Regular City Council Meeting

A quorum of the City Council being present, I want to call today's May 11th regular meeting of the Cambridge City Council to order. The first order of business is a roll call of members present.

Councilor Azeem. Absinthe, Vice Mayor McGovern? Present. Councilor Nolan? Present. Councilor Siddiqui?

Present. No, that's Councilor Al-Zubi. I just said President.

Al-Zubi, McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui, you have eight members recorded as present and one recorded as absent.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance 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 the Massachusetts General Court and approved by the Governor, the City is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge City Council. 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 cityclerkatcambridgema.gov. We welcome your participation and you can sign up until 6pm. 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 move 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 to other speakers. I ask that you state your name and address for the record and the item on the agenda that you're speaking on. Right now we have about 46 speakers who have signed up. Each speaker will have two minutes for public comment. We'll move to public comment.

Our first speaker is Gideon Epstein, followed by Samuel Porterland, then Alex Marthews. Gideon, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Gideon, if you can turn the microphone on.

Good evening. My name is Gideon Epstein, and I'm a policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts with our Technology for Liberty project. I'm also a Cambridge resident. and I'm here to encourage the council to pass the proposed policy order on ShotSpotter. Cambridge's surveillance technology ordinance sets a clear standard for continued use of surveillance technology. Whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and whether reasonable safeguards exist to protect civil rights and civil liberties. The law is explicit that if either standard is not met, the council may disapprove further use of the technology. And based on the information before this council and discussed at the Public Safety Committee meeting two weeks ago, ShotSpotter does not meet the ordinance's clear standard for continued use on two independent grounds. First, civil rights are not reasonably safeguarded.

According to the data presented to the Council at the Public Safety Committee meeting hearing two weeks ago, shot spotter sensors are disproportionately placed in majority black and brown neighborhoods here in Cambridge, and every false alert dispatches police into these same neighborhoods, often resulting in stops, searches, and other consequences for people who were simply nearby. Placing sensors primarily in certain neighborhoods means more incidents whether real or false get detected there, which then becomes the statistical justification for continued over-policing in those same neighborhoods. Second, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Per the annual surveillance report, Cambridge shot spotter data shows a significant false positive rate, and the real costs extend far beyond the monetary cost. The real costs are over-policing, meaning more stops, more arrests, and more risk of sharing sensitive information with federal agencies.

Finally, in closing, I'd like to quickly highlight that Cambridge is not even a party to the ShotSpotter contract. It's actually between Boston and Sound Thinking. So under the contract, Cambridge has no audit rights and no data governance rights. And for those reasons, we would encourage the council to pass the proposed policy order on ShotSpotter. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Samuel Portolans. Samuel has not joined. We will go to Alex Marthews, followed by Siobhan McDonough, then Gloria Korsman. Alex, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Alex Matthews. I am the co-chair of Digital Forth. We are a volunteer civil liberties group founded here in Cambridge. And I am here to tell you just a simple fact about ShotSpotter. ShotSpotter does not reduce gun violence. The incidence of gun violence in Cambridge is low enough that year on year that we cannot tell statistically from Cambridge alone. Thank you very much.

covering decades worth of use of ShotSpotter covering more than 50 cities across the country. conducted by respected academics and that show that ShotSpotter cannot be determined to have any effect on gun violence whatsoever. So it's important for you to remember as you are debating this important matter that however serious a concern gun violence is, ShotSpotter has no effect on it. It may speed police response. But two-thirds of the alerts that it provides are false alerts, and that is City of Cambridge data.

We can address gun violence in many ways and in community-based ways but this particular technological solution does not work. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Siobhan McDonough, followed by Gloria Korsman, then Valerie Bonds. Siobhan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

I'm Siobhan McDonough. I live on Walden Street. I'm a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and UAW 2320, the National Organization of Legal Services Workers. And I am here speaking in support of Policy Order 2. speaking in support of Charter Right 1, the Keeper Resolution, and in opposition to Policy Order 5. On Policy Order 2 about stopping ShotSpotter, this is a result of years of community pressure It would move us towards the removal of these hidden microphones in our communities finally, specifically in working class black and brown communities. This is far overdue, and this is a good first step towards getting it done. On the Cuba resolution, Resonance told you last week about the Trump administration tightening the Cuba blockade and how this has devastating consequences on... The ability of the Cuban people to access healthcare, to access food, to access electricity.

Please pass this resolution to stand with Cambridge's values of international solidarity. And on that last point, Despite our community's values, some of the councillors here want to silence calls for international solidarity with Policy Order 5. They want us to focus inward during these meetings They want us to ignore our federal government impoverishing and killing people in our names. But we're sick of being told that our voices don't matter. We're sick. of watching US sanctions, warships, and bombs destroy communities in Palestine, Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Cuba, and more. We're sick of a federal government that's rigged to protect warmongers and weapons profiteers. Cambridge, though, we can chart a different path. Unlike the federal and state governments, we have a proportional legislature that's elected to represent our residents' diversity.

This council is our residents' only institutional voice in government. Don't silence us by voluntarily silencing yourselves. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is...

Excuse me. So per our decorum rules, there's no clapping, and so I'd ask you to please refrain from doing that.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Our next speaker is Gloria Coorsman, followed by Valerie Bonds, Kayla Goodale, then Beverly Meyer. Gloria, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Gloria Korsman, 91 Montgomery Street, and I'm speaking in favor of policy order number two. Good evening and thank you for your time. I want to talk about how ShotSpotter and why it doesn't belong in Cambridge. and to ask for accountability, transparency and alignment with our city's values and also with my values as a member of the First Parish and Cambridge Unitarian Universalist. Cambridge doesn't have a direct contract with ShotSpotter. The system operates through the city of Boston and a federal Department of Homeland Security grant. That means that Cambridge residents are being surveilled by a system that the city does not itself have direct control over or oversee That alone should give us pause It's also important to understand where the data goes. Under this setup, information can be shared with other law enforcement agencies including potentially federal agencies like DHS or ICE.

That puts us in direct conflict with Cambridge's identity as a sanctuary city. We can't say we protect immigrant residents while using tools that could expose them to harm. And then there's the effectiveness. According to Cambridge Police Department data, ShotSpotter has an 82% false positive rate. That's not precision. That's a system that risks sending police into situations unnecessarily. And finally, it isn't just about detecting gunshots. Microphones are always on and they can pick up conversations at normal volume from up to 50 feet away, even through walls. This is constant surveillance, not a narrowly targeted safety tool. And so when you put it all together, no direct contract, limited oversight, questionable effectiveness and real risks to privacy and civil rights, it's hard to justify continuing the program. Cambridge Cannon should do better.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Valerie Bonds. Valerie, if you can unmute yourself, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Valerie Barnes, Cambridge Port Memorial Drive. Everybody over here is safe. May I suggest I'm calling regarding the senior parking fee exemption.

Hey Valerie, I'm sorry, this is an awaiting report and per our rules you can't speak on the awaiting report related to the senior parking. Oh, there is another policy order. Sorry. I remember that. Please go ahead. My apologies.

Would I get my 10 seconds back?

Yes, you get your 10 seconds back. And she stopped it.

Thank you. May I suggest checking a box stating that if you can afford to pay a $25 or $75 parking fee, do so. Use a portion of the Transportation Department's $11 million of the $22 million to cover the deficit that supposedly exists due to low parking fees and the loss of revenue from senior citizens. May I suggest a return to towing motor vehicles to increase Transportation Department's fiscal needs? and a checkbox for bicyclist owners who ought to pay $25 and $75 to support street and sidewalk bicycle infrastructure. for which $13 million has already been spent with more accommodations planned for our city's future. How can our city councils justify increasing the parking fee when the City Council has unjustly reduced parking in our city, hurting our small businesses and impacting services like personal care attendants and health care providers.

At the same time that the political economic agenda has stimulated high gas prices, high costs of groceries, displacement of several seniors, moderate and low-income residents who cannot afford housing rent in our city, along with the soaring cost of health care and prescription drugs which many are going without because they do not earn a living wage or their middle income is now skipping Peter to pay Paul. Councils adopted the senior parking fee exemption intended to recognize the more than six decades of property taxes, sales taxes, and vehicle excise taxes paid to the city and to show respect for the senior community as we begin our golden years. As far as the counselors should be more concerned with being public servants rather than politicians. Keep the senior parking fee and keep the parking fee at $25. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kayla Goodale, followed by Beverly Meyer, Chris Murphy, then Sophie Gillard. Kayla, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, thank you. I am here to speak on policy order number two, three, and five briefly. I am a new Cambridge resident as of September 2025, but have been a gun violence prevention activist since 2018. I was a member of March for Our Lives Boston and Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. Safe neighborhoods do not come at the cost of surveillance. In fact, as we've seen, safe neighborhoods do not come from ShotSpotter. My concerns with this technology come from many places, but to name two I feel strongly about. It is the continuous surveillance of racially diverse neighborhoods in Cambridge, and it is the privately owned nature of this surveillance and its lack of accountability to the Freedom of Information Act. I ask the council to discontinue further use of ShotSpotter. For policy order number three, I am in support of the city manager working with the listed stakeholders to explore the voting population of Cambridge to participate in the direct election of their mayor.

And for Policy Order 5, The U.S. blockade on Cuba is a humanitarian crisis carried out intentionally by the American government. I ask the City Council to speak formally for the residents of Cambridge who are sharing with you our thoughts by sharing international solidarity with Cuba. We've seen International Solidarity speak volumes in the past, and we hope it to continue to do so in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Beverly Meyer. Beverly has not joined us. We're going to move on to Chris Murphy followed by Sophie Gillard. Chris, you have two minutes.

Hi, I'm Dr. Chris Murphy. I'm a homeowner on Royal Ave, right around the corner from Patty. And I've been living in Cambridge for seven years now. I'm speaking tonight in favor of policy order two, against policy order five, and in favor of charter right number one. On policy order number two, I don't want any new data collected by ShotSpotter and all existing data. It would be great if that was deleted. On policy order number five related to foreign policy issues, this seems very short-sighted to me. Tactics Israel is using to subjugate Palestinians are coming back to the U.S., and so if you're ignoring things like that, we're going to eventually get caught up in this These things are going to be used against people here in Cambridge. ICE has been spotted here in Cambridge, and the Cambridge police have trained with Israel in the past. So very much against refusing to address foreign policy issues.

And then by the same token, I'm very much in favor of the ordinance to end the embargo on Cuba. So that's all I have. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Sophie Gillard, followed by Malika Ban, then Michelle Malvesti. Sophie, two minutes.

Good evening, councillors. My name is Sophie Gillard. I live on Roseland Street in Porter Square. I'm a Cambridge resident and an organizer with Cambridge for Palestine. We're an intergenerational all-volunteer group of Cambridge residents and workers that are united by our advocacy for Palestinian liberation. I'm here to speak today in favor of Charter 1 and against Policy Order 5. In 2019, I had the opportunity to go to Cuba, where I met many creative, hardworking people who loved their home, but who saw their opportunities and their access to basic resources being crushed by the US trade embargo. Seven years later, under an even more punishing regime of American sanctions, things are so much worse. Sanctions and the U.S. oil blockade have caused a public health crisis in Cuba that threatens the lives of millions. The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that between 2018 and 2025, infant mortality rate in Cuba increased by 148%. and the Cuban government reports that since the new blockade began in March, vaccines for more than 30,000 children have been delayed.

Food costs have skyrocketed. Medicines are hard to come by, and due to fuel shortages, sanitation trucks are unable to pick up garbage, leading to mounds of rotting waste appearing all over the island that multiply the risks of mosquito-borne illnesses among other life-threatening hazards. Thousands of Cubans have died as a result of U.S. government policy and thousands more will die if the executive order is not reversed. Although the harshest effects of the blockade are felt across the Caribbean, the devastation in Cuba touches the lives of Cambridge residents, workers, business owners, and people of conscience. Our Cuban neighbors in Cambridge deserve to know that if the federal government won't represent them, at least our elected representatives in the city will stand up to say this is not right. City Council has an opportunity to show our Cuban neighbors that their lives and the lives of their loved ones matter. From Cuba to Palestine, when the family and friends of Cambridge residents are hurting and dying under state-sanctioned violence, when our tax dollars are fed to companies that profit from these human rights abuses, these become more than issues of foreign affairs. They become issues of material importance to our citizens.

For this reason, I urge you to please vote yes on Charter Right 1 and reject Policy Order 5. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Again, if we can please remind folks, there's no clapping, snapping, cheering, booing. That is so that everybody can feel heard. Our next speaker is Malik Aban, followed by Michelle Malvesti, then Marilyn Frankenstein. Malik, two minutes.

Hi, my name is Malik. I live at 331 Harvard Street. I'm a resident and worker and renter here in Cambridge. I'm here to speak out against Policy Order 5. I noticed that as I walked into the Sullivan Chambers today, and as I've walked in here the last many months, I walked by the exhibit dedicated to Caroline Hunter. She was an anti-apartheid activist who lived in Cambridge for most of her life, dedicating all of it really to foreign issues as they relate to our city. I don't understand how we speak out of both corners of our mouth on City Council. On one side, we want to praise the good trouble of yesterday's activists on how they tied the struggles of the international

with the communal here, with how our neighbors are hurt, they're killed, they're maimed by systems we're a part of. How we can praise those activists, and at the same time try to silence any public comment or democratic function or any kind of good trouble that could come after. It's a contradiction I really just struggle to square. I feel almost embarrassed that it's a conversation that counselors are going to have tonight. We're going to hear them make snide remarks about foreign policy issues, about things that happen in other parts of the world, like Cambridge isn't part of the world. Like Harvard, MIT, like the businesses in Kendall Square, Porter, Inman, you name it, aren't full of people from every corner of this world.

Are we going to sit here and tell them they need to shut up? That this isn't their country and that this country has no relation to any other part of the world? Or are we going to honor good trouble like we do outside?

Thank you, Malik. Your time has expired. We will go to our next speaker. For those waiting, we are at speaker number 12, Michelle Malvesti, followed by Marilyn Frankenstein, Julian Ball-Rosek, then Andrew Kim. Michelle, two minutes. Two minutes.

Yes, good evening. My name is Michelle Malvesi, and I oppose the... Removal of senior permit parking discount. You know, we're in some really hard times these days, and everything is so expensive. There's not a lot to look forward to when you're getting old. One of the benefits to this city was you could get a discount being a senior on your permit. I couldn't help but notice some of the cargo bicycles that take up our sidewalks and our streets that use travel and they don't pay excise taxes, they don't pay insurance, they do not pay to have a permit. In addition to just taking up the space from people who need to use mobility devices on the sidewalks and on the streets.

It's not a good time right now with the tariffs and people are having to make decisions between okay, well, I have to feed my cat and cat food went up and Food went up, so instead of eating twice a day, I'll only eat once a day because I want to feed my cat. I mean, you know, people are having to make these decisions between do I get my medicine for this or do I get my medicine for that? Because the rising costs continue. Nothing seems to go down. I don't know who proposed this, but I'm going to tell you, it was not a good idea. It was not a good idea. I don't support it. Regardless if I was a senior or not, I would not support it. I feel like it's an attack on the senior citizens. It's a selfish thing to do and to... Ask people to come up with money they don't have out of nowhere is unreasonable.

So I ask that you halt on this and eliminate the possibility of taking away That discount for our seniors who need it, who look forward to it. It's not a lot of money to some, but it's a lot to us. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Marilyn Frankenstein followed by Julianne Moll Roseth.

Apologies. Hi. Marilyn Frankenstein. 43-year resident of Cambridge testifying to support the policy order to stop shot spotter surveillance program and to remove all shot spotter devices from our city. I'm pleased to be here today, actually, because I was very impressed by the careful listening and questioning of our counselors during the April 29th Public Safety Committee hearing. The policy order shows that our councilors want to take the action to emphasize our welcoming sanctuary city. and to have the proper oversight on any surveillance devices. We do not need a continuously listening system to keep us safe. We do not need any prolonged cooperation with ICE.

to keep us safe. As a matter of fact, it keeps us way less safe. We need to enact measures where community involvement and care are the prime measures of our safety. Finally, on another policy order, supporting an end to the vicious, inhumane blockade of Cuba. is yet another important way for our city to affirm the support of human rights. And although symbolic, this policy order reinforces Cambridge as a welcoming environment for people. and finally I couldn't say it better than Malik said to not think that foreign policy is part of our globe and our world to me makes no sense.

Before we move to the next speaker, I just wanted to announce that there is additional seating in the gallery. I know people are coming in. People have spoken. Feel free to move up there if you'd like. We'll go to the next speaker.

And for those who wish to sit up in the gallery, it's just one flight up the stairs in the hallway. Our next speaker is Julian Mull Rosek, followed by Andrew Kim, then Lawrence Adkins. Julian.

Good evening. My name is Julian Mulrochek. I'm a resident and renter here at 40 Norris Street in Cambridge. I'm here to speak about The policy order on ShotSpotter, as others have clearly stated before me, it is not effective having an over 80% false positive rate. It is constantly listening, as evidence in other court cases has provided. It does not have transparency. Cambridge has no contract with sound thinking. I challenged the Cambridge police to even state where the sensors are located. As far as I am aware, the only information about this that is publicly available was released in a

report in 2024 in Wired Magazine through a leak. It is funded by the Department of Homeland Security and therefore undermines our commitment in Cambridge as a sanctuary city. Just as an example of its ineffectiveness, cities such as Atlanta and Portland, which have far more gun violence, have both rejected the use of ShotSpotter. Um... A tragic case in 2021 in Chicago of a police response to a shot spotter signal was the murder of Adam Toledo, a 13-year-old. who was handed a gun by someone else who had used it. So just to remind us that surveillance isn't safety, but community care is. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrew Kim, followed by Lawrence Adkins, then Sarah Lay. Andrew, two minutes.

Hello, my name is Andrew Kim. I live at 140 Dudley Street, and I'm with the Democratic Socialists of America. I'm here to talk about the ShotSpotter system, but I would first like to talk about Policy Order 5 and Charter Right 1. Thank you very much. Furthermore, the text of policy order number five is structured in such a way to deny or delay our representation from our elected representatives on these matters, and I urge the council to vote against it. On ShotSpotter, I believe the Public Safety Committee hearing two weeks ago showed that there is significant distrust of the system throughout the public and that they're right to be distrustful. This is a system that is constantly listening to us in public and it is difficult to know when it is recording due to the obscured operations of the system

It has been deployed in the most marginalized areas of Cambridge, furthering the inequality within our city and deepening the distrust between the over-policed and those who are supposed to protect them. Furthermore, the terms of the contract mean that any data is collected and the property of Sound Thinking, ShotSpotter's parent company. This means that the city of Cambridge does not control its data in this interaction and the data could be shared with agencies like DHS and ICE. It brings to mind the flock of license plate readers, along with the question I had then. Is this just the Cambridge Police Department outsourcing its policing work to a corporation with no oversight or duty to the city? This is relevant because the system was approved through a federal DHS grant which bypassed the city's procurement ordinance. No one in this room, including you, the city council, our elected representatives, had a say in the implementation of ShotSpotter. Well, we can have a say now. We want ShotSpotter out of the city, and we want any future surveillance devices to be subject to council approval and real community input.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lawrence Adkins.

Good evening. Lawrence Adkins, Legacy Family in Cambridge, 45 Hay Street. I'm here tonight because of policy orders number three and number six. Six, I am absolutely appalled that we are not honoring all of the exemptions for senior citizens. We should, matter of fact, go ahead on with this evaluation, increase it. We've become smaller in number and the expenses of the city are nearly out the roof. So any conversation about changing anything other than making it less than it is should not be on the table. Number three. This is where the two become tied together. There needs to be such a broad engagement of this conversation because I think people

are having this idea about an election for a mayor as opposed to the regular process that we have in Cambridge is not thoroughly done because people don't realize when they make this switch what goes with it. We currently have a system where nine members select and whatever that mayor is doing, it is stated on a Monday from that chair. We are now, with this conversation of election, that means that person will have ink in hand to write, make a report here, and these eight can either go ah, or ah, I don't know what we're going to do. Please, get this engagement out there so this conversation is transparent and everybody gets a real depth of it. The same with this thing about increasing the parking. Makes no difference. People are still in the neighborhood and don't have a clue what's going on. The city has an obligation. Engage people.

Just don't slap it up there and then tell them later on, tough luck. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Sarah Lay, followed by Siobhan Breeden, then Stephanie Durand. Sarah, two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Sarah Lave. I live at 20 Howard Street in Cambridge, where I've lived for 42 years. I'm here to speak about Policy Order 2026-98. and the use of spot shutter surveillance in Cambridge. These spot shutter microphones are located in neighborhoods with the highest concentration of low-income, racialized immigrant populations. They're designed to detect Thank you very much. up to 50 feet away. And therefore data can potentially be shared with law enforcement agency outside Cambridge, potentially ICE. This directly conflicts with Cambridge's commitment as a sanctuary city and a welcoming community.

According to data from the Cambridge Police Department, spot shutter alerts have an approximately 82% false positive rate, meaning that the vast majority of alerts do not correspond to actual gunfire. Perhaps the most concerning is that it's never been formally approved by the Cambridge City Council, and this raises questions about oversight, transparency, where sensitive data regarding Cambridge residents is actually processed and controlled and it undermines public trust. After sending counselors an email regarding my objection, I did hear from someone saying their concerns about feuding groups of teenagers in our areas and unsolved shootings. and he asked whether I truly understood the reality of gun violence in Cambridge. My response is increased spot shot or surveillance, police swooping down on neighborhoods where there may or may not be gunshots is not a path to stopping violence.

By now we know that more contact with police under heightened emotions has proven not to improve things between communities and those committed to serve them. besides no hopeful kid has ever joined a gang or shot a gun at someone to solve a problem. Hopeful kids don't shoot guns.

Thank you Sarah, your time has expired. Please email the remainder. Our next speaker is Siobhan Breeden. Siobhan has not joined. We're going to go to Stephanie Durand, followed by Lois Markham, then Alexandra Thorne. Stephanie, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Okay, before I begin, I want to say that all of the things I'm speaking on are all interrelated, which is to say that, obviously, if we're going to be a welcoming city, we have to be able to speak about global issues. And also... We have to say it in solidarity with our comrades in Cuba. Cambridge, of course, is part of the world, and we have sister cities all over the world, so if we were to ban ourselves from being able to speak about global issues, we won't even be able to speak about our sister cities, so that sounds ridiculous. And obviously, we should keep the parking discount for senior citizens in place because Obviously, we're facing a lot of insecurity, food insecurity, and the people in the city who use parking the most in the city are low-income and senior citizens and disabled people. I say this as a person who is disabled and I don't even drive.

I speak in support of the seniors. But I'm here to speak about Schatzwater. I ran over here, so excuse me if I'm out of breath. For the past two years, our community has been engaged in ongoing conversations about ShotSpotter, a microphone network marketed as a law enforcement tool to detect gunshots. Two weeks ago, we held our second of two Public Safety Committee hearings on ShotSpotter. During that hearing, we were reminded that ShotSpotter has an 82% false positive rate in Cambridge. We also learned that the devices are funded through a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of ICE. And it was made clear that the microphones are always listening. And also, not only just to notify the police when a gunshot is identified.

The ACLU of Massachusetts, the architect of the city's surveillance technology ordinance, have even said that Schatz Potter doesn't meet the standards outlined in the ordinance. Today, Cambridge experienced a tragic and frightening shooting. A life was lost. Stephanie, thank you.

Unfortunately, your time has expired. If you can, please email the remainder. For anyone, if your time runs out, please email the remainder of your comments to citycouncil at cambridgema.gov. We'll move to our next speaker, who is Lois Markham, followed by Alexandra Thorne, then Jesse Baer. are at speaker number 20. Lois, you have two minutes.

My name is Lois Markham. I live at 316 Binge Avenue in Cambridge. I'm here to speak about policy order number 98. which has also been called policy order number two, so I'm a little confused. Anyhow, I'm speaking to register my strong opposition to the ShotSpotter surveillance system currently deployed in certain neighborhoods of Cambridge. Others with deeper knowledge of the research have spoken or will speak to ShotSpotters' ineffectiveness and the racism behind its deployment, primarily in black and brown communities. I speak as an ordinary citizen. And my question is, who are we as a community? What are our values? What does it say about us that we have accepted money from the Federal Department of Homeland Security, parent organization of the infamous ICE, to pay a private corporation to spy on Cambridge residents?

all of that without even having local control of the data generated by this ineffective system. No matter who pays for it, ShotSpotter does not make Cambridge a safer community for anyone. It makes Cambridge a more oppressive place to live for all of us, but particularly for its black and brown residents who are already targeted by racism and so many other aspects of their lives. Is this what we want the city to whom we pay taxes to be doing? I don't. I urge the City of Cambridge to end Cambridge's participation in the ShotSpotter program. Equally important, remove all ShotSpotter microphones from the city. require a full city council vote for any future surveillance technology regardless of what its funding sources are.

Finally, invest in community-led, evidence-based approaches to public safety rather than unproven surveillance systems. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Alexandra Thorne, followed by Jesse Baer, then Jacob Brown. Alexandra, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

My name is Alexandra Thorne, and I'm a volunteer with Digital Force. I live in Somerville and spent significant time in Cambridge. Thank you for allowing me to speak, and thanks to 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. Following the April 29th public safety meeting on ShotSpotter, there is no longer any uncertainty that ShotSpotter is always recording and that sound thinking holds the data for 72 hours. Police at the hearing highlighted the value of the 72 hours rolling buffer of recorded audio as a source of evidence for investigations. The idea that Cambridge residents would be continuously recorded with no way to opt out is highly concerning in itself.

as is the clear racial disparities in the location of the microphones and the fact that these recordings violate Massachusetts wiretap law. Worse, there is no way for the cities to know or control how the recordings are used. Sound Thinking can use the recordings as it chooses. And under Section 702 of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, The National Security Agency can secretly compel businesses to share data with them. We cannot know that this hasn't happened or that it won't happen in the future. This is especially alarming under the current US administration, which has broken down protective data silos between federal agencies while mobilizing federal law enforcement against immigrants and against anyone with differing views from those of the administration. Please approve the policy order and halt the use of ShotSpotter. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jessie Bayer. Jessie, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you. I'm Jesse Baer. I live at 10 Poplar Road, a lifelong resident. I am mainly coming to talk about ShotSpotter. I think that I'm I'm very glad that the city has moved away from Flock and cancelled that contract and I think that in this day and age when not only the Political orientation of the administration in Washington is terrifying, but the increasing capabilities to sift through mass surveillance data, through the use of AI and machine learning technologies, makes that a really scary prospect. The only safe way to protect that kind of mass recorded data is not to record it in the first place. It's an ineffective system. The bar for capturing that data has to be extremely high. It clearly does not meet it.

I'd also just like to, while I'm here, mention about the Cuba I strongly support it. What's happening there is an atrocity. And as a lifelong resident, I'd like to say in terms of policy order number five, I'm really proud of Cambridge's history in affecting the movement against South African apartheid. I think that as growing up here, everybody knew it was kind of corny that Cambridge would weigh in on on foreign policy, but I'm proud of it. I think that is a tradition that I hold dear and I think that we speak on our values and set an example. And I think it would be tragic for Cambridge to intentionally silenced their own voices as the previous speaker said. And thank you for hearing me.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jacob Brown, followed by Vicki Steinitz, then Andy Martinez. Jacob, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Jacob Brown. I live on Magazine Street here in Cambridge. I'm here because I'm concerned that the use of surveillance technology in ShotSpotter reinforces historical inequities. opens the door to collaboration with the Trump administration in ICE and bypasses the standard public oversight processes by avoiding a formal contract. First of all, ShotSpotter has a pretty documented history of ineffective results. Cambridge Police Department's own data reflects a false positive rate of 82%, and a recent audit in New York also found a false positive rate in the 80s. However, the microphones don't exclusively listen for gunshots, and the public safety hearing made it clear the system is capable of recording conversation audio from distances of up to 50 feet, and there have been multiple cases in which prosecutors attempted to use those recordings in court. This means that, with few actual public safety results but documented recording capabilities, ShotSpotter amounts to an automated surveillance network. Furthermore, it's so clear looking at the placement of the microphones that the surveillance reinforces the redlining that's unfortunately been part of Cambridge's history. The microphones are in communities of color here.

Their distribution lines up directly with historically redlined neighborhoods. Quite honestly, one aspect of experiencing racial disparity within a city is the feeling of surveillance it creates. The disparity alone creates the feeling of restrictions on your mobility within and outside that system and a feeling that you are being watched. ShotSpotter stands to digitize and codify that surveillance by creating chances for high-risk police interactions almost exclusively in neighborhoods of color. In addition to the false positive rate and racially disparate deployment, ShotSpotter opens the door to city collaboration with the federal enforcement agencies that have terrorized Urban Communities under Trump's direction. Its development in Cambridge was funded by a DHS grant, and the city's contract allows data to be shared with law enforcement that can include federal agencies. Finally, I just need to spend some time just talking about the Cuba resolution as well as policy order number five. I believe that with international affairs, one of the things that comes with seeing something

that should be condemned such as the blockade of Cuba and the starvation is the feeling of powerlessness it creates and I think Cambridge standing against that sends a very powerful message to its citizens. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Vicky Steinitz, followed by Andy Martinez, then Aisha Bilabis. Vicky, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

I'm Vicki Steinitz. I live at 105 Trowbridge Street. I also was the co-coordinator of Cambridge United for Justice with Peace, which started after the Iraq War. and one of our early campaigns was a campaign to stop surveillance cameras in Cambridge. We were successful. There was a nine to nothing vote in the city council in favor of ending that and also of Cambridge not being involved with BRIC, which is one of the organizations which uses an enormous amount of surveillance data. I bring up this history because only That was in 2009 when that resolution was passed here. Only four years later in 2013,

arrived on the scene in Cambridge, but none of us knew anything about it at the time. There was no public process. The City Council had nothing to do with it. It was an agreement that was made between the Department of Homeland Security and the City of Boston with a for-profit organization which became Sound Thinking. And as many people have said, the arguments against ShotSpotter are many. And I won't go into those, but what I wanted to do here was really to emphasize the history of Cambridge As a city that has had strong feelings against surveillance for all of the reasons that you've

I've been hearing tonight and to urge the council to pass this policy order but also to stay Paying attention to what is happening, who is making the arrangements which are secret for years, which we know nothing about.

Thank you for your public comment. Thank you. Our next speaker is Andy Martinez, followed by Aisha Balabis, then Ben Amato. Andy, two minutes.

Hello, my name is Andy Martinez, and I'm speaking in favor of Charter Right Number 1 to end the blockade on Cuba. I have worked in Cambridge as a biotech worker, as a union organizer, and I will be working at Harvard as an educator this summer. I migrated to the U.S. from Cuba when I was nine years old. Part of my family left Cuba because of the severe economic conditions caused by the more than 60 year old U.S. blockade. Although Cuban society is organized to meet people's needs, the blockade has made significant material hardships a common part of life. Although healthcare in Cuba and Cuban doctors are, although healthcare in Cuba is free and Cuban doctors are highly trained, Thank you very much. This demonstrates that the medicine shortages are largely as a result of the US blockade rather than government neglect or inefficiencies.

Blackouts are also a common occurrence and have only become even more severe now that the US is blockading energy supplies from entering Cuba. My dad and grandmother who are still living there say that people nowadays remark of when the power comes back on instead of when the power gets turned off. I think that's something that's difficult for us here in Cambridge to imagine where you don't even have electricity I'm also an educator in Boston Public Schools. and just a few weeks ago the Boston Teachers Union signed on to the Let Cuba Live petition. This shows that working people here in the greater Boston area do care about this issue and Cambridge should speak on this issue. I am not asking Cambridge City Council to take this stand alone. This measure would be part of a national Let Cuba Live campaign. Hundreds of elected officials, cultural figures, and activists have signed on to stand with the Cuban people as the Trump administration tries to induce famine and the collapse of the public health system.

As people of conscience, it is a small but meaningful action you can take today to stand on the right side of history. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Aisha Balavis, followed by Ben Amato, then Marilee Meyer. Aisha, two minutes.

Hello, my name is Aisha Belabas. I'm a 22-year resident in Cambridge, and I'm also a graduate of Cambridge Regional Latin School. I'm going to try to talk about all the policy orders but I'm going to focus on the foreign policy one. I think it's really egregious that the city council wants to not talk about foreign policy. To show how influential Cambridge has been on foreign policy of the United States, Henry Kissinger attended Harvard and taught at Harvard for 20 years. He's no longer alive, but he was a Cambridge resident, and he very much influenced the foreign policy of our country today. Just to highlight how much Cambridge has had a historic role in foreign policy. Additionally, the education that I got at CRLS highlighted foreign policy. I learned about the Haitian Revolution in my history class.

And I learned that the reason why Cambridge taught the Haitian Revolution was because of the Haitian community here in Cambridge. and also we learned about U.S. interventionalism in Haiti as well in high school. And I'm really proud of the education that I received and I think that if students did not, if we did not create an environment where people, where the city council talked about I think this would be a step back and I think that it shows the rising tide of fascism in our society because the United States is a settler colonial state that impacts the foreign policy of most countries. and then just to wrap it up, I'm against ShotSpotter. I think it should be abolished. We've heard from the ACLU about how it takes away privacy, it's dystopian, it mimics the environment of 1984, and it doesn't solve gun violence.

We heard that it has an accuracy rate of 83%. I think that says enough. And then we should vote to end the embargo on Cuba. I just read that... People in Cuba are suffering from rickets. I don't know if you know what rickets is, but it's a horrible disease of malnutrition. And they're suffering that because of the blockade, so we should get rid of it.

So, yeah, thank you so much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ben Amato, followed by Marilee Meyer, then Joe Tasche. Ben, you have two minutes.

Yeah, so my name's Ben Amato. I live on Hurley Street over in East Cambridge. I'm going to speak on policy order five about foreign policy. I find it, I'll be honest, a little ridiculous that we're kind of even having this conversation right now. as far as the relevance of foreign policy to Cambridge. Cambridge is part of the US. What we do, what happens on the federal level does have an impact on us, whether we like it or not. And I know Cambridge kind of has this reputation as being like a very progressive city. And so to me, if we want to uphold that reputation, then I don't think Cambridge should be afraid of taking a leading role in opposing the criminal actions of Thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you very much. And I'd also briefly like to speak on ShotSpotter. So as other people have mentioned, this contract is owned by the Department of Homeland Security. Others have already done a great job laying out all the details. I'm not going to run through all of that. But if you ask me, our sanctuary city status is I don't think that there's

Any reason or any logic other than surveillance and for having ShotSpotter in our communities. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Marilee Meyer, followed by Joe Tashay or Tash, apologies for mispronouncing, then Charles Franklin. Marilee, please go ahead. You have the floor. Two minutes.

Hi, Marilyn Meyer, 10 Dana Street, in reference to number three. After investigating New City Charter, the question of a publicly elected mayor went unresolved. I was relieved. Another opportunity for more transparency. The elected mayor from within Council, part of Plan E, was originally established to combat corruption. This new policy order feels like a full court press to return to a process being facilitated by some of the most politically savvy counselors who could potentially benefit from public election. There are more pressures with zoning, demolitions, bike lanes, parking, schools, immigration, Trump, and a variety of other issues afflicting the city. Is the new mayor going to oversee all these issues directly? Does this elevate the mayor above the city manager? and more importantly, will there be term limits and equal access?

Direct voting can turn into a popularity contest fostered by well-organized special interest groups vying for preferential treatment. This is not far-fetched. The sponsors of this elected mayor policy all know how to play the game. I predict a crusade for mayor will be as tightly orchestrated as a council campaign complete with horse trading. The current mayor is a policeman directing traffic while keeping democratic order. While an elected mayor will also do this, he or she will have further powers that can direct procedures to individual benefit. Please consider all consequences, potential, and intent while reviewing this mayor policy order. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Joe Tasche, followed by Charles Franklin, then Andy Nash. Joe, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Joe Tasche. I'm speaking on behalf of the Party for Socialism and Liberation on Policy Order No. 5 and Charter Rule No. 1. Thank you so much for joining us. Many other PSL organizers have spoken with thousands of people in Cambridge, at housing complexes, at tea stations, universities, on street corners, and here in City Hall. and many of the people we've talked to have felt deeply concerned about the direction of our society and feel that we need big changes on many fronts. especially in the era of Donald Trump as we're under attack from every direction it is clear that we cannot compartmentalize the issues that we face every tax dollar that's spent on terrorizing

People in other countries like Cuba is a tax dollar that can't be spent on meeting people's needs, whether that be fixing potholes, on ensuring that people can afford their housing, or funding educational initiatives about water safety, as we discussed last week. Of course the Cambridge City Council does not directly control the federal budget or federal policy, but if those issues impact the lives of Cambridge residents, which they do, and the council should utilize whatever tools it has at its disposal to show leadership on those issues and to move the political needle closer in the direction of justice. An affirmative vote on this charter rule is one of those tools. For the sake of the people of Cambridge, for the sake of the people of Cuba, And for the sake of pushing our society towards progress, we ask you to vote against self-censoring on important issues, against the inhumane U.S. government blockade of Cuba, and in favor of Charter Rule Number One. Thank you.

Thank you. We are at speaker number 30, Charles Franklin, followed by Andy Nash, then Luis Venden. Charles, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Charles Franklin, Charles Franklin, 162 Hampshire Street. So whether we should or shouldn't give seniors free parking permits for the sake of it, I'm not going to opine on. However, I am going to challenge the assertion that really any two-digit number once a year is a hardship for anybody that can afford a car, seniors or otherwise. It cost me $75 just to fill my tank, right? A regular cost, not just a once a year cost. And so arguing that even the hardship price that you can self-select of $25 once a year is still a hardship, This doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand it. Perhaps I'm out of touch, but if someone can afford to own a car and they can afford to fill up their gas tank, then I think they can afford $25 once a year. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Andy Nash, followed by Louise Venden, then Richard Solomon. Andy, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Andy Nash, Worcester Street. I'm speaking tonight to urge you to end the city's participation in the ShotSpotter program. I agree with all the concerns that you've heard about from my neighbors, but I want to speak to a very practical issue. Years ago, I was witness to shots fired during a murder suicide in a neighboring house. I was on the phone with 911 before the final shot was fired, probably within 30 seconds of the entire event. And I mention this because in an urban environment, there is not likely to be much of a gap between when ShotSpotter, when it works, identifies a shot and when the police get a call from a neighbor. We are not a rural town where there are vast unpopulated spaces with no one to hear things. We are yard to yard, very soon to be building to building, and there is very little advantage to employing a surveillance system with all of its many social costs.

And by those costs, I mean contributing to building a national surveillance state as well as endangering community members by drawing police into the community who are activated to think that an active shooter may be present. ShotSpotter is a corporate solution looking for a problem. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Louise Venden. Louise, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Louise Venden, 10 Rogers Street. I urge you to vote for policy order 99 requesting options for direct election of our mayor. Power to the people. It's time for us to elect a mayor responsive to broad Public interests, not narrow special interests. Right now, the city manager has the authority and power to prioritize implementation of council-enacted policies and programs and allocate staff and funding resources. The administration also controls information about program impacts that counselors need to refine them and ensure the public is benefiting. The bureaucracy is now not accountable to the voters, and councilors have limited ways to alter implementation before damage has been done and resources wasted.

Direct election of the mayor would place executive leadership in a person who answers to the public at large, whose broad range of concerns would inform implementation of policies and reporting of results. The candidate would need to engage diverse residents whose priorities range from childcare and the environment to bicycle safety and housing development. An elected mayor could ensure that priorities are established and goals tracked so that councilors would have more timely and complete information by exercising more control over staff and funding resources. An elected mayor would have the authority to foster collaboration between councilors whose election relies on smaller segments of voters. electing the mayor at large would avoid the backroom negotiations and trade-offs that councilors must employ to gain a majority vote from the nine members.

Those negotiations generate grudges and distrust that undermine thoughtful policy making.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Richard Solomon. Richard has not joined. We will go to Marty Levin, followed by James Williamson, then Hamza Shahzad. Marty? Marty, you have two minutes.

Thank you so much for the opportunity. I feel very strongly that senior citizens are not really looked after as well as they need to be. It's a statement about how we care about people who are vulnerable, the most vulnerable being elderly and those with disabilities. How we treat our seniors is very important. It says a lot about who and what we are as a nation and as a community. It was stated that it's not a big deal, it's not that much money. But for a senior citizen, it is... I was reading that it could be considered death by a thousand cuts, and I think that's very appropriate. Everything that we can do to support seniors and also the disabled is very compassionate behavior.

So I'm saying we need to not... create a problem for seniors by charging them for the parking pass. And yeah, that's all I want to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is James Williamson. We're at speaker number 35. James, you have the floor. Please go ahead.

can you hear me?

yes we can

Thank you. First of all, on ShotSpotter, I want to thank the various speakers tonight who have educated me and I hope others about this technology. I wasn't aware of some of the things that people brought up. If we had COVID tests that had 80% false positive, people would just be laughed right out of the room. I think the deeper question about ShotSpotter is it's part of a trend that's been going on for decades in our society where for those who care about community, we hear a lot of talk about it in this city. It's a great way to undermine community and community policing, which may now be an outmoded concept, I guess. Thank you so much for joining us.

and so I think there's a deeper question about the shop spotter technology which some others have touched on and I just think it's very problematical as people have pointed out. On policy order five, First of all, the two whereases are in contradiction to each other and incoherent. You want to have a hearing about it, but you say you don't want to waste time Thank you for joining us. Finally, the main thing I really wanted to speak about tonight was the, under, I forget the category, but it's $10 million. On infrastructure, it's described as improvements.

Of course, everything in Cambridge is described as improvements, but it's street improvements between Bigelow and it's misspelled as Sydney. Cindy, but it's actually Sydney. What the hell is this? Before you vote on it and we're told we can't do anything about it. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Hamza Shahzad, followed by Ani Adavi, then Catherine Silvestri. Hamza, two minutes.

Salaam, councillors. My name is Hamza, and I'm an organizer with South Asians Building Resistance, also known as SABR. SABR is a grassroots organization committed to building collective power across our communities while being grounded in an anti-imperialist and anti-colonial tradition. South Asians were standing today with Cuba, a victim of the 60-year blockade which the US has implemented since the nation took its future into its own hands. Cambridge has a concrete relationship with the world. Scholars, engineers, scientists all around the world flock to Cambridge for its people and institutions. And it is because Cambridge has always been a worldly city. It is because Cambridge is the library of the earth. that the city must stand up in times of international turmoil and as South Asians we're here today in solidarity because Cuba is standing up to an imperialist force, a tradition not unfamiliar to the Indian subcontinent. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ani Adavi. Ani, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Yes, hello. Hopefully I'm audible. I'm Ani Adavi. I live on Observatory Hill. I'm a fourth-year PhD candidate at MIT and the recording secretary of the MIT Grad Student Union. I also oppose the use of ShotSpotter, but I mainly want to speak in favor of the resolution on Cuba and against Policy Order 5 because for the graduate students who conduct the research and teaching labor at MIT, Many of us came here not just because we enjoyed science and wanted to advance human knowledge but also out of a sense of conviction to make the world a better place. But many of the bottlenecks for improving human life are not scientific but political. The reason Cubans were forced to develop their own COVID vaccine later in 2021 wasn't limitations in vaccine research or shipping logistics, but restrictions on the import of medical supplies caused by the US embargo.

The reason for blackouts on the island is not inadequate engineering of the electrical grid, but artificial scarcity created by the US energy blockade. So that's why our union signed on to the Let Cuba Live petition, calling for the end of the US blockade on Cuba and the reopening of positive engagement. We believe that advances in science and technology should go toward improving the human condition everywhere without artificial political barriers. As union members, we also believe that working people in the U.S. have much more in common with everyday people in Cuba than with the politicians and billionaires who fearmonger about the so-called threat of Cuba. Foreign policy issues are local issues because every dollar that's spent on the military or on imposing sanctions that kill half a million people around the world annually is a dollar that's not invested in healthcare, education, infrastructure, or any of our other needs here at home.

Massachusetts once led the nation as one of the first states to pass divestment legislation from apartheid South Africa, and I strongly encourage the Council to carry on this legacy of international solidarity by passing this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Catherine Silvestri, followed by Rachel Bickelman, then Sophie Gillard. Catherine, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Catherine Sylvester. I live at 253 Norfolk Street in one of the areas under heaviest surveillance by ShotSpotter. I am urging the City Council to discontinue the use of ShotSpotter. At the Public Safety Committee meeting, Cambridge Police presented ShotSpotter as something that we shouldn't worry about because it doesn't alert unless a high decibel noise triggers three or more devices. This does not address the fact that ShotSpotter is always recording in order to hear high decibel noises. Additionally, we know that ShotSpotter can record conversations because ShotSpotter recordings of a conversation were rejected as evidence in a 2017 case here in Massachusetts under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act. ShotSpotter is a surveillance technology produced by Sound Thinking, which is a for-profit company. We cannot trust sound thinking to be a responsible steward of our data. Even if we had more transparency into the contract with sound thinking,

The terms of the agreement could change or Sound Thinking could voluntarily give data to federal agencies without any process through the City of Cambridge. We know that Sound Thinking has lied about the accuracy of ShotSpotter. and ShotSpotter has not been found to reduce shootings when looking at plenty of data from other cities that have employed this technology. We have seen time and time again how so-called public safety technologies like flock cameras are used irresponsibly and violate resident privacy. ShotSpotter has a high false positive rate, which results in unnecessary police deployment in predominantly black and brown neighborhoods. I do not think the handful of cases Cambridge Police Department points to merit the use of constant audio surveillance in our city. I strongly believe that there are more community oriented ways to ensure timely responses to actual gunshots without constantly compromising our privacy. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Rachel Bickelman. Rachel, you have two minutes.

Hi, my name is Rachel Bickelman, and I'm a resident on Trowbridge Street today. I'm addressing the Charter Right Number 1 and Policy Order 5 With ShotSpotter's privacy, it's treated as a privilege rather than a right, arch privacy that is, and its use is a cost to our right to privacy and to not be constantly surveilled. It's a textbook example of how the US takes advantage of its citizens data by operating on an opt out basis rather than opting on or opting into It also communicates to our residents that the solution to violence is surveillance and not community programming that provides tangible support and resources for us. So I urge the city and their use of ShotSpotter in Cambridge in physical practice and as an ethos of our city. I'd like to repeat comments that were mentioned today about how council is talking out of both corners of their mouths and the hypocritical appreciation of Caroline Hunter's anti-apartheid movement.

Because of her work, Cambridge has the legacy as the first city in the US to pass a resolution affirming a boycott of South African apartheid that resulted in a statewide divestment which kicked a chain off throughout the entire country and led to the collapse of apartheid South Africa. Caroline Hunter's work is praised by the city just outside of this room. but now we're attempting to silence any future comment or public input on international issues. We cannot turn away from the impact that the U.S. has in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Venezuela, in Cuba and this order silences residents who have a say in what their government does in their neighborhoods and the ones that the US has inserted themselves in. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. We are going to move on. Sophie Gillard, we already heard from. That was a double sign up. We are at speaker number 41. We have about nine speakers to go. Next, we'll hear from Mila Halgren, followed by Denise Haynes, then Carlos Humberto David. Mila? Mila has not joined us. We will go to Denise Haynes. Denise, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, Denise Haynes, Putnam Avenue. I'm here to talk about, I guess this is POR 202699. The project charter initially was not clear the outreach about The changes in the charter was not clear, and now you want to discuss election of a mayor for who knows what, however many terms. Communication is not key. Outreach lacks here in the city of Cambridge. So now you want to change how mayors are actually put in place. It'd be nice to know, as someone had said earlier on, what are the negative impacts? What are the positive impacts for this change? Not just putting it forward. The other policy that I'm coming up to speak about is... Thank you.

Thank you. A parking permit. It's been zero for a zero cost forever. I don't even know however long. But now why do you want to change this to attack senior citizens? This is limited income folks. and that person who said that, they're going to be old one day. It's something that, you know, right now everybody's economic The situation has changed, and to go from 25 to 75, it's quite a jump. And this change is being based on what was the current process? What was the numbers? It seemed like the last meeting we had, the numbers were not accurate. They didn't reflect 2021, 22, 23.

So I think it's time to maybe look at going after how is the efficiency of the operations

Carlos Humberto-David

I'm a lifelong resident of Cambridge. Got something I wrote here. Tonight, I plan to speak in support of keeping Shots Water in Cambridge, not because I blindly support surveillance or politics, but because I know firsthand what gun violence does to families and communities. My younger brother was murdered in Cambridge in 2014 and our family has had to live with the pain every single day since. His life was taken in an act of violence that left our family devastated in search for more answers. There were people present There were witnesses and despite investigation, nobody was ever arrested for his murder. That leaves a permanent wound on my family and a community. You never stop wondering if things could have been different if some Thank you for joining us. Thank you for joining us.

Identify locations more accurately and support investigations in cases where people are too afraid to speak. In neighborhoods where gun violence exists, not everyone calls 911 and not everyone cooperates out of fear. Tools that help law enforcement respond in real time can matter. At the same time, I want to be clear that my support for ShotSpotter is not support for turning Cambridge into a surveillance state, is in support of ICE, immigration, or any other law enforcement or political agendas that target vulnerable communities I believe public safety and civil rights must exist together. Cambridge is a diverse city, and residents should never feel like technology meant to stop violence is being used to intimidate immigrants or communities of color. For me, the issue is personal, not political.

I know what it feels like to lose a brother and never see justice served. If there are tools available that can...

Thank you, Carlos, for your testimony. If you can, please email the remainder. Our next speaker is Zachariah Elkawa, followed by Ed Henley, then Jacob Augenstern. Zachariah.

Hi, my name is Zachariah Al-Kawar with Palestinian Youth Movement. and I'm here today to comment on the Foreign Policy Order 5, which is on the support of... The support against the Cuban blockade to let Cuba live. It should be clear that for the last three years as we've seen the genocide being taken on by the Israeli state in support by the United States. This is a continuation of that policy, a continuation of that policy that has gone Well over 60, 70 years at this point on the Cuban people. A long war against the Cuban people that actually preceded even the independence of Cuba in 1959. It should be noted that the conditions in Cuba are beyond horrific.

It should be noted that day by day, doctors are having to make the choice between which patients deserve to live based on what level of electricity is available. I want folks to know that that's the violence this country is imposing on the people of Cuba. And if folks who don't want to talk about foreign policy in their city councils Thank you for your time. They're not foreign policy issues. They're ones who affect the very families that live in Cambridge, so they're not foreign policy issues. But frankly, that's ridiculous that that was even a point of order. The second point is the ShotSpotter.

It's frankly ridiculous that, again, that that's even a technology being considered. And then the point on the senior discount, if there was adequate enough transport, I would advocate for getting rid of discount parking, but there isn't. and so we need to continue that to allow seniors to- Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ed Henley followed by Jacob Augenstern, then Annie Butler. Ed, you have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Ed Henley. I'm a senior at Manning Apartments Senior Housing. My views are my own. I'm speaking with regards to the senior parking permit exemption in Shotswater. Respect for the community of seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to the great Cambridge community. and the great Cambridge community. Community is everything in Cambridge and as shown by the attendance tonight, you know, this is a community that's worth fighting for. I'd like to I want to add that seniors have been doing this for a lifetime and we appreciate your support. Those of us still driving mostly tend to be dealing with finances and the abundance Thank you for joining us.

Please do not increase our parking permit costs. We pay auto excise taxes, which I understand go into the general fund. That's on your automobile. And likewise, the cost of producing permits comes out of the general funds. So it seems like that's a match. I want to go into a short spot. At Manning, we have heard gunfire, and we appreciate the response and support of the Cambridge Police Department. We've had security issues. They are very good. with our senior community. At the same time, if there is the slightest possibility of the short spotter system that is paid for by Homeland Security, and the possibility of even the slightest possibility in this great digital age of recording conversations to be used by ICE, we oppose the use of the ShotSpotter. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jacob Augenstern, followed by Annie Butler, then Glenna Wyman.

Jacob Augenstern, 118 Elm Street. I'm a 20-year resident of Cambridge. I'm a history teacher. I'm also on the steering committee of Veahavta, a Cambridge-based diasporist synagogue building a Judaism beyond Zionism right here in our city. And so I open with Psalm 26.4. Thank you for joining us. I came here talking about how proud I was of the legacy of our city and I left ashamed because this body betrayed the values that we've heard so many people speak to tonight we were told things about taking too much time on this policy order And here we are spending twice as much time on it. We were told that it wasn't our jurisdiction, while in the language of the resolution, there is a call to send our resolution to Cambridge's delegation to the U.S. Congress.

And as we've heard from so many people speaking so eloquently about policy order two, things that seem like a municipal issue like ShotSpotter are actually regional, state, national, and even international issues when we talk about the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you very much. of Caroline Hunter and the Winnie Mandela Solidarity Coalition that engaged in much more disruptive tactics than we are doing right now. You celebrate that in the atrium to this hall where you would condemn Caroline Hunter for wasting your time. You want to talk precedent? In 2005, the city of Cienfuegos, Cuba was made a sister city to Cambridge. This is absolutely a municipal issue.

and on a broader issue about our values, I'll quote again from Deuteronomy, Justice, justice shall you pursue. That is what the people of Cambridge stand for. That's why we love our city. So I call on you to end the blockade on Cuba. Do not commit foreign policy discussions to self-censorship to a black hole. Do not engage in any more ShotSpotter in this city.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is, again, folks, if we can remind you, there's no applauding.

Mr. Vice Chair, excuse me, Mr. Vice Chair, point of order. Thank you. Would you please remind our guests in the gallery that we do not have clapping and hooting and things of that nature because we want to respect everybody's point of view. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, please, no clapping.

This is Annie Butler followed by Glenna Wyman and our final speaker will be Heather Hoffman. Annie, you have two minutes, please go ahead.

My name is Annie Butler. I live at 32 Andrew Street. And just a little historical tidbit. We have two minutes here, but when Caroline... Hunter was leading the pack. There are big brawls here. People fought and fought and fought for what she believed in. It wasn't like we got two minutes to speak. We spoke for as long as he wanted to. Just a little bit about that. There's 10% of the population, as far as I can tell by Googling, that is over 65 in Cambridge. I can't believe that Cambridge can't subsidize those people, me being one of them. I also own a car and I also pay for insurance and I have to buy groceries and I don't see anything going down. I really, seriously, I don't know how people are affording it.

I really don't. I just found out that a friend of mine who's like Italian, she just found out that the coffee she loves is now... $85 for six cans that she used to buy for 23 five years ago. $85? That's unbelievable to me. Anyway, so also the... It says the average income of people in Cambridge, the median income is like $180,000. I don't know any people who are really working. I'm sorry, you're working. I don't know any people who are doing 40 hour a week jobs, being working class people who make anywhere near that amount of money. I just, I can't even imagine how that can be. I think there has to be more research about what the real income of people living in Cambridge is. So that's not the median, it's the actual like.

10% of the people make 42,000 or some clearer statistics. But anyway, I don't think you should charge people and I think we should free Palestine.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Glenn. Again, sorry, we're almost done. Just no clapping and we'll get through this.

Yes, I like that. That's fine. Our next speaker is Glenna Wyman, and our final speaker will be Heather Hoffman. Glenna, two minutes. Please go ahead.

First off, I would recommend what I have recommended at a prior hearing on the topic, that the The people who should get the benefit of zero price on a permit should be people who can check off that it would be a hardship for them to pay the permit. Rather than have it based on age as if someone who's a wealthy age person needs an honorarium like that. Let's focus on people who are low income that need that assistance. I'm also speaking as I did at a hearing last week totally against continuing shot spotter and pointing out as I did at the hearing last week that it's misrepresented in the surveillance report filed by the

Cambridge Police Department, that voices are quote-unquote never recorded, when in fact there have been numerous cases and across the nation showing that they are and including a case mentioned earlier tonight where a prosecutor tried to get in recorded speech from ShotSpotter, and it was thrown out under our state of Massachusetts requirement that both parties need to consent. We need to remove it. We can't have Homeland Security and ICE.

Involved and it's a complete contradiction to us being a sanctuary city and I support dealing with national and international issues.

Your time has expired. Thank you. Please email the remainder. Our final speaker will be Heather Hoffman. Heather, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street. With respect to the drought, why don't we protect our trees instead of cutting them down? That will help to at least some degree. I would love to know why this particular thing Above all other things that not every last person in Cambridge uses that costs our government money was chosen. Perhaps the people so gung-ho for it could enlighten us. With respect to the asbestos at the Riverview, I see the report says we had all of these sensors and everything, and I will point out

that as the city still has not, to my knowledge, admitted to the people in my neighborhood of East Cambridge, they did nothing to make sure that we wouldn't be showered with asbestos from the big ugly courthouse. So I'd love to know why we should trust anything. With respect to the proposal for yet more charter change, I... Thank you so much for joining us. This would be a strong mayor. It doesn't say that. How do you envision this? I understand that you're talking about...

Let's have some idea of what you're even thinking about that made this look like something you wanted to do. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, we have two people that were previously, that had not joined when we called them, so I will call them now. Siobhan Breeden. Siobhan, you have the floor, you have two minutes.

Thank you and good evening. I really appreciate, I'm Siobhan Braden of 20 Murray Hill Road and I appreciate the opportunity to comment tonight in favor of policy order 202698. As a longtime Cambridge resident, I'm deeply grateful for our city's commitment to equity and human rights. And I'm also a lay leader at First Parish in Cambridge, where I'm actively involved in social justice work locally and beyond. That's why I'm so concerned that Cambridge is using ShotSpotter, a surveillance system that the city council never voted on. Shot spotter is also ineffective according to Cambridge Police Department data. It has an 82% false positive rate, meaning that most alerts are not actual gunfire. Police resources are being diverted based on unreliable data and there's no clear evidence that ShotSpotter reduces gun violence.

At the same time, its use is not equitable. Sensors are concentrated in neighborhoods like the Port and Riverside and not in wealthier areas like West Cambridge. That means Black, Brown, and immigrant communities are disproportionately surveilled and subjected to increased police interactions based on faulty alerts. Finally, the program operates through Boston using DHS funds, raising serious concerns about data sharing, including with ICE, contradicting Cambridge's non-cooperation policy. I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of POR 22698 and end Cambridge's participation in ShotSpotter. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we will hear from Richard Solomon. Richard, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Richard Solomon. I live on Kinnaird Street. I just want to echo everything the previous speaker said. We as residents do not want to be spied on 24-7. by a device that is designed to listen through walls that can hear conversations at distances of up to 50 feet. We know ShotSpotter is effective. I'm very concerned about the false positive rate. I don't want its information being shared with the Trump administration. Once this infrastructure is in place, it's very easy to divert it to other means such as mass surveillance. of people of color, of activists. I think it reinforces patterns of historical racism. As the previous speaker mentioned, and it wasn't formally approved through a contract with Cambridge. And so I frankly don't understand as a resident who's lived here,

for the past few years, why we're taking any money from DHS for this kind of system. I'd also like to say that I think the city council needs to take a strong position against the embargo on Cuba. It's wrong. It's immoral. Speaking in solidarity with people across the world is part of the tradition of the City Council. You did it during apartheid, you can do it now. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Mayor, that is all that we're signed up to speak.

Thank you to everyone for their public comment. We'll go ahead and close public comment on a motion by Councilor Zusy 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's one submission. These are minutes of the regular City Council meeting held on January 12, 2026. on a motion by Councilor Al-Zubi to approve the minutes and place them on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes. Have it. The minutes are approved and placed on file. There are no reconsiderations. We have four items on the city manager's agenda. Pleasure of the city council. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui, number one and number four.

Councilor Nolan, polls number one and number four. Pleasure of the City Council. Hearing no one else, we will go ahead and do a roll call on the two appropriations, calendar item number two and number three.

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

Those two appropriations have been approved. And before we just go to the city manager, I know the city manager will At some point tonight we will talk about what happened today near Memorial Drive and River Street. I want to thank all the first responders who acted quickly and with courage under such dangerous circumstances. and rapidly evolving circumstances. I know the DA was at a press conference and our Police Commissioner was there too. But we'll get through these items, and then when we can have an update for the council, we'll do so. But for now, we'll go to a communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager. Relative to an update on the city's digital equity work, this was pulled by Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui, and through you to the city staff. Thanks so much for this report. It's a very important work that's being done. Digital equity, I think, has been something the city has been working on for probably 20 years. I still remember. Long, long time ago that this was first identified as an issue and we have worked over time to address it. I was happy to see a lot of the work being done to ensure that we are moving across the city. I didn't see as much, unless I missed it, the digital equity question of how we're addressing the needs of small businesses. This is mostly focused on residents and yet Whenever we talk about digital equity, one of the issues citywide is that the cost of internet, which is something every single person needs, we know, for living. for job, for life, for education but it's also something that small businesses came to us during our digital equity conversations to say that it's critically important for them to have affordable and reliable service.

So I'm just curious how that fits in.

City Manager's Office.

Thank you, Councilman Nolan. I will turn it over to Ms. McCauley, who is our Director of Libraries, to speak a bit to that.

Thank you. Good evening through you, Madam Mayor. It is really such a delight to be here tonight to give an update on all of the great digital equity work that we are doing. Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much for joining us. And we have our Assistant Director of Adult and Family Services with us this evening, Sue Walsh. So she might want to come up and speak. and we also work in collaboration with CDD as well. Sue, did you want to say some words?

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. You know, you're exactly right that I think the work that we've been doing and the focus has been mostly on residents. And of course, the way that we're addressing Business need and workforce need is mostly through upskilling our residents to meet those employment needs. We've not actually been focused as a partnership on the specific needs of small businesses.

Thanks. And again, I am thrilled and appreciate all the work for residents and the critically important way that we are addressing it, and yet We need to do more then to work with all the business associations, small businesses. We heard it loud and clear that they are just as much at risk as some of our Thank you for joining us. particularly in the area of as we we say we support small businesses this is one of those areas of equity so it Madam Mayor.

We will go to a few Councillor's questions. Councillor McGovern, Councillor Azzubi, Councillor Zusi.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. Thank you for the report. And I apologize if I miss this in here, but One of the concerns I've heard is about the – I met with the folks from Somerville-Cambridge Elder Services less – two weeks ago maybe, a week and a half ago. Thank you very much. that would go out to seniors' homes, educate them on computer literacy, help to bridge that digital divide. The grant had another year on it, but

The federal administration has cut that grant and so they have laid off, I think they had two staff members doing that grant. They have been laid off and that that program, which was I think highly valued. Some other folks, part of the reason I met with them is because some folks from, in particular from 411 Franklin Street, my neighbors had stopped me and said, Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks to the federal government, it no longer exists.

McGovern. I know we've raised this before, and I think we have been in close conversation with a lot of community partners, in particular Somerville-Cambridge Elder Services, We had a number of meetings over the last couple of months. The focus has really mostly been on federal grants and the general, as you're noting, financial challenges that a lot of our community nonprofits are going through. but as it related to food programs for seniors. So a lot of the work that Ms. Walsh and the team have been working Thank you. Thank you. I think they have not actually raised this issue so

We're happy to have a conversation in a meeting to better understand what the context is of that federal grant. I would note that this important work is something that we've continued to be committed to and this report shows a lot of the ways that we've had digital navigators I'd also just recognize and acknowledge that Over the last couple of years, a lot of the funding for these programs have come from the federal ARPA dollars that we had access to during the pandemic. Those dollars, as we've noted and had conversations and Finance Committee have steadily been going away. And so we ultimately have had to either see some of those programs transition or find alternative funding sources.

Some of the conversation today is actually doing an appropriation to bring some additional revenue sources in to support Some of our digital navigation efforts, but I think ultimately this will sort of increased investment in digital navigators or other kinds of programs will have to be part of that broader budget conversation.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. Okay, you know, I hope that, you know, I think having the at-home service is really helpful, particularly for seniors who might have issues getting out. You know, to places to... And learning it on your own computer and seeing it is really different than going into a library and then having to transfer that. So I think there's real benefits to the program. You know, it's also... Somerville, Cambridge Legal Services. So, you know, I wouldn't let Somerville off the hook for paying for some of this. If that's the way we have to go, it serves Somerville as well. We shouldn't necessarily carry the whole cost. And if I'm not sure, but I don't think that the funding, I believe the funding that they got was through a grant. It wasn't ARPA money that was cut. I believe it was a grant that the Trump administration just stopped.

If we can't partner with them and reinvigorate their program, I would certainly encourage us to fill that gap somehow, whether we start looking at more at-home services for seniors or You know, bridging that gap, whether it's us or them. I mean, I just want to make sure people are getting the service, you know. So I hope we can talk about this further because I think it's important. Thank you. I'll yield now.

Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, it's great to get an update on this. I have a few questions based on what I was reading. Are you able to help explain how we can keep up with the need? Because it seems like from this report, we're going down from seven to two and a half Even though I'm reading that one of the key recommendations from the 25 study shows that retaining the navigators to meet the needs of low-income residents is important, And then we saw from the data that those seven navigators completed over 2,500 service tickets. So it would be helpful to get a better idea of your thoughts there.

Through you, Madam Mayor. Yes, we are trying to come up with a creative way of moving forward with our digital equity work. and we are fortunate that both human services and the library has been able to successfully have More staff added over the past few years that focus on digital equity. And during this pilot period, we were fortunate to have this really wonderful A pilot of digital navigators across the city. And given that the funding sources are drying up, are trying to be creative in the city so that we can continue at least one digital navigator in the city and at the library, which had the highest number of tickets closed. So I think, you know, given the economic situation, that this is a creative solution.

Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. I definitely appreciate that you guys are moving creatively to do that. I do wanna acknowledge that it seems like from this report that there is a need there. and one thing I also noticed was there weren't many outcome measures in the report so even if there's a way for us to further get an idea of like what the need is that would be really important so that we can continue sharing to the city manager that this is something that's needed in the city. Another question I had was, from my understanding CCTV currently coordinates the digital navigator program, if I'm not mistaken. So when the funding runs out, how is the public library going to Pick up this coordination that CCTV was doing. Are you guys coordinating with them to do that? Where's the current communications on that? Yes.

Assistant Director Yee, would you like to respond?

Thanks. Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, to you, Councilor, yes, CCTV coordinating the pilot cohort and that includes members across community organizations and nonprofits as well as a navigator and a coordinator at CCTV. That pilot program is ending as of June 30th. So one thing we've learned through the pilot period is that A lot of the folks coming to Digital Navigators for service are actually coming for assistance with things that require technology but aren't strictly technology related. So we're seeing people that are looking for help applying for benefits, learning how to use video conferencing to stay in touch with loved ones, or trying to build skills to gain employment.

and none of those are strictly technical support needs. They're tasks that require technology but also require other supports. and we do have library staff that already engage with patrons for these services. Another thing we've found is that providing direct one-on-one service to residents can be really complicated and potentially emotionally challenging. and being part of a larger team at the library with built-in support We have a digital equity manager and a digital equity specialist that are already full-time employees at the library, and they will be working with this navigator position. They are already doing things like coordinating programming and partnerships as well as offering direct service.

So we feel that having this position at the library where residents are already coming to us for services and we have Additional support for The Navigator as well will help move this program forward. Thank you.

Gotcha. Councilman Zubi. Thank you. Gotcha. Through you, Madam Mayor, it's definitely helpful to understand. It'd be great if we can plug in even the food access network work, where they're also trying to work on how to help bring people to get them connected to resources if you're saying not everything is strictly like technical or technological support. My last question and then I'll yield is related to the report talking about the pilot program at the Manning Towers and other buildings as well. Do we happen to have any data on this? Do we know how many of the units at the manning apartments are using the service? Do the tenants know about it? Was their outreach done? Was there anyone helping them turn it on? I'm just curious to hear a little bit more about that.

Through you Madam Mayor, that's really a question for our ITD partner and Jay is not available this evening but we can Get that information and get it to you. Thank you.

That would be helpful. Thanks.

Councilor Susie.

Yeah. Thank you so much through Mayor Siddiqui. Thank you for responding to my policy order. It took two times to get a response, but this is a really thoughtful one. And like my colleagues, I'm incredibly impressed with the city's efforts. and I also am concerned that we're going from seven digital navigators and actually I guess since June 24, over 2,775 service tickets We're going from seven navigators to 2.5, and I think it's good you're creative, Director McCauley, and Assistant Director Walsh, because I think we're going to have to figure out how to provide supports to young and old. I do know you would need to have vetted people helping with this, but I almost wondered if

Thank you for joining us. and maybe they could especially work with elders. I also wanted to ask about, I had reached out to a friend at Manning who said they have Starry and Comcast, and I guess Comcast was better than Starry but things may have improved with Starry. I wanted to ask about Washington Elms and Newtown Court. The report notes that the program providing internet access was paused and is under negotiation with MIT. When will that be resolved? Because it seems as though in all of our Our housing complexes, we really should have internet access.

Through you, Madam Mayor, we do not know what the timetable is, and when we do know, we're happy to share that information.

Zuzi.

Yeah, thank you. I think that I know we give you hundreds of priorities every week, but I think that should be another priority because it's fabulous that the library has 133 window laptops that are available and 148 Wi-Fi prepaid hotspots. and the Cambridge Community Learning Center has 300 devices for student use. All of these things are great. But I do think the internet Thank you for all of your work. I yield.

Anyone else on this before I say a few remarks? I agree with a lot of what's been said. I think two questions. and more of a comment but I agree with you know appropriating and being creative so that's you know Great that this is a solution. And related to that, given that there were navigators who... were no longer continued because ARPA ran out, all of them would be able to apply to this position.

That's correct. and I just, through you, Madam Mayor, I just want to give a huge shout out to all of the digital navigators who are working in the city. They've just done a beautiful job. and really remarkable job and we so appreciate their efforts.

Definitely. And then related to that, I think on some of what my colleagues have said, this position, yes, we'd have at the library, but They could also hold office hours at the senior center, perhaps. Or on the common or on the high school site, you know, I think... I don't know if Senior Center is a Mayor's Program site or has been in the past, but sometimes they're always looking for sites. Get a huge demand. Repurpose one or two students that way. It's only 20 hours a week, but just to fill in these gaps that we're seeing, it's not a permanent solution, but I think as we think about how to Thank you very much.

If it's okay, I would love to respond.

Sure, sure. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, right now we do have dedicated staff providing on-site support at the senior center. for tech support. So just want to make clear that we do have that resource available. And to that particular vulnerable population, both HRI McGovern, and yours. The affordable housing providers are absolutely aware and prioritizing their senior population. So I just wanted to make sure that you knew that. And yes, the senior center will be a mayor's program site this summer. Great. Thank you.

I don't see any other hands on this. So on a motion by Councilor Nolan to place city manager agenda item number one on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. We've placed that communication on file. We'll move on to city manager agenda item number four. This is a communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the successful completion of the 221 Mount Auburn Street demolition. Councilor Nolan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. Very much appreciate this update. And I want to just start by thanking the city. The residents of that building, many of whom lost their life savings, or most of it, we don't know how much, but significant. But also the neighborhood and the city itself for just bearing with this really challenging situation. It was a distressing and cataclysmic building danger that led to this very complex and expensive demolition building project. So I just pulled this because it would be helpful, I think, to summarize the status of the work. And the questions I have is if there's any sense of a timeline for the final disposition of the property. and the the question that came up in reviewing it is that the zoning appears to be again this isn't

right before us now but for seven stories yet the building was nine stories so I think explaining that difference if I'm right in reading that that would be helpful but again thanks to the city it came in less money than we expected but it was still a lot of money and a lot of A disruption citywide and now we know that that very dangerous situation has been taken care of and sadly there were hundreds and hundreds of trucks that had to bring the stuff to Ohio because that was the closest site that we could get to accept this. City Manager's Office.

Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, we are really, I hate to use the word excited because there's nothing about this that is Exciting and yet I would say very much relieved in terms of being able to be here to provide an update to council about the demolition of 221 Mount Auburn Street. As Councilor Nolan mentioned, folks may remember back in July of 2025, we appropriated $20 million to fund the demolition of a private property. And I think that is probably the first time we've had that conversation, certainly at that scale with council. and the focus really was on protecting public health and safety. We did not go into demolishing private property lightly from the city perspective. And I just remind folks, the owners at 221 Mount Auburn Street were really doing everything they could in terms of doing regular maintenance on their building. And it was during that process that they identified significant structural defects in the building.

and they really tried hard to figure out how to do the demolition themselves but just were not able to come up with the funds to do it so they really reached out to the city and the city stepped in and again in terms of public health and safety of having A nine-story concrete building that's about 30 feet away from its closest neighbor, having significant structural defects. And last July, when we appropriated the $20 million, we talked about that we hoped that that was a very conservative estimate, but we needed to have funds available in case there were significant issues during construction. So I am relieved to be here tonight to say that our total estimate now is at $12 million, so significantly less than that sort of worst case scenario. And the one thing I do want to also make note of is on page three of the presentation, this effort required a lot of staff from a lot of different departments to really step up. We don't typically do this, but we did just sort of make a note just to really reinforce that.

In many ways, I've been very much the public face of this, and our Capitol Buildings Department has really led the demolition. The number of staff working on this project from our finance team to our legal team to getting the bills paid to all the sort of back house activities really took a significant amount of effort. and on a work plan that no one was really focused on. And a few weeks ago, I shared a similar presentation of this with all the owners of 221 Mount Auburn Street. And I just want to say they were so appreciative of the city's efforts. They had had so much stress about worrying about the impact that this building could have on the neighbors and really the safety concerns. And they really felt lucky to be residents of Cambridge and wanted me to really share that with council and others that They again felt so lucky to live in a city that had the financial ability and the staff capacity to really take on this demolition.

It was an interesting meeting in that you're sort of saying to folks, like, we're going to send you a $12 million bill, and we just demolished your house, and they were so appreciative of the city. Council's support for the safe demolition. So as of April 1st, all the building material has been removed, so the building's been safely demolished. and Removed. We're doing some final site prep there. And then in the next couple weeks, we anticipate turning the control of the site Thank you for joining us. Thank you for joining us.

I think it could still be six months to a year before they get through that process of changing how they own the property and then making it available for sale. So there's still a fair amount of work there to be done. And then as part of that, we're working with them in terms of the legal process for us to get reimbursed for the $12 million. Those are also ongoing conversations, but it's every expectation that we will be fully reimbursed for all of the expenses that the city has incurred. and then I think we put in the memo that the $8 million would obviously go back into sort of unexpended funds that then next year when we're doing the certified free cash would become part of that free cash. The zoning analysis that you mentioned was a snapshot that we did. That is the current zoning of the site. And so the site has two different zoning districts, the one that's It's a very large site, so the front half of the site that is along Mount Auburn.

The existing zoning is seven stories and then the rear site is six stories depending on the inclusionary housing zoning requirements. So we just had done that because the community was asking a lot of questions and so again it's not to say this is exactly what would be built there but just to say that is the zoning as it's allowed

We'll go to Councilor Nolan and then Vice Mayor Azeem.

I appreciate it. I recognize it's complex. It may be a while. I'm glad it's... It's down and that traffic has been restored because that was another impact that was quite evident. In fact, we had to deploy police officers and traffic control quite often. I would go by there often. So again, I appreciate the staff. Glad this is done and I really wish the owners kudos again or just appreciation to the staff and to the owners and I hope it gets resolved as quickly as possible. If there's anything else we can do to accelerate that, let us know. But I yield. Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui.

Vice Mayor Azeem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I wanted to talk a little bit about the condo owners. So when the land is sold, that's the point at which they'll get whatever the land value is. And so any development that happens after, will they not get any pre-seeds from it? Can you repeat that one more time? I'm sorry, I missed the first part. I'm sorry. So I wanted to talk about the individual condo owners. And so when the land sale happens, That's the point at which they will get any payment for the land. But then after that, any of the PCs of the development that happened afterwards will just go to whoever brought the property.

Correct, sorry, yes, through Mayor Siddiqui. Yes, so the land will sell, and at that point, and again, this is what they're going through, land court, to go through the details of how that money gets distributed. But that would be sort of the end of those individual owners, and then that would be the plan to have a new owner that would then develop the site.

Got it. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, I don't have any particular interest in whoever buys the site and their financial interest. I would say that this is a lot of people who've kind of lost their life savings. If there's either a way that we can get ahead of the process to be able to ensure that they get a good value for their land in a way that the city council can help such that They get better value and maybe are made at least partially whole in a better way. That is something I would be very interested in. or if there's a way during the land sale process of making so that any changes or any benefits that the city council gives in the future, the additional value of that can go back to the original condo owners. Those sorts of things are stuff that I would be very interested in. I feel like it's kind of sad to be in a situation where we'll talk for the redevelopment after those guys are gone and then you know I don't really care but like if it's now and there's a way that we can

you know change the zoning or do other sorts of stuff to really help out people who had this really unfortunate circumstance and it's like in some ways a primal location on Memorial Drive and the building already is denser than what's allowed I feel like all those make it so that there's a possibility for some sort of agreement here.

Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, I think maybe what you're pointing to, Vice Mayor, is that if there is any zoning relief that creates value right now, there's some uncertainty to it. maybe that will be a question we can follow up with offline with community development in terms of what the existing zoning allows for and I think ultimately it's probably Thank you.

We'll go ahead to Councilor Zusy and then Councilor Flaherty.

Many of my questions have been answered, but I just wanted to commend you, Deputy City Manager Watkins, for an extraordinary job. orchestrating all of this and to all the city staff that were involved. I was there at a early community meeting and I just felt as though the city was so transparent. Your presentation was so clear and you've had a website. I feel like the communication has been stellar and it was just very well managed. So thank you so very much. And I also have been wondering about... Ultimate Height 2, since it was nine stories, and now it can be, it can be, it... What's allowed is seven stories or six stories, so it'll be interesting to see how that conversation develops. Thank you. I yield.

Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, I would also just echo a big thank you to our Deputy City Manager who I think had really just started in the role and was ready to ease into. all of the operational departments and then was suddenly running a massive project that included A really significant engineering challenge, a lot of legal complexities in terms of the ownership structure, and a deep amount of community engagement with both residents and also neighbors. Really grateful for the work that Kathy did, and in particular how much empathy she brought, and really spending a lot of extra time working with the neighborhood, and even... especially the neighboring building that we had to actually temporarily relocate people for. So really appreciate Kathy. Thank you again to all of the city staff that contributed.

We really saw so many departments that were working. And then I think just the additional thank you I wanted to call out is The State Department of Environmental Protection worked with us incredibly closely. I think this presentation talks through There were more than 20 DEP site inspections and they really worked with us to keep to this timeline and so This was really an incredible example of local and state government working together to get this project done. But they really were our partners throughout all of this and we really appreciate the work that they did.

We do have questions from Councilor Flaherty. Please go ahead.

Just very quickly, and I'd also say congratulations on a massive engineering undertaking that was exceptional. It really was. And the partnership between the state and the City of Cambridge is really unparalleled. My question is about, and I know that there were some difficult conversations with the original owners and the Vice Mayor sort of took some of the words out of my mouth about Thinking about helping those original owners who suffered devastating financial losses, whether there's a way or a mechanism to help them recoup Some of those losses would leave a $12 million bill for tearing down their house that they lost. And that's a difficult situation. And when we're talking, I wonder about incentivizing or increasing the value and incentivizing the purchase of that value for the final user.

The best and most profitable use of that, obviously, is housing. I'd suggest to maybe think about and Wonder if it's been considered allowing the original owners to stay as a limited partner going forward in whomever buys the land so those original owners can share in whatever Thank you very much. I also know that the contract is long gone. The insurance companies are long gone. There's no one to sue. The cities get immunity. There's no one to sue for these people to recoup the massive losses that they've suffered through no fault of their own. So I wonder if there is...

and opportunity to talk about allowing them to maintain a limited equity position in the project going forward

Mayor Siddiqui, I would add a few comments. So like again, through the land court process, they've appointed a commissioner that will oversee the sale and make those decisions through the land court process. And I think Thank you so much for joining us. I would say are sort of towards the end of their home owning years instead of at the beginning. And so I'm not sure that they're looking for sort of a longer term process as opposed to trying to recoup what they can. We can certainly share these comments with the commissioner and the owners. And then it's up to that process to really oversee how the property is sold ultimately.

Yep, that makes sense. Flaherty, are you set? Perfect sense. I yield. Thank you very much for that.

We'll go to Councilman Gobern.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just quickly, I Agree with both the Vice Mayor and Councilor Flaherty about the zoning piece. I think if the land quarter is making their decision on the value of the property based on seven stories, it's going to be one number. and then the developer comes forward and they buy it based on seven stories and then they come forward and say, hey, I want to do 12. I'd rather that So there are 17 units in the back? Is that? or how many units are in the back building?

I believe it's 14 that are in the Bradbury, what's known as the Bradbury building, which is the three-story. There's basement units and then there's like a, and I think it's 14.

And those are condos?

Excuse me?

Are those condos or rentals?

Yep, so both the... The nine-story building that is the 221 Mount Auburn Street and the Bradbury units are all part of the same condo association. So they're all part of that, and so they're now being part of the... We only demolished the concrete building because that's where the structural deficiencies were. The Bradbury units have been vacant probably about a year and a half now. They vacated before we really got involved.

So even though the Bradbury resident, that building was not demolished, those folks are part of the sale and they're assuming they're not going back so that both the demolished building and the Bradbury building are both

I believe that they're still working through those details. That's not a definitive. That is part of the process that they're working through.

I was just worried about those folks getting potentially displaced somehow, even though their building was not the building that needed them.

It's tricky because it is all part of the same condo association. And so that is part of what's going through land court is how to divide the property and what that looks like.

Through you, Mayor, I think just a clarification. I think one of the issues in terms of the properties being connected was being part of the same association but the Bradbury building also essentially shared and had integrated utilities that were part of the nine-story building and so Even though the Bradbury building structure, I think, is still there, there's some significant challenge in terms of that being a standalone property.

Is there anything else folks would like to add on this? We'll go ahead and place this on file on a motion by Councilor Nolan to place on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. City Manager Agenda Item 4 is placed on file. City Manager, do you want us to continue on to the policy orders or do we have... Oh, there's Commissioner. So at this point, we will go ahead and hear from Commissioner Wells. on the Memorial Drive and River Street shooting.

Madam Mayor.

Yes, Councilor Simmons.

Should we suspend the rules because that's not on the agenda?

We'll go ahead on a motion by Councilor Simmons to take this late senior manager agenda item. Right now, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Please go ahead.

Sue you, Madam Mayor. I'm just going to go from the press conference notes. Today at approximately 1.06 p.m., the Cambridge police received a 911 call from Boston police reporting that a suspect may be in the city and had been acting erratically. Boston Police relayed to the Cambridge Police that the suspect was in possession of a rifle. When Massachusetts State Police responded to the area of Memorial Drive along with the Cambridge Police, an active shooter situation was underway. with the suspect on foot walking east on the roadway, in the middle of the roadway, allegedly in possession of an assault-styled rifle, which he was actively firing in an erratic fashion at vehicles in the roadway. Thank you for watching.

Both the civilian and the trooper fired their weapons and the suspect was struck multiple times. The suspect was treated on scene and transported to a Boston hospital where he has gunshot wounds to his extremities. Both victims were also transported with life-threatening injuries to Boston hospitals. To our knowledge, the information we have at this time suggests the victims were not known to the defendants. We are very early in the investigation and are still gathering information, but what we do know is that this was a very dangerous situation involving a very high number of shots, 50 to 60 rounds. Fired within a very short period of time. The quick response of the Massachusetts State Police, the Cambridge Police, and the former Marine ended this incident quickly and very well likely saved lives. This incident occurred during a busy part of the afternoon where innocent people were driving their vehicles, walking, biking and rowing in the river.

The alleged actions of the shooter in this case put many lives at risk and very seriously injured two innocent people.

Thank you, Commissioner. As I said in the beginning, our thoughts are really with those who have been impacted by today's violence. and other victims of gun violence, those who are right now in the hospital and victims of gun violence everywhere. We recognize and I speak on behalf of my colleagues how frightening today was for community members and I want to just really appreciate all the first responders who came with courage under such dangerous and evolving circumstances. I know there's a video out there that many people have been watching and seeing and and I know the DA's had this conference and she spoke to how just more terrible it could have been.

Thank you for coming and giving us that update. I know you'll share more as time goes on. If my colleagues would like to say anything, feel free. If they do have questions, I'll open it up to them.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you too, Madam Commissioner. First of all, thank you. I have a number of friends and family that live in 808-812, and we were calling around to make sure that they were all right. I think it's important just to say for folks, and I just want to be sure through you, Madam Mayor, to the to our commissioner is that Memorial Drive is not under the city's jurisdiction. It is under state control. Is that correct?

It's actually concurrent jurisdiction, but...

Thank you, Madam Commissioner. I just think it's important because if you were watching on television, you would have seen state police and I was going to say FBI, but I'm thinking of a movie. You would have seen state police and might have wondered, well, where was the Cambridge police? And so I think it's important for folks to know, yes, we are there, but we were not as prominent because of. The State Police and their dual jurisdiction. Can we get more of that jurisdiction, Mr. City Manager? But that's certainly a side. I do appreciate the work and thank you for keeping us abreast. What's going on? Will you be going to 808-810-812 to kind of give the community a little bit of an update of how things are going?

Yes, ma'am, we will be doing that. And I do want to mention the fact that we probably had 30 Cambridge police officers on scene.

That's good to know. I yield the floor, Madam Mayor.

I have the Vice Mayor.

Obviously, in these fast-moving situations, I think that there's very little we can say definitively at this, and there's an ongoing investigation. I was wondering if just at next week's city council meeting you'd be able to provide a little bit more details about what we do know definitively such as you're welcome to provide this in case you know it today too but I didn't want to put you on the spot just in terms of like What happened, what the time breakdown was, who called 911, any of those sorts of details that can just help people understand what happened in as much detail as we can while there's an ongoing investigation.

Commissioner. Through you, Madam Mayor. I can give you a little bit more. Yes, the subject that we're speaking about was on probation and or parole at the time. and some information had come to the parole officer who spoke to Boston who called Cambridge. They knew he had some sort of a tracking device, maybe a bracelet, and they knew where he was pinging. In the Cambridge Port area. So we were on our way there when everything rapidly evolved where he just started to walk down Memorial Drive and in the middle of Memorial Drive and shoot. Indiscriminately, really. Nobody that he hit, we don't believe they were involved. They were just random shots fired. And I will say assault-style rifle rounds... can actually cross the river and do damage. So it can go through things, it can go through people, it can cause a lot of damage.

We were extremely, I still can't believe that more people were not hurt in this incident. with 50 to 60 rounds fired. It's just unbelievable. I'm extremely grateful and hopefully everybody pulls out and is going to be okay at some point, but we don't know that yet. They have life threatening injuries at this point.

If I may, and I promise this will be my last question, but could you share a little bit more detail? So were you guys alerted and then attending? Did you happen to just catch up with him? Or was there like 911 calls? And how did we get an estimate of 50 to 60 rounds at this point?

Three, Madam Mayor. As far as the rounds, I was on scene at one point, and you can just count the rounds. Literally that size. We were on our way to Cambridge Port to see if we could locate this gentleman. And so, you know, when he left Kelly Road and came up to Memorial Drive and just started firing. There happened to be a trooper who actually got the call over the radio too, went over Bay Pern 3, which is a regional radio system. So he came to that area as well, and the other civilian gentleman was in his own car. Stuck in traffic as he was firing, walking down the middle of the street. That gentleman got out of his car and engaged. He had a firearm with him, a legally carried firearm, and engaged the suspect along with the trooper that had also come upon there at the same time. The Cambridge police were Literally right here, too.

So as soon as the shooting occurred, everybody, Cambridge and State, got together and started to give medical aid to all those that had been... McGovern,

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. Thank you also, Acting Commissioner, for your response. Just in terms of, I just kind of wanted something that Councilor Simmons said, and just so the public is aware too that because this is obviously now at the state level, it's a state investigation and so in terms of, and I know it's frustrating because the city can't always give the answers that people have because either We're just not allowed to because of an ongoing investigation or because we don't necessarily have those answers because we're not the ones leading the investigation. So this is being led by the state at this point.

This is actually being led by the DA's office in conjunction with the state police and the Cambridge police. So I think that we would be lockstep with the investigation as well.

Thank you.

Councilor Flaherty.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor and Commissioner, knowing a little bit about a situation like this because of my professional experience as a as a former prosecutor, and recognizing that this is a ongoing major crime investigation which will involve ballistics personnel, crime scene personnel, CPAC unit officers from the Middlesex District Attorney's Office. This is going to be a long-running and, I'm certain, very diligent investigation. and I think it's important for us to note now at this moment exactly how difficult the job is of policing. This was a significantly life-threatening, dangerous situation and not only did members of the Massachusetts State Police, but members of the Cambridge Police Department ran towards this situation.

I'm sure all of us in this chamber already know people who live in that area have received calls and texts and school children and parents and teachers. Maybe the most unsettling incident that I can recall in my entire life, some 60 years living in the city of Cambridge. and I think it's important to recognize just how dangerous a job it is to be a police officer in the city of Cambridge and I think it's also important for us to note and to mark the calendar today about those brave officers that ran towards that situation to protect and to serve and save other people's lives. So I congratulate them and you. and I hope that isn't lost in the shuffle of what is a very tragic and a very unsettling and totally uncomfortable situation for all of us. So thank you very much and I yield.

We'll go to Councilor Zusy.

I want to thank you as well. I almost would have been along Memorial Drive at that time today, but I picked a different bicycle route. Anyway, I wanted to ask, since we're talking about ShotSpotter today and 911 responses, it sounds as though it was the Boston Alert that alerted you to the situation. But I don't Was ShotSpotter involved at all? And did you receive 911 calls immediately?

Zuzi, I just want to be careful, you know, because it is, I'm happy to suspend the rules, and we were talking about the PO, it's not currently before us, but... If folks want to bring that forward at this time, I think just procedurally it would be better to do it. But if you're going to respond to this, Commissioner, broadly, that would be appreciated.

What I can say is that that is a little bit outside of the coverage area. 911 calls, we received very many. As you know, there's also A few schools in that area as well, and we had, as soon as this situation started to evolve, we put are youth resource officers in those schools immediately so that everybody would feel safe there and give them as much information as they could about whether or not the students could leave and what time they could leave and how their route would change as well. I think those are your two questions, yes?

Yes, thank you so much. Thank you.

I have Councilor Nolan and then Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. I will just echo what the Commissioner said. We're lucky. This could have been a huge tragedy, and we're all grateful for everyone who ended up dealing with this situation, particularly the first responders. We can't answer this now, but I think a critically important question when we do know more is how the gun was... acquired because that is how one key way that we stop this kind of horrible and horrifying event so Thank you for joining us. A handgun, it was, as I understand, you know, repeating AR-15, which... I did watch that video. It was staccatic.

It was rapid fire bullets that thank whoever it is that you thank that it only hit a couple people because it could have been a... Thank you for joining us. who given they were on parole was probably not certainly legally allowed to have any kind of firearm and how it is that it managed to get into the hands of someone also who was mentally in a situation where they ended up causing tremendous violence. and damaged our community. So again, thanks to the first responders and I look forward to hearing more information so that we can see if there's anything we could do to further prevent it in the future. Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui, I yield.

We'll go to Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I definitely appreciate the questions asked from my colleagues and as those were some of the ones that I held, I live in the area and I heard the shots myself and just wanted to express Thank you very much. You know, a bit more about how the person acquired it. When you get more information on that, I'll yield.

I think that's it for questions and comments from the Council. But thank you, Commissioner, for coming. Thanks for having me. So we'll move on from, we can go ahead and place this item on file and we'll look forward to future updates. when you have more information. So all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. The late item is placed on file. We'll go to policy orders. Pleasure of the City Council.

Madam Chair.

Sobrinho-Wheeler, and then Councilor Simmons.

I'll pull number one and three.

Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler pulls one and three. Three. Councilor Simmons? Two. I think three has been pulled. Five and six. Two, five and six? Yes.

Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes, Councilor Miller.

I'll just make it all and pull four.

We'll pull four. Okay, we've pulled it all. We'll go to policy order number one. that the city manager is requested to confer with the 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 was filed by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Al-Zubi, and myself. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, you have the floor.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. There may be an update here, so I'm going to try to write this for now and hopefully can resolve next week.

We will go ahead and resolve that. That was an exercise. That was a try to write exercise by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. We're going on to policy number two, that the city manager is requested to work with relevant city departments including the law department to ensure There is no new data collected by ShotSpotter devices and all existing data will be kept, used or deleted only as required by law under Welcoming Community Ordinance and Surveillance Technology Ordinance. This is filed by Councilor Al-Zubi, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor McGovern, and Councilor Nolan. Councilor Simmons, you pulled this? I did. I will go to the first, to the lead sponsor of it, Councilor Al-Zubi. and then I'll go to Councilor Simmons and then Vice Mayor Azeem.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, just for some context here, the policy order comes out of a hearing in the Public Safety Committee I know we want everybody to be safe and ShotSpotter, from what we've seen, isn't delivering enough and has the capacity to share data with the federal government outside of our sanctuary city laws. This is because the company Sound Thinking itself has a relationship with the federal government outside of us in our contract. So again, the question becomes not who does ShotSpotter share data with, but who can ShotSpotter share data with. The contract says the city owns the data, but in practice the system itself is actually operated and controlled by sound thinking, which determines how that data is collected and how it's shared with our police department. I'll also add that our congressional reps have also raised concerns about Chotspotter and sound thinking at the federal level. These are just a few of the reasons amongst others I put forth with my colleagues to stop for

Simmons, and then Vice Mayor Azeem.

Okay, thank you, Madam Mayor, to my colleagues. So earlier, when I read the information, I was inclined to support it, and then I spoke to some neighbors, I listened to the testimony, and I have to say, Although I do appreciate my colleagues' advocacy and enthusiasm, the sense of performative allyism and Saviorism of Marginalized People. That also rang out. It's important to stand up for people. But it's also, if you want to talk about for people's civil and human rights, we have to use that with a measure of dignity and humility. As someone who has lived in the port my entire life, the last 50 years,

A lot of my neighbors don't know about this discussion. And so it's hurtful and borderline insulting, but I know that's not your intention. Thank you very much. My colleagues came, and this wasn't this council, came and said, and that's why we want to make your neighborhood safe, and fought against what the neighbors wanted, which was they wanted cameras. Now, we don't support cameras in the council, but the neighbors did. And the housing authority complied because that's what the neighbors wanted. They wanted those cameras because they wanted to feel safer. So it's one thing to say we don't want something because it violates someone's civil or human rights.

But then, so I take it as the sort of let's burn it down without having something to build it up. What's the replacement? I also talked to a number of my Riverside neighbors that don't know about ShotSpotter, so I haven't weighed in on it. So I know there are a number of organizations, some within Cambridge, good many outside of Cambridge, that feel very vested in it. But I want to be vested in the people that I've been sent here to serve. The people that look like me. That you may or may not have talked to. That I think deserve to be heard. Even if they are different from what your perspective is. And I'm not sure that that's happened here. So where you had me through the testimony, you lost me. And what happened on Memorial Drive

Where there isn't shot spot at this point, I do have some concerns about surveillance and I've stood up very strongly behind the welcoming city ordinance. around camera surveillance, behind the ACLU that just lost me this evening because of the way they were talking and speaking. So for me, I want us to, and I will work with my colleague if she is so inclined to work with me and my neighborhood and those that look like me and lived here longer than some people who are old. to say, how do we work together? Because I have found this very divisive. Very divisive in the worst is dismissive. And I know that's not your intention. But that's how people feel. When you say I'm here for black and brown people, there ain't no black and brown people in the audience, or hardly. I apologize to the black and brown people that are here.

But I want you to walk in my shoe for a moment. Has anybody there had their son shot down the street? Anybody? Have you had your son shot down the street? I have. So I'm coming from that place. So this is where you've lost me. I was not walking in lockstep, not even beside you on this, but I'm reading and I'm learning and I'm talking. You lost me on it. This lost me on it. I'm getting texts from people saying I've never felt so disrespected. And I know that's not your intention. So I want to just ask that we are more thoughtful about why we're trying, you know, Sorry, my colleague didn't say, she always says, you can do the right thing the wrong way. I would...

personally lay it on the table and not have a meeting where there are 30 people that look like me, act like me, talk like me to come and say why it's a good thing. What I want to see is if ShotSpotter is not healthy for our community, What are the ways that we can find that are healthy, that's respectful, that speaks to our humanity? Did someone say power to the people? I thought I'd lose my mind. Because as an African-American person, we do get weary when others co-opt our slogans and our sayings and then leave us out of the legislative process that everyone says that they want to support. So at this point, I'm going to yield the floor, but I want to let you know it's not that I'm a shot spotter enthusiast. It's just I feel that the process is exclusive.

that it infantilizes a group of people, which may not be your intention, but just because you didn't mean to run somebody's foot over doesn't mean they're less hurt. So I wouldn't exercise the charter, right, because I couldn't sit through another So, again, I just want to, to the people in the DSA, the CRA, your revolution, I would really ask just to be thoughtful. Ask yourself one question when you sit down. Who's not in the room? How will they be affected? How will their voice be heard? Because if you're not doing that, then you haven't really done enough. And good intentions. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I was going to say, I think that there's a lot that was going on this morning. I think emotions are running a little high, so just wanted to give us a week to lower the temperature and reflect, and I think we'll have a really good discussion about this next week, so I would like to exercise my charter right.

Vice Mayor Azeem has exercised his charter right on policy order number two. We'll go ahead to policy order number three. That the city manager, Bean, 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 and reviewing policy options for allowing Cambridge voters to directly elect the city's mayor. This was filed by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor Nolan, myself, and Councilor McGovern. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, you have the floor.

Thanks Madam Mayor, through you, and thank you to the co-sponsors, including Councilor McGovern, Councilor Nolan. and yourself for putting this forward. Context for this is last year the city completed its first charter review in 80 years. It's the first time the city has ever done a A charter review in the lifetimes of most of our residents. Most cities do a charter review every once every 10 years. We're now scheduled to do that process. We hadn't done one previously for 80 years. and because it was the first time in a very long time that we'd done a charter review and the city faced deadlines to have the charter review reviewed by the Attorney General and approved by the state legislature, There were some proposals that there was a lot of interest around that needed more time for discussion. One of those that there was a lot of interest around and that we had a unanimous vote to continue that discussion on was having a directly elected mayor in Cambridge. This policy order is about continuing that discussion that we said we would continue last term with the Collins Center, which is the body the council worked with in the previous term around the charter review.

I would note importantly on this policy order that there are a number of different ways that Cambridge could set up an elected mayor position and I want to be really clear that this policy order is not about doing. It's not about proposing one specific Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. with experts, hearing from other cities about how they've done it, really having that open conversation. It's not prescripting it right now one way or the other. Some of the questions that I think we'd want to consider include who would be eligible to run for mayor. We started that discussion last term. What are the qualifications you'd have to have? Should there be term limits for mayor like other cities have? How long would the mayoral term be? All really important questions, not ones we're trying to decide right now. This is just about starting the The conversation, really continuing the conversation from last term that we didn't get to finish because of the deadlines.

In terms of why have this conversation at all, just to speak to it really briefly, and just to speak about even just the current mayor position, because there's other questions about how to change it or updates to it. But even just thinking about the current position, it's an extremely important position. The mayor has extra staff that other councilors don't have. It's a super important position for constituent service. The mayor represents the city in public forums around the state with mayor of Somerville, with the mayor of Boston. And maybe the most important power, the mayor is on the school committee. They're no longer automatically the chair of the school committee, although they can be chosen as the chair. But even just being as a voting member of the school committee, that's a position the mayor has that none of the rest of us on the council have. and I think about all the city council forums we do. We did probably a dozen last year and we get asked about all sorts of subjects, housing, transportation, climate change, anything you think of. We hardly ever get asked about education issues because it's not clear which of us on the city council will end up serving on the school committee.

One person ends up being the mayor and they have a tremendous role on the school committee. But it's really tough for the public to be able to know who to ask because it's not clear which of us will become mayor in the next term. Having a directly elected mayor allows people to say, you know, I want to be considered for mayor and say this is my platform for the schools. This is why you should choose me and not the other person. It allows people to have that public discussion that we don't really have right now. because it's not clear who will end up being mayor in the next term. Also, the final piece is that our current process of selecting the mayor can be really challenging. It's the first vote we take on Inauguration Day is choosing the mayor who will be. There's lots of sort of private conversations that lead up to that, a lot of lobbying between Thank you. Thank you. knowing which of your colleagues is going to become the mayor, having hurt feelings leaving that process is just not a great way to start and letting voters choose

takes that process and puts it back in the hands of the voters. It's democracy in its purest form and I think a better expression forward and I hope we can move forward with that conversation tonight. I understand that there are two amendments to the policy order. Happy to vote on both tonight and hope we can vote on the underlying policy order. There's an amendment from Councilor Al-Zubi to focus the conversation specifically on an elective chief executive. I'll let her speak on it more because her amendment, I believe it would ask to move to a different form of government and set up an elected mayor system specifically more like Somerville has. I'll just note that was a conversation we had last term and while I supported it there are only two votes for it for myself and Mayor Siddiqui so I don't really imagine that the amendment would pass now but down to vote on it again briefly and hope we can move forward on the underlying policy order if it doesn't pass. There's also an amendment from Councillor Simmons and Councillor Flaherty, which asks for some additional information from the Collins Center to review the context of the discussion last term.

Happy to vote that forward and move it forward as well. All of the info in it was the intent, including in the additional policy order. And if it's helpful to have that stated a little more explicitly, happy to include that amendment as well. I'll yield back for now and hope we can move forward to this really, again, just as a first step to begin this conversation.

We have a few hands up. We have Councilor McGovern, Councilor Nolan, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Zusy, Councilor Simmons.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam. No, it's Councilor McGovern first.

I was the one that pulled it, and then you, as I practiced, you pulled it, you spoke to it, but I... I'd say that I wanted to speak to it too, and I thought you wanted to give me the floor next.

No, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler pulled this one.

Okay.

Go ahead, Councilor McGovern, and then Councilor Nolan.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. So, just to follow up on a couple things, and Just for transparency purposes, when we were discussing the charter review, I was not crazy about this idea. But I do want to make sure that people know what Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I like the city manager form of government. I don't want to move away from that.

And I understand it has its challenges, and I'm not always thrilled with it, especially when he doesn't do what I want. But I do support it. And that's not what this order says. And I think we have to be really careful how we talk about these things because when you say things in public or public comment or on listservs, When you start talking about things that the order doesn't say, it confuses the conversation. So when people say, oh, if you vote for this, you're voting to have a strong mayor, that's not what we're... Thank you very much.

It's funny when folks talk so much about we need more people in the public participating, we need more conversation with the public, we need more public outreach, but yet you don't want the public to have a say in who their mayor is? That's kind of odd. So I think the process of choosing the mayor is messy. It happens behind closed doors. It happens with a lot of wheeling and dealing. It happens with a lot of personalities. Well, I don't like this person because they didn't vote the way I wanted on something so I'm not going to vote for them for mayor even if they were a good choice. Luckily, we've had great people in these seats. This has got nothing to do with the people. I was one of them, which I thought I did a good job. I think we've ended up with good people. So it's not that. It's just the process is messy. I think back to my first term.

And the way four city councilors, none of whom are here now, really held Councilor Simmons in a horrible situation. They made her mayor. and then they took it from her. And then they voted to make her mayor and then they reversed their votes. And they did it like three times. Like in front of her kids, in front of her family, making her the mayor and then saying, oh, just kidding. That is not. A good process. And that council never recovered from that term. So let's figure out if there's a better way. And maybe there's not. But right now we're not having the discussion. So this is what the council does. This is what people say the council needs to do all this outreach. This is what our process is. We file a policy order that brings up a topic that we want to discuss, and it leads to a discussion.

And so that's what we're doing, right? I'm not promising where I'm going to land on this. We'll see what comes out of it. And the four of us who sponsored this may have very different ideas as to how to move forward or to move forward at all. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll yield. I hope we do pass this so that we can move forward. See if there's options that would be better for everybody. Thank you.

We'll go to Councilor Nolan, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Zusy, and then Councilor Simmons.

Great. Thank you. Thanks to my colleagues for... working on this. And just to summarize a lot of what Councilor McGovern just said, the policy order is about having a discussion and a deliberation about one of the key remaining issues that it was never fully discussed during our charter review because There had not been consensus or enough from the Charter Review Commission. So it's not that we've discussed this ad nauseum and now we're just bringing it back. And as noted, to be very clear, the policy order does not state that a direct election of a mayor would necessarily mean changing the structure of government or that it would change or that the mayor would replace the city manager. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. is icky and really really destructive to the start of the term it doesn't do anyone any good for us to continue with this back and forth It ends up being emotionally a really fraught time to start a term exactly when colleagues should be coming together. I fully support this. I hope we have this conversation. I hope we come up with a different way of electing the mayor because it is not serving, I think, our city well to continue with the way we're doing it for the reasons. that we've all seen behind closed doors negotiating is so fundamentally antithetical to open transparency that we supposedly pride ourselves on.

Vice Mayor, Councilor Zusy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I wanted to say I also support the policy order. I think that it'll help, I think, to have an elected mayor in that I feel like school committee is both like parents are very engaged. but the broader public sometimes is not. And I think that the mayoral position is in a way for people to really engage with school issues because the main job of the mayor is on top of being a city council and running our meetings is just being a vote on the school committee. So I hope it'll be a way that will drag more people in and so we can have a more robust conversation about our schools. And I mean, there'll be plenty of time to discuss all of this if there's indeed traction, but I would prefer an instant runoff situation given the way that we do it. And I think that a huge problem that we face is that as a body, we have a huge temptation to stick with our one-ninth of the vote. We get elected by a certain subset of the Cambridge population.

We want to vote in line with them and that's how we're most likely to get reelected. I think that if we did an instant runoff where it was, you know, incentivizing also the total number of people who put you on your ballot, I would hope that that would also be an incentive for all of us, and I'm sure many people would love to be mayor, of also not just appealing to our one-ninth of the population, but also realizing if we wanted to be mayor, we'd have to get all these other people to at least list us on our ballot. and hopefully that would make us more likely to represent the broader piece of Cambridge as well and add incentive there. So I think that there's a lot of ways that this could be a better system and I'm excited to support the policy order.

Zusy, and then Councilor Simmons. Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. I didn't understand, like, why we're talking about this. We had many, many meetings about the charter last year. We drafted a home rule petition that was passed, which was like a big deal. and then the people voted on it. They passed our charter. And I thought we were gonna be reviewing this charter every decade. So it seems like Thank you very much. for our solicitor. Do I understand this correctly? We had this whole charter review committee.

We had gazillion discussions about the charter. They were pretty thoughtful, but wasn't the idea that I mean, can we amend the charter that had to be voted on by the state and then voted on by the people? Are we going to put it back on the ballot with amendments for next year? That's what... Again, through you, Madam Mayor, to the city solicitor, I thought we weren't going to be talking about this for another nine years. And I feel as though we have so much work to do. I feel like this is a distraction. We have so much real work to do.

Thank you, Councilor Zusy. Just before we go to you, Councilor Bear, maybe one day in retirement. So just for context, Councilor Zusy, there were a number of items that were referred to government ops agencies. because we were trying to meet a deadline and it is my understanding just to focus on the timeline whatever if we come to a conclusion and decide something if this passes In my understanding, that has to go to the voters. And so the voters would have to vote on it. I hear you on this 10-piece, it's a review every 10 years, but in my understanding, The council can decide how to amend as they see fit. Solicitor?

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, and I agree with what Mayor Siddiqui just said, the charter says that The city will convene a charter review committee every 10 years, but there's no prohibition against the council initiating charter changes anytime. in between, or the voters initiating charter changes. So that doesn't limit other ways of changing the charter just because every 10 years we'll specifically have a committee that's looking at whether they recommend any charter changes. And then additionally, to Mayor Siddiqui's point, This did come up in discussion previously about how to select the mayor and whether the mayor should be elected rather than selected amongst the members.

At that time, we in the law department were recommending that it be done through the council's rules so that we didn't have to have it all figured out in time to go before the legislature and then the voters under that. We did then get further guidance from the Secretary of State's Election Division that that wouldn't be able to be done through the council rules if it was going to be an elected chair, that that does have to be set out in the charter. and so this would be to continue that conversation and potentially change the charter again if that's the will of the council but to the mayor's point it would have to go back before the legislature as a home rule petition and then be voted on by the voters.

Zuzi, and then we'll go to Councilor Simmons and then Councilor Flaherty.

Again, through you, Madam Mayor, thank you so much for that explanation. I just think we shouldn't be like I feel like rethinking this when we just passed the charter and again the public just Pass the charter. And it was so confusing last year with the passage of the charter because we didn't change the charter very much. And again, I feel like we'll be talking about whether we should be debating foreign policy issues in the council later. I just feel like we have real things that we should be focusing on. We should be talking about housing, social housing. Bike lanes, parking, safety, zoning, open space, you know,

Tree Protection, creating schools where all of our children thrive and are prepared to do work for the future. We need to make sure we've got a sustainable Cambridge. We have like real work to do. So I feel as though rather than After spending so much time thinking about the charter last year, I feel like we dedicated a lot of time and energy to just this topic. and we came up with a compromise that we agreed to and it was supported by the state and it was supported by the people. So I just think to open this up again, is just a distraction and I think we have better things to do. So with that, I'll be voting against this because I don't think, I think we should review this and I'll be all for this in nine years. But I think we should hold off. I think we're doing okay currently. Thank you. I yield.

Councilor Simmons and then Councilor Flaherty.

Councilor Flaherty, I'm going to yield to my junior member and then assume the floor after he speaks.

Flaherty.

Very kind of you. Thank you. Well, I'm not reading into this. The way I look at it is I see it Thank you. So I think we need to do, as the amendment speaks, sort of an analysis about what our goals are here. And frankly, excuse me. Having just been through this once, this campaign season and being a member of the council, I'm happy to report that The process that we went through in electing the mayor, for me personally actually, was a very positive experience. I'm not so sure that anybody on the council even spoke my name during the

I found that to be a An exhilarating experience getting to know all of my colleagues and I thought the process was Politics at its finest. And I really commend everyone for their efforts during the mayoral search, we'll call it, during that time period. And I thought it was outstanding. I just want to offer my thanks to everyone for being so friendly to me during that time period and I'll yield.

Simmons, and then Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you to my colleague. You'll get over it, honey. Everyone wants to talk to me, but yeah. Anyways, and to our solicitor, if we decide to put you on the council, you leave like your hair is on fire. Through you, Madam Mayor, I understand why this issue continues to interest people. The question of how Cambridge chooses its mayor is an important one. I respect those who believe it merits further discussion, but I also want to be careful about how we proceed. Cambridge just completed its first major charter review in more than 80 years. In fact, it was a very interesting process because as I remember it, What was sent to the Charter Review Commission was not the discussion on Mayer, and then when it did come up, it did not get the two-thirds votes required to be brought on to the City Council, just for those that may have forgotten that. The question was a part of that conversation. It did not emerge.

It didn't emerge with the level of support needed to be forwarded as a recommendation, so voters then approved the new charter last November. Nonetheless, we know that there are many people that feel that this issue around how we choose our mayor ought to be further explored. And if we're going to pick up this thread once more, I think it's important. Thank you very much. The Collins Center, once more, you should ask them for a neutral review of the governance questions that remain outstanding, such as the role of the mayor, the relationship between the council and the city manager. Thank you very much.

I'm especially concerned that any future process must do a better job of reaching out to residents. Thank you very much. Seniors, Working Families, Lower-Income Residents, Long-Time Residents, and people who have historically relied on direct relationships with their elected officials must not be an afterthought in this conversation. So with that, I'm going to exercise my charter right, and we can have a more full discussion about this at the next meeting.

It is 8.43 p.m. Just want to remind folks. And we can go ahead from policy order number three, Councilor Simmons exercised her charter right. We'll go to policy order number four. That the city manager is requested to work with relevant city departments to do extensive outreach to residents, businesses, and property owners to communicate the current water level requirements. Status, and take all measures to reduce non-essential water use citywide and provide a report on citywide water usage and water supply. This was filed by Councillor Nolan, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Zusy, and myself. Councillor Nolan, you have the floor.

Thank you Mayor Siddiqui and I'll be relatively quick because I think the policy order and thank you to Councilor Flaherty, Zusy, and yourself Mayor Siddiqui for Co-sponsoring it really does speak for itself I think it's really critically important this is the kind of issue we need to ensure that the city knows about and that we move forward on this is If you just look up, which is, there's a link in the policy order about the reservoir levels, we are significantly below our 15-year median average for what we have been for the last few months. Thank you for joining us. So what this does, and I did communicate with the water department director, Mark Gallagher, who indicates they are looking at and having a drought plan, but this really is something... Now is the time to do it.

In the past, in the last drought, we waited a little too long before we actually got the word out to the community and as a result It was a much more severe drought than it needed to be. So this asks the administration for a comprehensive and effective response to drought conditions and to inform the general public about The need to do this right now before the intensive water use happens, which is we are entering a period of the year when that water use goes way up. and the large water users are ones that we need to work with but across the city there's also a large range of users who have no idea that we're in This situation because our reservoir is our own, so it may be the region is only in, you know, level two, but our levels in our reservoir are actually worse than Emmett O'Brien and the rest of the state. which are in some kind of drought. But I just wanted to point this out for all of us to ensure that residents know across the board speaking, this is something we actually can do and can address. So that was it, and I hope this goes forward very quickly.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui, I yield.

Any comments on this? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and on a motion by Councilor Nolan to adopt policy order number four. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Policy order number four is adopted. We'll move on to policy order number five. This is foreign policy issues in the City Council. This was filed by Councillor Nolan and Councillor Simmons. It was pulled by Councilor Simmons, but I'll yield to Councilor Nolan as the lead listed here, unless she wants to yield to Councilor Simmons.

Councilor Nolan. I'm happy to have my co-maker.

Councilor Nolan can have the floor.

Right. Thank you, Councilor Simmons. So first let me summarize. This policy order, no one is silencing anyone. If you read the policy order, it is beyond hypocrisy for people to speak out against this policy order because all it does is ask for a conversation. about how the council might discuss foreign policy issues. It doesn't say we won't discuss them. It doesn't even say we won't continue to discuss them on Monday night regular meetings. We should consider how and when the council might discuss foreign policy issues of interest to the city, recognizing there are policy issues Thank you for joining us. In fact a policy order similar to this passed a couple years ago and then we never quite fully deliberated it. So this is really saying let's have that conversation.

And I will say a reason I fully support this idea of having this conversation and finding a way to discuss foreign policy outside of regular... Monday business meetings, is frankly, I don't want our state reps or our congressional reps to deliberate and pass things as a body about our city's issues. They can weigh in. They can write to us, just like we all can write to them. But to spend time in the State House or Congress about our local issues would be wrong. and similarly I believe us taking time during regular business meetings on issues that are not our responsibility, not our authority, is not something that I support. I believe we should ask the city as a whole how best to show our leadership on these issues. And there is a place for us to weigh in as individuals, sign on letters, testify, etc. So again, the idea that this PO is about silencing or not speaking up suggests that all those letters and work we do in advocacy are less valid than a council resolution, and I firmly reject that.

This policy order is about discussing whether there's a way for the council to have city discussions. on issues of interest other than regular business meetings and I really hope we have that discussion and we pass this policy order in order to have that and then decide how it is that we move forward. I don't understand why we wouldn't want to have the discussion when we're talking about having discussions in the city this is about having a discussion I would think everyone would support that

Simmons, and then Vice Mayor Azeem.

Through the Chair, I want to acknowledge my colleague, Councilor Nolan, to invite me to co-sponsor this order. This is not, actually to reiterate just a small bit, this is not an order about one international issue, and it's not an effort to say that matters beyond Cambridge never affect Cambridge residents. We know they do. Thank you very much. But as a governing body, we also have a responsibility to be thoughtful about how the Cambridge City Council uses its regular meeting time, how we distinguish between municipal business and broader moral statements, and how we make space for community concerns without allowing our meetings This order simply asks...

that the Government Operations Committee and the Civic Unity Committee hold a public joint meeting to discuss how foreign policy resolution should come before the Council. This is a conversation that was requested back in 2024, but it never returned to the full Council. I do think it's time that we have this discussion openly, respectfully, and with clear expectations. This is ultimately about responsible governance, creating some clear and consistent guidelines, and for that reason, I hope our colleagues will support this. I thank you and I yield.

Vice Mayor Zee.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules to bring forth Charter Right No. 1 at the same time.

Vice Mayor Azeem has moved to suspend our rules to bring forward the charter right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. The Charter Right item is before us, and that was from last week, which was The charter right was exercised by Councilor Nolan, and that was that the City Council go on record calling upon President Trump to immediately rescind Executive Order 14380, immediately enter meaningful negotiations with the Cuban government. with the goal of ending the U.S. oil embargo and carry out its foreign policy agenda with respect to the wishes of the people of the U.S. in accordance with international law. Vice Mayor Azeem, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I wanted to talk about both of these together. and say that when I first got elected to the council and some still part of me still believes that it's very hard to discuss foreign policy and that I think that some people want to have a conversation about it. And then at the other end, I look at the response in the media that I consume, and it really feels like not very many people are very receptive to it. and in some ways I feel like it's not very productive even on things on which the city of Cambridge unanimously agrees. Having said all of that, I will say that my opinions have kind of changed over the years where I feel like that is not the expectation of the entire public, where a large part of the public actually does want us to engage, even though I'm not entirely sure if it's the majority of the public. And I would say that there's more nuance where it's not just a foreign policy issue.

There's sometimes where we make a resolution that says like, oh, like, you know, a government should do this and it's not even the U.S. government. That's obviously something that we have no control over. There's sometimes when we send something that we want to send to our congressional delegation, which of course we have some impact over in that they are our congressional delegation. And there are some things, like what was brought up today about the case of South Africa, where of course where we decide to invest our money is a matter of control that the city does have. And I don't think that there's any world in which we would be able to say that actually the place where we invest our own money is not a place where we have any power or control over. So I think that there is a range of options there. And I would say that actually the city council meeting structure that we followed for my time in city council has been kind of strange in that a lot of complex ordinances go through a quite lengthy ordination process.

a lot of other issues that are meaty we send to committee and then they come back and it allows us to engage in the details and I feel like we don't do that for foreign policy where it feels like you know you just introduce something and then you're expected to vote on it that week maybe if someone exercises their charter right next week and it's actually quite difficult to get into all the details and to bring along the community and to figure out like how do we want to approach this topic appropriately And so I would say that all to summarize in that in past years, I would not have voted for this Cuban government resolution, even though I do find it unoffensive. And I think that it is the right thing to do. but I will support it today and I just also want to say that I will also support this policy order on foreign issues and I want to be very clear that it's not me believing that we shouldn't discuss foreign policy issues in all the specific details and that I do think that there are categories and there's a meaningful way to engage the community and bring people along.

and I feel like the current structure isn't properly working and so perhaps we talk about a meeting structure where it's like oh we you know have a standard process of we bring a thing we'll have a you know a civic unity committee on it which is a committee that doesn't really do much right now and then we kind of bring it back or we have a special meeting on it in a ways that like make it feel like there's a process that people can get used to and there's places for people to give input and we can bring more people along. I think that that is something that I would support. And I would just say to people in the audience who are still not satisfied with that, I mean, I'm not sure exactly how the vote will turn out today. but as of last week when I was counting, the Cuban policy order was passing on 5-4 and I would say that's not the strongest indicator of a progressive city doing something and it's still a 5-4 vote. and so hopefully this can be seen as a process of trying to say that you know if we're going to engage in this at least let's try to bring as many people along as we can and hopefully it's also a show of good faith in my part that I'm voting for this Cuban policy order in a way that I would not have in the past.

And so I would say that I will vote for both the original policy orders and hopefully that explains my rationale. Thank you.

We will go to Councilor McGovern and Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. First, on the policy order, I'm fine with having a discussion about this. I'll vote for it. Thank you very much. is something I do think is a thing for the city council to do. It is in our purview letting our congressional legislators know how we feel about issues that they're voting on and dealing with. That's what local government, I mean, we are I think our elected officials in Congress that represent Cambridge do a great job of being in the district. But let's face it, we have more contact with the voters of Cambridge than they do. And for us to take a vote and say we want you We support this or that or we'd like you to vote this way or that way I think is appropriate.

But I'm all for having the discussion. I keep an open mind on everything. So we'll see where that goes. As far as the Cuba resolution, obviously I was on it. I commented last week. I do think that, again, it is our business to Thank you for joining us. is atrocious. It's killing people. It's killing kids. And I have no problem standing up against that. I will say that... One of the things I weigh in these conversations is also what is the impact on our own community.

I don't think all of these things, these issues are created equal. I think that there are some issues that hit us differently than other issues that we have to be as a council a little more thoughtful about and a little bit more you know it goes beyond just making a statement if it's going to bring harm I don't think this policy order does that. And so I think it's a fine thing for us to vote on. And I would also say, we hear a lot about, you know, Thank you. that I spent 50 hours thinking about this policy order and it was nothing. I didn't think about anything else because you'd like that if you support this policy order. Wow, he only cares about us. I didn't spend that much time.

All my time in the last three weeks has been spent on turf versus grass, multifamily housing projects, bike lanes, construction, trees being cut down, all the things that... That's 99% homelessness issues. The week that this was discussed and got put on the agenda, I took four unhoused people to the multi-service center to help them sign up for vouchers. That's what I spend my time doing. And so I don't think this was a distraction. It's more of a distraction because here we are discussing it again where it could have been settled last week. So I don't buy that. There are times where it is more of a distraction than others, and we have to weigh that. Thank you very much. Guiding Principles, or whatever.

But I will vote in the affirmative for both of these tonight, Madam Mayor. I'll yield.

Okay, I have more hands up. I have to go to Councilor Al-Zubi, and then I'll go to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, and then I had Councilor Zusy, and then Councilor Simmons.

Yeah, through you, Madam Mayor, I... I don't think this is necessary. I don't agree with the language of the policy order, so I'll be voting no. We must define what material impacts could mean because when cities stand up it can have a significant impact in shifting the conversation. Domestic policy, as we know, impacts foreign policy and vice versa. We can't talk about the brutalization of ICE and what they're conducting across the US and in our city without talking about the endless funding we've given Israel and its brutalization of the Palestinian people. I think it seems a bit hypocritical that in one breath, My colleague assumes performatism of marginalized struggles and then in another proceeds to what I think is an attempt to silence marginalized people when it comes to other struggles. You might say this is just a discussion, but both of my colleagues have already said they are not in favor of foreign policy discussions. We are representatives, so we work to bring and elevate voices.

The Council can do anything at once. We have the First Amendment right to introduce something that is relevant to our constituents. While the intent might not be to silence, this is very chilling. When I see veteran counselors walking back a legacy of standing up for human rights, that's chilling. I'll yield.

I have Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Through you, I'll try to be brief. On the Cuba resolution, I am proud to be the lead sponsor on that. I'll be voting yes for all the reasons I laid out last week and that Councilor McGovern and Al-Zubi mentioned, including the terrible situation it has caused for the Cuban people, that it's being done in our name as Cambridge residents or US citizens. and that this resolution is just common sense. And then on the policy order around foreign policy, I'll be voting no for Two reasons. I think the one was we had this conversation last term about, you know, should we consider foreign policy issues or not? We had a lively discussion in the Government Operations Committee, and we just couldn't agree on anything. I couldn't agree on anything last term. I don't think we'll be able to this term. There's reasons to discuss it. I just don't know what alternative we'll be able to come up with. If the majority of the council thinks otherwise, happy to be part of that. I don't think it's good.

And the second piece, especially, is I'm sympathetic to this argument that, you know, It's the federal delegation that does foreign policy issues. We should let our congresspeople do that, our U.S. senators and representatives. I would be more sympathetic to that if our public election wasn't so fundamentally broken. If you look at the median net worth of congressmembers More than a million dollars for people. and very wealthy people who can get elected to Congress, which is the vast majority of people who get elected to Congress. Other people should be able to have a say even if it's just at the city council level to say, no, you're not doing this blockade in our name. So I'll be a yes on the Cuba resolution and a no on the foreign policy order. I yield back.

For the order operations, we have to vote on the current policy order by Councilor Nolan and Simmons first, and then we'll go to the... Zusy, and then Councilor Flaherty because we already heard from you, Councilor Simmons, and then we'll do another round if necessary.

Zusy. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the compassion of our speakers, and I also feel real sympathy for the people of Cuba. However, I feel like we live in a crazy world and if we chose to take positions on foreign policy, We could take positions at every meeting. Each meeting could be filled with foreign policy discussions. And foreign policy is something that we don't have control over and I feel like it distracts us. This would be to the detriment of attending to real and relevant local issues that are within our purview. There are a lot of things that I feel like we should be really thinking about for the good of the city that we're not

I will be voting for this policy order to have a broader discussion about foreign policy. I will be voting present about the policy order about Cuba, not because I'm not sympathetic, but because I feel as though it's not what we should be focusing on. I think we really need to stay focused. We'll go to Councilor Flaherty.

Thank you. And through you, Madam Mayor. I'll repeat and paraphrase what I said last week was basically that I'll be voting present on the Charter Right issue. And I think it's Obviously clear that this is a slippery slope. We could occupy all of our meetings talking about foreign policy and matters of importance around the globe. And that's clearly not good use of our time. We do have a lot to do. and maybe it wasn't understood last time because there was a question or a remark about it. Subject matter jurisdiction means what we have power to effect things that are happening in Cambridge. and personal jurisdiction means things within our boundaries. We don't have anything over Cuba, but I will...

I tell you this, that if you want to have impact, and I appreciate all the people who were here and spoke in favor of this. that this weekend on May 16th and 17th, there's a special collection at St. Peter's Church, my parish in West Cambridge for Cuba to raise money for medicine. and the following week on March 24th, the Bishop... Bishop Arturo, I think is his name, from Santa Clara will be visiting St. Peter's and he'll be making, he'll be speaking about the issues in Cuba and he'll be Co-celebrating the 4 o'clock mass on Saturday. So I invite everybody to come, participate, open up your wallets and make real impact. And as far as the First Amendment goes, I fully support the First Amendment.

and I think it's as effective as having a press conference and inviting the media on the front steps of City Hall and saying what we want. We don't need to use all of the time from all of our staff and councils here to effect the same sort of result. And I encourage that. I really do. I support it. But I think if we... Do anything other than vote present than the taxpayers that elected me and sent me here to deal on the issues they're dealing with, the local issues like poison ivy around Fresh Pond. Those matters are matters that are important to the people here in Cambridge, and we should be dealing with that immediately during our meetings. So I yield.

Thank you.

Bishop Arturo Gonzalez. Excuse me. I said it wrong. Bishop Arturo Gonzalez from Santa Clara.

I'm just going to speak briefly on this because I haven't been heard and then I suggest we proceed to the votes. And I know I'll go to you, Councilor Simmons, if you'd like. Yes, I would. But let me just finish my comment. So I think we speak on things that we don't have direct control over all the time. including even some things that happen in this building. I think we have a history of activism and speaking out and so for me this is about value. So I will be supporting the resolution from last week. And on the resolution and the policy order for tonight from Councilors Nolan and Councilor Simmons, I appreciate the intent, but I do think Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler has...

I had asked for many changes and other topics to come around rules and to have further discussion. Simmons. Thank you. Through the chair.

Something we Thank you very much. really put a ripple effect around racism and people pushing back on people's civil liberties. And I raise that up as a woman that really spent and gave a lot of her time. But what people don't know is how badly she was treated right here and this city by us. And so that balance, when we talk about legacy, the legacy about standing up, but also be mindful of How so often, particularly with black women, how they are constantly disrespected and have to constantly prove their worth. More often than most others.

So I just wanna say that as a sobering piece, as we do this work of advocacy, as we build a legacy for our children and our children's children to follow, we have to make sure that we always are respectful and make sure that we make a place for those that are marginalized the most. Now specific to the policy order on Cuba, I'm not going to be voting for it because it's an international issue and we did have some discussion on it and if we feel so strongly as I do about what happens in other places, why didn't we bring up the Voting Rights Act? No one stood up and said a single word. Not even myself. Why? Because I believe in thinking globally and acting locally. So what am I going to do? I'm going to work in my neighborhood to see who's not registered to vote and I invite you to join me. to make sure that we bring the numbers up so people are actively in voting.

Or a cohort of my friends that write postcards to places like Georgia and Alabama where my family's from to say we want people to have the full right and ability to exercise their right to vote, which is something my mother came to Massachusetts to do because she was denied that or worse, would have been lynched for trying. So I stand, not that I don't think that the issue around Cuba is important, but I do believe that we have issues right here. Nobody cried for Anthony Clay's mother. and Washington Adams when he was shot down in the street. There was no policy order. I mean, I brought in the policy order saying something that we should acknowledge his passing, but there's just so much important work.

Thank you very much. Thank you for allowing me to be heard last. But I do want to say I will not be voting in favor of the I think we should take the time and have a conversation in the committee. Thank you. You know, community engagement and robust debate can't be something only for the privileged. So with that, I yield the floor.

At this moment, hearing no one else, we can go ahead on a motion by Councilor Simmons to adopt the policy rule number five. We'll do a roll call.

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

Yes.

Yes, Mayor Siddiqui?

No.

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

The policy order is adopted on a vote of six to three. We'll move on to the item that someone exercised their charter right on last week on adopting that order. Hearing no one on discussion. Yes, Councilor Nolan, you'd like to say something? Please go ahead.

I mean, I said it really last week, and to be very clear, I have signed the Let Cuba Live. I think it's a great thing for us to stand up as individuals. This is simply about us standing up as a city council as a whole during our regular business meetings during this. During this time, it's not at all about the underlying impact on Cuba, which is horrifying. And as has been said, there's lots of other issues across the world that I certainly am aware of and concerned about and deeply concerned about Cuba as well. I actually know a few people working there experiencing quite significant challenges. And we know that many places have as well. But I'll be voting present.

We can go ahead and proceed to adopting that order on a motion by Councillor Al-Zubi.

Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty?

Present.

Present. Councilor McGovern?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan? Present. Present. Siddiqui, and you have five members recorded in the affirmative. and four recorded as present.

Policy order is adopted on a vote of six, sorry, five, four, four present. We are done with the... Thank you. Not allowed. So per our rules, please refrain from clapping. You can do air claps. So we'll go ahead... We've done with the policy orders. We're done with the unfinished... No, there's one left, number six. Oh, you're so right. One more. It's 9-14, everyone. So we'll go ahead to policy order number six. that the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the projected fiscal impact of maintaining the current exemption Simmons, and Councilor Zuzi. Councilor Simmons, you have the floor.

Thank you, through the chair. First of all, I'm just really proud to bring this forward with my colleague and Ally, Councilor Zusy. I want to reiterate what I've said when this idea was previously before the Council. A $75 fee may sound modest to some, and to some, a $25 fee may sound particularly generous. But for many seniors who are on fixed income, it's not modest at all. I have people who come into my office who have their monthly expenses worked out to the penny. That is how tight their budgets are. And if you cannot conceive of the level of hardship, you should count your blessings. Because we know that there are seniors in this city that do have to do that, exactly that, be very thoughtful about every, excuse me, Thank you.

Life in Cambridge is starting to feel like death of a thousand cuts. A new fee here, an increase there, a parking space loss, an errand much harder, another bill arriving at the worst possible time. Small on paper, but together they are pushing older residents out of the city that they helped to build. These are people who have lived in Cambridge for decades, who stayed through the developments, who stayed through the rising costs, who stayed through displacement pressures and enormous change, and who choose this city and built a life here. The senior parking exemption is a small accommodation, but is a meaningful one. And taking it away sends exactly the wrong message about how we value the people who built this city. So I'm asking my colleagues support this order.

Now is not the time to add another burden, however small it may appear, onto people who have already carried enough. This is one place where the city can choose to do the right thing. I hope we will, and with that, I yield the floor.

Councilor Zusy? Originally, as I think you know, I had voted to increase parking fees and senior parking fees from $0 to $25. or $75 as seniors' budgets allowed with a simple check-off. on the parking permit registration application requiring no documentation. But I've been really shocked by the pushback and I've come to believe that it's not worth the trouble to raise the fee even by less than $2.10 per month for low-income seniors at this time.

The change in income generated by the city is limited and it appears that this is not the right time when many are already so frustrated by the elimination of parking places to raise this fee. I don't think this is the right time. to raise seniors' fees from zero. Thank you very much.

And the other thing that I found really interesting from the Transportation Committee meeting we had about this was I realized how much income the Transportation Department brings in annually from their fees. So I felt as though the, it just, the numbers I felt like we'll be fine. We're going to bring in more income than we did before by generally raising the fee to $75. and there will be some people that will check off the box for $25 that's what they've paid in the past and the seniors weren't paying in the past anyway or disabled residents. So I think this isn't the time. to charge seniors $25 to $75. Thank you. I yield.

I have a few people in the queue. I'll go to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor McGovern, Councilor Zusy. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? I'm sorry, Councilor Al-Zubi.

I thought you were just going to skip over me.

I know. I'm going to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler first, then Councilor McGovern, then Councilor Al-Zubi.

I'll yield, actually, from other councillors to speak first.

I'll go to Councilman McGovern and then Councilman Zubi.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So a couple things on this order. I did submit some amendments. I will say what I've said is that this, to me, and first of all, this is kind of what people sort of say, this is an attack or this is this. I think anyone who knows my record, I have consistently supported seniors in this community. This is not what that's about. People who I continue to believe that people who can pay more should pay their fair share and people who cannot pay more should get a subsidy. I mean, I think giving tax breaks to billionaires is ridiculous.

I think, you know, so for me, this was really about how do we insure, and there's no great way to do it. that the folks who can afford to pay $75, regardless of age, pay the $75, and that anybody who cannot afford that doesn't have to pay the $75, and we can We can say it's zero, we can say it's 25. Because to say that... Someone, and it's not just people who've lived in this community forever. There's no time limit on this. If you're a senior citizen and you moved to this community yesterday and haven't paid a nickel in taxes, you still get the exemption. So it's not just, you know. But if you say, okay, you know, you're someone who earns $300,000, you're 65 years old and you earn $400,000 a year, you get the exemption.

But if you're a 35-year-old single parent in public housing, you don't. How is that fair? So I don't know if you want to put up my amendment, but if we want to keep the senior exemption, fine, we keep the senior exemption, but we also then have to exempt the low-income people, regardless of age. because they're struggling to put food on the table too. And just because they're not old enough, they have to make those choices? I don't think that's fair. So what I did in this... I took out the and visitor parking permit because nobody ever suggested raising the visitor parking permit fee to $75. That was never on the table. So, again, there's a lot of misinformation about this.

I bumped into a woman in Trader Joe's this weekend who was really upset with me and said, I can't believe you're going to raise the fee to $75 for low-income seniors. And I said, that's not what I'm saying. and she said, well, I attended a meeting in East Cambridge and that's what I was told. You know, we don't help our community when we give out wrong information. And so I said, no, that's not what it is. It would go from zero to 25. And she said, oh, well, that's a little, that's more reasonable, right? But she was angry and anxious for weeks because she heard the wrong thing. That's not good. So again, and so no one ever suggested raising the visitor parking permit fee to 75. So I think we just need to take that out. Can you scroll, please? Thank you. I also suggest that we take out the parking spaces are being removed. This isn't about parking. This isn't about bike lanes. This isn't about that. This is about a fee structure.

I don't want to, you know... Mixed, mixed issues. So I'm suggesting we take that out, although that's maybe a real issue and we could talk about that in another place. This is about a fee structure. And then I took out the visitor parking permit down below because... As I said, no one ever suggested raising that. And then I added this. So, unchange the current treatment for senior citizens, so the senior exemption would stay, and expand that exemption to any low-income resident regardless of age. So if you're a 30 year old single parent, you get the exemption too. And if we're not going to expend it to anybody who's low income, then we shouldn't do it for anybody. So that's my suggestion. Seniors would get their exemption, but I care as much about the 30-year-old person in public housing as I do about the 65-year-old person in our community.

So I throw that out there. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I have Councilor Al-Zubi and then I have a few others.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I mean, I appreciate Councilor McGovern's amendment. I was going to exactly refer to this not being the original policy order, not being a class analysis approach to the topic. So I was planning to vote present for it because at the end of the day, like you, I believe anybody who's low income should not have to pay the fee at all, including seniors, like I've said in the past hearings. So in that way, I think we've been focusing on the wrong thing. Anyone who's struggling, senior or not, should not be paying anything. So I think this is a step closer to that. I'll yield.

Councilor Zubino-Wheeler?

I'm still taking any amendments. I'll yield for now.

I have Councilor Flaherty and then Vice Mayor Azeem. I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor to the original policy order for the reason that I believe that no senior should pay for a resident permit parking Sticker when the Department of Transportation, its revenue, its annual revenue is $22 million. What are we doing here? It's really... And, you know, as far as Councilman McGovern's amendment, I mean, I would leave the language in there about parking spaces being removed, so I kind of agree to the entirety of the amendment.

But like everyone else in this council chamber, I think we recognize that where the Department of Transportation's annual revenue is $22 million, why we're charging low-income residents for resident permit stickers, $75, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So I yield.

Vice-Minister Azeem.

I appreciate what the Vice Mayor is trying to do in the original policy. Oh, I'm sorry. From last term, I was stuck. I appreciate what... I appreciate what... McGovern is trying to do and The original policy order. I wonder if we're trying to get too clever with it, where I wonder we're now keeping the senior exemption and adding a low-income exemption But also it's just a check off. And if it's just going to result in, instead of just even lower revenue than the $25 fee before, because it'll be so broad that everyone will just be like, oh, well, I just clicked this button. I don't have to pay anything. And so I don't think that's the intent, and I think that this makes sense, but I wonder if it's just not the best policy design.

And I don't really have more than that, but I feel like we might want to figure out a way to do this in consultation with parking rather than just throwing ideas out there.

I have Councilor Nolan.

Yeah, I'm really interested in knowing if instead of... Look, I still believe we should be charging people what it costs. Even if the departmental revenue is $22 million, that's totally unrelated to this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Many people I talk to think it's ridiculous that any of us over 65 get it. Love that they get it. I'm not saying that isn't the case, but I think there's a huge number of well-resourced people in the city who are getting an exemption they don't need. And again, it's to cover the cost of the fee. This isn't an additional thing.

Perhaps through you, Mayor Siddiqui, are people open to the idea of instead of keeping the senior exemption and furthering it with low income, that we just make that $25 check off? for all seniors regardless of income status and all low income. And then the others are 75. That seems like a good compromise in between to say nobody would be paying... The only people who would be paying more would be seniors, but they'd only be paying 25 more. None of them would be paying less, and they would be at the same level of all low-income people in the city who would not be paying more because that's what they're paying right now.

Okay, we're going to go back to Councilor Al-Zubi and Wheeler.

Thanks. I agree with a lot of what's been said. I think this piece, I think, around Chekhov for $25 for low-income folks and for seniors might be a good compromise. I don't think we're gonna work out the policy language on the floor here, but hopefully we can get it right by next week. So I'm just gonna exercise my charter, right?

Zabina Wheeler, Exercises, Charter Rates. So we are done with the policy orders. We're done with the calendar. Most of the items we'll be getting to, you know, next week. to adopt. So we're going to go to applications. There are none. There are 56 communications on a motion by Councilor... Are you on communications? Oh, I'm sorry. On a motion by Councilor Flaherty to place all those communications on file. We'll do all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Those communications are placed on file. There are no resolutions. We'll move to committee reports. There are none. We're going to communications and reports from other city officers. Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler?

Yeah, poll number three.

For poll number three, and then I'm going to poll number two for a quick switch. And then we'll do a roll call on... We'll do a voice vote on placing communication... Number one on file. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. That has been placed on file. We'll go to communication from other city officers. Number two, this was just a report from my office. But the one that was supposed to get submitted did not get submitted, so I'm going to make a motion to withdraw due to the wrong communication being submitted. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those against say no. The ayes have it.

Okay.

And then we'll go ahead to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler on the number three.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. This is on adopting the city council rules for the term, which we still need to do as just a brief recap of that process. In January, all councillors were asked to submit suggestions for council rules. for discussion. I received suggestions from, I think, a majority of city councilors. We compiled those into a document for discussion at the Government Operations Committee meeting on January 29th. At the committee meeting, all city councillors, both members and non-members of the committee, were invited to come and discuss those updates and weigh in. We had a super majority of councillors attend that meeting, including Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Azeem, and myself. based on that discussion and the rules from the previous term. We worked with city staff from the city clerk's office, the law department, the AV department, mayor's office, city manager's office to draft council rules for the 2026-2027 term.

I want to be clear that most of the changes actually listed here are updates from the law department to put rules in line with the new city charter. One example of those is moving Inauguration Day so it doesn't land on New Year's Day as it did in the previous term. There's a bunch of small tweaks like that that were updates to put it in line with the charter. The overview of the couple changes that came from councillors here. The one was having some rules around city councilor comments. We put in, it was suggested by another councilor that we do as some other city councilors have and everyone gets to speak twice on an item for up to five minutes and try to have some rules around that. That's an update. There's an update around public comment. It's particularly because public comment is so important that we wanted to try to align the amount of time each person has for public comment. Thank you for joining us.

More than that goes down to one minute. This just tries to align the numbers on that. And then finally on meeting length, the initial discussion from a couple of councillors was to just do public comment on Mondays and then do the business meeting of the agenda. On Tuesdays, we had a lot of conversation about that for a number of reasons and technical ones on city staff. It seemed like that wasn't going to work. Also, there's some times where public comment is pretty short. Tonight wasn't one of those nights, but we have a lot of meetings where there's only a few people for public comment and it didn't make sense to do a whole separate Monday meeting just for public comment. and then do a separate meeting on Tuesday. So the place landed here was to try to have a council meeting done by 9 p.m. the same way we do with committee meetings. Right now, committee meetings run for two hours. If we need to extend, we do. And in fact, a lot of committee meetings, there's a motion to extend Another 20 minutes, another 30 minutes. This would be the same idea for regular council meetings. It would go till 9 p.m. If we needed to extend another half hour or an hour, we could do that.

The goal would be to end at 9pm rather than just have council meetings go as long as they go and then we're here at 1am and everybody's exhausted voting on stuff and city staff have to drive another hour home. This was to have a goal of ending at a reasonable hour. So those are the updates here. I want to say I'm down for more conversation on this. I invited everyone to come to the Government Operations Committee to discuss. I know some folks weren't able to make it. I think Councilor Azzubi expressed interest in exercising charter right, giving another week to discuss this, which is fine by me. Happy to even send it to Government Operations Committee for more discussion on this. I just want to be clear that everything in here was reviewed by the law department. I also included the charter of the late policy order on this. Toner did last term when he was chair of the Government Operations Committee. Thoroughly vetted by the law department.

Most of the tweaks are actually proposed by the law department.

We have to do a late suspension for that late policy order. So yeah, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler is moving to go into suspension to bring the late policy order before us. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. The late policy order by Councilor Flaherty.

Yes.

Councilor Simmons is before us. Councilor Sabino, after you speak, I'm going to go to Councilor Flaherty.

That sounds great. So yeah, I would just say most of these changes are proposed by the law department. if any counselor would like to have more discussion that's fine but want to be clear that everything in here was reviewed by the law department most of the changes here were suggested by the law department nothing here is is untowards to that effect and sort of confused by that suggestion So I'm going to charter write the late policy order and then I will yield.

So, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler has exercised his charter right on the late policy order, so that's not, we'll have to discuss it next week. On the rules, what's before us, continuing discussion. Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. I really appreciate the work done on this. I think there are a couple things in it that might have been unresolved by the law department, so I'm not sure how we'll deal with those. Timing, I think 9pm is not something I'm comfortable with. I think it should be maybe 10pm and then we vote to extend. I mean, we only have one regular business meeting every week. And as much as we like to be efficient, I don't... I think that leads to not very thorough discussion and comprehensive discussion. I think 10 is a more usual time. We may... Sometimes adjourn at 7 or 7.30 or 8, so that would always be allowed. But I think 9 feels too early given... the realm of things that we do.

So I'd be comfortable with 10 and I would, I don't know if we propose that change now and then go forward. The other thing is rule 23F includes This question of 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. and then City Councilor may speak for up to five minutes each time they have the floor. I'm comfortable with the idea of trying to bound us in to have some limits on each time we have the floor and two questions at a time. I'm not comfortable with Thank you very much. Thank you very much. limiting ourselves for the deliberation of really important issues that come forward.

So I don't know if now would be the time to propose a change to that, which I had where I would just delete the phrase, have the floor up to two times. and I don't know why the two questions would be of city staff. It might be two questions kind of each other. And then I'd be happy to pass it. But it's unclear to me, maybe through you, whether are we referring this to council or are we doing a...

So I can clarify. So we have a few options. One of the options is to adopt the rules. In that motion, someone can exercise their charter right. And I think that will happen tonight. I do think it's good, like you pointed out, what you pointed out on the floor. If anyone else has any more questions, things, and... Points, and so forth. I would just raise them really quickly now if you want. So I had Councilor Nolan, then Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Al-Zubi, and then Councilor Flaherty.

Okay, I'll be quick. So through you. Mayor Siddiqui, it sounds like those couple changes that I think, and I apologize for not doing them before, that I have written up, I can just send to the clerk and everybody will have, and then when it gets charter written, it'll end up being discussed perhaps. Does that make sense? Is that appropriate? Thank you. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem.

Thank you. I just both wanted to say that I think that all the amendments that Councilor Nolan has suggested sound reasonable. But I also wanted to say that I think that the perks of like not going till late late are like really quite impactful in that I think about the conversation we just had on parking permits. I don't think we were in a place where like, We fundamentally needed another week, but it's really hard to write amendments on the fly. It's really hard to have that discussion. And I think that it's something where like, If we could have a break and then come back tomorrow, and we probably would be able to hash out very quickly. And instead, I think we use our charter right as kind of the same way we would use this meeting break, which is that we just can't do editing. Thank you for joining us. work through language that would be inefficient on the floor so we can just do that tomorrow.

And I think that that is going to be really healthy for us and actually hopefully reduce a number of the Charter Right exercises that we see. Thank you.

Al-Zubi.

Thank you. Through you, Chair, I just want to note that, you know, we're going to move forward to adopt. I think considering there's already been some sort of discussion that it would make sense to either exercise my charter right or potentially refer it to committee so that we can continue those discussions, but happy to do either, whichever is more productive.

Further comments on that? I think... Yes, Councilor Flaherty and then Councilor Simmons.

Excuse me. Through you, Madam Mayor, I'm prepared to exercise my charter right on this so we can handle both matters together at the same meeting. And I think that... My policy order requesting that this be referred to a special committee of the whole is maybe accomplished by just having Two Charter Rights on these two separate matters so they're brought back together at the same time. So I'm exercising my Charter Right.

Just to share, no one actually made a motion to adopt the rules. I'll make that motion to adopt the rules, and Councilor Flaherty has exercised his charter right. So we're done with communications from other city officers, so... We will move on and we'll go to any late agenda items. There are some late resolutions which require a suspension of the rules, so we'll suspend rules. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The Ayes have it. We are in suspension. We have three late resolutions. This is condolences to the family of Charles Linehan III, a resolution recognizing National Nurses Week, and then a resolution on the passing of Walter C. Bridgman Jr. Are the, would my colleagues like to speak?

I would waive the reading and, you know, in the thinking of time.

Can you speak to the mic?

I can't hear you. In the consideration of time, and if not unless someone wanted to, I would just waive the reading and just move to the adoption, making them unanimous upon adoption.

Councilor Simmons has moved to adopt all three late resolutions, making them unanimous upon adoption. And that's a motion. Discussion? Councilor Nolan?

Yes, I will support it. I will remind us all. I think in our rules it will be helpful in such late resolutions to understand the timeliness of it since our rules suggest that we Thank you very much. and the resolutions and late policy orders brought before us.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly, Nurses Week ends tomorrow and the funeral for this gentleman is this weekend. So I really do try to follow the rules on late submissions, but because the gentleman's funeral is going to be Friday and we don't meet again, that's why I brought it in this evening.

All those in favor of adopting this resolution say aye. These resolutions say aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. Those three late resolutions are adopted. Any announcements from the body? Yes, Councilor McGovern.

Yes, Wednesday, this Wednesday. I'm going to pull up 6 to 7, 6 to 7.30. There is a virtual... Thank you very much. Thank you very much. on Wednesday. So it's all not in person. It's virtual, but folks can sign up through the Healthy Children's Task Force either Facebook page or our email me and I will give you the sign-up form. It's going to be really good. These people are really good.

It's geared towards parents or caregivers of children between the fourth grade and eighth grade, but I would certainly recommend that parents of younger children also attend because Your first grader is going to be a fourth grader at some point and you can get a head start on some of this stuff. So I hope to see a lot of people there. It's free.

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

And if you're not at that great program on Wednesday night, also at 7 o'clock at the Cambridge Public Library, Amy Meltzer, who's a native plant. Expert will be talking about how you can plant native plants in your garden. All right. Councilor Nolan.

And so we can reconvene tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock right here in the chamber for our second of all-day budget hearings. Thanks to all the colleagues who brought in any questions. We will be here again. It's at 9 o'clock. We have reserved Thursday. Unclear if we will need that. But half of the departments will be on the agenda for tomorrow. So look forward to seeing all of you there. discussing the other half of our billion dollar budget. Councilor Simmons.

Thank you. Through the chair, I'd like to invite everyone unveiling Senior Quilt Project. So Thursday the 14th at I love quilts. At the Cambridge Senior Center.

Great. Any other announcements? So we'll go ahead on a motion by Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say no. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. Good night, everyone. See you at nine.