Legislative Matters Committee

Good evening, everybody. It is Tuesday, October 13th, 2026. I am JT Scotch, award two counselor serving as chair of the Legislative Matters Committee. Tonight, we have ourselves a pretty crowded agenda. We have ourselves public hearing on the civilian oversight policy that The administration presented to the council a while back, as well as I believe four ordinances and the technology-specific surveillance use policy and surveillance technology impact report for body-worn cameras. So we will be jumping right into that shortly. I see there's a good crowd here tonight, probably folks who are eager to speak. Let's go ahead and get it started with a roll call to establish a quorum, Madam Clerk.

This is roll call. Councillor Davis?

Here.

Councillor Mbah?

Present.

Councillor Ewen-Campen? Here Councillor Strezo? I think I heard something, Councillor Strezo? Present Thank you. Councilor Scott?

Present.

With all councilors present, we have quorum.

All right. Thank you very much. Our first two items on the agenda are approval of the minutes of the meetings of September 8th and September 15th. On those minutes, is there any discussion? Alright, seeing none I'll just go ahead and lay those on the table for a vote to approve at the end of the meeting with adjournment. That'll bring us to item 3.1, that's item 261407 conveying the mayor's communication conveying an update on civilian oversight policy development process I don't believe there's any introduction to this public hearing from the administration, or at least I haven't been. I don t recall being asked to have one. The introduction is kind of the administrations presentation they made to city council several weeks ago. So just as a reminder tonight, we will have the timer up.

Everybody has two minutes to say their piece. We are here to listen. It's not question and answer back-and-forth session But I do, I am committed to getting everybody's voice heard tonight. So if you would like to speak at this please use the little raise hand icon on your Zoom link. And I will call upon people in the order their hands are raised and we will stay as long as it takes to get everybody heard. As always comment is also available in written form, public comments at SomervilleMA.gov So with that, I'll go ahead and open this public hearing unless there well let me first ask is there any comment from the administration or colleagues before we get started with this? All right, seeing none then I'll go ahead and open this public hearing.

Once again if any member of the audience would like to speak on this item please use the raise hand All right, Madam Clerk, I'm not seeing any raised hands there. Am I missing something?

I am not seeing anything either.

Well that is very surprising but not the most well-advertised of public hearings We'll leave it open here for a moment, give folks time to come in and decide if they'd like to speak on that. All right. I don't see any hands going up to provide public comment on the mayor's office presentation on civilian oversight. So barring anybody raising their hand here, I will just close the public comment, the spoken portion of public comment period and leave the comment period open until this Friday.

This Friday will be October 16th. And of course, comments are always welcome to publiccomments at somervillema.gov Alright, well that went faster than I expected. Let's go ahead and place that item on the table since public hearing itself is still open. We'll leave that item in committee. We'll leave that on the committee. And then we will move on to our next substantive item, which is 4.1. Requesting ordainment of an amendment to Chapter 7 of the Code of Ordinances to establish a rental registry and energy disk Closure. Now this is 25-1822 and as you might be aware given that it's got a 2-5 on it, this is from last year so this Council received this just as a summary. This is something that's had great interest from the council and

I think needed to be revived from the dead maybe a little bit we had a brief conversation about this earlier this year and I placed this on the agenda so that we could get an update on where the administration, where this new administration is at 10 months in with this process. So I believe... Director Najam Williams.

Through you, Mr. Chair, Amanda Nagin-Williams, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to provide a touchpoint on this item We recognize that both the Council and the community has expressed interest in support in seeing this ordinance move forward. This spring, as you mentioned Mr. Chair We provided an update on this and we shared that the administration still supports this policy, and that remains true today. Our goal is to ensure that the ordinance is both clear in scope and takes into account and discussions that have previously taken place on this topic including work of some of our counselors as well. Our collective goal is to be efficient and effective Thank you so much for joining us.

So as for next steps, the administration intends to provide a more substantive update on this once we have addressed both the short-term rental ordinance and the vacant property ordinance, Staff, staff attention to at the current moment.

All right and just for clarification that meeting I believe that meeting was back in start of April What I'm hearing is that this is on hold until after the short-term rental ordinance and vacant properties ordinance are starting to get enforced. Did I hear that right?

Through you, Mr. Chair, that is correct. We want to make sure that we do this right and not have to rework this ordinance, revisit it. And we want to do it correctly. So as of right now, that

All right. Well, I'll open this up to comments and questions from colleagues. Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Thank you Mr. Chair, through you thank you very much Director. You know, we've obviously gotten a lot of questions, had a lot comments about the difficulty of enforcing those two ordinances you just mentioned. Vacant properties Short-term rentals. And I certainly understand, you know, the ordinance that is before us now, the rental registry is, you But I also, I think it's important for a constituent's sake. Can you give us any sense of the timeline? I know that I heard the mayor say at our Ward 3 community meeting recently that We're on the cusp of having some announcements around enforcement of the short-term rentals. Is there any more of the timeline that you can share with the public?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wouldn't want to misrepresent a timeline so i wouldn't be able to provide that at this moment but i'm happy to follow up and i believe there is a short-term rental ordinance conversation coming up later in this meeting as well

Okay, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Director Najam-Williams just to be clear it sounds like the Administration's focus has been elsewhere and there hasn't been any further follow-up of that working group since April, correct?

Through you, Mr. Chair, this administration has not reengaged the working group that was previously underway this spring, staff including myself I met with you and Councilor Sait just to give a touch point of where we are and recognize that we would want to re-engage folks on that working group previously. so that we're not finding ourselves identifying new redundancies or having the same conversations circular conversations The previous group that was convened, that working group has not met but there have been conversations internally since.

Oh, all right. All right, I appreciate that. Well, ultimately colleagues this ordinance is there was an ordinance before us. There's text before us and I know in the past there has been expressed desire to move forward independently of the administration on this So I leave that as an open question to members of the committee. Are there any other questions or comments on the rental registry ordinance?

Councilor Mbah Thank you Chairman Scott. So through you Director Nagin-Williams, so are you saying we don't have like any information in terms of like When it will be formally presented because of some other thing that you need to sort out.

Through you, Mr. Chair. What I'm sharing is that I would like to be able to provide A timeline to folks that is both realistic and accounts for the time needed to flesh out the specifics, both in terms of enforcement and the scope of this ordinance. We've seen time and time again in the past where we do not want to have an ordinance that is before this body, that's not ready for prime time. Thank you so much for joining us. We would like to re-engage those conversations include counselors who have been a part of this journey with us as we navigate these next steps. and I am happy to again provide more updates to that but would love to partner and continue to partner with you all in this next stage.

Thank you, Chairman Scott. Again, I mean, I know that like Councilor Ewen-Campen said, this is something that we really want to make sure that I mean, we'll never get it right completely, but to the best of our ability. And also, it's been first initiated is I think like in 2021 or something. So I guess the most important thing is just to understand the key component of what we are trying to do. Making sure that it is something that could be updated, like regularly protecting tenants' rights or privacy and making sure that this useful information for the public So...

and landlords have to know exactly what information they need to submit you know it's like all this like and how we can verify compliance and enforcement and all these registration requirements and stuff like that so I guess you know in I think we need something to start looking at and inspectional services will be Really, the main folks at the forefront to make sure that this is being enforced and also understanding that there should not be any undue costs. You know, to tenants as a result of also creating any undue burdens for the homeowners. So That alone will really help a resident look at how building performance is being measured. So I guess hopefully we can get something

Thank you Chairman Scott.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Not seeing any other comments here, I'll just simply say I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, I'm tired of passing laws that don't get enforced and on the other hand, hey, Maybe I've got time for just one more of those. So let me just say for my colleagues, if anybody does want to push forward on creating text for this as an ordinance that comes from the council, please reach out to me. I'm happy to work with you. Councilor Strezo.

All right. Yeah, I think this is a really important ordinance and idea. Lower my hand. Hold on a moment. Okay. And just through you to the administration. I want to highlight some of the other communities that are doing this now already. And I know Boston is not the same as us, but Cambridge is doing it has it on the books and there are other communities So we know it can be done and happy to reach out alongside anyone that's interested in the administration or one of our colleagues. To find out greater details on what are the successes and fails of what they have already on the books, how it's going in Boston and how... How we can build off that. We don't necessarily have to reinvent the wheel with this. We can build on what's already been done, so I do support this.

Thank you, Councilor Strezo. Seeing no further discussion on this then I will say that leave this item in committee so let's uh leave this To our next substantive item tonight, that is Item 4.2, a Resolution 26-0240 that the Director of Inspectional Services review the rules for short term rentals and inform this Council What enforcement tools are available? and how the city may take action against known violations. I know this is a topic of great interest, not just to members of this committee but also several of our colleagues who I see are in attendance in the audience tonight Because this is a committee of five people and all members are in attendance, we can't by open meeting law have any further discussion.

colleagues engaging in the discussion hearing committee. However, when this report is given out at the full council level Obviously, discussion of the item is in order at that point. And at the request of councilors I'd request that city staff also be available at our next council meeting to answer if questions, if they have in-depth questions at that point. But with that said I'll go ahead and open it up. Director Nigel Williams would you like to open on this or perhaps Deputy Director Zaino.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This item I believe is Director Ziegler.

Oh, Director Zegler, my bad. Director Ziegler, welcome.

Through the chair thank you all for having me this evening to discuss our short-term rental ordinance To review the current ordinance and its state.

Director, can I just have you state your name and full position title for the minutes? Yes.

Thank you so much. Colin Ziegler, Public Health Division Director. Sorry, getting used to it. Again, thank you all for having me this evening to discuss short-term rental enforcement. We've been hard at work at making some alterations internally about how we do this enforcement which has proven to be difficult. The ordinance itself allows for some loopholes that have been exploited by property management companies Folks who may not reside in the city or folks that understand the limited capacity of our current enforcement staff. and are taking advantage of some of those aspects. So we've been trying to close those loopholes, work closely with the administration on identifying those as well as council members who are here to make suggested amendments as well as look for tools to help our inspectors conduct their enforcement work.

So as of now, we're currently in the process of identifying short-term rental identification software We have received a couple of demos concerning the new technology and identifying these short-term rentals and also conducting enforcement work. We've been fairly impressed, and we've developed a scope of work and are working with our procurement team to hopefully get that out to bid within the next couple of weeks. So we're looking forward to that. We've also been working with our constituent services team to now implement a 311 complaint type for a potential Illegal STR that folks can call into 311 to report to ISD to investigate. That was previously not there. and our constituent services team has also helped us integrate that so when calls do come in they're then forwarded to our inspection team to investigate within 24 hours.

That's been a recent development, and then we'll also work closely with our web team on providing some information on folks who may have identified an illegal STR. and we'll be adding that to the website in the near future as well so I'm going to stop ranting for now but I'm happy to take questions about this item and any questions you have about STR enforcement I see Councilor Ewen-Campen has his hand up.

That is true. I see Councillor Ewen-Campen and you are recognized, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, Director Ziegler. I know we've been on the phone many times about this over the last couple weeks. So I have just a number of questions based on kind of what I've heard from constituents. So I think I'll put aside, you mentioned that there are issues with the ordinance and me and my colleagues submitted some amendments and that's a future discussion. So we'll talk about closing those loopholes at a future date but currently I guess i have a couple questions about how the process works so first just a basic question if there is an airbnb that is operating in somerville illegally and we we determine that What happens? Do we shut it down effectively? Is it your experience that we are able to actually stop them from operating if in fact they do violate the ordinance?

Through the chair, yes. If there is evidence or proof that our inspectors... uncover, receive, determine then we can make the call to shut down that operation and cease their license at that time

and just through the chair, just because this is a question I get a lot from constituents. Okay, they don't have a license but it sure seems like there are folks posting on Airbnb what are straightforwardly you know shouldn't be and you know they don't post the address maybe they don' have pictures so how do we know that were actually able to shut down the operation just by taking away their license

Yes, through the chair. We issue tickets on a regular basis for reported illegal STRs. We've issued around 160 as of this year Those will often prompt owners who may not be aware or those who are operating them illegally to actually submit a registration. At that time, if they continue to operate, they continue receive tickets and from that point on, make those corrections or continue to receive violations and a lien on their property at a later date.

Gotcha. OK, so through you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. That's helpful for me to hear and I hope for constituents as well. So just a couple more questions about kind of what's happening behind the scenes on the city end. Is there a centralized database on the city side of all the registered Airbnbs?

Through our CitizenServe portal, we're able to pull up all open licenses currently. We have... I believe it's 112 or 113 currently licensed and operating.

Okay, thank you Mr. Scheer and through you I think that you were saying we're in the process of creating a 3-1-1 Ticket type that will potentially be linked to these. I'm curious now, so part of the ordinance is if there's a number of violations that can lose the license. Is it set up internally that You know, if a violation from say the police or from ISD are those like automatically connected to the license currently?

Through the chair, the 311 request will populate a complaint inspection for inspectors to investigate at that time. When a ticket is issued it will be issued underneath that license if it's an associated address but as in as for police reports Those do not feed over to citizens served, to my knowledge.

Okay, and Mr. Chair, just because this has been an issue in Ward 3 where there are late night loud parties at Airbnbs that either in some cases lead to ticket citations, Something that we can implement? I mean, it seems like those we shouldn't have to be kind of like after the fact chasing down a connection that should just automatically in an ideal scenario. Is that something that's technologically feasible through the chair?

We'll have to talk to our Partners at SPD to discuss how their system operates and whether or not we'd be able to integrate it with our citizen serve system.

Okay, excellent. I just have a couple more and I'm sorry for bombarding you but I've been... I'm telling you all the questions that I haven't had the answers to when I get them from constituents. So... Are the Airbnbs required to post their license on site?

Through the chair, yes. They are required to that on-site as well as materials related to emergency exits

Okay. And then I think the last question that I've heard is, I'm under the impression that at least Airbnb has a municipal software platform Is that something the city has found useful?

Through the chair, the city had implemented a SDR identification software back in 2021 I would like to say. That software became difficult to use as the Airbnb hosts and portals themselves. actually started hiding address data and information as well as images so it became increasingly difficult to use that software We've gone through a number of demos with STR software companies and we've been very impressed on what's out there now. We've also spoken with our colleagues in Revere who have been implementing a particular technology there that has helped them reduce illegal STRs significantly. We've developed the scope of work and we're going to be working with our procurement team to get that out to bid as soon as possible. in the coming weeks.

Well, through you, Mr. Chair, thank you very much, Director. I appreciate all your work on this. It's been great to work with you and ISD on some kind of problem properties in Ward 3. I look forward to that software and the work we do together.

Chair, you are muted if you're speaking.

I sure was. Thank you very much. Thank for that, Councilor Ewen-Campen. This is a good time if anybody else on the committee has comments or questions. Councillor Mbah, you're up.

Thank you, Chairman Scott. I think Councilor Ewen-Campen asked some very brilliant questions. Director Ziegler, good to see you. I got confused with my colleague because the question was like just bouncing off my head, One of the things that I want to just know quickly, just at a very straightforward level it's like you know just the gaps in the existing ordinance or perhaps state law that limit our ability to act like do you have any you know is that something that you can share some light on?

Sure, through the chair. And just for clarification, Councilmember, Are you asking if the state has a mechanism to identify particular STRs operating or are you asking If there are particular aspects of the ordinance that we should be looking at?

No, I mean like any guy because we have an existing ordinance that doesn't seem to be Really, you know, doing what we intended to do. So I'm just wondering, you existing also gaps in state law that also limit our ability to kind of like enforce some of these

Sure, I can't speak to the state law but with our ordinance and just some of the exploitation that we're seeing here there does appear to be occupant related side of things that were allowing Occupants to run STRs. That's creating a lot of difficulty with investigation. What we're noticing is that Property management companies or people tangentially associated with the property in some sort of way are putting in occupants and having them apply for these STRs and living there, quote unquote. and that's making things extremely difficult. We've run into a number of cases where that happens to be the situation, they provide us with documentation but that documentation might be inaccurate or incorrect just prove that they might live there, but we don't know. And then they end up lying to our inspectors and it becomes a problem because what often happens is that

What our inspectors are given and what we issue the license for is what we can see, right? We can't investigate further from that point during after it's issued well now we're noticing all of these issues you know afterwards and then we have to conduct those investigations and prove that they don't live there from that point so it's proving uh difficult in some of these cases

Thank you Chairman Scott and thank you Dr. Ziegler just to make things even worse for you it's like how would you how do you even balance like say legitimate home sharing with the need to protect our long-term housing availability.

Mm-hmm.

Through the chair, you know I think just reviewing the ordinance and the requirements ensuring that the registration requirement documentation maybe extends beyond short periods of time we're just producing a water bill or something like that might be helpful. you know analyzing whether or not owner occupied or adjacent property allowances are something to consider there are many different options here folks in Cambridge and Revere As well as, you know, other cities and towns do things slightly differently. And they seem to have more success with enforcement in ensuring that They're preserving a housing stock. So it's a complicated issue I'm more than happy to discuss with council members or other folks interested in this

Thank you for your work. Thank you, Chairman Scott. I know it comes down to capacity. We can create all these policies but again, we need to actually arm you also with the capacity that you need to be able to enforce them. Thank you Chairman Scott.

All right, thank you Councilor Mbah. I agree, there's capacity. There's also prioritization. I guess when I pull up Director Ziegler the ticketing history here it's very interesting uh there was some enforcement in 2023. It looks like this is the first time we had some enforcement on that um and then there were no tickets written in 2024. There were five tickets written 2025 or at least five complaints in 2025 and something like 50 plus here in 2026. So it looks like this has been a point of increased emphasis since about May.

Is that big gap where nothing is in the system for 2024 and only five for 2025? Is that... Thank you, Chair.

The reasoning behind the low ticket numbers were a bit of a capacity issue. We had enforcing staff at that time out on family leave and transitions between positions, so that created some difficulty in those two years. Now we have two dedicated staff members, two inspectors who have this as part of their daily routine who have really ramped up responses to complaints. While I can't see those complaints directly... For those two previous years. I will say we are starting to pick up enforcement on this. I think the 311 complaint system is going to help drive a lot of that. and I think having these inspectors you know able to have an enforcement tool in their hands is going to further give them the ability to do this enforcement work they've been doing a great job with emphasizing the complaints and getting out there and doing that work but All right.

One thing that's not as easy for me to see is how many of these complaints and tickets then resulted in somebody applying for and receiving an actual permit. um is that the most common outcome here because some of these I see just one ticket issue some of them I see and I will say very gratefully uh I see you know Three weeks in a row tickets being issued on this, which indicates to me that some inspectors got that on their Monday checklist. Let's go through it. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that process for recurring infractions. Do we just keep writing tickets until they vanish out of the system?

Our inspectors work to work with folks who may want to operate an STR but maybe are doing it illegally. There are warnings that coincide with ticketing and they always make A priority to try to get them into compliance, not just be punitive. There are many folks who are doing this without really knowing the ordinance or the language of requirements. But of course there are many bad actors who ignore these situations but For really problematic properties, our inspectors are setting this right at the top of their to-do list on Tuesday morning reoccurring on a weekly basis. And they'll continue to do that and follow up as best as they can. to try to earn compliance. So that is the current practice and of course as we get the STR software, we'll be able to more regularly track that and get them on a more systematic process on a day-to-day.

All right, so this is a new vendor for that new software and I apologize. I'm sure you mentioned it. What is the timeline for bringing that online?

So this, through the chair, the scope of work was submitted today to procurement and then we'll be reviewing that with city staff. And then from that point, we'll hash out the details and then send it up to bid. We're hoping to get that bid out there by in the next couple of weeks, by the end of the month and then be implementing this as soon as we can.

All right, are there other questions from colleagues? Questions or comments from colleagues. I don't see any. So just speaking for myself, let me just say I'm glad to see tickets getting written. I am glad that there is a workflow. It sounds like it can be a tough one but hopefully we can bring some automation into this so thank you very much for the time director Ziegler I don't know if you're on deck for anything else tonight but I appreciate your time on this one. Why don't we go ahead? We will... Mark this item work complete. What I would say, Director Ziegler, and I just want to emphasize it again, I know there are multiple members of the council that have additional questions. So I'd just request that you make yourself available

on our next council meeting so that during the committee report and at the chair's or the president's discretion we could even take that committee report earlier in the evening just to make sure that uh We take care of everybody's schedule respectively, but I believe that'll be on the 22nd, our next council meeting. Will you be able to make that?

Through the chair, I will double-check my calendar. I believe there's a biosafety committee meeting that evening that I'll have to attend, but I will

Alright, well I'm happy to work with your schedule and get it into the night whenever it works around that biosafety committee meeting. But let's hopefully keep in touch because as I said, I know there are several members who are not on this committee who have further follow-up questions they'd like to take. All right, thank you very much for that. We'll go ahead and mark that item work complete I believe. And then we will move on to our next substantive item. That is Item 4.3, an ordinance submitted by Councilor Ewen-Campen, Wheeler, Mbah and Link That's 26-1023, the chapter 2. Article 8, Division 1 of the Code of Ordinances be amended as detailed within. This is the ethical procurement ordinance and I believe that we have...

Some amendments that have been submitted here. This is the first handout for the meeting, so if you are in Legistar looking at Top of the page, it's not in the item itself, but at the top of the Page for this meeting. It's labeled 2026 1013 Amendment with 26-1023 So I'd ask the clerk if we could pull that up. And I will offer this to Councilor Ewen-Campen as the sponsor and lead person who brought this handout to the meeting. Councilor, you have a floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So as background here, Councilor Wheeler and I introduced this ethical procurement ordinance earlier this summer And before our summer recess, this committee held one meeting where it was introduced. We walked through it. We heard initial questions from colleagues on this committee and then last month on September 8th Thank you very much. Thank you for watching! This is based on feedback and questions that we received in our committee meeting, and from the public, and also from discussions I've had with staff. So my hope Mr. Chair is that I can just walk through the proposed amendments that I have

and if it's the will of the committee we can replace the item that's before us with this amended document and then work off that going forward. So, the first amendment to our proposal is is that we've redrafted the language in sections A and B so these are at the bottom of the page it's on the screen now and these are the paragraphs that explain the sorts of conduct that we're seeking to prohibit public dollars from supporting So a question that we received from members of the public, as well as I believe from Councilor Davis in our first meeting is whether our intent was to prohibit public dollars from going towards any company that has a financial relationship with the state of Israel or companies that do business with any government that commits the types of violations of international law that we're mentioning And just to be clear, that was never the intent of the ordinance. It is always intended to be focused on companies that play a direct and ongoing and knowing role in this conduct.

But it was clear from the questions you received that the way we drafted it was insufficient and left that open to question. So what we have before you tonight is a rewrite that's shown in blue here, you can see what we've amended I'll just read, contract services or operations that directly enable or are used in furtherance of systematic violations of international humanitarian law or conduct recognized under international law to constitute apartheid, genocide or unlawful military occupation including without limitation conduct occurring in Israel and Palestine. So the intention here is to specifically avoid sending public dollars to companies that play a role in directly enabling or selling products that are used in furtherance of this type of conduct. That's the first significant change that I'm proposing tonight. I'm interested to hear from colleagues, but the intent is to clarify that first question

Going in order of the ordinance, the second change is actually it's up a little bit. It's relatively technical legal change and this is an exemption for sole proprietor businesses. So I'll just mention, touch base with our legislative and policy analyst Salisbury who has a recommendation that this is moved within the ordinance, but I'll just describe the substance of it. So this is an issue that was actually raised by our city attorney's office and the background is that today Other parts of the country, there are states that have passed state laws seeking to make it illegal for businesses to engage in divestment or boycott programs. and those states have all run into legal issues specifically around sole proprietor businesses based on First Amendment issues. So a sole proprietors business, this is like Your business is you. You as a person in the business are one and the same. And so what they've done in these states is to exempt sole proprietors.

And so I want to be clear that these state laws are extremely different from what we are seeking to do here. But, you know, to be careful and to be mindful of this concern, we did want to make sure that we don't run afoul of any First Amendment issues for sole proprietor companies. So that's what that is. So third, if you wouldn't mind please scrolling to the next page. So it was very helpful for me to learn a little bit more about how some analogous ordinances here in Somerville actually work on a practical level. so for example our living wage ordinance this says anyone contracting with the city you have to pay your employees a living wage but the prison labor ordinance that says if you're contracted in the city You know, the goods can't be produced with prison labor. Functionally, the way those are actually enacted is a checkbox on the procurement materials. So a company submitting a bid, they check a box that says we are in compliance with ordinance X, with ordinance Y. It is my belief if this were to be passed and go into effect, that's how this would work too.

A checkbox. The reason I'm mentioning all this is that our original draft called on the mayor's office to go through a policymaking process to explain exactly how they were going to conform to the ordinance. And none of the other ordinances on the books do that. So it seems a lot more straightforward and a lot less trouble for the administration, I think for everyone. to just be as clear as we can in the ordinance and with the understanding that this will be a checkbox. And so what we do in the ordinances, we don't say anymore the mayor's office is going to create a policy We say this is what compliance means. And that, that is this section C here and this brings me to the last kind of substantive thing So a question that we received from many people, and I'd say, you know, people who strongly support the ordinance and from people who have strongly oppose it is that there is a lot of ambiguity about what kinds of companies are we talking about.

Wheeler and I decided to do our best to find A list of companies to add some clarity to the sorts of companies we're talking about. And this is a database, it's created by the American Friends Service Committee also known as the Quakers. This is a research project that they do with an investment research firm called Investigate, it's called their short list and it currently lists about 80 companies, there are 22 American companies. And these are focused really on documented direct knowing ongoing direct contributions to violations of international law in Palestine. So, again, as the ordinance says, this is not meant to be comprehensive. If you're on this list, you're out and that's it. If you're not on the list, you're good. But it is to try to bring some specificity and some clarity to the types of companies we're talking about.

And just to be clear for anyone who's interested, this is all available online but these are primarily military contractors. Companies involved in mass surveillance tools Things of that nature. So with that, those are the four main changes that I'm proposing tonight. I very much welcome questions, additional feedback from the committee. My ask would be that we replace the draft before us with this modified draft. and start moving towards deliberation. So thank you for the time, Mr. Chair. I'm excited to hear what colleagues think.

All right. Thank you for that, Councilor Ewen-Campen. So I'll go ahead and move to replace the text before us in the original item with the text provided in this handout Seeing no objection, gosh do we need a roll call vote? I guess we're doing it all in roll call votes. Let's have a roll-call vote on that substitution. Is there any discussion on the motion to substitute the new language?

Yep yep

All right, Councilor Strezo on the motion to bring in the new amendment.

Yep, as I have been consistent this is discriminatory. It is outside of our legal jurisdiction and I will not support this amendment so just... Clarifying on voting no.

All right, seeing no other discussion on the motion to replace the text with the handout before us Madam Clerk, could you call the roll on that substitution?

Yes. And this is Roll Call to replace the text In the handouts, Legislative Matters 2026-1013 Amendment with 26-1023 With the text in Sorry I had this pulled up on my different screen With the attached text in the original attachment Ethical Procurement Ordinance, Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Mbah?

Yes!

Councilor Ewen-Campen? Yes Councilor Strezo? Nope Councilor Scott? with four counselors in favor. The item before us is the new working version.

All right, great. So from here I'll open this up to discussion questions motions

Davis, you have the floor. Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you to the good Councilor from Ward 3 for the explanation of the changes. I just want to make sure I understand how the words on the page align with this, the comments. And this is just to get my understanding and Thank you for joining us. You mentioned at the outset, you mentioned specifically that the intent here was to, in response to my previous question, was that the who have a direct, ongoing and knowing activity. Those are the three words he used.

The only one of those three words that shows up in the actual proposed ordinance is direct in terms of operations that directly enable and then there's what strikes me as a more permissive sort of or are used in furtherance of which I'll note um One might have some concern about the potential ambiguity of what used in furtherance of might mean and how it aligns with direct ongoing and knowing. But I guess, am I right that at the end of the day The way that you see those principles, this would apply to companies that have direct ongoing and knowing activity is that The five resources, the five lists that are here would only include companies that have direct ongoing and knowing activity.

Is that effectively how this is intended to work?

Mr. Scherer, through you. So I think the direct ongoing and knowing is also captured in the term material support, in my opinion. and the way that I yes see see the definition i think that it goes without saying there is not I think there is a range of opinions So the intention here is not to provide lists that are the be-all end-all. It is also to defer to... Determinations, reports that are ongoing and that are subject to change from the ICC,

The United Nations, as well as these more specific research lists that are based on available documentation. and yes that is the intent that there it is uh not to target i don't know what is an example you know a company that makes furniture for Library, you know in Israel. The intent is companies that play a role in the ongoing violations of international humanitarian law apartheid genocide etc

Okay, thank you Mr. Chair through you I guess so I have several questions here and if Mr. Chairman please let me know at any point you want me to stop and get back in line for the rest but I'll keep going until Until sold otherwise. So that response just raises another question, I guess. And again, I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm just really trying to understand kind of how this would actually work in practical terms in terms of our... Entering into contracts to do the things that we need to do for the people of the City of Somerville. Making chairs for the libraries is okay, but is making chairs for City Hall okay? Is making chairs or the federal government buildings okay? And I guess I still see lots of ambiguity even in that example.

So through you, Mr. Chair, I'll give examples from the specific list that I mentioned, the one created by the Friends Service. and this is publicly available for anyone at home who wants to look up what are determinants of this but it is companies that make weaponry It is companies that make components of militarized demolition equipment. It is companies that make, you know, components of weapons. It's companies that made components of the surveillance state in illegal occupied territory. I don't think there are any furniture making companies on the list and that is not the intent.

Okay, I guess am I right that there's computer hardware making companies? Mr. Chair, through you.

So I think this is a completely fair line of questioning obviously the Friends Service they maintain Aboff, Aackman. The long list includes many widely used computer companies. You know, the parent company of Google, Microsoft, includes Toyota, companies like that. There are many people in Somerville who believe that those companies should be explicitly listed in this ordinance. It is my belief that that would be setting us up to basically have to... Go to the exception clause for a large number of companies. So, you know, the companies that are on the list that I put on the ordinance, I don't want to speak incorrectly.

widely used software companies that you or I use in our daily life. There may be companies on this list that make software, I don't want to misspeak but those are not the primary companies listed here.

Okay, I guess I'll move on to it off that line of questioning. I still have concerns as to where the line is and how it's clearly stated and how we're going to actually implement this. So, to that point, Ms. Chair, through you to the Council for Ward 3 You mentioned the certification that's required in subsection F. So I guess first, I would note that that points back to city procurement. and that points back to section A which is the procurement restriction but it doesn't Subsection C isn't explicitly included there. So is the intent that in order to make an affirmative certification under F or a negative, you know... You get what I mean?

To say that you don't meet some such day... Let me put it another way. The companies would not be certifying explicitly that they're not on any of the things, any lists in subsection C-136. That's not how this is set up. They're sort of making their own Qualitative judgment as to what subsection A means and whether they fit within that as it's drafted. Am I reading that right? Is that how it's intended?

Mr. Chair, through you, no. The intent is that the self-certification... It applies to A, which is the description of activities that are not allowed and then B The examples of how that's to be determined are given in C. I think if it's a drafting issue to include subsection A and subsection C, but the intent was that C is... is a modifier of A, right? It's a further explanation of what is an and how the city will determine compliance.

Mr. Chair, if I may throw you to the council for more three. But subsection F is not talking about the city. Determining compliance, it's talking about an entity submitting a bid and having to make a determination for their own certification. Subsection C explicitly talks about what the city shall consider. right so I think as it's drafted it it I guess I have heard from folks that were under the impression that the certification would be, we're not on any of these lists. That may not be the intent and it's fine. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. In terms of what's before us right now I don't think it says that and as you just described, I don t think as drafted it accomplishes that because as I said subsection A is sort of

concept-based exclusion and subsection C is explicitly talks about what the city considers not referring to certification. So if that's in town, maybe there's some work needed there.

I have... Councilor Davis, on that point, can I?

Yeah, go ahead.

All right. So I appreciate that and as I read this Knowing that we tend to share brain cells, there is in A a description of the type of company that's affected. In F It says required to certify it doesn't meet the criteria set forth in subsection A. Fair enough, I can see your presumption that in that case it's their belief that they aren't covered by this The question of determination and compliance if there's a for example, somebody flags it or somebody in purchasing notices it.

that in determining whether an entity meets the criteria, that section C would then allow for the city to come back and presumably void contracts or eliminate bids. were from companies that were on one of these lists. So I think I see where you're coming from. I could see two different solutions to this, one of which would be An additional language in certification saying, you know, doesn't meet the criteria set forth in subsection A and does not appear on a list provided in sub section C. That would be one way that we could proceed here and address, would that address your concern?

I mean Mr. Chair, that is one way to accomplish including section C. I'm asking questions, not necessarily raising concerns and sort of pointing out where I see things that don't seem to align with what some folks have expressed they anticipated And I think what I heard the good counselor mentioning. So yeah, there's probably a few different ways to address the language there.

Okay. All right. it sounded like you were depending on what the intent is okay It sounded like you were on another track there. I know I'd seen Councilor Mbah's hand.

Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, and then this is the last one. So if you don't mind, I'll throw this out there. Sounds good. And then stop for now. Just this is just more of a and this is again, I don't have a solution to this, but I wanted to throw it out there perhaps for the city attorney to think about for Future input or revisions. But the sole proprietor exception may have some... Some flaws in that I know in this Commonwealth, you know... One can be effectively a sole proprietor and also there'd be an entity formed. I mean, the federal tax code you know we'll treat a single member LLC for example and probably I think some types of corporations done not an accountant I'm not a tax expert so don't quote me in any of this but I know there are some scenarios where that can still effectively be one person and in fact it's treated as one person at an LLC. It could be

I don't know how the First Amendment application would be there, but I wanted to flag that as not necessarily... The definition is being someone who hasn't formed a corporation, partnership, LLC, etc., I wouldn't, I know it wouldn't necessarily rule out people who are doing business on their own. It's just one person. So I put that question for the to the city attorney for them to take a look at to see if there's yeah, if that would cause concern That's it for now. Thank you.

All right. It sounded like that one was one to go on the law department's homework list. Is that right? All right, great.

Yeah, that's correct. Thank

and Mbah. I see your hand raised.

Thank you, Chairman Scott. I just thank you, Councilor Davis, for all this because I want to thank the good councilors from World Trade, Council of Ewen-Campen, you know for the enormous work that you've done on this uh i've read it i'm looking at it again and again I think this is a modest ordinance which I support You know, just as a step towards implementing the will of Somerville Goddard's Of course, while upholding our city's long-standing commitment to human rights, accountability and ethical public spending. We are stewards of public resources and we have a responsibility to ensure that procurement and investment decisions reflect our values while protecting the city's financial interests, you know, and allowing for practical Legally sound implementation.

So I think this is a reflection on that And I also believe that it is important to distinguish between the actions of government and the people they govern, just ensuring that Somerville remains a welcoming community where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. Thank you Chairman Scott.

All right, thank you Councilor Mbah. Councilor Strezo I saw your hand go up?

Sure. Mr. Chair, who from the city is here to speak, we have the city solicitor and then I assume that Director Bean is here as well. And would like to kind of add, we all are definitely... in support of making sure that everyone does feel welcome here. And I wish to remind our colleagues and everyone here that many Jews in this community feel that they do not feel safe and that this specific ordinance is discriminatory. and does not align with the values of everyone feeling welcome here as I wish to remind everyone that numerous residents Many, many residents have spoken out, especially our Jewish residents, our Israeli residents say that this makes them feel targeted. And I agree. So let's go right ahead, Mr. Chair and through you.

Who do we have Director Bean here tonight? and Director Bean, I see on the list that... And we Jews are very familiar with lists. So According to the AFSC list that this ordinance references, and as the good colleague from Ward 3 references, If we follow the lines, Ahava Skin Care line is on the list. And in addition to that... The religious group the Quakers have put forward as a reference in this ordinance. So... I have to ask, are we as a city, as a municipality taking on religious groups' opinions of

What are ethics and how does this fall into legality and embodying religious identities? And where does all that all get glued together?

Well, Director Bean is our director of auditing.

I believe the question Mr. Chair was to Director Bean?

Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I'm not an attorney here, so I think that's better suited for the city solicitor on the legal opinion side.

Absolutely. Through you, as Procurement is definitely going to impact it if this actually passes and goes through. I definitely want to hear your opinion on this as well, but you're right. Maybe we should start with the city solicitor on this. Pardon me, Director Bean, but definitely want to hear your additional thoughts on this as well as we continue on with this conversation. Thank you. So with that, Mr. Chair, let's come on down to the... Do we have the city solicitor here?

It is the chair's job to recognize speakers. And I believe there's going to be so many here, so. Solicitor Amara, would you like to provide a response to Councilor Strezo's question?

Councilor, if you would not mind rephrasing your question exactly?

Sure. Through you to our city solicitor. The list that this ordinance references as one of the authorities The importance of this and etc. is the AFSC list as was described by the Ward 3 Counselor as as a list created by Quaker organization, which is a religious group. So through you I got let's phrase this as a question how does or through you Mr. Chair to the city solicitor how does us Accepting the list or what I'm looking for, the...

That's a good word I'm looking for, since we want to rephrase it exactly. The advisement of a religious organization or religious group putting forward this ordinance because where does that all uh how does that affect us as a city is this legal to do so as a and um what are your opinions on that as as the city solicitor and if that's If you'd like me to get more specific, I certainly can.

Through your chair if I understand correctly the addition of a group to a list is we have not focused on the fact that they are a religious organization just as they are another organization and we would have to look Aboff, inconsistencies between lists so we've focused more on how to use lists and whether it's going to be feasible or lawful as opposed to the particular criteria of a given group that has been inserted here at this point in time, if that answers your question?

I think the choice of lists that the city chooses to rely on is up to the city to determine. and then once that's been determined there are additional questions about Which list governs? How do determinations get made about how some entity ends up on a list or challenges being put on a So your specific question is one that is really a subset of a larger group of questions for us, if that answers your question anyway?

Um... to you uh to Mr. Chair through the city solicitor yeah very much because does this potentially constitute an endorsement of religion by the City of Somerville?

I'm not prepared to answer that question. I haven't done enough research into the way they are set up or how they have created this or if they've got some non-religious component to it. We've been focusing more on the previous lists that had been included and then having yet another one. And just like I said, reconciliation among them all. appealing any of them or how determinations within those organizations get made. Do you reject them? Do you have to rely on them? So we've been focusing more on those types of issues as opposed to the specific membership or legality of any one of those organizations uh thank you for that uh and through you

Chair to the City Solicitor. Yes, and just a question I guess a follow-up question that why is the city solicitors office focusing on handed lists at all. versus what the city of Somerville, as you stated, would be responsible if lists were actually created. Why is the City Solicitor's Office focusing on lists? and all.

Through you Chair, if I understand your question because that was what was proposed in the ordinance so we were looking at the ordinance to see Elements of the ordinance. We weren't making any judgment calls on the wisdom of any particular list or of even having lists. This is what was presented to us and those were the questions that came to mind in the law department. We aren't endorsing any particular list. We aren' t endorsing the use of lists, we aren't saying anything about the substance of the lists other than the practicalities and the questions that the use thereof raised for us

Thank you, Chair, through City Solicitor. Yeah, because there's legalists or the concept of... Legal or not legal, I guess that was what I was hoping that more of the focus would be rather than specific lists. Random lists or lists that include skin care lines and whether or not they could be sold at CVS or not. Happy to get back in line.

Mr. Chair, just on that point, one note Sure Councilor Ewen-Campen Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify there's no skincare products on this list. I'm not totally sure where that's coming from but you know these are like largely military contractors.

Yeah, thank you. I was a little confused by that as well and I'm pretty sure none of this has to do with CVS.

If I may respond to that because... and the BDS divestment shortlist, Ahava makeup skincare line is on the list. So let's fact check what we're putting forward please.

Are there further questions for Solicitor Amara? Or for any member of city staff or comments or requests to be made open to any councilor? I don't see any right now. Well, I'll take my first crack. Councilor Davis, I see you're in for a second crack here.

No, I'm happy to let y'all go first if you'd like to, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you. I appreciated, Councilor Davis, your questions about the particular form there. The sole proprietor exemption is an interesting question. This seems, the language as written seems to refer to a natural person so I don't have as many concerns about that. The inclusion of single member LOCs, generally those are treated as individuals or pass-through entities for tax purposes as somebody who's had several single member LLCs myself. But don't constitute natural personhood. So I think we'd be in the clear there, but I suppose we could always ask for a law department opinion on that. I guess I would before we move on just Throw it back to Sylvester Amar for a moment and say in the In the review that you, the law department has done of this ordinance.

Is there any recommendation for changes or concerns you have about the language in this in this language before us right now?

I'm not quite sure I understand your question.

Do you mean... You've reviewed the language that's before us right now. Does the law department have your... You are all our lawyers too, I've been told. So is there concern or guidance that you have issued or are prepared to issue about any language that's included here in this draft?

We haven't seen anything at this point that would change any of our previous opinions. you know we focused on some of the language in terms of looking at it very narrowly and questions we've had but we haven't had actually any real back-and-forth about um specifics we've put made some comments and the big one was how how do you deal with these lists that was the main one um we don't see anything in these changes that Alters any of the previous opinions we've issued.

Okay all right I appreciate that Well, I'll go ahead and jump in with my thanks to the good colleague from Ward 3 for the work on this. It feels like it is getting very close Very close to language that I'm comfortable with, but I just want to do want to make sure we get everybody's voice. And of course, Councilor Davis' questions answered. So, Councilors Davis, I'm happy to throw it back to you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My My remaining question at the moment is sort of just more of a general one. It's not really even my question. In fact, I guess technically it's explicitly not my question that there was an item that Resolution the council approved back in the July meeting. I was out of town, so I was the one that didn't vote in favor of it. But this is item 26-1158 that the city... It does ask them to report, but it effectively elaborated that the strategic and development department and relevant city departments conducted an economic analysis on the potential impact of the city's finances. including investigating all service providers the impact on the bond rating and the cost of enforcing the ordinance effectively just like The dollars piece. And I know we have Dr. Bean here and others.

I just wanted to, I assume maybe that's why they're here because this was a request the council made back in July. I wanted to hear. if there was any information we should know about in response to that.

I don't recall seeing any written response to that. Is there anybody from the administration that can speak to any action the administration might have taken in response to this resolution?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know that you can really quantify any economic impacts of this. I mean if we're talking about any impacts, Any type of legal challenge to the ordinance would promote some costs from the city side to defend the ordinance itself. Obviously, you know, with city officials we like to have as much flexibility as we possibly can in terms of procurement and investment. I do note that the sponsors of the ordinance have amended the ordinance with these procurement exceptions and investment exceptions. you know we have a fiduciary relationship in terms of equities and bonds as long as we can maintain that fiduciariy relationship then

and we're able to rebalance a portfolio with equities that have the equivalent investment return as the Equities that cannot be put into the portfolio, then I think we're in a good position here. The city treasurer is a fiduciary of the equities of the city so she may have an opinion on that. Whether this is the spirit of 30B, the procurement ordinance, is fair and open competition with the hope of achieving the least costly outcomes. Service from a vendor. So I don't know if this is in contrast to that or differing opinions of that and leave it up to lawyers to figure that out.

So I think that there is the exception language, how that relates to the overall ordinance. Let the lawyers determine that. But that's the best I can say on this.

All right, Councilor Davis, did that answer your question?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean it's I'm responsive to the council's resolution to a degree, but I'm not sure it's what the council asked for back in July. So I guess... I'd like to hear if there's, I mean, is it the administration's position that that's the full response to that or are they looking at...

It's all a theory, Councillor Davis. I mean you know There's no way to really quantify that. We don't know what's going to happen here, but I think it comes down to whatever legal challenges take place if there are going to be any.

Okay, thank you Mr. Chair and one more clarification through you to the Council for Ward 3 if I may just so that we're all thinking about this in the same context the language in subsection A It prohibits the city from... In exercising procurement discretion, the city may not procure... Contract for hire or retain labor or services performed or goods produced by an entity which in blah, blah, That applies to the party from whom the city is procuring, contracting, retaining labor and whatever other...

Things those seemingly overlapping terms might constitute or is it intended to also flow down to any subcontractors that might be involved in any contract at any level? Just so we can understand the potential consequences. you know scope of the applicability here through you Mr. Chair

Mr. Chair, the drafting is intended to refer to the company that we're doing business with. I can probably think of a lot of examples where... trying to do the degrees of separation you know subcontractors you know companies that use goods produced by other companies it just well honestly I wish there was a way to Very, very cleanly make sure that no companies we contract with were involved in any way with the types of horrific activities we're talking about. I don't think that there is a... Thank you for that. And I mean, that makes a very big difference, I think, in my opinion. And

It would open up a whole slew of other practical challenges. That's all I have for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

All right. Councilor Strezo, I see you.

Thank you. Really quick. Yeah, wanted to elaborate, not elaborate but correct for the record that it was the UN list. That's one of you put forward and not the Quaker list on this while the Quoker list was still included in that. And then on the point of My colleague in Ward 6 on the economic analysis I agree through you, Chair, to Councilor Davis. I agree with you on the economic analysis and will further comment that. reckless and irresponsible to put forward any ordinance of procurement like this without information, further deeper information on that. And we'll follow up further after this

Meeting with Director Bean on this, but I think it is absolutely worth a report to the extent that this can be quantified. that an economic analysis can be. Within your capacity to understand what we have hypothetical at this moment I think is very real. I will be talking further about that with you after this meeting. Thank you.

So it sounds like I don't see any other hands raised right now. It sounds like there are, if I can just summarize the discussion and where outstanding questions and concerns remain. There is the question of the certification in F and how does it need to or doesn't need to reference the lists in Part C. Question for the law department's interpretation on the single member LLC piece of this whole writer exemption A. And a question regarding whether or not inclusion of a list produced by religious organization constitutes some kind of larger constitutional conflict and then the question about financial analysis so If I missed one, please help me out with that.

Councilor Davis, I see you.

Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair. Not to that question so if you want to finish that conversation or if anyone else has any I actually wanted to just follow up on a point that was made earlier and maybe flag something else that maybe we do in fact need to dig a little bit more on. If I may then. So this is, I mean it goes back to my questions earlier for Councilor Ewen-Campen about the you know sort of The list, the intent that these that the companies were talking about are sort of directly involved in the things listed in Section A and then that direct ongoing knowing and et cetera, et cetera. And I've just been kind of poking around here based on the concern that was raised by the good councilor at large about the Ahava company, Fosun International. I see that on the list that does seem to go, that I get to.

It's American Friends Service Committee. That's what's referenced in the statute, in the proposed ordinance. and you go there, there's a May 2024 list that does list Fosun International Ahava which if I look it up is a sea salt skincare company. There's also a water company on there. Israeli companies, it seems like, or at least Ahav is an Israeli Dead Sea mineral skincare brand. There may be a really good reason they're on the list and it might still be perfectly valid but at least enough to make me question You know, what we were sort of told we could rely on earlier in terms of these lists being specific to these things that we absolutely want to make sure we're getting at. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, I appreciate the reference there. Just looking it up, the only reference I see to a hub on that list is Fosun International Limited. described as a Chinese multinational conglomerate that owns Ahava, which operates in an illegal Israeli settlement despite its denial. So I think I see where that's coming from. Councilor Ewen-Campen, I see your hand.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. So I was referring before to what I'm calling the shortlist database and if there's any kind of ambiguity about what lists that the Friends service I believe that the companies that Councilor Strezo and Councilor Davis brought up come from the U.N., The Human Rights Council Resolutions. And as Counselor Scott mentioned, so these are companies, you know, these two examples they're cited by the United Nations and for the use of natural resources, in particular water and land, for business purposes in illegally occupied territory. So that's the reason that's explicitly stated in the ordinance as something that we're trying to divest from.

All right. Is that good? All right, so we can proceed a couple different ways here if it is the will of the committee to get Strezo, the chair has the floor.

Oh absolutely it was on this point though.

Councilor Strezo you'll be recognized in due term. We could proceed here by keeping this item in committee and requesting written response from Bean, or the Law Office on particular points. We can return to discuss this at a future date. Councilor Davis I know in the past you've occasionally said well let's I recommend this out for approval given that certain changes are made prior to a vote on our next meeting. I'm not sure where you feel like the text is at with regard to taking an approach like that. So, I'm just looking right now to lay out those possibilities we have before us and then we'll be looking to get them on the committee Having said that, Councilor Strezo you are recognized.

All right yes and gosh golly didn't mean to interrupt you sorry about that Mr Chair as I dropped my purse um Yeah, because goodness I'm very confused because as this was introduced tonight it was very much introduced as only military and uh companies and and here we are this is now water using and that's a little bit separate of the definition so i'm um awfully befuddled um with this this is skincare line

All right, I appreciate that. Still looking for the will of the committee on how to proceed with the item. Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm greatly appreciative of the questions and feedback tonight. And I'm more than happy to work on this before our next committee meeting and bring back something that is my attempt to respond to this. and just to clarify in case there's questions about this, if you look at the language in A we're looking to avoid investing in companies that Directly enable or use in furtherance of systematic violations of international humanitarian law. That's one thing. Or conduct recognized under international law to constitute apartheid, genocide or unlawful military occupation. It's extremely straightforwardly explained in A and B why companies that operate in an unlawful military occupied territory would be captured under this. I apologize if I was unclear in describing the Quaker list, the companies that have come up. All right. Thank you.

Councilor Strezo.

One more ask on that. Thank you very much, and I'll ask this question to the director of... Let's see, I suppose the law department... City Solicitor Amara. Through you to city solicitor, could we also check in additional People organizations on these proposed lists that were put forward include REMAX and looks like Airbnb. So I guess how could that impact our business? Our housing market as well. So those are some additional questions that maybe we should consider putting in a information request on that as well unless city solicitor has any comments on that it's I see your hand up, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, I'll ask Solicitor Amar to comment on that but I guess I'm just a little bit confused Are you suggesting that the city uses Airbnb as a contractor currently?

I don't know. I'm not the one who put forward this list, but it is as the recommendation of the UN list, I believe RE-MAX and Airbnb. we probably should figure try to think ahead of this and see how that all factors in too Mr.

Chair okay uh well given that this ordinance is specifically related to Dollars that the city government spends in contracts. Solicitor Amara, do you have any response to that?

Yes, through you Chair. I don't think that's really a legal question we can answer. I'm not sure I completely understand it but we aren't equipped to vet all the companies on the list and that's I don't think we are the appropriate body to even attempt to do that and we don't have the resources to attempt to

Okay, I appreciate that. And I just, I think there may be some confusion this ordinance doesn't have any impact on what Davis.

Thank you Mr. Chair, forgive me because I was trying to multitask and get back to the...I should have put a library of these lists when I pulled them up last week And I didn't read them all by every word. Did I hear correctly that Airbnb is on one of these lists? Is that through to you, Mr. Chair? Or did I hear that right?

I believe it is on one of the lists. I believe is on the United Nations list, but Councilor Ewen-Campen looks like you might have the answer to that.

True, Mr. Chair. Correct. Airbnb is one of companies listed by the UN as operating in the occupied territories

Okay. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me just put it out there for the committee's consideration then. Earlier this evening, we were talking about the short-term rental ordinance and Director Ziegler noted that while in fact this wasn't something that turned out to be beneficial that there has in the past and hypothetically could be in the future. Services provided by Airbnb to help municipalities enforce short-term rental ordinances. I think what i'm hearing is then like we couldn't use that if this ordinance were passed as it's Presented right now. That may be OK, we may be fine with that I just these are the kind of things I worry about like the unintended consequences The scale and scope of some of these lists that we're referring to here. I want to make sure that we really, really dig and are fully conscious

What this might mean for all the other things that we want to do here in our city and enforcing the other ordinances we have. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for that Councilor Davis I appreciate that concern. It's certainly worth taking a detailed read of these lists. The United Nations list in particular peeled my skull back a few times. But I would say that the procurement exemption indeed, from my standpoint, addresses that as a relief valve. For example, if Airbnb does decide that they want to help us regulate them and do have a tool that the city would have to purchase to attract customers Rentals that are listed on their system obviously they would be the only vendor so if we were seeking to Put out a bid to use that software, they would be the only bidder. So compliance, procurement exemption D2 would seem to cover that and I would assume a great deal

I think the procurement exception here provides a city a clear out where it would unduly in fact impact the uh city in terms of As it says here, a significant financial burden or policy good where they might be the only bidder. Since I was responding directly to you, Councilor Davis, I'll come back to you and then I'll go to Councilor Camp.

Yeah, just a quick follow up on that. And if I may throw you to the city attorney. If hypothetically speaking that procurement exemption were used by the city to let's use the example I'm talking about to you know let's say Airbnb does come up with a great piece of software that actually works to enforce the municipalities and we were to do that, nominally or not rely on the procurement exemption. I think I know the answer to this, but just let me ask it so everyone can all be on the same page. What enforcement mechanisms exist? There's nothing in this statute or this ordinance, Thank you for joining us.

Who, if anyone would have standing to bring a claim that the city violated this? If that's something we need to get back to us the next time we talk about that, then that's fine too. It might be a bit of a complicated question.

No, I think it's a great question. So the question is really who has standing... to challenge the city's determination on a procurement exemption.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect, those are detailed questions that we can't really answer. Answer at the moment until we know who is challenging what on what grounds there are questions of subjectivity of whether to Fair application of the exemption, when the exemption would apply. I mean those are the types of questions that are legitimate questions but We can't foresee all the permutations of how they would come up at this point. I'm happy to do a little more digging with a little bit more guidance from any of you on what it is you're really looking for. Do I think a procurement exemption is bulletproof? No. Do I think it's intended to be very useful? I do.

Have we gone through every possible permutation of how it could come up or be challenged? We have not

So it sounds like you're saying it's dependent on the fact-specific pattern of each scenario. Is that right?

Yes, I do think it's depending on a fact- specific pattern and I think The law department's position has been that's a level down in detail that we don't think we're going to get to initially, that there will be other higher-level... Issues that will have to be ultimately resolved or addressed before you even can get to that level of detail?

Council, Ewen Campen. See your hand.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, I appreciate the specific example that Councilor Davis brought up of Airbnb. And I just wanted to share how I'm thinking about examples like this. um you know and just to be more broad about it a company that you know in on for some reason this might be beneficial for the city to contract with but you know is would be caught up in this ordinance I think this is for every counselor to decide where they come down on it. So, for me the conduct that we're talking about is really bad. Is really really really bad in my opinion. It is something that I am willing to vote in support of this is not something that the city is going to do despite the fact that it might have benefits. Obviously, this is a decision that each counselor makes. And I think that on a certain level the same argument could be made about living wage prison labor.

Of course there are companies that provide amazing services that don't pay their workers well, right? There are companies that provide wonderful products that probably you made them with prison labor. I think that's what we're... What's before us, right? Exactly where to draw the line, I don't pretend to know exactly where it is. But my personal convictions around... Thank you for watching! Thank you for that, Councilor Ewen-Campen.

I very much appreciate that framing when I think about various ordinances the council has passed over my nine years here. Almost always policy goal comes with a cost. So I appreciate that refocusing on the question of personal judgment, whether that cost is worth it in this case. Well, I see we have a short list of questions that are there. I don't hear a lot of eagerness to move this out of committee this evening and I heard Councilor Ewen-Campen's Statement of desire to take this back, to work on it. I will plan to put this on our next agenda on October 27th barring

Barring unforeseen circumstances or perhaps Councilor Ewen-Campen isn't able to make sufficient progress by then, but we'll go ahead and keep this in committee. I want to thank everybody for discussion. Thanks city staff for being available to grapple with this topic. So unless there is further comment on the item, this item can remain in committee. That brings us to 4.4, that is Mayor's Request 26-1274 requesting ordainment of an amendment to Section 1-11B of the Code of Ordinances To update enforcement personnel. Clearly, this is on a different scale and if you Take a look inside this.

This is in many ways a cleanup of text, changing DPW Commissioner to Commissioner of Public Works and clarifying which inspectional services division handles offenses as well as a few others so I guess Director Zaino, do you want to speak to these changes in broad sense? I don't think we need to go line by line on these.

Yes, no. I'm here to answer any questions in a broad sense. You pretty much already summarized it very well. It's pretty much the furtherance of the restructuring along with a couple small... Typographical changes. But I'm happy to answer any questions on the broad sense.

All right, and perhaps The biggest fine change is for zoning violations, use of real property. That's down on page eight. Instead of a warning and then a second offense of $100, it just goes straight to the $300 offense per day. So...

I'd like to share through you, yeah that's just some more Be in line with how the wording is specifically in the zoning ordinance that says it's specifically $300 per offense. What was in there before was more of like a reflection of what the practice was for zoning type violations, but this is more in line with what the text specifically says.

I love it. All right. Opening it up to questions and comments from councillors. Councillor Davis, I saw your hand up.

Yeah, that was my question, Mr. Chair. It just did, I guess on the point since it looks like the other impact is just a not separate out two different types of zoning violations just calling them any and all the zoning violations 300 bucks first pop you're on it got it thank you

Yeah, and also updating the reference so that it actually points to the correct piece of our zoning ordinance which is always nice. All right, are there other questions about the proposed amendments to clean up the text of our enforcement fines? All right, well I've reviewed these. I think this is a lovely updating. This is exactly the kind of thing we want to do to keep things cleaned up so i'm happy to move to recommend approval of this amendment tonight Is there any discussion on that motion to approve, to recommend approval on these amendments? All right seeing none let's go ahead and lay that one on the table for a vote. to approve along with the vote to adjourn at the end of the meeting. Thank you very much, Director Zaino. Appreciate the waiting.

And then that brings us to our final two substantive items this evening. That's items 5.1 and 5.2. requesting approval of technology-specific surveillance use policy for body worn cameras and requesting approval the Surveillance Technology Impact Report for Body Worn Cameras. So for these, there was communication from one of our colleagues that does not serve on the committee seeking to get some modifications to these documents which they believed wouldn't be impacting collective bargaining. So I believe the goal here tonight is to discuss those requests and and to hear from Director Hillman where the administration's at on this.

And my presumption is that these items will be held, and amended items would be submitted in our next council meeting. The hour is getting late and I might have my brain turned to put. So, Councilor Davis before I go to Manager Hillman

Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair I just took a little more color on the background here this was As folks will remember, the council was called back during the summer for a meeting on specifically these two policies because we needed to approve them if The administration was going to move forward on effectively some free money from the state to do some of this stuff. And at the time, I and some others noted that they're... While the documents were much, much, better than they had been in previous iterations there was still some concerns but I noted that they weren't all that There weren't substantive enough that I didn't think we could fix them. And with a commitment from the administration to move forward in fixing them, we ended up approving them. Then at the first meeting of the...

had met with Manager Hellman and with Attorney Sirigu, and went through. We discussed a whole bunch of changes. They were resubmitted with the changes that I had requested at that meeting But just before that, Councilor Hardt had noted that she had some thoughts and concerns about and so on. The changes that reflected my work with Manager Hellman and Attorney Sirgu over the summer, and then some additional changes that Councilor Hardt had recommended, and perhaps some other things that Manager Hellmann will explain to us. But

that's sort of what got us to this point and then you know obviously if other folks have other concerns or things they want to raise then that's what we're here for all right

So, I'm sorry. Is it Manager Hellman or is it Director Hellman? I'm so sorry, I forget.

Mr. Chairman, it's Manager Hellman. Thank you.

All right. There we go. All I'm glad I got it right. All Right. Manager Hellmann any additional context or maybe summary of proposed changes? Are there any background you'd like to give the committee?

John Hellman, Public Safety for All, Project Manager for the City Thank you, Mr. Chairman for having me. No I believe Councilor Davis gave a pretty good substantive overview of where things stand. I would just add, reminding folks that the documents before them tonight are the ones we submitted on August 27th. which are updates from the revisions you know was approved at the special meeting this summer in July following that as Councilor Davis shared we received some feedback Hardt, on some updates that she and a constituent worked on. We've included those in the handouts for this evening for you all to review and see. So we haven't updated these documents with that yet

Our intention was to come here this evening, hear from folks on if they had any other additional thoughts in the past month since we submitted. The updates on the August 27th council meeting and to come out of here with the opportunity to finalize the updates that Councilor Hardt had recommended along with any other All right.

Well, I guess that's the dinner bell for anybody who has any changes they'd like to request. I know that my changes that I'd like a request are subject to collective bargaining so I can spare everybody the time and hassle. um but yes are there any comments questions concerns or recommendations from a member of the council or for members in this committee All right. So, Manager Hillman then I had said earlier that the plan would be to keep these items in committee just Past Practice, and then we'd be expecting a new submission at our Thursday council meeting. Is that right?

Yeah, to you Mr.

Chair, we're happy to move forward with that plan if that's your recommendation I think that'll be the cleanest because these are not items that the council can amend These are submissions from The administration. Normally we can do one of those maneuvers where we substitute the text and et cetera, et cetera but since these are not products of the council they're simply We can't amend them. Boy, if we could amend them this would be a very different meeting but that said Thank you for joining us. We can go ahead and we can even place these on file since you're planning on putting in a new submission. We do have a number of items on our agenda this evening, which we'll be getting to next, which include

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 different versions of previous technology impact reports and surveillance use policies which I believe we will be marking I believe we'll be placing those items on file this evening because they're old submissions. So if you're all right with it, we can just place 5.1 and 5.2 on file and look forward to those new submissions at the next council meeting. Does that sound good to you, Manager Hellman?

Mr. Chairman, I am amenable to that recommendation.

Thank you. Great. Any colleagues have any concerns about that approach? All right. Seeing a lot of head shakes, then we'll go ahead and place items 5.1 and 5.2 on file with thanks to Manager Hellman for your work on this and for listening to the request for changes by Councilor Hardt and incorporating them into a new submission. May it be the last one. Sounds good. All right, so disposition on 5-1 and 5-2 will be to place them on file. We next in our agenda have items 6.1 through 6.6 which were all items that had been sent for discussion they have been discussed previously and just to clear up the box here My intention tonight is to mark these items as work complete. Is there any concern from members of the committee about any of these items being marked work complete this evening?

All right, seeing none then we'll go ahead and do that. And then finally item 7.1 through 7.7 are previous submissions of technology impact reports and technology specific use policies So these have all been replaced by later submissions and or are soon to be. So we can go ahead and place on file item 7.1 to 7.7, and clean up the inbox to reduce the psychic damage anybody who searches on items in the legislative committee meeting takes. So With that, I believe all items tonight on our agenda have been designated for a disposition at this point. Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry if I missed it. Crime Tracer a new impact report is coming?

That's a great question. Uh, that's a good question for Manager Hillman. It's a little bit... You know what? I'm all out. Manager Hillmann you wouldn't happen to have a timeline on when we're going to see the next Crime Tracer submission.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize but i don't have any update for you on that all right Councilor Ewen-Campen

Oh, no, I was just curious because that was a meaty one that we were all kind of trying to wrap our heads around how we wanted to proceed and I hadn't heard an update. You know, my understanding is that at some point the administration will have to come back You know, seek an impact report for this and we on the Council will have to consider it.

Yeah, and as you said, it's a very meaty one. All right, Councillor Davis?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the good councilor from Ward 3 for flagging that. This was submitted in May. June, July, August. So I think I think we need to reassess our approach with these items that require council approval. and make sure that they align with the actual statute because I believe that there is a sort of a default setting that if we haven't taken an action in certain number of time, it's deemed approved. and I know the administration has, because we've been working collaboratively and these were effectively

mutually agreed that the prior submitted version wouldn't be pursued any further. They probably should have been withdrawn formally at that time. I think that's clearly what both... Both sides sort of intended here. I think we're probably fine for now. I don't think it matters if we place these on file or do anything else at this stage. But I just want to flag because as I think about it, I'm looking at these things that we were supposed to approve and we're placing them in file and not approving them. I think we will want to take a look and I can undertake this with... with the clerk's office and council staff and the law department just to make sure that we have the best way of handling these things so that there's sort of no question here. And I think actually as I think about it too,

To Dr. Najim Williams, probably should involve IGA because our past practice had been when we decided not to approve in the first meeting and the first version was withdrawn when the new version was submitted. And as I think about it, there might be a reason to do that again. Sorry, I'm just thinking out loud here but for the sake of doing that... Might as well put it on the record. We'll make sure that we're getting all this right. But as I said, clearly that was the effective intent and has been the practice of the administration to continue to work collaboratively and appreciate that. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

No, I appreciate that and it is a good It tickles that part of my brain that loves looking at the language, so I will also be taking a perusal to see if that's something we might be running afoul of and in which case we can change practice of the committee to instead I humbly request that the administration withdraw these items when this council is not ready to move forward. but in the meantime we can follow past practice here and I think will be, I think the legislative intent is understood and as you said the administration's been working with us collaboratively here so appreciate that. All right, Madam Clerk do you have a disposition for every item on our agenda this evening?

I do. Happy to read out before we adjourn as well

Sure, if you could just read the dispositions. You don't have to read the entire item description, just maybe number by number of it.

Okay. We have laid on the table items for approval 1.2, 1-2 and 4.4. We have marked work completed. 4.2 and 6.1 through 6.6 we have placed on file 5.1, 5.2, 7.1-7.7 and we have kept in committee 3.1 4.1 and 4.3 and we've already voted to approve 4.3. Excuse me, that's me misreading my own notes. Approved the attachment swap for agenda item 4.30.

That's right. All right. Then I suppose a vote to approve those items that have been laid on the table for recommendation for approval is in order along with a vote To adjourn. Is there any discussion on that motion? All right, seeing none. Madam Clerk, if you would do us the honor of a roll call.

And on approval for agenda items 1 to 4.4 and adjournment, Councilor Davis?

Yes.

Councilor Mbah?

Yes!

Councilor Ewen-Campen?

Yes

Strezo? Yes. Councilor Scott?

Yes Those items are approved and we are adjourned Thank you very much one and all two hours and a little bit of change I will see you all soon