Legislative Matters Committee

Welcome, everybody. Good evening. This is Tuesday, October 27th at 6 p.m. on the button. My name's JT Scott. I'm the Ward 2 Counselor and serving as your chair tonight for the Legislative Matters Committee of the Somerville City Council. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts 2025, this meeting is being conducted via remote participation and the audio and video recording will be posted to City Channels shortly after its conclusion. We are joined tonight by... Proud of city staff, including Clerk Fisher-Casiole. Clerk Fisher Casiole, could you please take the roll to determine a quorum?

Yes I can. This is Roll Call. Councilor Davis Here Councilor Mbah Present Councilor Ewen-Campen Here Strezo, Chair Scott.

Present.

All right with that we have four members present so we do have quorum.

Alrighty. So we will go ahead tonight. The first item is just approval of the minutes from our October 13th meeting. Is there any discussion or comment on those minutes? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and lay those on the table for a vote to approve along with adjournment at the conclusion of the meeting. And then, the administration has requested that several items be taken out order this evening to accommodate directors Ziegler, and Davidson's schedule. So we'll start off by taking item five out of order that is going to be the short-term rental ordinance from Councilor Link, Councilor Hardt, and Councilor Ewen Campen It's 26-1501. So if we could pull up that item for display in the red line

And I will actually hand it to Councilor Ewen-Campen as he was one of the original sponsors on this. To just review the changes and give a brief introduction to it.

Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Schaer. So credit where credit's due. Councilor Link took the lead on this and I was really happy to support it because this is an issue that has been quite acute in Ward 3 And the proposal here is quite simple. It has to do with the documents that are required to prove that you live in a unit that you're using as an Airbnb. So the issue with the current ordinance before this amendment is that, and you can see this crossed out in red, if you wish to claim that you live in a unit so that you can then Airbnb it as our ordinance requires. You'd need a copy of the deed or the lease, depending if you're the owner or the tenant. A driver's license or state ID and then a document like a utility bill, cable bill, motor vehicle registration

The issue is that we had cases where it certainly appeared to myself and I think my colleagues, that it was too easy to get these even if you didn't truly live in the unit so you had people who were pretending to live in a unit so that they could rent it as an Airbnb full-time which is what our ordinance seeks to prohibit In specific, like with a driver's license you can write an address on the back of a driver license. And so we had situations where an operator appeared to be technically in compliance with our ordinance as it existed But as was made kind of abundantly clear by neighbors who just lived in the reality and were watching what was happening, no one lived there. So the attempt here is to just require documents that really show that you live in the place. So, in this case it's income tax return for the last tax year

um uh obviously redacted and one of the following documents so a utility bill cable bill phone bill or Motor Vehicle Registration. and there's also a clarification on the second page that this needs to be recertified each year. So I'm very interested, I know that Councilor Link and myself talked with Director Ziegler It's my understanding that the Director Ziegler and the department has been working on a number of enforcement issues around this. and there may be more that we want to do I'm not certain if it's in this ordinance but that is the motivation for this and I'm looking forward to discussing this with colleagues.

All right, thank you for that. And in reviewing these... The proof of residence appears to be shifting to something closer to what we require to establish a residential exemption for property taxes. Is that a fair interpretation?

It is, Mr. Chair.

Director Ziegler, do you have anything additional to add on the update of residency proof?

Through the chair, I am satisfied with these changes. I would also just note that under section 7254 under the required information subsection B We also reflect the added documentation under those as well, as they make it clear during our application process for folks applying, as well as it being reflected in our CitizenServe portal. But outside of that, I have no other questions comments or concerns concerning these particular amendments

All right, so if I can just clarify, are you requesting that the text in 254B be updated to also reflect the change there?

Through the chair, correct.

All right. I see our policy analyst has some thoughts. Whenever a definition section pops up, I'm predicting that. So, Analyst Salisbury, welcome back.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and my apologies for my unexcused absence over the last week. I will just note that under required documentation in C proof of primary residence at the residential unit to be offered is included in the list of documents that need to be submitted I don't believe that any updates to those sections would be necessary to accomplish this.

Alright, so while it may fall afoul of your preferred form In terms of efficacy, the update to proof of primary residence being reflected in being referenced down in C1 leads to the requirement being still in effect. It just might confuse people.

I don't know that it would confuse people. I hope not, at the very least. But... I will simply note that this is on the list for substantive review in the future, and I will be getting rid of the definitions.

Well, that's why God made our 10-year ordinance review, right? Okay. Well, then I appreciate that feedback, Director Ziegler and Analyst Salisbury. So I'm going to open this up to colleagues for discussion or questions. Does anybody have any thoughts, comments, or questions or amendments? Mbah. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman Scott. Just a comment. Appreciate the work put into this by Councilor Link and Harden, Councilor Ewen-Campen. I just want to underscore that you know As our city continues to face significant housing affordability challenges, we need policies like this that strike the right balance between legitimate property You know, honor, interest and our responsibility to preserve housing for people who live and work in the city. So, you know, I think we're in the right direction. Thank you.

All right. Very well said, sir. Thank you. Well I don't see any other comments and while I appreciate Director Ziegler's concern about legibility You know, hopefully the form that will be prepared by ISD will have the required information spelled out pretty clearly there. So in the interest of Moving with efficiency. I might be inclined, I'd be inclined myself to recommend approval on this item this evening and trust to our ordinance review process to clean up the edits. So I will go ahead and I'll move for approval on this item. Is there any discussion on a motion to recommend approval for this item? Councilor Ewen-Campen

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm in support. I just want to kind of put a bow on it. Just for anyone who's following the conversation, 254B is the required information, 254C is required documentation that's required at the time of application and it lists proof of... Primary Residence, which that's what's defined. So it seems like this will be required at the time as it should be and I'm very much looking forward to this because I think it will make it a lot easier to Crack down on people who are just clearly violating this ordinance in spirit, if not the letter.

All right. Thank you, sir. Anything further on motion? Alright, then seeing none, let's go ahead and take a roll call just to get in the habit of saying yes.

Alright, I'm recommending approval of item number five. Councilor Davis?

Yes. Yes.

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes.

Councillor Strezo? Yes, yes, yes. Thank you got it. Chair Scott? Yes All right, with that, that is all members in favor of recommending approval on this item.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank You Director Ziegler for your time this evening Then we'll move on, taking up the next item out of order as announced. That will be Item 26-1551. That's Item 6 on our agenda. Section 7.64 of the Code of Ordinances pertaining to condominium conversions be amended as detailed within Now, this one here is an update to the condo conversion ordinance. I know Councilor McLaughlin was the lead on this and then everybody signed on. Councilor Davis, your name is pretty high on that list. Were you involved in the drafting on this?

I would love to take credit for it, but I was not. That said, I've read it and it's pretty straightforward. If we pull it off the screen, I think we can all get our heads around it pretty quickly.

Yes, sir. It is a pretty limited amendment here. So I'll just give a brief introduction to it then, which is in A1, the notice of intent to convert expands To say to include demolition with the intent to convert an unoccupied or owner-occupied housing accommodation. Apparently, the loophole that had existed was that if you just knocked the building down then you had a fairly long run So there's also a section in 765A adding a number two, which is on the screen right now. Which places a similar requirement As in the previous section there, that would also apply to the filing of a demolition permit.

So that's providing intent to demolish to the review board, condo review board. With that said, I know we're joined tonight by Director of Housing Lisa Davidson. Director Davidson, have you had a chance to review these updates or discuss with Councilor Bluff?

and would you like to give your thoughts? Thank you for the chair. The housing division has not had the opportunity to have a conversation with Councilor McLaughlin or review the proposed amendments. We've just received these amendments on Monday. So we did reach out to Councilor McLaughlin to schedule some time to talk through the proposed amendments for these on vacation, I guess.

Only were we all so lucky. Well, I guess as the Director of Housing Division you see a lot of these condo conversion Permits and you hear a lot about the challenges that we face in terms of enforcement there. Do you have any initial thoughts about about the need that's being addressed here or the manner in which it's being intended to be addressed?

For you, Chair. I do and I've I'd like to be able to have some time to wrap my head around and have some conversations with the board liaison, the condo board liaison. I know that right now reviewing condo review Aikondo Conversion Applications is a pretty heavy lift of what the documents that are already being required and requested and followed up on and adding another layer I want to be able to see what really is going to be put on additional lift being asked of the staff as well as asked of those The developer looking through, looking through what already appears like there's, there are, you know, a year wait a year notice for tenanted properties and two years notice for an offer.

for vacant properties. So I'd like to be able to have some time to really wrap my head around the conversation, have a conversation with Councilor McLaughlin and a full understanding of the proposed amendments.

Sure, sure understandable well My thought is then tonight, perhaps colleagues it's best for us to just have a brief discussion about the policy aims being addressed here. and then allow some time for Director Davidson and Councilor McLaughlin to put their heads together and we can bring this back in a future meeting but in the meantime I see Councilor Davis you have some thoughts.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I, like you, have no objection to giving the folks who haven't a chance some time to have some conversations and sort of think through Anything we might not have thought of, unintended consequences or things that we might want to consider addressing. I also definitely would love to hear Annalise Salisbury's thoughts on We have sort of two orphaned floating provisions here that might benefit from some improvement clarification in terms of the number drafting if we want to do that now rather than waiting for the overall review. At the very least, I think it's worth making sure that a reader understands which paragraph applies to what. I'm not sure that's the case at the moment unless I'm just looking at it wrong. that I would make that request to.

Conceptually, I know Councilman McLaughlin explained this at the council level And high level conceptually, I think it makes perfect sense. This is clearly a loophole that folks were taking advantage of and they ought not be permitted to do that.

All right. Analyst Salisbury, I know you've been a bit out of pocket. You haven't had a moment to review this, have you?

Mr. Chair, unfortunately I have not. To your point though, I do think that it is relatively straightforward certainly pending a review by city staff on this Happy to work with Councilor McLaughlin to clean this up in terms of formatting. I will admit that I'm also a little confused about some of the dangling pieces that are left here. So, I am very happy to take a closer look.

All right. Sounds good. For myself, I personally... We think this is, while I've had some strong feelings about our demolition review process in the past and its use as simply a cost-increasing delay tactic. This is a different matter. This not simply reviewing whether or not structure Historically significant, but really trying to mitigate the impact on tenants that are living in buildings that are being demolished to make way for new condominiums and also giving us another hook by which we can require notice to tenants. That their housing accommodations may be more unstable than they thought previously. So I really appreciate the policy intent here and I think it's a great idea to have Those who favor all the dottings of I's and crossings of T's to take a look at it. And, of course, Director Davidson knows that Liaison Chapman is one of my favorites.

Getting her feedback on what this means for implementation and how it might affect the operations of the Condor Review Board, I think will also be helpful. I'm supportive of this and also supportive of giving this two weeks to marinate work. That said, we also do have another meeting scheduled for one week from now. So if it is possible to have that review done between now and a week from now, there is the possibility that we could take this item up in just one week. One week, I believe. Checking the city's calendar to ensure that I say the right thing here. No, on November 10th. So that would actually be two weeks. That's

Just from an agenda standpoint, Director Davidson, Analyst Salisbury do you believe two weeks is enough time to have a productive discussion if we put it on the agenda for two weeks from now?

For you, Chair. Yes, I think so.

All right.

I'm inclined to agree, Mr. Chair.

Great. Wonderful. I'd love to hear that. Well, then I will give a moment again for any other feedback or input from counselors on this item. Councilor Strezo?

Fine to hold on to this in committee here back from Councilor McLaughlin. I'm very curious to see, I mean support this of course Very curious to see the conversation going forward so we can move forward and get this amendment back on the books.

Sounds good to me, Councilor Strezo. All right. Well, then it sounds like we've got a pretty clear will of the committee here. So I will go ahead and move to lay or to keep this item in committee. and with the intention of coming back to it in two weeks although, to be clear I am not postponing to a date certain. I'm just indicating my intent for a future agenda so with that said thank you Director Davidson Don't think we've got anything else for you on the docket tonight. Is that right? Double checking that before I let you go have some dinner. No, looks good to me. So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Have a good night.

All right and you as well. So with those two out of order items taking care of that returns us back to the regular order of business and that is to item number two on our agenda. That is item 26-1023 that Chapter 2, Article 8, Division 1 of the Code of Ordinances be amended as detailed within also known as the Ethical Procurement Ordinance. Now there is a handout on the meeting tonight That is Legislative Matters 2026-10-27 Ethical Procurement Amendment. Oh good, thank you Madam Clerk for pulling that up. Just as a quick summary, the last time this committee discussed it there was some discussion about this ordinance and some concerns about some of the details of language raised by Councilor Davis and others.

Ewen-Campen, you have taken the time to go back and do some work on this and returned with this amendment before us. I'd like to toss it to you for an explanation of what this language affects in terms of changes Potentially patch any holes. And then after you've introduced it, if it's a little committee I will go ahead and move to substitute the language in that handout for to make it the operative language before us so that we can continue working on that line. So Councilor Ewen-Campen, please take it away.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So yes, Councilor Wheeler and I worked with legislative staff on a number of amendments. So first is as a series of not substantive amendments these are to bring the ordinance into kind of the style guide of the city council. So this includes things like removing... We had little titles on each paragraph that was... The intent had been for kind of readability. Obviously, there's public interest in this. We wanted it to be easy to understand. Working with legislative staff that has been cut because we've adopted a drafting guide and paragraphs do not get titles this also includes things like where the ordinance had said including without limitation which is another way of saying including but not limited to now it just says including because that is what the word including means and if you start saying it in some places but not other places then people read into the attentions which just means including a list that includes

We also removed the definition and moved the location of our exemption for sole proprietors. So this is the ordinance does not apply to people who operate as a single person. And in discussion with the law department for the city, it was explained that sole proprietor does not need a definition understood in Massachusetts law. So we've removed the definition that Councilor Davis had raised several very good questions about, and we also moved the location in the ordinance where this is. So now it's in D2. In the exemptions, right? So there's the director of finance can exempt companies that would otherwise be caught by this ordinance for the reasons listed in one or if they're a sole proprietor. And then the final set of amendments has to do with the language in A and B.

So this is the language that describes the conduct of companies that we're seeking to prohibit business and investment with. and I'll just read briefly under A. The city may not procure, contract for, hire or retain labor or services performed or goods produced by an entity which in any of the three most recent fiscal years directly knowingly and consistently provided material support to or derived revenue from contract services or operations that enable or facilitate systematic violations of international humanitarian law or conduct recognized under international law to constitute apartheid. Genocide or unlawful military occupation, including conduct occurring in Israel and Palestine. So you can see the language we added is directly, knowingly and consistently. And we also altered the language of... What these contract services or operations do and it is enable or facilitate systematic violations.

So those are the changes, Mr. Chair. I more than have appreciated the feedback to this point and I look forward to hearing feedback tonight and it is my intention to ask for a recommendation out of committee tonight.

All right, well before we can do that first we need to adopt this text in the handout as the operative text before us. So I'll go ahead and move to substitute that text from the handout. On that motion, is there any discussion? On the motion to substitute text, Councilor Strezo.

Yep. As in the last meeting and all previous, I will not be supporting this. This is an illegal ordinance. This a discriminatory ordinance. It is dangerous and callous and Thoughtless Ordnance. So naturally, I'll be voting no. Getting that on record, folks.

All right. Seeing no further discussion, the motion was to amend, to substitute the text in the handout to amend the ordinance amendment for us. So on that substitution, Clerk Fisher-Cascio could you please call the roll?

Yes, I can. On this motion, Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Mbah? Yes Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes

Chair Scott yes all right with that that is four votes in favor so um that motion is adopted all right so now we have this new language that's been introduced by uh Councilor Ewen-Campen before us I've had an opportunity to review it. Are there any questions, comments or concerns from colleagues on the text now before us? Councilor Strezo

Chair, let's have the city solicitor's office have some questions for whomever is there to represent tonight. I'm assuming... our city solicitor

We are joined tonight by Solicitor Amara and City Attorney Jason Peeks. I'm not sure which one of them would like to take lead on this, but if you have questions for the Law Department we do have people here available to respond so Please, Councilor Strezo, if you have questions for the Law Department through the Chair, go right ahead.

Great. Through you, Mr. Chair, to our City Solicitor's Office I have based on, well, nope, since our last meeting and these new amendments. Is this still considered holding what your previous opinions on this is? The legality of this and have any changes of that opinion Have you modified your opinion of that since these latest amendments?

All right. Solicitor Amara or Soliciter Peeks, I think Solicitar Amara probably.

These amendments are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. One, they're pretty much cleanup kind of amendments and taking out a definition we didn't think needed to be there because it was consistent. All right. Mr. Chair?

A follow-up question, and previously City Solicitor through Mr. Chair that you have stated that I believe that this is an illegal ordinance and against the law if enacted so does your opinion on that still stand?

Our opinion is we believe if challenged this ordinance will not survive and nothing that has been changed by this amendment alters our previous opinions.

And another question on that. Well... I'll ask the lead sponsor of this through Mr. Chair, through you to Councilor Ewen Campen in your own words again what does facilitate in this ordinance mean?

Councilor Ewen-Campen, I believe that's addressed to you sir.

Certainly, Mr. Chair, through you. So this is companies that directly, knowingly and consistently Do actions sell things that enable or facilitate the conduct we're talking about? Facilitate means make this stuff possible. And in this case, that would be directly, knowingly and consistently.

All right. Thank you, Councilor Strezo. Do you have any further questions for city staff?

I'll hold off for now. Okay.

All right. Councilor Davis, I see you have your hand raised. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Trying my hardest to bite my tongue and not quibble over Whether enable is really the word that means make things possible and facilitate actually means make it easier, but I digress. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the City Attorney, I'm sorry, I should have written down the exact statement you made to catch your phrasing, but... and I know we have an opinion on this but for the sake of everybody getting everybody in the room here including all our folks who are watching online On the same page, can you speak to what it is about the proposed ordinance here that you believe would not survive? What it is that makes it such that it would not

The main concerns we have are with federal preemption and federal commerce cause issues that are reserved to the federal government. and that without specific congressional authorization an ordinance like this would likely not be upheld and then there are also open procurement issues of which there has been no opinion issued by the state either way

Thank you. Through the chair to you, Attorney Maher, what are the open procurement issues?

Well, there's questions about whether you're unleveling a level playing field, whether it's going to be discriminatory, whether Procurement is supposed to be and those are the legal concerns procurement has raised practical concerns as well okay and those through the chair and those practical concerns

remain even in light of what I read as a fairly broad exemption. What's the word?

Exemption.

Yeah, the exemption in subsection D1. Am I correct in understanding your response?

We do have Director Allen here. Director Allen could address that if you'd like, sir.

Happy to hear from the director, Mr. Chair.

Director Alan, do you have anything to contribute on concerns about implementation?

Yes, can you all see me?

We can see you director.

Good evening through the chair. So I want to make sure I'm addressing the question asked. It is what are the practical, practicable concerns about implementing this ordinance? Is that the question you're asking me to address?

That's true.

May I have Councilor Davis, please?

Yeah. Thank you. Essentially yes the specific question was either the city attorney raised concerns about practicality and I just wanted clarification as to Even with what by my readers seem to be a fairly broad exemption, you can see on the screen here in subsection D1. For my understanding, there's still concerns with the practicality that wouldn't be able to be worked around with that provision. Is that correct?

Through the chair, yes. We really... First of all, we always follow federal law. But as an agent of the state, we follow state law My understanding in talking to our city attorney and my boss, the director of finance, is that this would be, in essence, this ordinance would be that the city would Debarring bidders or prospective vendors, contractors, maybe existing contractors. And we don't have the authority to do that. The practical concern, so the legal authority to do that at the state level too. We consult lists that are issued by different agencies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and those are very easy to ascertain. There are several of them, so they're not super easy, but they're contained in Massachusetts. And of course there are federal lists as well that we look at.

Now the practical concern is How do we know where to look? I have really gone over this ordinance with a fine-tooth comb. I'll offer that I appreciate the thought that's gone into it. And we do need to know what are we referencing to make the call? whether it's me as the designee of the director of finance or in concert with others in the city of Somerville what doesn't pass muster for sections A and B of this ordinance is drafted. And that's a judgment call that I am not legally authorized to make by the state. And it

contradicts, in my view, the equal footing leveling the playing field really based on performance. So I'm just wondering, you know, do we make sure we get the accurate lists? If they are challenged, again, I've really leaned on our city attorney's office to understand. Can we reject a bid if a bid comes in from a company that appears on one of the lists from the different entities named? We can try it. But as our city attorney said, it would likely not sustain a legal challenge so I'm

I'm just concerned about who is in charge of making the call when we're opening the bid and looking over just Different contractors that are out there. And if having a name on a list for the last three fiscal years, is that enough? And how do we do... So these are perhaps philosophical questions, but I'm thinking about how do I execute my job and my duty to The constituents, the residents of Somerville to our city council to the people we serve to deliver goods and services. This adds another layer of complexity that I'm concerned from a practicable standpoint could Aboff,

There are a lot of things going on in the world and I imagine there are other companies showing up on that list. I want to know what, you know, are we just from a practical standpoint or if we just have the list can check it. That's easy. All right, you're either on the list or you're not on the is that enough? That's not my call to make but I want to make sure if passed that we can in fact proceed with representing the spirit of this ordinance and I'm not certain we can do that so I don't know if i'm directly addressing your question but those are some concerns and thoughts I have I wanted to share with you about this.

Thank you, Director. Thank you Mr. Chair. I do have some questions or another question for the City Attorney about the preemption issue but Mr. Chair, if you'd allow it, I'd love to hear the drafter of the amendments' response to the statement from the director as to how he sees this working

Certainly.

Councilor Ewen-Campen? Thank you, so through you on the procurement side obviously let me just say it goes without saying I have enormous respect for Director Allen I understand that this ordinance will be a checkbox that is on procurement documents, that has a self attestation step. So in a situation, I think we're talking about a situation where there's a company that says we're in compliance with this ordinance. And then there is a question of whether that is true or not. so I think that it is ultimately there are Defined lists in this ordinance that I would hope are just, if you're on this list, you are not in compliance with the ordinance. And unless there is an exemption for the steady functioning of the city, the city will not contract with that company. That's the point of the ordinance

If there are companies that are not on one of these lists, but there is honest questioning about whether they are caught in A and B. I guess that is a difficult question for the city to try to answer. I think it would be a case-by-case determination, that would be my answer. We've been asked by voters Try to screen for companies that are involved in very extreme crimes. And, to me this is of the same lineage in our city of things like the prison labor ordinance, the living wage ordinance you know the history of other cities that did similar things in South African apartheid where we don't want our money to support these companies. On the implementation of it, I think given the extremely... Complex economic relationships of modern companies.

There will be cases where it's a genuinely hard question to answer I think there will be some where the city leans on the exemption and there will others where the City has to make a tough call that this is not a company worth working with

All right. Thank you, Councillor Davis. Did you have more follow-ups?

If I could, Mr. Chair, yeah, thank you. Just a follow-up to that and then I'm happy to get back in line and ask my preemption question in the next round if others want to speak but I just... I just want to come back to something that I flagged last week. I was on my list of questions, but I think I just heard the answer. And maybe I'm missing it, but The certification that will be provided by the company is a certification that they are not on any of the lists. I think it objectively does not say that. The certification says that it does not meet the criteria set forth in Section A. The list of lists is presented as things that the city might refer to in making its determinations. For its own determinations for A and B.

But, you know, the Good Counsel for War III just again, which came up in the last time, you made it very clear. Maybe this is not what was intended and maybe I'm just mishearing, but if the idea is that the certification is that we're not on any of these lists, I don't think this says that

To that point, Mr. Chair? Please, Councilor Ewen-Campen. So I think the solution to that if... I think that is the intention certainly is if you're on one of these lists the city should not be doing business with you I think this would be an F to say that the certified that the entity does not meet the criteria set forth in subsection A and C. Is that what my colleague is getting at? The intention was to say C is our definition of how you certify A. and so it follows but you know if from a drafting perspective it's your opinion that that is not what that means and that we need to explicitly include C I do not have an issue with that personally

Mr. Chair?

Councilor Davis, yes.

Thank you. So through you to the council of Dorothy thank you for that yeah I mean I and again if our legislative policy analyst wants to tell me that I'm reading this wrong because this is his specific job description. He's writing stuff like this. I think there's more words that need to go into F and I'm not sure it's just comply with FNC because again, F is only saying the only purpose of F as drafted is that it's what the You know, the criteria that the city should consider. I think it would need to be worded differently. One would have to come up with the right way of tying that in if that's what the intent is. So I guess I'll leave that as an open issue, and I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, and put my hand back up for the next round when it's my turn again.

All right. I'll go to Councilor Mbah briefly, but I'll just perhaps put Endless Salisbury on notice. you know in our and one of our previous items analyst Salisbury you pointed out that you might have objected to the form of drafting but in terms of efficacy felt like the language was clear so if you have an opinion on the on the, let's say, strictly limited topic of whether or not the language as drafted here accomplishes the intent expressed by Councilor Ewen-Campen. That might be helpful to hear your opinion on when we are in

Mr. Chair, through you to Councilors Ewen-Campen and Davis my understanding of this is that the lists in C are a means of determining whether an entity meets the criteria set forth in subsections A and B, and are not necessarily definitive or dispositive. that if a person, if an entity is on that list that does not necessarily guarantee that they do not meet the criteria in A or B, or rather does not guarantee that they do. I don't because it is mentioned in C as a means of determining All right.

I appreciate that. Councilor Davis, you said you were going to jump back in line.

Well, just on that quick follow-up point, just maybe to put a finer point on it. Sure. You know, if I'm a company and I read F Thank you for watching! So I don't think I meet that. I might be on one of those lists, but I think I can credibly reasonably certify that I do not meet this criteria in Section A even if I'm on all of those Thank you for watching!

All right. I'm going to go with Councilor Ewen-Campen, and then I'll come back to Annalise Salisbury. Councilor Mbah, I appreciate your patience.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So hearing this discussion is helpful for me. I think the intent is to say Companies that as you're filling out these bids, read section A and check whether you comply or not. If there is a disagreement The city will then go to the lists in C to guide their determination. So if there is a company that is on one of these lists, and has done so in any of the previous three years. The ordinance would instruct the city to say, well that's the type of thing we're looking for that determine you're not in compliance with this ordinance A company on these lists would not match. In that case, I think that would be the decision.

We made a decision to not say it is these lists and only these lists. If you're on the list, no. If This is a sort of issue that... Changes over time includes a lot of different parts of the world is complex. And there may be situations where companies that are involved in really horrific situation that is documented, that is known that we do not want to be doing business with is not on one of the specific lists that we here in 2026 find. That's the intent. You know, our colleagues in Cambridge are taking a different approach with this where they're just saying it's the lists. If you're on the lists, no, if you're not on the list, yes. We've taken a different Mbah. Your hand came down, are you

I'm going to take a pass on this one.

Thank you, Chair. I mean, I guess I've just been marinating over different thoughts. I guess... I did not get a clear response. One thing I understand is that Director Allen has broad discretion on this ordinance and so one of the things I'm curious about is Why aren't any of these procurement concerns the same for other procurement ordinances that we have in the books, like the prison labor or the living wage ordinances? I'm just curious.

Fair question. Director Allen, do you have a comparison to the kind of work and research you have to do around the prison labor ordinance for example?

Certainly, yeah, through the chair. Thank you very much for the question. We have grappled with this one and we see that you all or the drafters of the ordinance have also Thoughtfully considered what other ordinances are like or comparable to what the city council is trying to accomplish here. What sets this one apart is its federal and international component that's so broad. It's far beyond a living wage that we set based on A formula that is in the ordinance for calculating using federal statistics for consumer product index and poverty indices, for example.

Prison labor is largely limited to a few vendors, but we do include it in every solicitation package and contract. that we have live links to the ordinances and any vendor who submits a bid or signs a contract in essence is saying, we know these ordinances are there. um there that doesn't mean we have to go check on lists and rely on lists posted by some external entity to be accurate the one Every year we calculate the living wage based on the formula in the ordinance, and we do it months before the new living wage for the fiscal year comes into effect.

This is just much more far-reaching, it's broader and that's how I would answer the question through you Chair Scott to Honorable Councilor Mbah. Please tell me if I've addressed your question or not.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

All right. You also, Councilor Mbah?

I mean, I just have to... Yeah.

No, I get it. They're definitely going to be around too. I guess seeing no further hands at the moment... Speaking for myself, I'm hearing two remaining kind of categories of questions here. One of which is the implementation challenges of this and I think For my own reading, I think the intent is plain and I think The challenges of implementation are ones that as As my colleague points out, we have had to face in larger and smaller ways for various different policy aims that we've included in our purchasing restrictions here in the city set forth an ordinance. So I have All confidence in our director of purchasing. And more to the point, I have... I must...

As a legislator, as a participant in a co-equal branch of our democratic government here I have faith in the executive in this case the mayor of the city and the departments that report to him um to faithfully execute the laws so um to that to that extent I understand that there may be challenges there but When it comes to a separation of powers, our powers as legislators are to establish those policy intents, to write that law. and then to trust in the executive to execute that law in whatever manner is expedient, effective etc. So I don't have to have all the answers to that. Speaking for me as a legislator, I don' t have to I appreciate the care that goes into working with department heads to ensure that the things we draft aren't overly cumbersome or just unworkable

and I feel like this body has historically done a fairly excellent job of that. And appreciate the efforts that Councilors Ewen-Campen and Wheeler have taken in preparing this ordinance to attempt address those concerns to the extent that they can, given that neither of them are the director of procurement or the mayor. The other piece of outstanding concern remains this question of whether or not the ordinance itself will sustain a legal challenge and for me That is a question that cannot be answered in the speculative. There's a lot of different ways that people say that, whether it's the polls. Polling is not the same as election results. The odds line in Vegas, that can say one thing but that's why they play the games or even the map is not the territory.

I believe it's impossible to say what the outcome of a challenge would be And ultimately, as one legislator, the question for me is do I believe that this ordinance is well written? Do I believe the policy aim is one that is justified and supported by my constituents and the answer to all of those questions is absolutely yes. And similar to the point of implementation by the procurement department, when it comes to Defending an ordinance against a challenge that is a duty of the law department. And while I appreciate our solicitor's hesitation, I know I must...

Once again, confidence as a participant in the co-equal branch of government that my job as a legislator is to pass the laws that I feel are appropriate and have confidence that my attorney, in this case, the city attorney will endeavor and take all best efforts to defend those ordinances and their efficacy in court so um So for me, those are the two buckets of questions. And I appreciate everybody will wrestle with them separately. But just for my constituents here in Ward 2 and for members of the public who are watching, I want to take a moment to Lay out some of my thought process there. So I appreciate your forbearance, colleagues. And with that, I can go ahead and begin round two So I see Councilor Strezo first and then Councilor Davis. So, Councilor Streso, you have the floor here.

I'll let Councilor Davies speak first. I'm coming after him.

All right. Councilor Strezo yields. Councilors Davis, you had the floor.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Chair. So I want to come back, as I noted, I want Just so just again to make sure we're all on the same page that the as I understand it and Attorney Mark, please correct me if I'm wrong. The potential issue is that where there is a comprehensive body of law on either the federal or state level that covers, comprehensively addresses an issue municipalities are Generally speaking, prohibited from trying to do other stuff or trying to get involved in regulating that issue. Is that fair through the chair? Is that a fair sort of oversimplification of preemption issue?

Fair oversimplification. Excellent. Solicitor Amara.

I can't say that's not a fair oversimplication of the issue or that it's... Excuse me. It's also... Silence that for me, please. Not the only issue. That is one issue. There's also commerce issues and separation of powers issues and preemption issues. Congress having and the federal government having the right and the role for international commerce, and also for international affairs. and so it's very complicated but Councilor Davis has very succinctly hit one of the many complicated branches of this accurately.

Thank you to the City Attorney for more eloquently, appropriately simplifying the other aspects of the issues here. I appreciate that. So we've heard this a bunch, right? This is for those of us who follow along in previous seasons of this exciting adventure show. We hear about the preemption issue on occasion. And, you know, I mean, it objectively is what it is. There's no, you There's no way around that, as the city attorney said, if the intent of this ordinance or any ordinance is to have a substantive impact on international affairs. That is not something we are allowed to do. and I think that's clear.

And I've had this conversation with a number of folks, including some of the folks who advocated for this and they acknowledged that as well. So my question Through you, Mr. Chair, to the city attorney, for the purposes of this exercise, setting aside procurement questions and issues which we talked about before and which I think we have a pretty full understanding of... If the intent of the ordinance is not to make any difference whatsoever in any other country in the world, because whatever little dollars we have in Somerville to spend probably isn't going to do that anyways and won't have any real material meaningful or even... Not meaningful impact anywhere else in the world outside of our borders. If the intent is to say we want to make sure that we are spending our money, but we're not spending our with people who are directly knowingly and consistently being involved in something that we think is really bad.

and even if it makes no difference at the end of the day, then that's no longer a preemption issue. Right? Or at least let me ask you through the chair, is there a reasonable argument that if the intent of this isn't to meddle in international affairs, if it's not – with folks who aren't doing this stuff. Isn't there an argument that that takes preemption out of it?

This is a really complicated, more than 30-second topic to give you an answer to. The federal government will tell you it is their province to decide how Thank you for watching. or authority or consistency with federal policy, it would undermine the rights guaranteed the federal government. That being said, am I going to sit here and tell you It's an unreasonable argument. I'm not prepared to sit here and tell you that, I'm prepared to tell you the logic

would appear to be the likely outcome is that um the position you've set for intent is not really what governs its actions and the impact and clearly if this is passed and challenged any conceivable reasonable argument passing the straight face test we will make on behalf of the city.

Okay. Through the chair, thank you to this attorney. And look, again, I appreciate that response. I certainly have no legal expertise in this area. of Law. And I'm not in any way serving as a lawyer in this role, so I appreciate that guidance. So just for the sake of some discussion on the issue at large, it's somewhat of an ironic position. I think that there's an argument that the reason we can do this is because it actually isn't going to do and so on. Aboff,

And I think there's a simplicity to that, that I certainly understand. I'd love to be able to have a lot more power in a lot of different ways, within reason, of course. So I just want to put that out there. I haven't really given a speech on this, Mr. Chair. I'm not intending to give a full speech now, but let me take a step back and kind of speak from the heart a little bit. I would love to actually be able to make a difference in the horrible things that are happening in various places and have happened over history and will happen again, sadly, in other areas of the planet. I'd like to make more of a difference in places that are happening here, in this country, here in this Commonwealth and even here in the city that we are constrained from being able to do. But we have the tools that we have

I certainly can't with a straight face say that I have never supported taking an action that maybe... in a gray area. But if it's the right thing to do, we should do it and then we should argue for why it's And again, going back to some of my conversations with the advocates for the ballot measure that led to this. There has been in those conversations a clear acknowledgement One of the benefits of this is that, you know, this applies to violations of international human law that might be happening anywhere around the world. A whole nother conversation we can have about why there are specific country names in here. Capitalized words, we'll say that just so that there's no...

There's two places on the planet that are identified with capital letters at the beginning of the word. Don't come at me. And so we'll set that conversation aside for the moment. Mr. Chair, through you to counsel from Ward 3, I think that... So first off, I take the clarification on the intent. Going back to our earlier conversation this draft does say Thank you for watching. See you next time. So that's fine. If that's the intent, great. I don't actually have a preference there. I just wanted to make sure it said what we wanted it to say on that. The addition of directly, knowingly and consistently is an improvement.

To me that's unquestionably an improvement I think I could, as I said before, I could quibble with the difference between facilitate and used in furtherance of versus enable. But I'm not sure that's a... Any nuance differences are probably not worth... There are differences without material meaning. So that's all the questions I have for now as chair. I'll leave it at that for the moment. Thank you.

Thank you for that. I appreciate your question, which tickled something I was also thinking about there. And as always, I love hearing your thoughts, sir. The question you raised about the intent about the intent being not to shape international affairs but rather to conduct our business in alignment with our values, being a sidestep of the preemption question. I think that's a very relevant question and I certainly think that is one that our law department may may fall back on in the event of a challenge. I think certainly with relation to federal legislation or regulation that prohibits commerce with entities or nations sanctioned by the federal government, The preemption issue is clear, right? If we wanted to for example buy use our pension or city funds to invest in purchasing, say, federally issued Russian debt. That's a no go.

you know but for areas where it has not been established clearly by the federal government the argument can certainly be made discretion may be reserved I think about this in terms of my household you know we may understand that for example personal recycling is not making an impact globally in the CO2 levels in the oxygen uh you know that industrial pollution is a far greater factor than our own personal activity however I still keep my recycling bin next to the trash can and I still teach my kids that we're going to rinse out those plastic lids and put them in the recycling bin. So I think that's, I really appreciate your question there and the conversation. I think brought me some clarity on it. Strezo, and then I'll go to you, Councilor Ewen-Campen. Okay. All right. Mr. Chair, through you too, Director

Do we have, are here still?

Director Allen is still here. Please go ahead.

I'm here. There you go. Hi. So have you determined if it, if he can comply? This ordinance, with this, if it's ordained, if we can comply and if you can comply with your state and fiduciary requirements while also complying with this ordinance?

Through the chair to Councilor Strezo, I have not determined that. I think actually it's a yes or no question so the answer is no, I've not determined I can. Will I try whatever the city council votes? I will do to my best, to the best of my abilities to implement. and continue to also uphold the care that we take with every bid, a free contractor Regardless of what their affiliations are, if they perform, they submit a good price. are businesses that do good work.

But the short answer to your question is no, I have not determined.

Okay. So, yeah. Can you go a little deeper on what you think it would take to really... Grind down what implementation would look like here in your role.

Through the chair to Councilor Strezo and to the committee here tonight, We would start with the language as written and the guidance given to us by our city attorney's office. We would consult the lists, See if a bidder has checked, if they question this. I say bidder because that's often where these questions arise but we include it in situations where we Procure through other methods, RFPs and quotes. And if they say yeah we comply and if we see they're on the list we would

investigate a little further all right how and we go through the lines of the ordinance and consider okay what about section c is this a core like this isn't Untenable. We cannot reject this bid. This is something that is in the best interest of the city. We would look at that, we would vet it internally and it would be a lot of things that are not what I believe is in my core role. But I do determine whether a bidder is responsible and eligible or responsive and responsible per the state laws. There would have to be a discussion and there would have evidence in the discussion with the bidder potentially, to find out what is going on here. And then the question is who makes the call?

If the bidder's or the vendor's word is enough, written word. Or if they withdraw or if they protest and sue. This is, and I will say this. Not that The values of the city are subordinated to this in any, any way. But often work has to get done. We need to issue the contract. We The trash gets picked up. The traffic signals work. The public safety radios work. So it's not my call to do that. It's just to say, are you meeting these criteria?

And then where's the gray area? And I think it's who makes the judgment call is a huge question and and where a list issued by the um The United Nations. I'm glad there still is such an international institution as the United Nations and the Human Rights Commission. But what does that mean? And how do we interpret that at the local level for our use? and in this case we're often dealing with huge global companies that have many affiliates. And again, I think practically speaking there are... We are a global economy And in the city of Somerville, we are a global city actually. So I will do my best to...

Adhere to the terms of whatever ordinance is passed and I have concerns, but I... Thank you for watching! I would like to make sure that whatever we do does not result in further confusion, delay and not having the citizens Residents, the businesses in Somerville get the services they need. That is a concern to me and at a higher cost so all of those things weigh in

Yeah, Mr. Chair, through you too, Director, I want to clarify and fact check as well that question three, the proponents... did a bait and switch, and said that it was a non-binding. And there were a lot of blanks, and it was low election turnout. So no, there are plenty of residents who did not support this. and do not support discriminatory ordinances, especially when it relates to countries and areas and international law. And additionally... When Jewish residents of the city have said that they feel targeted and discriminated against, they're by national origin or by religion. And that this ordinance proposal is a direct lead into that. So I want to clarify that. It is not a consensus.

No, I have the floor. Yes, I am fact-checking and clarifying. Go ahead.

As the chair... I'm going to request... that you keep the discussion to the ordinance text before us and I'm going to very politely request that you refrain from lecturing the director, purchasing or other public servants.

Absolutely. And I request that gendered language such as lecturing and sexist language are also not suggested. I do, you are chair, so let's stay with that as well. responding to some inaccurate information just clarifying that if you would like I can hop back in line or I continue because I do have another question which do you prefer chair?

Mbah has been waiting a while, but why don't you fire off that next question? Okay. We'll get to Councilor Mbah.

Thank you very much. And thanks for your patience, Mr. Chair, through you, to Councilman Mbah-Mbah. So I have a quick question for our city solicitor. City Solicitor? Let's get back to just the whole nature of this ordinance proposal and are you concerned about 1983 discrimination lawsuit and this ordinance proposal affecting this or impeding on that.

We're concerned about all types of challenges, wherever they may come from, constitutional, personal, all of the above. you know some we can look at and say are likely just by virtue of passing the ordinance others will be more dependent upon implementation. So we have concerns about all types of litigation that may result

Thank you, the sons. Yikes! With that... City Solicitor, and I think I understand that the city has to pay would have to pay if we are sued. numerous times, attorneys and plaintiffs fees if we lose. And say for instance on that 1983 lawsuit as I recall is that correct?

The statute does authorize costs and attorney's fees in certain circumstances. The facts of a particular case and the outcome of a

Thank you Mr. Chair through to our city solicitor. Ballpark amount of money, what does that look like for our city and going into the budget season? What does it look like financially for us?

With all due respect, I am not a numbers person and I am NOT the person you want to I've tried to anticipate something that hasn't happened yet. It would be like pulling a number out of thin air with absolutely no backup. Thank you for watching! result in numbers that we couldn't have foreseen. So I would not be doing a service to anyone here if I tried to even throw out a number

Mr. Chair, through you to our city solicitor I respect that but based on I don't know maybe a couple of big lawsuits that the city has lost in the past couple years maybe Maybe on property or eminent domain. Could you give maybe a ballpark of... Numbers or how much that's going to eat at our budget if we do lose?

Celeste or Mara, I'm just... just say that you know it is impossible to estimate the number of hours they're going to be spent on any particular legal matter and comparing them to eminent domain cases is not particularly useful so uh Councilor Strezo Do you have further lines of questioning?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I don't know why I'm I'm why the city solicitor is not there seems like a gatekeeping of of a response for that and sometimes i feel like that happens in this committee. So if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, could you let her answer instead of you on this please?

I believe she has already answered that question.

Again, I feel like Sometimes when I'm, maybe it's just me. But sometimes Mr. Chair, I feel like I'd like to get an answer and I feel some of my colleagues don't have the same kind Let's make sure we have equal chances to get answers. everybody in this committee so again Mr. Chair I'm asking that our staff answer this question instead of not getting an answer and if you do attempt to intercept a response that it is along the lines of all of our counselors here, not just me. Because it feels like I'm the only one sometimes in this committee that that happens too. So can the city solicitor give a response or would you like to respond for her?

I'm going to allow this question with the caution that i've already I already said that I believe the question has been asked and answered. And if this persists to a level which I believe is badgering of city staff, I will declare future such questions out of order. So Solicitor Amara, you would like to address?

Mr. Chair. I have recognized Solicitor Amara and if you continue to speak over the chair, you will not be recognized.

Celeste Romero.

Thank you, Chair, through you. We all know there have been some very big decisions against the city in both employment matters, eminent domain matters, all sorts of matters. You can't... They're apples and oranges. Compare any lawsuit to another lawsuit because they're all so very, very fact specific. that you know the only thing I can say is any lawsuit has potential to go in a way that you wouldn't expect it to go um with costs you may not foresee but Their apples and oranges in every case stands on its own merits, and... I understand the need to want to have some clarity about risk, but there just is no way to provide anything that would be more than conjuring a number out of thin air.

All right. Thank you, Solicitor Amara. Councilor Strezo, are you complete or would you be willing to yield to Councilor Mbah who's been waiting?

I will hop back in line.

All right, Councilor Mbah, you are recognized. I see Councilor Ewen-Campen following.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation around this issue. I guess one of the things I've been thinking taking some notes is I guess we need to ask ourselves first, why are we here in the first place? I've not heard that. We've not redefined ourselves. We just keep talking, you know, which is okay. But we are here. Because of the genocide and apartheid in Palestine and our tax dollars are contributing to that. And so I think this is a very modest ordinance because if it was, I mean, I've been watching this thing closely. I don't, I think, this is the very modest order and anybody that wants to challenge it Hopefully they have legal standing to challenge it. And I also believe that we in Somerville can make a difference. By leading.

So this is not our impact alone and any further delay will be outright disrespectful to the residents who voted for this measure and we expect their elected representative, us, to take their voices seriously. We may not agree on every aspect of this ordinance, but we have an obligation to honor the public's mandate to responsible action. So I support this and we should move forward with it swiftly. I cannot believe we just keep circumnavigating around this issue. I'm not seeing where we're going, and I think this is a pretty modest ordinance. Pretty modest. So I moved for approval.

All right. I did see that Councilor Ewen-Campen had some remaining deliberation. Councillor Ewen Campen, would you like to withdraw that request and move forward on the motion made by Councilor Mbah or would you request he withdraw?

I'm supportive of the motion. I'm happy to have my comments be on the motion Okay

Well then, Councilor Mbah, I recognize your motion. Your motion is to recommend approval on the language before us. So discussion on the motion to recommend approval, Councilor Ewen-Campen followed by Councilor Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just briefly on why I'm supportive of the motion at this time. Obviously, I want to hear if there are additional substantive questions that colleagues have. I'm all ears. But my sense is, you know, we don't vote because we're at consensus. We vote because have discussed in great detail what's before us. You know this is an ordinance that was submitted in June We've had a public hearing and two committee meetings. We've made responsive edits in response to the issues raised I think it is completely Thank you for watching! I just wanted to kind of share my thoughts on... I think the conversation tonight started on the solicitor's opinion around... The legal risks and specifically around preemption. Obviously, I have great respect for the city attorney. I'm not an attorney myself, it goes without saying.

The city of Cambridge is being sued right now for inclusionary zoning. That is one of many, many, Cities, including Somerville, do things at the will of their elected officials seeking to represent constituents. Sometimes those things are legally challenged, right? I don't think... I intend to ever do things that I just know for sure 100% you can't do, right? We can't pass rent control, right. There's a state law that says you can have rent control so we can't Despite the fact that that is probably my top priority legislatively, right? I don't view this question that way. If there was a Supreme Court case that said cities can't do this we wouldn't be here Davis's line of questioning, trying to clarify that there is a distinction between seeking to do foreign policy Thank you for watching!

You know, hypothetical future judge is going to decide. But from my point of view that makes perfect sense to me That's how I'm thinking about this And I'll just say We have a constituent, I believe this was submitted as a public comment, but Alan Jalen sent us a list. I believe Very similar ordinances that have gone into effect in, I believe the number is 18 municipalities around the country. Somerville is not the first place in the universe to try to think of something like this. We have states. Again, not the federal government states that are doing anti-boycott and divestment and sanction laws. Right? So I think that the idea that this is just an asked and answered question settled legally, I don't agree with. I think frequently debated, deliberated. I don't think that there is kind of black letter law in this is my read. So again, I think this is...

I'm not being naive here. This is obviously an ordinance that people have extremely strong feelings about and I recognize that. There are many constituents who are vehemently opposed to it. They've made that really clear. I'm one city councilor I submitted this because I'm strongly supportive of the goals and I'd like to try to achieve them to the best ability. So, you know, with that, I'm supportive of motion to recommend approval. Thank you Mr Chair.

Thank you, Chair. I think I've probably said enough. I appreciate Councilor Eucampen's statements. We may have more conversation about this next Thursday, but that's fine if we do. So I'm happy to move forward with the vote.

All right. Thank you, Councilor Davis. That is a good reminder that regardless of how this is recommended out of committee, the item may be severed at the council level and further discussion will be in order there as well. Councilor Strezo You're recognized on the motion.

Yes, I will not be supporting this. As I've said and stated consistently, I think it's an incitement and invitation to violence against our community. I wish to point out that several of you counselors will not have to deal with the repercussions of how this impacts our community. And I won't...I understand that everyone has, may have feelings on this. But if some of our community members are saying they feel unsafe because of this, that's enough for me to listen and respect that and honor that. And it's disappointing that we can't be in unison on that. I'm disappointed in that. So go ahead for the vote, but I will be voting no because it won't leave anyone behind.

We are together as a community and I believe in us as community and the possibility to work together. And I'm disappointed.

All right.

Any further comment on the motion? Mr. Chair, if I may correct a misstatement that I made just so we don't create confusion. Two Thursdays Our next city council meeting, second Thursday of November, November 12th.

All right. Thank you, Councilor Davis for the scheduling correction. Seeing no further discussion on the motion before us, a roll call vote on the Motion to Recommend Approval is in order. Clerk Fisher-Cascio, would you please call the roll on recommending approval of this item?

Yes, I can. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councillor Mbah? Yes Councilor Ewen-Campen? Yes Councillor Strezo? No Chair Scott?

Yes

All right, with that, that is four votes in favor of recommending approval. So that is recommended for approval.

All right. Thank you, Clerk Fisher-Casio. That will move us on to item number... Item number three, I believe that is 261408. And requesting an ordainment of an amendment to chapter 15 article 3 of the code of ordinances This is the pay-to-play ordinance originally passed a few years back. If we could pull up the text, although... We have the text of the amendment before us. We also have, relevant to this item Timeline that is presented here. It's on screen right now that was given as a handout for this particular meeting. That's Legislative Matters 2026 10-27 Pay to Play Ordinance Timelines

and I had some conversations with Solicitor Peeks about this earlier this week. This is an item that is presented from the mayor's office so Soliciter Peeks if you could introduce the amendments before us and perhaps help us with this timeline to understand the The situations that the administration is seeking to address here. Just for clarity, I've requested the production of these timelines to help us understand the interactions, the timing interactions at hand here while separating them from any particular matters or identifiable organizations or people involved because my thought here is that this is a question of the policy intent of the pay to play ordinance.

which is to avoid the appearance of undue influence of financial contributions to campaigns influencing Thank you for joining us. Thank you, Chair Scott and to the members of the committee.

I will do both. I would prefer to start off just kind of a background as to how our office became aware of it So the city attorney's office, we will review any grant, any contracts as it comes in to make sure it is in proper legal form. We work hand-in-hand with... The procurement office to make sure that all of those forms, some of them were previously mentioned in prior discussions. You know things like the living wage ordinance certification The Prison Labor Ordinance But also this one here, the Pay to Play Ordinace And Recently, our office received a small number of grants. It's really related to two grantees that are...

On review of the disclosures and a review of contributions that were made, render these to would-be grantees ineligible to receive grants absent some change in legislation. We did... Becoming aware of this, we did speak with a legislative policy analyst to try to make... Narrow fixes, but acknowledge that this is ultimately not so much a question of legality, but policy considerations for this body to look at. Generally, the pay-to-play ordinance when we get something that says if you have a It limits a person, which can be a natural person or a corporation who's seeking a no-bid contract or financial assistance relevant for this conversation.

It limits that person from being able to make contributions to any candidate for office in the city of Somerville for the calendar year of the application and the calendar you're preceding the application. That is reflected here. If you look at example one, and I apologize no artist has ever asked a lawyer to help out make their art look better so I apologize for my deficiencies here but If you look at the bottom where it says application for financial assistance submitted, I picked an arbitrary date. But what you are effectively doing in the disqualifying period of this ordinance is is to look for the entirety of that calendar year where the application was submitted and the preceding calendar.

There is also a looking forward period, which says, which is indicated in that top example in the darker peach color. But it says essentially that the four years following the award The four calendar years following the award of the grant or the no-bid contract, or if it's a contract that's longer, that period of time, same prohibition is in place. You're not to make a contribution of more than $500 to any candidate. There are two real proposed edits that would make it so the applicants that are currently stuck would be able to move forward for approval. And then there's one kind of a housekeeping matter that I think... It creates this unintended consequences, which is really described in example one.

So the first instance involves an applicant Contributions made by someone who then later like nine or 10 months later became the member of a board who had applied for a grant from the city. Under the strict text of the ordinance, Those contributions would actually prohibit that body from being able to receive contributions. There is, I think an open question at least in terms of policy as to whether or not that was intended to be A prohibited practice when this was initially passed. So that is the amendment that is proposed in Section 1573B, which would just say that only the contributions count when you are serving on that body.

The other example is described with Example 2, relates to the Community Preservation Act grant. In that situation, the applicant had submitted their CPA application without including the pay-to-play certification. I understand that's a practice likely changing. But following that application, there was a number of contributions which put them over the limit We then fast forward past that calendar year the community preservation Committee recommended approval. The city council approved it and then on the actual package of information that the city solicitor's, city attorney's office will review we noticed

The pay to play disclosure did not contain reference to those contributions. And even if it had, it would have put them over the limit. So that... I guess the policy consideration here, and I acknowledge that my job is not as policy but as law, is whether or not A body that is made up of members that are not elected or wouldn't be receiving campaign contributions, whether or not that is enough to immunize against the harm that I think the pay-to-play ordinance was put in place for. The final edit, which is really where I started mixing colors going back to example one, is really kind of this unfortunate... What I would categorize as an unfortunate kind of gotcha moment.

We, by ordinance, ask an applicant to disclose the prior 12 months of contributions. That is in I think it's 1572 E2. But that's actually not what the city looks at to disqualify an applicant. We actually look back to that calendar year and the preceding calendar year. So, the proposed edit to 1572E2 would change that certification period just so it matches the other part of the ordinance, 1574A. And with that... Essentially, I guess the purpose is for each of the amendments. 1571 would amend the term financial assistance to exempt anything that's required of that level of approval by a multi-member body.

That would effectively take the CPA grants out of the definition of the pay-to-play ordinance. The amendment to 1572E I would say is more housekeeping. It is to allow the city to ask for more information than solely what's just listed in the ordinance. I think we could probably do that anyways, but this would just be... reflected in the ordinance itself. I already talked about 1572E2. Um, 1572 E5 is to um As I mentioned, some of the grants require... I'm sorry. Any of the Grants require further certification that you're not making contributions more than $500 in the four following calendar years. This would just ask the applicants to disclose whether or not they've received that fund. So our office, when we go to review it, will know to actually go back a little bit further to look for contributions.

And I believe that is the... There's one, I'm sorry. There's an additional one which is 1575, which is just a, again, more of a housekeeping clarifying amendment just to say that this is intended to capture both contracts or a grant so that if a grant is in violation of this ordinance We would have all these same remedies in order to be a material breach of the terms of a grant as well, of a contract. So with that I apologize for going on at length But I appreciate the time and the opportunity to be able to speak to the committee. Happy to take any questions.

All right, thank you, Solicitor Peeks. For that summary, let me just say that I for one am delighted by your artwork and reassured that no AI was used in the creation of those graphics. If I could just maybe summarize a little bit here. there are two specific considerations or two specific cases the city is looking at here but the changes being made one is to bring the look back period for the contributions to match The current calendar year and calendar year proceeding, that's the section in E2. One is to remove grants recommended by the CPA or the CPA grants recommended by the CPC from this ordinance under the presumption that political contributions would not shape the membership or decision of the

Community Preservation Commission, which I think is an open policy choice to be discussed. So I see those two being the largest particular matters before us. When I reviewed this with you earlier, I had some thoughts that were this My ordinance amendment, I might draft it differently or I might attempt to solve this problem in a separate way. But my goal tonight just to communicate clearly to the committee is to say it's my hope to have a conversation in committee tonight White, where the policy matters in particular related to moral hazard that Councilor White was attempting to address when he drafted this ordinance originally and have a brief policy conversation about that so that the

intent of the committee could be understood and then hopefully we can return with language that addresses those or continue the conversation in a future meeting. Once again, we will be meeting in this committee once again Davis, you have the floor. Eric?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to Attorney Peeks, thank you very much for that human-created graphic. I thought it was excellent but then again consider the source of my opinion. So let me sum it up in my own way, I guess just for my understanding that essentially... Actually, let me take a step back. First, just a... A viewpoint in terms of what I believe is appropriate for, or what I will guide my consideration of this. that it would be appropriate for us to make changes to fix specific scenarios because we like or don't like the specific scenarios. And I know we're not talking about, you know, specific entities and everything and that's good.

We shouldn't be but... To whatever extent folks may know about these specific scenarios, that's no reason to change laws. What is the reason to change law? It's just a good change. It makes sense, and perhaps there are scenarios that illustrate where there's maybe some improvements we can make to align the actual ordinance with our core intent. And for me, I think that's where we are. I very much think that these changes make sense and to put it The way I sort of think about it in my mind, it's two substantive things and one fix. The substantive change is if you make a donation Before you become an officer or whatever of some entity that then later would have been disqualifying, if you made that contribution before you were involved with that entity, we're saying that's fine.

That would be one policy consideration. I think there's some logic behind that The second is if the thing that the entity is getting from the city is a grant that is approved by a multiple member body. Those are all folks who are not elected. Then that doesn't count as financial assistance, therefore it's not subject to this ordinance. Effectively sort of a carve-out. I think there's logic to that. With all of this, as always, I look forward to hearing discussion and am always open to being convinced that I'm wrong with my initial reading of these things. Reserving the right to change my mind after I hear other folks' opinions, but on its face those two concepts seem to make sense. If somebody... you know wrote a check for 500 bucks to somebody and then later on became involved in some organization and that organization signed a contract with the city

That doesn't feel to me like at least the core of the kind of thing we were trying to do with this law. And there may be some gray area there. and then a grant by an MMB has that layer of sort of, as the chair noted, removing it from the electoral process. These are not elected members Multiple, some of the key multiple member bodies are approved by the council. So there is still a nexus there. There's a link there and appointed by the mayor in some cases. There might be an argument made and folks feel strongly about that. I want to acknowledge that, but I think it certainly is more of an insulated process than a more direct contract would say. And then the third thing is just fixing the gotcha that, and as I understand it, I think through you Mr. Chair to Attorney Peek so correct me if I'm wrong but I think in both of these cases Thank you for joining us.

The disclosure was correct. It just didn't actually ask for the right things it should have asked for on its face, and so they... But it seems like, you know... Anyone, whether these two scenarios or not could you know Well intended and with no intentional misleading or violation of the ordinance find themselves in a situation where They may not have violated the letter, but have put themselves into a category where they run afoul of the ordinance. So certainly should fix that. I'll stop because I think that's pretty much it. Anything I got wrong there? Through the chair, no, that is my...

That's correct. That's my understanding of both of these grant applications or these series of grants we've got.

And more specifically, Mr. Chair, through you in terms of the changes to the ordinance The two substantive things are if you contribute before you become involved in the entity, that doesn't trigger the ordinance. If the grant is from an MMB, it's not financial assistance. So therefore it's under the ordinance and then we're just gonna align the time period so that the thing you have to certify actually aligns with the thing the ordinance prohibits right? I didn't overstate the implication, which seems to be my way tonight, Mr. Chair. But did I get that close enough?

I read the chair.

That is correct.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah, I'd say in my opinion, you got pretty close there. I think there is an open question, for example on the second example where the certification wasn't provided and then and whether or not the certification had been provided. That's a matter of this particular matter, the certification should have been provided at that point which we're changing our procedures to accept but the question of Contribution happening, disqualifying contribution happening after the case, after the fact of that filing. That would still run a foul of the language as written, but the exemption to say that it only matters while you are serving in that capacity would get you around that. So yeah, there's... I appreciate the graphic because it helps me keep it straight.

Councilor Ewen Campen, go for it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have one question to make sure I understand it. But I just think it's amazing. So I ran for office in 2017 and this ordinance was a huge deal then. This was like something people talked about and campaigned about I think largely It was understood by me and members of the public before actually having read it as this is to like limit developers donating to elected officials, right? That's kind of the point. It's called pay-to-play And it was vetoed and then Thank you for watching! that works for the city. And one of the things this ordinance says is collectively, the volunteer board can't collectively give more than $500

and these are all you know people who serve on volunteer boards are often very civically engaged and they support various candidates and we all had to say like oh boy we need to cut this out you know you needed to close all of it disclose it and you also you can't donate more than five hundred dollars as the board right so it's This is a strict, serious ordinance. And so I just want to make sure that I understand. The multiple member bodies provision. So right now, if you are an organization that gets for example a grant from the Community Preservation Commission Right now, you'd be disqualified if you donated more than whatever the limit is $500 and with these amendments You'd be exempted and that the organization can donate to candidates because you're just getting a grant, a community preservation grant. You're not a developer getting a special permit or something. Is that right? Am I understanding it right?

in the event of a multi-member body granted funds. That's right.

so uh and this is specific to grants not other things that you know special permits variances anything like that right so does this also apply to funding from the affordable housing trust fund for example that goes to non-profits

I believe it does, but Attorney Peeks, would you like to clarify?

Thank you, Chair. And I... It would be specific to the grant or the contracts. If this is financial assistance, which has a definition of anything over $50,000... Awarded by the city. That would be, we will look at it as part of right now, we would look at as being covered by the ordinance And we will look to see if there's any disqualifying contributions. I'm sorry, I don't want to misremember the name of the body you just mentioned but If it's a multi-member body, the function of this amendment would be to take them out of this altogether.

So by virtue of their organization Within the parameters of the city government, we would say it's not part of We wouldn't even look into, we wouldn't analyze under the text of the ordinance. Right? We don't need to look at this.

Okay, thank you. I'm realizing then as we have this discussion, so I serve on the board of the Somerville Community Land Trust in a volunteer capacity. We seek funding from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund I'm going to check if I need to recuse myself before I opine on this whatsoever. So thank you for clarifying.

Thank you, Councilor Ewen-Campen. that other examples of multi-member board that recommend expenditures and financial grants would be, for example, the Jobs Creation and Retention Trust Fund. There are multiple versions of this that a carve-out for NMB recommendations would put them all outside of the bounds of it. So, excellent question and I appreciate your caution. Is there further questions or discussion?

Councilor Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to I do have a question on the language and it might be helpful if the clerk would be able to bring up the ordinance. Down to $1,573 towards the bottom attribution area right there. So Mr. Chair through you to Attorney Peeks Y'all know how my brain picks at words and tries to find ways that someone might misinterpret them or read them differently. And so I did that here. It's involuntarily, it just does it. So the change here, this goes back to point one. This is the idea that the contribution

Thank you for joining us. I could imagine someone perhaps, let's say misinterpreting this and saying, well look, I didn't make that contribution while in my capacity as an officer. It's a personal contribution And so let me start, am I correct in assuming that that's not the intent? That a personal contribution from your personal bank account, not as director of XYZ Corp., is still not okay. It's still triggered like this, right? We're not trying to distinguish between an action as an officer versus a personal action while they happen to also be an officer.

Yeah. Through the chair, thank you. That's a great question. It's my understanding that this would not be Right, it would not be a law for that distinction. It's you know, you are an officer of board XYZ Any of the contributions you make while you were serving on that board are attributed to to that board whether or not in what capacity I appreciate that um Basically, policy analyst Salisbury raised his hand. We did work on this. He fixed a lot of my initial drafting errors, so I didn't want to put him on the spot, but if I would enter... I would at least recommend that the chair recognize this.

Chair, I'd love to hear from a policy analyst if you allow.

Of the same mind, Analyst Salzberg.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and my apologies to Assistant City Attorney Peeks for making him sweat a little bit I was trying to remember if this was mine or his And it is mine So I will own this one I do believe that in conversation with the Assistant City Attorney, the intent was absolutely not to limit it simply to contributions made in their capacity as. Very easy way to address this would simply be to strike in their capacity and leave it as while serving as.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I'd like to move to amend the proposed amendment before us to strike the words in their capacity Did I get that right, Brandon? From section 1573B. So that it reads while serving as... To strike the words in their capacity.

Certainly, we can amend it on the fly. Certainly. So that is the motion is to strike the words in their capacity from the submitted amendment 15-73B. Ewen-Campen.

Mr. Chair, just out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to recuse myself from this discussion and I will follow up with the city attorney on whether that was an abundance

Sounds good. Thank you, Councilor Ewen-Campen. Understood. Councilor Mbah?

Mr. Chair, do I need to recuse myself?

I'm not certain, Counciler Mbah. I don't know what board you serve. and the Job Creation and Retention Trust. Well, you're serving on that as your official capacity as a city councilor I do believe. Yes. Right, which is separate. That is part of your duties as city councilor, although I'm open to being corrected by the solicitors.

Thank you, Councilor Scott. I would tend to agree with the position of the chair that I don't think Conflict. I will as always stand to be corrected by my boss here, but unless Attorney Amara feels the need to chime in here, I'm going to go ahead and say that I think that's okay.

Cheers Scott, just out of the abundance of caution. Okay I'm glad to you know for that clarity thank you.

All right um Well, let me offer some thoughts here seeing no further hands raised at the moment. I appreciate the situation we find ourselves in. I think a great deal of this for me could be resolved by a curative measure being made available. Right now, the only curative measurement and this is difficult because it's not in the amendment text before us, the amendment... Yes, sir.

I'm sorry. There's an amendment?

Oh yeah, right on the amendments on the table. You're correct. I apologize. I forgot we had an open motion for an amendment. All good. Thank you, sir Thank you. On that motion for amendment is there further discussion All right, seeing none, let's call the roll. Clerk Fisher-Casciola, if you wouldn't mind on that amendment to Section 1573B? All right.

On the amendment to strike in their capacity to read while serving as. Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Mbah.

Yes.

Councilor Ewen-Campen, who has recused himself? Councilor Strezo? Yes. Chair Scott? Yes All right that is all votes in favor of this amendment

All right, thank you. Now having that been handled I will say when I read the text of the actual amendment which As I said, isn't included in the PDF before us because it's not recommended for changes at the moment. 15-76 is a is the section of the ordinance that relates to refund of contributions. And it says, an applicant may cure a contribution which violates this article if within 30 days The applicant requests a refund in writing from the candidate and receives a refund of the contribution. I'm summarizing there, but basically it says that If you do make a mistake, you can cure it by within 30 days requesting a refund. Now that curative measure wouldn't address either of the situations we're in right now.

To me, in terms of avoiding moral hazard the question is very easily resolved by saying that if you're going to board You made a contribution previously, then you joined a board and then this happened that you can cure that by whenever it's caught refunding that contribution. So my thought is Taking a look at 1576 might be the more appropriate place to try to address some of these issues, just from my own personal thought about this thing. Allowing a broader understanding that time moves on.

And people's circumstances change and allowing for a curative refund to happen later in time than was originally considered by the ordinance might be something we want to entertain from a policy standpoint. and might allow us to address the concerns before us right now in a way that doesn't provide such large carve-outs or change such large policy goals of it For myself, I do see the potential moral hazard in exempting you know grants that are given through multiple member bodies the members of which are appointed by the mayor some of those are confirmed by the city council So I don't have a black and white answer on this, but I'm just presenting the things that I consider when I'm looking at this.

And recalling as my colleague from board three said, a great deal of the public The public interest in this ordinance when it was passed. My concern when first addressing this, briefing this with Attorney Peeks was identifying whether there was any particular misstatement on a form. It sounds like in this case, the biggest mistake was at one point the form wasn't filed when it was supposed to be filed. which ended up getting us caught a little bit down the road. So I think there are I think there are open questions here in terms of the moral hazard, and this is the first reading of this document. So my thought on this would be

to come back to it at a future date once this conversation has been digested and our legislative and policy analysts have some time to loop around all of us and get some input on it. For myself, When looking at these edits and timelines, the MMB exemption is one that I'm gonna wanna think a little bit longer on I think the question of uh the simple amendment that we just passed removing the in their capacity as um simplifies language a little bit as it relates to Somebody who's serving as a director or manager, somebody who has made a contribution and later joins a board. People join boards for all sorts of reasons.

The civically minded folks serve on a great deal of nonprofits here in the city. The other section which isn't actually listed in the amendment text before us, which is in the ordinance, is the 15-74 eligibility section. So it won't be in the PDF before us. But I wonder if there is potentially language that that needs to be reviewed there as well. So I'm always eager to hear the thoughts of our policy analyst here. But before taking a vote on it myself, A, I'd like to ensure that we give Councilor Ewen-Campen time In opinion, whether it's from the city solicitor or from the attorney of the day at the office of state ethics office.

But yes, Analyst Salisbury, I saw you pop up there and Councilor Davis, I also saw you also pop up. Would you like me to go to you first? Alright, Analyst Salisburry please

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did just want to highlight that this was actually a pretty significant conversation that Assistant City Attorney Peeks and I had. and we did consider the possibility when he initially brought this to me, he brought just these changes. And I had proposed the possibility of doing a more thorough review to address some What I see is deficiencies or somewhat outdated provisions of 1574 and 1576. We ultimately decided not to pursue those in the interest of getting these fixes Before the body as quickly as possible simply because there was an expectation that this would require some digestion and that by adding A significant substantive review, we might delay this into the next calendar year.

and the hope was to get this accomplished as quickly as possible with the intent and understanding that some of these changes made by this body might be reversed in the future during a subsequent substantive review. If that is the will of the body.

Okay, well fortunately from a timing perspective we do have another legislative matters committee meeting scheduled before our next city council meeting so we don't even have to go through a whole cycle Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you for your thoughts as always I appreciate those made me think about a few things that maybe I've thought So yeah, completely agree with the idea of letting this one stew a bit. Let me just sort of throw out there as we're thinking about I completely agree. I think I stated earlier there's multiple member bodies on which there's not any elected officials. Maybe that's not true. Maybe I got that wrong. Definitely want to make sure that we're clear on that and what would be on that list of MMBs and what that exemption would... Excuse me, would accomplish. And then as to and I also again not surprisingly Ms. Chair also looked directly at 1576 when I was having this conversation The first time around with the Trinity Peaks and sort of thought about that.

I think it's an excellent suggestion. At the moment, I think I lean more towards keeping it you know keep it a little cleaner in terms of look I just my sense is that we're not In this city, we're not dealing with the person who was part of the company trying to get a drug approved to the FDA then becoming part of The FDA in the next year. Hypothetically speaking, of course, not actually talking about anything specific that's happened over the past I don't know. As has been mentioned, there's lots of civic-minded folks here and we value them and appreciate them. And I think that if someone gave... A big check, 500 bucks a year ago and then joined the board a year later. I'm not sure that's the thing I'm trying to protect against but I could be convinced otherwise. One potential...

Compromise there might be maybe a short look back period. If the $500 check is written on day one and they become an officer on day two, maybe that is what we're trying to protect against, right? So maybe there's a, you know, whatever line you draw, there's always going to be the one day next day scenario. But I think as to quote Councilor McLaughlin when I think we were working on that. The Tree Ordinance, which happens to also be on our agenda. You know at some point you just have to say look if they figure out that then they got us. I guess they gotus. We can't protect against everything. But it's just a thought to think about, to consider if we feel like that the I look forward to hearing

I do also agree with Anna Salisbury that better to maybe get this one on the books and then we can do bigger things next year.

Oh, well I certainly won't get to do any bigger things next year but I appreciate that Councilor. Mr.

Chair if you think I'm not going to take your call anytime you have thoughts and if you think that I don't expect you to absolutely call me then you're certainly mistaken sir.

I certainly am not planning on losing your number sir. All right. Well, I appreciate the discussion. I certainly plan on looping back to both Analyst Salisbury and Attorney Peeks. Once I get to stew on this a little bit and probably sleep on it. So, I appreciate the conversation. There are other thoughts that colleagues would like included in In that marinating process, this is a good time for it. Otherwise I'm going to say we can keep this item in committee until our next meeting and And then move on to, I believe, our final substantive item this evening. Let me double check my agenda to ensure that I'm saying that right. No, I've got, yes, two more, two That'll move us on to item number four, that's 26-1476.

that section 12-111.1 of the code of ordinances be amended as detailed herein to protect private significant trees during construction This was submitted by Councilor Sait from Ward 5, and I believe in my conversations with Director Najim Williams She was going to be running this by Director Bukele, thank you. Just as an introduction to this, since Councilor Sait is not here before us. This is a very straightforward amendment from my reading of it. It simply adds a clause which requires protection measures for any significant tree on an abutting lot impacted by construction this is something that I believe has come up in

Ward, but it is not the first time this has come up. I know i've been made aware of similar situations in ward two and in ward four in previous years where very large trees with expansive root balls can extend into the lots next door. and that for a construction project uh that just wants to uh says hey man that's your tree that's not my problem um we know that the health impacts if somebody just does a straight excavation and cuts half the root ball off a significant tree that that's pretty close to a death sentence so um I think I understand the intent being presented here and um I wanted to go to Director Najim Williams if there's any additional information that you have to provide there and then to Councilors Davis and Mbah. Director Najm Williams, do you have anything?

Mr. Chair, Amanda Najum-Williams, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, Dwight Chocolat, Councilor Najum Williams. Maybe there's a premonition in the future. I have shared this with staff, regrettably staff were not able to join tonight for this discussion I know that there's a conversation scheduled as early as, I think it's tomorrow if not Thursday on this for any additional feedback with not just Dr. Papili, but staff in ISD and engineering um that that was just the quick high level note that I have so I think by if this item were to appear on Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have so many like fun little old yarns that I want to spin here but i'm going to resist the urge to tell stories about first year in law school and property law 101 and all the things you learn about but among those are you know how property law handles trees and and You know, the right of a property owner to trim back anything that hangs over their property. I don't remember or maybe I didn't learn probably I don' t remember Whether or not, and the extent to which that applies to roots growing underneath the property line. So I would like to request to the law office to advise whether there's any jurisprudence there that we should be aware of That might impact application of, because I think the implication here is clear. You know, you mentioned roots, Mr. Chair.

I think that's clearly what we're talking about. And so that's... Number one. Number two is, again, my brain doing that annoying thing it does where it finds any way to misinterpret the language. I think in this one and we won't make a motion now but maybe for a future motion I don't think we need the words impacted by construction. Here, I think it actually creates a potential for misreading that the abiding lot needs to be impacted by the construction in order for us to be worried about the tree. I think the worrying about the tree is the impact that we're talking about here. If I understand the intent right, and I wouldn't want to open it up to any... you know hey we're not touching this lot at all with the construction therefore we don't have to protect the tree I don't think that's the intent what if we decide this is correct again this is just objectively looking at the words and trying to do what I think people are trying to use I think Some clarification there will be due.

Don't have to do it now and I'll value any input from our legislative policy analyst to fix it a better way if he thinks it needs to be fixed. That's all I got, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilor Mbah. And then we'll go back to Director Najam Williams.

Yeah, thank You Chairman Scott I think Thank you Davis, for that editorial about trees. You know we've been remember you know uh we had a public hearing for trees. Councilor Scott you remember the good old days?

Oh yeah!

So I guess, and I'm actually very familiar with this situation. I mean it's just like a former... I think we need to protect significant trees on private properties. We don't need to, broadly speaking, particularly when construction and redevelopment put mature trees at risk. You know, so and yes, it's like the general broadly importance of our urban, you know, canopy, you you know talking about Reducing heat and absorb storm water. There's so much benefit to our air quality. Just knowing that it actually contributes to the character of our neighborhood.

Any construction that is happening, we need stricter measures because I don't think anything was ever really done to hold any developer accountable. For impacting and above us trees. So as we continue to grow, we must ensure that development happens responsibly in our city. and that we preserve the environmental benefits of our existing trees wherever possible. So I think, you know like you said Chairman Scott it's not a whole comprehensive You know, a rewrite of the ordinance but like a small modest amendment to kind of show that we need to Make sure that development doesn't unintentionally impact our neighbors and the environment.

Thank you.

Well said, Councilor Mbah. As I've often said, the first rule of being a good business is being a Good Neighbor. So I appreciate the intent of the amendment And I want to also say thank you to Councilor Davis. Man, now I just hadn't even thought about that piece of it and this is what I miss by not going to law school, sir. Director Najah Moyes.

Mr. Chair, I just want to respond to note that law is going to be involved in that conversation with staff this week so i'll make sure that we're closing the loop there great all right well um thank you for that

I look forward to hearing what comes out of that conversation and providing my feedback as well that you can take forward into those conversations. Well, seeing no further discussion on this at the moment we will keep this item in committee with the intention of returning to it at our next meeting uh with a little bit more clarification and some feedback from staff so moving on then That, I believe, brings us to item 26-1557. That's item number 7 on our agenda tonight. By Councilors Link, Mbah and Wheeler that the City of Somerville adopt the Artificial Intelligence Ordinance as detailed within. Now in full transparency This is also an item that was submitted at our very last meeting just Five days ago, including the weekend.

So it's only been there for a few days but I wanted to throw it in here so that we could have an introduction and early any early feedback or conversation about it understanding that city staff may not have had Mbah as the only sponsor who is here in committee. Do you have any introductory remarks you'd like to make on it?

Thank you Chair Scott for that recognition. I guess, you know, they intend, you and Wheeler and I had is just to establish like clear responsible guardrails for the use of artificial intelligence in city government because AI, you know... As you know, it has a lot of opportunities to improve efficiency, strengthen service delivery and help government respond more effectively to residents. But, you know we must also recognize the risk including bias privacy violations inaccurate information and a lack of transparency in decisions that affect people's lives. So, I believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that technology serves the public interest rather than undermining public trust.

This is just to bring us to that space where we as a city should embrace responsible innovation while maintaining accountability, protecting residents' data and ensuring that human judgment remains central. When decisions, you know, affect people's rights, access to services or opportunities. So that's like the nucleus of what we are trying to do. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share that.

Absolutely. I just want to express my appreciation for the effort y'all went to in drafting this. I know that There's a lot here, and for myself I've got a lot of digestion to do before I can dive into it much more. But just as a way to place this before the body, that was the goal tonight. So are there any... Other introductory thoughts or questions that we can raise here so staff can take them back and take them into account in the two week period between now and our next meeting. Councilor Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Councilor Mbah for that statement on the intent. Yeah, I look forward to hearing folks' input on this. I assume this will be reviewed by several folks within the administration, including without limitation, Brandon. And I also want to flag through you, Mr. Chair, to Director Najee Williams, but not flag, just ask. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I heard at one point that the administration is also working on a policy about that pertains to use of artificial intelligence. So I think to the extent that's the case, it would behoove us to just get our heads all together and make sure that we're collaborating so that we don't

A, duplicate efforts and or B, conflict and contradict each other. This seems like an opportunity to collaborate. You know, if in fact the administration is already thinking about these issues and perhaps looking to do similar things, which has been the case in the past and other things. I'm happy to hear a response. I am not looking for one, just wanted to flag that up to you if the chair would like to recognize you. I did read through this. I do think there's some... There's some sections that maybe read as a little overbroad, at least by an admittedly first quick read. I haven't got the highlighter out or anything yet. But, you know, there's definitely some things here that I think maybe... You know, we need to... I think that it would, you

I think it's important for organizations, including the city government to be very aware of and conscious of and cautious about and the risks that come with some of this new technology. I think it's also important to recognize the value and some of the inevitability of pervasiveness of some of this technology. I think there's also a degree to which When people say the words AI, and there is a definition here. But the conventional wisdom in my experience doesn't always align with People have different understandings of what may or may not actually be AI versus just well-written software. And so that's an important factor too,

I look forward to digging into this. I think it's clearly well-intentioned, and I think there are some important things that we can do. I feel like it needs some work but I'm looking forward to helping out with that process. Thank you Mr. Chair

Thank you, Councilor Davis. I share your applause for wanting to take on initiative here and I also want to say I've been Long been a proponent of when the council identifies a need to not simply deferring to an internal policy process, but if there are certain policy aims that the council deems are necessary and appropriate you know we should pursue them it is a teamwork makes the dream work as they say so um perhaps quote vanilla ice we shall stop collaborate and listen Analyst Salisbury, I'll recognize you. I saw your hand go up and then I'll go to Councilor Ewen-Campen.

would be very helpful if I unmuted myself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate the recognition. I did just want to flag for the...I know that my counterpart in IGA also had Put herself on screen, but I did want to flag that there was some pretty significant discussion between myself on behalf of The sponsoring counselors and administration staff, including staff that were involved in drafting a proposed AI policy for the city. There was pretty substantial collaboration I will admit Reviewing the submitted ordinance, it does appear to differ rather significantly from the last draft that was discussed with the sponsoring counselors by me. So I have not had the opportunity to compare and note what has changed. There is an entire section there that was not previously present, so I haven't had the

but I do want to note that there is a group of staff that are working on this or were working on and I would be very happy to coordinate with my counterpart in IGA to reconvene that group to take a look at this new draft

I do love to hear it. Thank you, Annalise Salisbury, Councilor Ewen-Campen, you have the floor.

Thank You Mr. Chair. I just want to echo the gratitude to our colleagues for bringing this especially you know we have two first term counselors taking on a really Big topic that the public really, really cares about. I just can't emphasize that enough and I think... Clearly a lot of discussion has been happening kind of behind the scenes over the last several months and I think it is to everybody's benefit to bring this conversation into the public. you know have the public know that this is something the council cares about and is working on and then obviously that we also take the process very seriously and are going to actually try to figure out how to make this work So I'll just echo what everyone said that I'm looking forward to working on this. And, you know, if there's a way that also we can get Councilor Link in to this committee, I'm, you and I look forward to working on this.

All right thank you Councilor Ewen-Campen is there any further comment or question on this item before we move on for the evening? All right, seeing none. Thank you all colleagues and staff for your contributions there. I am with the rest of you looking forward to working on this. So we will keep this item in committee And I believe that brings us to the conclusion of our agenda. Let me check with Madam Clerk Fisher-Cassell Does every item currently have a disposition absent the approval of the minutes?

Yes, it does.

All right then I'll go ahead and move for recommending approval of those minutes in item one and for adjournment in a single vote is there any discussion on that motion? All right, seeing none. Let me just say thank you to all staff and colleagues for your time this evening and remind that we will be back here in another two weeks. And on that note, Clerk Fischer-Cascio, please call the roll on approval of those minutes and adjournment.

All right, on approval with the minutes and a German Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Mbah?

Yes, please.

Council Ewen Campen?

Yes

Strezo. Yes. Chair Scott?

Yes.

All right with that it is 8 41 p.m and we are adjourned.

Thank you everybody nice work see you soon