Legislative Matters Committee

Good evening, everybody. My name is J.T. Scott. I'm the Ward 2 City Councilor here in Somerville, Mass., and serving as Chair of your Legislative Matters Committee of the City Council. Calling this meeting to order here on Tuesday, February 17th at 6.02 p.m. And pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote participation and the audio video recording. will be posted to the City of Somerville's website shortly after its conclusion. To enable that to happen, we will go ahead and take a roll call to establish a quorum.

This is roll call. Councilor Davis? Councilor Mbah? Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Here.

Councilor Strezo? Present. Councilor Scott?

Present.

With three councillors present, we have quorum.

All right. Thank you for that. And we've got ourselves... A bit of a long agenda but not hopefully too long in terms of time. It's split up into largely two sections which is the review of some Ordinance modifications to bring the city into compliance with the newly adopted charter from the last municipal election and then the review of some surveillance technology impact reports. which some of which were submitted previously and then had some requests for updates and modifications so we'll be adopting Some of those and placing some others on file. But before we get to it, our first three items are approvals of the minutes from May 6th and from December 2nd. as well as minutes of the Charter Review Special Committee meeting.

I guess that would be the last one we had, so we didn't have a chance to approve those minutes in committee. So are there any comments on those first three items, the minutes of May 6th, March 18th, and December 2nd? All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and lay those on the table for approval. And we'll move on to item number four on our agenda tonight, which is an amendment To Chapter 2, Article 5, Division 1 of the Code of Ordinances to add a review of multi-member bodies pursuant to the requirements of the City Charter. We are joined here tonight by legislative liaison Brendan Salisbury who has been doing a great deal of work to review the code and bring us up to speed and implement the requirements of the new charter so see I've got this pulled up Madam Clerk if you could pop up the The PDF, just so we're all on the same page, that might be nice.

If you'd like me to, I can do that as well. But yeah, here we go. All right. Liaison Salisbury.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Brendan Salisbury, Legislative and Policy Analyst for the City Council. This is actually a very simple one. As you may recall, as part of the new charter, there is a required review of The charter, the code of ordinances, and multiple member bodies every 10 years. As part of the special act that established the charter, it did establish a particular composition for the initial review of multiple member bodies. The charter itself does require that this body be constituted by ordinance. I will flag that this would be the only body in the city that would be constituted by ordinance once the administrative code goes forward. So that is something that we will likely be looking to change in the future just to maintain sort of the intent of the charter.

but for now it is required by charter to establish this by ordinance and so this is largely just a copy and paste there are a couple very minor things that are in here that differ slightly from what was established by the special act, which is that we do put some specific dates in there. For the constitution of the or rather the convening of the committee as well as a deadline for the submission of the report while those things were generally kind of I would say hinted at in the charter there is no explicit deadline for the report so we just added those in there to make sure that there is actually a clear standard for when these actions should be taken

All right. Just a quick question on that. Wouldn't the wage theft ordinance still be a multi-member body established by ordinance?

It would not, no. The text of the charter is explicitly clear that the organization of the city may only be accomplished through administrative order.

So what happened to that ordinance then?

The ordinance remains on the books. The charter did include a continuation of governance and continuation of law provision within it. So until an administrative code is established, any of the ordinances that are currently on the books will remain in effect all right uh well then i guess we will huh uh

So does this create a future conflict then if explicitly these bodies aren't allowed to be set up by ordinance?

I for this one specifically it does not because the charter is very explicit that this one needs to be established by ordinance I believe that that was an inclusion it's possible that that Rather than speculating about the origin of this, I will say that there is no conflict because the Charter explicitly says that this one is established by ordinance and where general provisions conflict with more specific ones, the more specific ones prevail.

All right. Well then, are there any questions from members of the committee about this language? All right. Everybody apparently likes your work, Annalise Salisbury. Well, I've reviewed it. Makes sense. Hopefully we can actually get this committee seated and have folks begin the work. And to that end, I'm going to go ahead and recommend approval on this item. Is there any discussion on the motion to recommend approval? All right, then seeing none, we'll lay that on the table to recommend approval with a single vote at the end of the meeting. That'll move us on to item number five on our agenda. City clerk submitting an amendment to section 10-20 of the code of ordinances to align the constable appointment process with the provisions of the revised city charter. Analyst Salisbury.

Decided it'd probably be best to just keep my camera on since I'll be talking about all of these back to back to back. Mr. Chair, as I noted to you before the meeting, I aired on this when it was submitted to the council. and I would make a recommendation that if the committee is so inclined that an amendment be made to this to strike the entirety of the section while previously I had been I had submitted this with the simple strike through removing confirmation by the City Council as that does not align with the provisions of Mass General Law. Further review of the Mass General Law makes it pretty explicitly clear that the City Council doesn't have any say in the appointment process for constables if the General Law is to be accepted. and so really this entire section should come out.

was the acceptance of the city of that master law made official with the adoption of the charter or would that require a separate action that requires a separate action that is the next item on the agenda all right so uh That said, the policy aim here, going back into the Wayback Machine, was to ensure that the constables serving papers and conducting evictions in Somerville would be required to be Somerville residents with the hope that having members of our community in those roles would allow for a more neighborly exercise of those powers. The Mass General Law leaves the discretion for appointment of constables entirely within the executive's power, does it not?

That's correct. I'll say, if you'll allow me the liberty of interpreting your statement as a question with regard to the policy aims, I will note that because there is not currently a... There is not currently enabling legislation available to the city for the appointment of constables. Currently, the city cannot appoint constables and only the acceptance of the Mass General Law would allow for the appointment of constables. It's my understanding that at the current juncture, process server and evictions would be accomplished through the assistance of the Middlesex Sheriff's Office. and so it is certainly I will leave it up to a conversation with the city attorney at a future date whether it would be a reasonable...

whether it be a reasonable standard to employ to use a residency requirement when evaluating constables as a part of the appointment process but to the extent that

that it is it would be a part of the administrative code all right uh are there any questions or concerns from colleagues about the The language here and although I just want to also highlight that your recommendation at this point is simply to strike the entirety of section 10-20.

That would be correct Mr. Chair.

Okay. Ewen-Campen, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure I'm following. So the next item on the agenda, not before us now, is accepting the Mass General Law process of doing it, which I'm reading correctly says basically the mayor appoints constables and the mayor with the consent of the board of aldermen I assume that also means city council can remove a constable for gross misconduct. So while it would get the city council out of the confirmation business for constables, there would still be a removal provision for gross misconduct. And I just want to confirm, Mr. Chair, that that's the case. Were we to strike this and accept the next one?

That's true, although that provision would have to be, as it reads to me, it would have to be begun by the mayor and then approved by the board.

Well, I'll just say I'm in support of it, having been on confirmation of appointments through several years of, frankly, quite just confusing constable reappointment processes. Seeing as this kind of brings us into compliance with the charters, I understand it. The Mass General Law process seems good enough for me. All right.

Anything else from members of the committee? Well, then what I'll do is I will move to amend the item before us by... By changing the text to simply say the Code of Ordinances of the City of Somerville is amended as follows by deleting the entirety of Section 10-20. Annalise Salisbury, that seems to me a proper form for accomplishing what we are trying to do here. Does it sound right to you as well?

That would accomplish the intent. I will make an amendment to this to reflect that intent prior to the city council meeting.

All right, so let's go ahead then on the motion to amend the item before us. Let's ask if there's any comment on that. And seeing none, let's take a quick roll call on the amendment to the item before us.

Madam Clerk. Sorry, I thought we were pausing for additional comments. Okay, so on approval of the motion or the movement to amend the item before us by striking the entirety of the text in 1020, Councilor Davis. Councilor Mbah? Ewen-Campen.

Yes.

Councilor Strezo. Yes. Councilor Scott.

Yes.

That was approved with three councillors in favor.

all right wonderful and then with that uh done the item as amended is before us uh and i will move to recommend approval of that item is there any discussion on that motion Well then, seeing none, we will lay that item on the table for approval in a single vote at the conclusion of the meeting. and we'll move on to picking up item number six, I believe, which is the city clerk requesting acceptance of MGL chapter 41, section 91, relating to the appointment removal of constables. This is the language we just discussed. I'm inclined based on the discussion so far to move to recommend approval on this. Is there any discussion on that motion? All right, then seeing none, we will lay item number six on the table for recommending approval with a single vote at the conclusion of the meeting. And we'll move on to

Item number seven, city clerk submitting an amendment to the rules of city council to align with the provisions of the city charter. This is a fairly long document, but the... Change, if you're looking for them, is down on page 8 in rule number 57. Analyst Salisbury, please.

Mr. Chair, this is a relatively simple one. As you may recall, the Initiative petition or group petition was previously largely undefined as to what would be accomplished by the vote of 51. A signature of 50 residents of the city. The new charter did establish that a group petition does require the holding of a public hearing. It does also contain a provision that states that there cannot be more than one public hearing on any given issue within a 12-month period. set by the discretion of the president of the city council rather than requiring future presidents of the city council to at the submission of every group petition say great now the 12-month clock starts We thought it would probably be best to put it in the city council's rules.

And so as you can see, rather than setting this based on the time that a public hearing is held, Because there is a three-month period within which that hearing must be held, the decision was made to start the 12-month clock upon submission of the item rather than when the hearing is held.

I love it. Seems like a pretty natural streamlining and sets the bar very clearly for everybody involved. So is there any discussion on this recommended change to the rules of the city council? All right, seeing no discussion, and I'm inclined to move to recommend approval of this item. Seeing no discussion on that motion, we'll go ahead and lay this item on the table so that it can be approved or voted to recommend approval at the conclusion of the meeting in a single roll call vote. And that will then bring us to the conclusion of our simple simple charter alignment items and bring us to the surveillance technology impact reports. On the agenda there are six of these items.

and we have so it's the three that were from last year's submission and then I believe numbers 8, 9, and 10 here that's 26, 00, 92, 93, and 94. are the newly updated ones. Thank you again, Annalise Salisbury, for all your work on those alignments. I believe we do have... Katton Sheehan here tonight with the surveillance technology impact reports. I'm going to go ahead and Pick up items 8 through 13. I'll go ahead and read all of those in. That's requesting approval of surveillance technology impact report for ball cameras, thermal imaging, monoculars, and under door cameras. We'll pick them all up at one time so we can discuss them. With that said, welcome, Captain Sheehan.

Thank you for going back and reviewing these at the request of President Davis at our last meeting. Is there anything other than the raw text here or any other back and forth that happened before resubmitting these? Maybe Captain D'Olivera could also help us out. I don't know. Anybody from the SBD.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, it's Captain Sheehan just having a little issue with my phone. So, yes, we had some suggestions from Councilor Davis, and we've incorporated them into the new versions. I think it answered all the questions that he had uh I don't know if there's any any further questions all right well I haven't received any uh

Any further requests for modification from Councilor Davis? When I took a look at them, they looked all right to me. But that said, even if they are moved to recommend approval this evening, there will be an opportunity for Councilor Davis if he does have remaining concerns to... Sever the items and send them back to committee if there are concerns. But before we do that, let's see if there's any other comment from members of the committee. Councilor Ewen-Campen, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm in support of these. I just wanted to, because it's a new council, I actually see one of our recently elected colleagues in the audience. I just wanted to talk through kind of how the committee has been processing these. So these are... reports that are submitted by the administration and the council cannot edit them or amend them if there are concerns from the council that would affect our ability to vote in support of them. The process for that is we talk about it in committee, ask questions, and then there is a newly submitted one comes back in with those changes. At our last meeting... I said, and I'm forgetting maybe other colleagues said as well, that the kind of overarching concern with the surveillance oversight ordinance is

It isn't about nitpicking specific law enforcement techniques as much as it is making sure that anything that has a surveillance capability is not overbroad, doesn't impinge on civil rights, privacy, etc., and from my perspective these particular requests are like straightforwardly not a concern of mine for anyone Davis, forgive me maybe there are other counselors as well raised kind of specific improvements clarifications that they'd like to see just in the explanation of how they work how they're regulated so that's what we have before us tonight I'm all set with these and if it's the will of the committee I'm happy to move to recommend the new ones which is 8, 9, 10 is that right? Yeah the ones that start with 26.

and then if if there are questions in the full council obviously those can be dealt with then there certainly certainly well this is the um

And just to put an even finer point on it, the goal of all of this in our surveillance technology impact ordinance is to ensure that the public can go and look and see what the policies are. For example, in the Underdoor Camera Report on page two, you can see the authorized uses and the rules and processes that are required to authorize use. it's not that all of our officers are issued with little wire cameras they can stick under anybody's door there has to be has to be authorized by the SRT the special commanding officer has to be present for it and so this is just a way for for the council to have an oversight on the introduction and adoption of these technologies and also for members of the public to be able to look at it at any time and understand What's at use here in the city of Somerville?

Hopefully being secure in the knowledge that if it's not on our list of approved technology, it's not being used. Captain Sheehan, I see you have your hand raised there.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say that if Councilor Davis doesn't have any more suggestions or clarifications, we'd be more than happy to look at those and make those changes that he's requesting. That's not an issue with us.

Yeah, of course. Always been very accommodating to counselors' requests for clarification and expansion in these reports. Analyst Salisbury, I see you have your hand raised. Is there something you need to inject?

Mr. Chair, my apologies. I would normally not speak up on these, but I realize that I have been remiss. A number of members of the committee over the years had requested that there be a central... Location for the storage of surveillance technology impact reports. And I realized that while I had created it, I had neglected to announce this to the committee. So if counselors or members of the public are at any time inclined to take a look at these in one central location, they are available online at our ENCODE+. online portal for the code of ordinances under the other city documents tab surveillance technology reports

Well now, when I go to that website and I click on the ordinances, Oh, other city documents right there at the start. Surveillance and technology impact reports. Excellent. For members of the public who might be looking for that, if you Google City of Somerville ordinances, Code of Ordinance, you'll find it. It's also available, I believe, and a link from the city clerk's main page. Is that correct, Analyst Salisbury?

The City Clerk's main page, the City Council's main page, and from anywhere on the City of Somerville website, if you open the Government tab, there is a link to city ordinances that will jump you directly to that site.

Gotcha. And Other City Documents is right there in the middle of the title menu bar once you get there. So easily available for everybody. Now, I normally don't... Well, you know, it was always easier when we were sitting around in the committee room, but I do see a member of the public has a hand raised here. I'm inclined to sponsor a member of the public to Ask a question or make a comment here. And let's see, that would be Councilor Wheeler. Since we are running at below quorum tonight, we should not be hitting any Any problems with inviting Councilor Wheeler to speak briefly? Madam Clerk, I don't seem to be able to enable to promote Councilor Wheeler. There we go. Councilor Wheeler.

Thank you chair. I'll be super brief. I appreciate all the work that goes into these surveillance technology impact reports. I know it's a lot. I just wanted to point out something as somebody who's relatively new to reading them. The ball cameras one, for example, Tons of great information and I noted that question 7, that's about cost, has a very thorough answer that touches on the total dollar cost and makes it clear there's no net cost to Somerville because that's all coming through a grant. I've just noticed with a few other Surveillance Technology Impact Reports, some of those either say none or say, oh, there's no cost because it's coming for a grant. and I'm wondering if there's kind of one way or the other that we prefer to interpret the sort of requirement to include information about cost.

Normally it's in terms of the, at least in my recollection, it's about the... We've focused more on the ongoing costs of maintaining. So, for example, a contract with ShotSpotter or something of that nature. But I'm open to being corrected if anybody on the committee has a different recollection of that. But as you noted, they do also include the initial purchase cost and then make a note that that is being offset at the time of acquisition by a grant. Does that answer that sufficiently for you, sir?

Yes, thank you. Appreciate that.

All right. Well, then, let's go ahead and... Councilor Ewen-Campen had a motion made to recommend approval of 8, 9, and 10. I would also then make a similar motion to place items 11, 12, and 13 on file. Is there any discussion on those motions?

Mr. Chair, if I may, we wouldn't place them on file. Actually, you know what? I'm going to take that back. I think you have placed the ones on file that you didn't approve. But let me confirm before we... Well, we'll give you a moment to look that up. My apologies, normally when it's referred for recommendation we do not recommend it, but I have an inkling now that I'm saying it out loud that you may have done something different with these, so just one moment.

I can see, for example, items 250452, 250752, several of these. Yeah, you did place them on. In some cases, the mayor's withdrawn them. In some cases, they've been placed on file.

Okay, thank you for indulging me in that. We will place those on file.

Oh, I like getting the procedure right. Thank you for double checking it. So let's see here. With that said, I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda items. Does that sound correct to you, Madam Clerk?

Yes.

All right. Well, then let's pull all the items that were laid on the table to recommend approval. Let's pull all those back before us and take them up in a single roll call vote. and just to be clear I believe that is going to be items uh two through ten on oh not two through ten we uh yeah uh on the agenda this evening. Items 1 through 10, actually. All the committee meetings, minutes as well.

Okay. So on approval of items 1 through 10 and on adjournment, Councilor Davis. Mbah, Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes.

Councilor Strezo?

Yes.

Councilor Scott?

Yes, please.

Those items are recommended to be approved and we are adjourned.

Wonderful. Thank you, Council Wheeler, for your attendance and for the other members of the public I see here. Thank you, Captain Sheehan and Captain D'Oliveira from the Police Department and, of course, all city staff. comes to support the council in this work. It is my hope that the administration will have settled out a little bit and we'll be able to get on to the more substantive policy items and ordinances that are sitting in the legislative matters box coming up here if not at the end of February then certainly starting in March. I know we're all eager to make a lot of progress together. All right. Thank you, everybody. I will see you at the next city council.