and we all show up. On Tuesday mornings, whether or not the council meeting went until 9 o'clock or whether the council meeting went until 1230 into the morning.

So I do appreciate some of the concerns that were being brought up at the beginning of the term. significantly thinking about staff who are often here really, really late. That has ultimately been the case for a long time. But I think the idea of trying to have More of our important discussions when people are fresh and also trying to create some expectation that we can all wrap up and staff can go home because they're all going to be Flaherty's concerns, you know, I do think there is a There was some conversation to recognize that this is a pretty substantive rule change, and I think there is an important question to make sure that

All counselors have some ability to be present at whatever meeting we would be extending this to. In terms of the actual logistics, and I think this is where it does get a little bit more complex, what we discussed was ultimately for every city council meeting that starts on Monday at 5.30 p.m., We would set a target time to end the meeting. There would be an opportunity certainly to suspend the rules and so if we're getting close to nine o'clock or if the target is 10 o'clock and we think we're within striking distance of finishing the meeting, that we would simply just suspend the rules and finish the meeting. But if there are really substantive portions of the agenda that we anticipate need another hour, two hours of discussion, It may be worthwhile to have that important discussion on the next day when we have more opportunity. The challenge in terms of having that set time would mean that we would need to notice

both the Monday City Council meeting and a potential extension on Tuesday. So we would just notice that for every single meeting. and then we would either recess the meeting and continue it during the Tuesday time or at the end of the Monday meeting we would cancel the Tuesday time. And so there's a bit more administrative process in terms of the open meeting law and noticing this. The alternative, and we didn't end up going too far down this road, I think it was important that we set an expectation for when that next conversation was going to be I think it would be harder if we were potentially recessing and then working to schedule when that extension might be. And I think this also gets into the broader discussion of well how often do we think this is going to happen? and I think that does actually depend on where the council is thinking about setting the time.

I do think most of our meetings are ending by 10 o'clock and if we did set a deadline of 10 o'clock, we could probably try to manage toward that. We're a little past that right now, but I think that's a bit of the conversation that probably needs to be had with this body either now or... At a later date, I don't know how we feel about a special committee or an extension tonight, but I think we are every, you know, I would say we are every Monday night sort of living this, and I think it has come through my head in terms of What would we do tonight if we were getting close? Would we extend it or would we just plow through? So I will turn it back to you, Mayor.

Thank you for the overview and the context. I have Council Member McGovern next.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. So I agree with, especially, and I've said this many times before, I do really have a concern for the staff mostly. Council has much more flexible schedules. If we go till midnight, Council doesn't necessarily have to show up at 9 o'clock the next morning if they don't have any meetings where our Thank you very much. If we remember a few terms ago, the city manager's agenda came later, which meant that department heads were sitting around a lot longer into the night. where now that comes earlier. There are some things we could do around notifying them.

And Madam Mayor, you've done this a few times at the beginning of meetings where you've said, hey, can we What do people want to pull on the manager's agenda to discuss so that folks who aren't going to get their item pulled can go home or do whatever? So there are some things we can do there. You know, my concern with adjourning earlier is I'm not sure we will I think part of what we're running into is our desire to get out of here more quickly has in part led to people charter writing things at a rate I have never seen Which only kicks the can to the next week. I mean, Councilor Flaherty brought this up in looking at tonight's agenda. You know, there were six things, I think, five or six things that people used their charter right on that brought Increase the public comment. Long discussions.

If we had just bitten the bullet, as they said, and gotten through that, I don't think that it changed. I don't think charter writing changed anybody's opinion on anything. I think... Sometimes, you know, I always thought that you charter right things so that if you want more information about something, you kind of feel taken off guard by it, you want to think about it more, or you want to work with the... The main policymaker to say, hey, what about these amendments? Can we work together? It feels like sometimes we're just charter writing things because we just don't want to talk about it that night, but it doesn't go away. So I don't know. I think we have to do a better job of... Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We like to talk and we sit around. So rather than changing the rules, I would rather self-police and let's just be a little more cognizant and not have to do that. And I don't think it happens very often. I don't think it happens often. I'm fine with the rules the way they stand now. I think in most cases they work. I do worry about If we do have a meeting on Tuesday, how does that affect other things that we're losing half a workday potentially? You would have to anticipate...

Thank you very much. What if we have to be here at 9 in the morning? So it's too much chaos for something that I don't think happens very often, and if we just do a better job ourselves, we'll be okay.

I'm going to go to the Vice Mayor, but I'm going to say just briefly that the biggest thing I've seen this body do, sorry to act like your mom, the biggest thing I've seen this body do is We will go and have a discussion, discuss, discuss, discuss, have 30 minutes on it, and then someone exercises their charter right. That's what happened last week. And so I think we need to do something about when we exercise our charter, right? If we're going to have the discussion, and then we have the same discussion the following week. And so that's what's also eating into our time. So I think that's something to reflect on. I'll go to Vice Mayor Azeem. I have Councilor Zusy and then Councilor Nolan.

And then Councilor Simmons.

And Councilor Simmons.

Well, I guess I just have a different interpretation of the charter, right? Which is like, I feel like for most topics, it's actually kind of helpful to understand what's going on. And at like 10.30, I don't want to be editing back and forth. And I feel like, you know... Yes, it means that public comment is repeated and all that, but my sense is if there was a meeting on Tuesday, then I would just have the opportunity to have a conversation with a colleague on Tuesday morning and be like, hey, is this what you mean? Where are you doing it? like I actually think it's very helpful that you know it's like something big gets introduced like we're gonna spend a million dollars on this and then you have to take a vote three days later and then it's like done a million dollars spent it's like I actually find the time additionally to be helpful um and even just clarifying out what people mean by it because usually your colleagues have reasonable ideas but the first take I'm like, why are we doing this in the first place? So I think that that sort of thing is helpful.

And I will say that this is the easiest term I've had so far in terms of like meetings in that we have not brought up housing. We've not brought up bike lanes besides a little bit of Garden Street. And those meetings go very, very long. And those are hot topics that once they start, they don't stop. I feel like meetings often went far later than 10.30 or 11 or 12. I think there was one time we got out at 1.30. And so I do think that it is helpful to recess. I mean, I guess what I've come up with is like if we end up going really late, we can always just decide to recess the other way. I think that it's a good idea to do this in general, but I understand that our colleague has some scheduling limitations. So I would say that I'm fine if we drop this. But I do think that in general, like my perspective would be to do it. And I think that if meetings go late, we should recess. But if in general this would make it difficult for our colleague, you know, I understand that it's different than what he thought he was signing up for. So I want to make it work for him too. Thank you.

Councilor Zusy? I had a point of information. So I don't know what the process for changing the council rules is. So if we move to finishing at 10 and continuing on Tuesdays at 10, If that doesn't work out, can we just change it?

Anyone can bring amendments forward.

So this is sort of a pilot. We're trying things. If they don't work, we can change them.

Yes.

Okay, great. Thanks.

Councilor Nolan? Thank you. A few things. I think we have to remember, we're hired, we're elected to represent people and to actually discuss items in this Our Monday night meetings are really the only time people see us in action so I don't mind having those discussions. I think rushing through or not opining on something doesn't give people a chance. to really understand where we sit. So it's not that I think we should pull every single item, but I think we also, I view it as a way to to tell to the people who elected us or who serve in the city how it is Thank you very much.

and remind all of us, we do not have a Plan E form of government. That is overdone and was replaced with the charter. So we no longer have Plan E. That was something... that was in the state law that is no longer even applicable. And we have a new form of government that is the charter that was passed by voters with I think 70% or so last year. And then as for the idea of ending at 10 and automatically going until Tuesday, I recognize it could be challenging for some whose schedules may be different. On the other hand, We are paid $100,000 a year. It's a salary that I think residents expect us to be very close to full-time. It doesn't be full-time, but it's a significant salary. and I think most of us are, we're very open to and accessible and wanting to serve the public.

So I think if we can organize our schedule in such a way that, okay, well the job is now Monday nights and then Tuesday afternoons. The logistics of working out in terms of the city staff I think are important to consider. It's also true if we do this and we're constantly Thank you for watching. Thank you for joining us. in this chain. So I can support this. I was somewhat surprised by it. I do think 10 o'clock makes a lot more sense than 9 o'clock. And then trying to see if we go to the following Tuesday for both the staff and for the council. Simmons.

Thank you. I think it's helpful if we speak in I statements and not in we statements because everyone doesn't have the exact same life experiences. So on this particular amendment, 9, 10, 11, If it's pushed to 10, my concern is that we'll extend the meeting. And if we extend the meeting, and I'm sure that we will, then it will have sort of diluted or changed the purpose of having the meetings bifurcated. That the discipline to say stop at 10 o'clock would happen. There's always going to be a reason for us to go. And so here we are, say, between 11 o'clock. And then I think the staff that actually staffs the meetings.

who have not necessarily weighed in on how this impacts Say the clerk's office.

Point of information. Sorry. I'm on the wrong item? Oh, sorry. Just to that piece, that the clerk's office did have a chance to weigh in on all this, these amendments.

In a meeting, folks, it's going to run faster if you're not just talking to each other. There were meetings. The Kirk staff team were involved in these discussions.

On the floor with the whole government?

Not on the floor. There was a smaller working group with the GovOps chair. And so that's what happened.

All right.

I wasn't privileged.

And there was a hearing as well. All right. Yeah.

Councilor Simmons. I still have a problem with the 10 o'clock because my concern is that the council isn't terribly disciplined and people have a lot to say and Thank you very much. I probably won't support it because I just don't think the discipline is there for the council to stop at 10 o'clock. I think the meeting would get extended, not a lot, but often enough for it to be a hardship for the staff. I'll yield the floor based on that. And I know that if the meeting is recessed, there is no public comment that will follow because the meeting was recessed and we already had public comment. I hope that is...

Thank you. Thank you. Day or public comment on it because we had public comment on it before so something to think about.

I yield the floor. There has been an amendment, an additional amendment that someone has sent according to that. We'll get to that. But someone is suggesting something around that. So just wanted to circle us back. So Amendment 3 by Councilor Al-Zubi and then Councilor Nolan. was to change it from 9 to 10 p.m. So let's dispose of that, okay? So on the amendment to strike 9 and make it 10 p.m. for Rule 17a... We will do a roll call.

Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Councilor Flaherty?

I want to clarify. We're in the roll call. I'm sorry. We'll have to clarify afterwards. We're in the middle of the vote.

No. McGovern, yes, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Councilor Simmons, no, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, yes, yes, Councilor Zusy, yes, yes, Mayor Siddiqui, yes, yes, and you have seven members recorded in the affirmative and two recorded in the negative.

Flaherty, or what would you like to say?

By voting on that, I was just making the point that we're adopting Rule 17A by adopting the amendment, which

I'm not sure was properly considered before the council, but... Point of information, that is not the case because we are just amending the language.

We're just amending the time. We still haven't gotten to the bulk of this Tuesday part. So Councilor Nolan, what I have before me is you striking that language. Where are you at? What is this? This is not Nolan. This is not Councilor Al-Zubi. This is Councilor Nolan. Sorry, go ahead, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Madam Mayor, I believe it was the Councilor Nolan's amendment was to strike the part about how many times a councilor can speak. I don't think she was trying to strike the time of the meeting.

No, there's something here. Okay, so this before me is not... The 4 p.m. What is that? Okay, that's just old. Okay, that's, I don't think, I think I was looking at something very old.

Mayor Siddiqui, the 10 p.m. was from myself and Councilor Al-Zubi, and then the Rule 23G. The merged language that Councilor Al-Zubi put forth is from both of us, which is the same intent as what was on here.

Can you repeat that one more time, Councilor? I just want to make sure I get it right.

Yes, the one we just passed from striking 9 to 10 was jointly from Councilor Al-Zubi and myself in that we had each proposed language around 23 F or G, and I'm fine with the language that's on Councilor Al-Zubi's sheet that is the same intent. And the same intent is, yes, we're going to go around, but we're not going to limit the number of times people can speak.

Al-Zubi, do you want to explain this further?

Yeah, and if it makes sense procedurally to withdraw Councilor Nolan's Original, that might be helpful. Amendment four on this list is just, again, giving the chair the ability to assess where the conversation's at before making any judgments on time and discussion. and just also under the framework that we shouldn't have to use our time in any specific way, like on the two questions piece, but that we're given a time in which we can approach it as we wish. So I completely strike the language on Rule 23FG and added new language that says each city councilor may be recognized by the chair to speak on a given agenda item. When recognized, a counselor will generally be afforded up to five minutes per recognition unless modified by the chair to support with orderly and efficient conduct of business.

Discussion?

Yes, Councilor Simmons.

Just so I'm following along, we are at Amendment 4?

Yes. And this is to Rule 23.

And it's so just through you to my colleague. Can you speak into the mic, Councilor Simmons? Each city councilor may be recognized by the chair to speak on a given agenda item. When recognized, a councilor will be generally... will generally be afforded up to five minutes per recognition. So what I'm not clear about through you, Madam Chair, to Councilor Al-Zubi is, let me think out loud. So I have the floor for five minutes. Is your thought that I yield the floor and then someone else, and so that next five minutes is after we've gone around once, or you keep getting five minutes until the cows come home?

Councilor Al-Zubi.

So on the original language that was there, it said that we may ask up to two questions each time we have the floor and that a counselor may speak up to five times each time they have the floor, but you get up to two times to speak on a given agenda item. In my opinion, that didn't make sense. It should be up to the discretion of the chair based on the judgment of where the conversation is going to see when it makes sense to continue to push the conversation along. That was the framework where this is coming from and also recognizing that we shouldn't have to specify what we use our time with, just that we're given an allotted amount of time. Hopefully that clarifies things.

Simmons. Through you, Madam Chair, not that that would ever happen here, but just if you're not highly favored by the chair, maybe you don't get called on. So for me, it would be the five minutes I'm fine with. You hold the floor for five minutes, you release it, go around, come back around again, as opposed to five minutes and then you have another five minutes. You could hold the floor for 20 if I understand what you're saying right. So I don't support... Thank you. I think that's a good idea, but I don't like the serial five minutes. I still have the floor. So for me, I would like to just get a better understanding from my colleagues

Is this serial five minutes? You keep getting five minutes, five minutes? Or it's five minutes, you yield the floor, we go around, you get five minutes the next turn?

So I think this is maybe where Councilor Nolan and I diverge a little bit, if I'm understanding correctly. So I'm happy to explore what you're saying. I'm happy to amend that language so that so that it guarantees that you have another round of five minutes if you need it. I left it at discretion because I didn't want us to have to Live in this state of mind where we are just constantly having conversation, and if we're talking about a specific policy that's taking longer than a different one, just an opportunity for the chair to make that judgment.

Sure, through you, Madam Chair, through my colleagues. And I understand that my concern, maybe it's because I've been around here a long time, is that some people are more verbose than others, and some people just sit silent for a very long time. Thank you very much. through you, Madam Chair, if it was an increment of five minutes. And then I would further say five minutes the first round, three minutes the second round, and maybe, you know, close off debate. I really, there was a gentleman that served years ago and never spoke, just never spoke. And the chair was very good about making sure that after everyone spoke at least once.

She would ask, who has not been heard? Hear from that person and then go back around. I just think it's more egalitarian. It's more equal.

Yeah, I think if I'm understanding you correctly, this address is saying that members shall be recognized in a manner that gives reasonable priority to those who have not yet spoken. So maybe that's speaking a little bit to what you're sharing there. I know that the increments Peace can be something that is just understood, or I'm happy to add that language to this amendment. I know Councilor Nolan might feel differently, so I'd also want to yield to you as well if you want to share your thoughts.

and I'll yield the floor through you to the chair. I thank you for your consideration. Again, I would five yield the floor. The three... Two minutes, however, we can certainly discuss some more, but I do really think if you want to, using parity as our baseline. holding the floor for five minutes. And other cities and towns do this. So I've seen it happen and been advised that we should use it. It gives everybody an opportunity to speak while it's sharp on their mind as opposed to waiting. If it's five minutes and then yield the floor, I would certainly support this. Otherwise, I would be less inclined. I yield the floor.

Sure, thank you. Councilor Nolan and then Vice Mayor Azeem.

I just want to confirm that the language I had put forth that I guess never got on the agenda was very clear to Councilor Simmons' point that that's how it would, that each city councilor may ask up to two questions each time they have the floor to speak on a given agenda item, and a city councilor may speak for up to five minutes each time they have the floor. So the idea was... Thank you very much. Simmons, that was the intent of the language and I thought that was the intent that Councilor Azzubi was putting forward also instead of... Thank you.

Madam Chair, through you to my colleague at this Thank you very much. The next person is called on. That's why, okay.

Vice Mayor.

I just wanted to say, apologies. I think my understanding is that we have a large number of amendments ahead of us. and so I think we're really testing whether how far we can go and still be productive. I was just going to suggest that A, perhaps we could move a little bit faster, but also if there was any amendments to which people wanted to get city staff opinion, we could take those first, but then otherwise at least let city staff go.

We're getting there. City Manager?

I mean, through you, Vice Mayor, appreciate the concern. It's not just sort of us, but it's also the people that are... It's everyone. There's a number of other city staff who are here until the very, very end. So even if we were relieved, which certainly we would be appreciative of, there are still many city staff that would have to be here.

So this amendment is before us on... How Much Israel Speaks, which tonight you guys have crossed the record. So we should go ahead and vote this up or down. Yes, Council Member Govern.

I just had a question on how this would work in that it's not only city councilors that can get verbose at some times. I have five minutes. I ask a question. The city manager talks for four and a half minutes. I'm done. Yep. Okay.

I think we'd like the city staff to also abide by their own rules and not talk as much as either, so we'll hopefully have that happen. This kind of doesn't... I'm fine with the original, so I'm not going to support this because I've been doing kind of the... When we... A few meetings ago, we were getting out here at 8. We were being efficient. We were doing the two questions. So I want to keep doing that. So let's go ahead. Yes, Councilor Nolan?

The original limits counselors to speaking two times on an issue. We rarely go beyond two times per issue, but... If it's a really important issue, I think speaking more than two times makes a lot of sense. So I'm just making sure people understand if this isn't accepted, then you're limiting... The most you could speak unless you suspend the rules apparently is two times on any given topic, which is so fundamentally anti-democratic that I think it's really important we all acknowledge that.

So right now it says each city councilor may have the floor up to two times to speak on a given agenda item and may ask up to two questions of city staff each time they have the floor. The city councilor may speak for up to five minutes each time they have a four. We haven't really been doing that because some of you speak for 10 minutes.

I'm sorry, please.

We haven't been actually doing this because it's a range. So I do think back to Councilman McGovern's earlier point and thinking about how we... I'm not trying to cut debate. Let's pull the items we want to talk about and pull those. Have appropriate questions. and when there is a really hot topic, I'm not going to stop you, but I do think it's more this gives us some guidance. So that's where I'm at. Point of information? Yes, Councilor Simmons.

Just so I'm clear, because I think I hear two things. I hear one colleague saying you get to have five minutes back to back. And then I heard someone else say it's five minutes around. So I just want to be clear. Is it five minutes around, or is it really ten minutes?

So for my intent, thank you, through you, Madam Mayor, my intent is that it's five minutes around, not ten minutes in total.

I can get behind five minutes around. I cannot get behind five minutes around. Two consecutive five minutes. I'm losing my mind.

Vice Mayor, did you have anything?

Yes.

Is there anyone else? So that's amendments before us. So let's go ahead and do a roll call on this amendment from Councilor Al-Zubi.

Councilor Al-Zubi. Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. No. No. Councilor Flaherty. No. No. Councilor McGovern.

No.

No, Councilor Nolan. Yes, Councilor Simmons.

Come back to me.

We can't. No. No, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes, Councilor Zusy. No. No, Mayor Siddiqui.

No.

No, and you have three members recorded in the affirmative and six recorded in the negative.

So we've disposed of the amendments before us. Councilor Flaherty?

In the spirit of collaboration and comedy, I move to adjourn and refer the balance of the amendments to a special committee of the whole.

So, Councilor Flaherty has moved to adjourn the meeting and to refer this item to a future special committee of the whole.

Yes, madam. Yes.

Discussion?

Just a question for... Is the adjournment debatable? We just voted earlier not to do a special meeting, so is that a legal motion?

What's the balance?

Through you, Madam Mayor, on the portion of that motion that was to refer to a special committee, I think that you can't bring that motion up again without following the reconsideration process.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

Discussion? Further discussion? Councilor Simmons.

Just curious. You're saying you can't bring... I don't see him bringing the same motion. He's saying the balance of something we already started, not the entire agenda. First motion was... Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Through you, I think that's to the discretion of the chair, whether that's the same motion.

Councilor, I mean, Vice Mayor, Mayor.

I would just make a motion to table the rest of the amendments, the whole topic. That motion to table is non-debatable, right?

Yeah, I think that's a better motion, Councilor Flaherty. So if you'll withdraw, whatever you...

He offered a motion to adjourn.

Point of information, are there more amendments? Because what we did, we just got through.

There is a few more amendments. There's one more amendment from Councilor Zusy on the Charter Right. So we did have one more come in. So that's where we are. So Councilor Flaherty. The best option here is to move to table these rules and then go from there. Because we do have a few items left.

So this would be the table calendar item number six.

Yes.

And it's non-debatable.

So we're going to go ahead and withdraw my motion.

Thank you.

Yes.

We'll go to the motion to table calendar item number six.

Councilor Al-Zubi. No. No. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty.

Yes.

McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, No, and you have six members recorded in the affirmative and three recorded in the negative.

The calendar item number six is moved to the table. So we're done with the calendar items. We are now going to... We don't have much on unfinished business except for one ordinance that can be approved tonight. This is the ordinance on the community benefits that We've already discussed so I'll go ahead and move that we adopt the ordinance and do a roll call on that. And this is unfinished business number 19.

Call the roll. Yes, call the roll, please. Councilor Al-Zubi. Al-Zubi, yes, yes, Vice Mayor Azeem, yes, Councilor Flaherty, yes, Councilor McGovern, yes, Councilor Nolan, yes, Simmons, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The Community Benefits Advisory Committee Ordinance is ordained. There are no applications. There are 44 communications.

Place on file.

Councilor Simmons makes a motion to place all these on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Those are placed on file. We move on to consent resolution number seven, pleasure of the city council.