Legislative Matters Committee

All right, welcome everybody this evening to this meeting of the City of Somerville City Council. Committee on Legislative Matters. I'm J.T. Scott, your Ward 2 counselor and your chair for Legislative Matters this session. We are meeting here on this Tuesday, May 19th at 6.03 p.m. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting is being conducted via remote participation and the video and audio recording of it will be posted to the city's website shortly after the conclusion of the meeting. I want to thank everybody for joining us this evening on a delightful summer thunderstorm evening. If you do hear delighted squeals outside, I promise that's just my kids losing their mind running around in the rain. To go ahead and begin, I know we are joined tonight by Clerk Fisher-Casiole. If you could start us off with a roll call to establish a quorum.

I'm glad I can. Councilor Davis.

Here.

Councilor Mbah. Ewen-Campen, Here, Councilor Strezo, Chair Scott, Present. All right with that we have four members here so we do have a quorum.

Wonderful, wonderful. Our first two items are approval of minutes. We had two meetings in our last batch, although this does say April 5th. I believe this is the approval of the meetings of May 5th. and the approval of the minutes of the April 28th meeting so a little bit of an error on the agenda here but if we could are there any discussion on those two sets of minutes? All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and lay those on the table for approval. And yeah, there it is, May 5th. Excellent. All right. So we will go ahead. It's just a Scrivener's era. I'm pretty sure we don't need to amend it. We have two substantive items before us tonight. One is a welcome update to our welcoming communities ordinance and one is a discussion on the

Establishment of the Rental Registry and Energy Disclosure Ordinance which was submitted by the previous administration just prior to their conclusion. so we'll go ahead by picking up item number three first that is ordinance 260522 proposing an amendment section 2-6 of the code of ordinances the welcoming community ordinance to further enhance civil rights protections in Somerville. Now, Councilor Ewen-Campen, you are, I believe, lead sponsor on this. And so if you'd like to give an introduction and sponsor any members of the public to introduce the changes that you are proposing tonight, Give you the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to just dig into this and hear from colleagues and from staff. But before we do so, I was hoping to sponsor a member of the public, Gideon Epstein, who's in the audience, who is with the ACLU of Massachusetts, who aided us in the drafting of this, have him give some very brief introductory remarks.

That sounds like a splendid idea to me. Madam Clerk, Fisher Cassiol, could you promote him up or unmute him so that he can give us a brief introduction? I'm here. Oh, all right. Already here.

Well then, Mr. Epstein, why don't you go ahead? Yeah, well, I appreciate Councilor Ewen-Campen for inviting me to give some introductory remarks and to the other co-sponsors of these amendments. I had the chance to address the full city council about a month ago and one of the things I said at that meeting is that these amendments represent some of the most consequential things that local lawmakers can take at the municipal level to safeguard immigrant's rights and more broadly, the civil liberties of the broader community in Somerville. And I think one particular area of these amendments that I want to highlight and it connects so much with the other work that I do at the ACLU of Massachusetts is these amendments requirement that City lawyers review ongoing city contracts or new city contracts that come about.

and review existing city contracts when they come up for renewal and in particular you know that area is So important right now because we are seeing municipal surveillance technology contracts, for example, contracts between about 80 Massachusetts municipalities, Somerville not included, and A company like Flock Safety that we know and we have clear evidence that they are... Directly contributing to civil immigration enforcement, whether that's providing data to ICE or providing license plate reader information that reflects driver's location information. to other local law enforcement. And I think it speaks to Somerville's values and leadership that Somerville is not engaged in this data sharing network that FLOC has going on like so many other municipalities are.

But the language in the amendment in these amendments would make sure that the actions that Somerville has taken to safeguard immigrants rights in the past are now reflected in law and you know we'll have thorough review and I think that contract review provision, it's building on other provisions in these amendments that would more explicitly prevent information sharing. with federal immigration enforcement authorities and other law enforcement engaged in civil immigration enforcement efforts and would also build on other provisions that safeguard Safeguard Somerville residents First Amendment rights, which are so often under attack in today's day and age. So I just want to thank

Ewen-Campen again for your work on these amendments and looking forward to answering any questions that members of the committee might have about these amendments drafting.

All right, thank you for that. And Madam Clerk, if you could have the record reflect that we are joined by Councilor Strezo. Wonderful. So, Councilor Ewen-Campen, how would you like to go through this? I've obviously reviewed this and have some thoughts myself, but mostly quite laudatory. Did you want to step through this item by item, change by change?

Mr. Chair, why don't I just very big picture kind of introduce what I see as the most substantive parts of this? which is basically two sections of the proposed amendments and then I'm sure that staff and members will have their own thoughts. Does that sound good?

Sounds great and then I will go to IGA and then to college.

Excellent. Well, first of all, let me just emphasize that this was a very collaborative approach with Councilor Link, Councilor Hardt, and with the administration. So thanks to all of them. So I just want to draw everyone's attention first to the new Section 3, which is a bunch of red text in the draft. And this says, Role of City Staff in Law Enforcement Action. and it you know basically says in plain language no one from the city unless they are required to do so by federal or state law can assist, cooperate, or allow time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel, or other resources to be used to facilitate an operation by federal or out-of-state agencies seeking to arrest or otherwise penalize People for engaging in protected First Amendment rights. or Massachusetts declared rights, including assembly petitioning speech. File this under ordinances that we never thought we'd have to...

File. But this is just saying we're not going to participate in any of the federal overreach that we are all seeing with our own eyes. and the other kind of large substantive section is 13. And this is what Mr. Epstein was just referring to. It has to do with reviewing contracts Grants, etc. And it requires the city solicitor's office to review these and to make sure that they do not conscript the city into violating the constitution, put simply. And so there are other changes, and I'm happy to get into the details on any of those, but these substantively are the two main sections of the ordinance that we're proposing amendments to. And I'm happy to open it up to staff, colleagues that have questions, thoughts.

Alright, well let me start by sending it to Liaison Radassi, representing the Mayor's Office here this evening, and then obviously happy to hear from our colleagues. Liaison Radassi.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanted to thank the sponsors for introducing this and working alongside the administration to produce these amendments over several months. and make sure that the ordinance reflects the shared values of the city. And if it's all right with you, I was hoping to give Director Nagel, if you're all right with it, the floor to talk about some of the work that SOYA has been doing and share some of the steps that have been taken to implement the mayor's executive order, which these amendments generally reflect.

Alright, that sounds great. Always a big fan of Director Teresa Nagel's work and that of her staff, so Director Teresa Nagel, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Starting with some of the things that we've been doing in compliance with the executive order that Mayor Wilson signed earlier this year. We have been working with economic development and our law department to ensure that we can get out the necessary signage, both For businesses as well as for private property owners so that they can loudly and clearly say that they understand their rights and they understand that without a judicial warrant ICE, federal agents of any kind cannot violate and trespass private property and that business owners also have the right to deny

Access into their business or organizations have the right to deny access to business within this idea of like Fourth Amendment places We have also been continuing to provide Know Your Rights trainings to the community, but have also now trained city staff on... Their rights and very importantly their responsibilities as city staff in Somerville and within this something that I really wanted to to highlight particularly within section E order Number three is that we have been very clear with city staff that employee safety is paramount. and the guidance that we are providing is they need to comply with our current regulation, our ordinances

and the values that we have in the city and let's be quite frank the law because it is still the law federally state and municipally and also that we understand that if any employee feels threatened or fears for their safety that they have to ensure their safety first and foremost so really being very clear that every individual safety be that of our employees or be that of our community members it supersedes requirements that we are putting forth Through whether it be the trainings that we are giving folks and the clarity of what the processes are.

if we are to have federal agents come in city property to conduct their operations but that we would not expect for them to put their lives on the line. or put themselves in harm's way if not complying with the demands of these agents were to put them or our residents at risk. In addition to this, we continue to answer questions and work along with our wonderful police department to ensure that not only are we Complying with the law and ensuring that there is...

Safety and security in our communities which also means respecting civil liberties and rights and human rights but that our community members know this and understand this and so we we continue to to try and serve as a bridge a trusted bridge um to Help folks understand that when they see police on jackets or the gear that some of our federal agents tend to wear that they should not conflate that with our local police. I'll keep it there and brief and answer any questions that anyone might have.

Alright, sounds good. Let's see, I'll start with Councilor Mbah. Councilor Mbah, you are first up in line.

Thank you, Chair Scott. I just wanted to echo your sentiment in the beginning. I'm a big fan of Director Niagara as well. Good to see you. I'm surprised that you're back. I thought you should be taking a sick leave or something, but good to see you. I also want to thank Councilor Ewen-Campen for leading this. I'm glad that you mentioned in the beginning when Sometimes it's always good to... The fact that we have this open communication is so helpful so we don't duplicate efforts. So this has been really... This has been great. I guess this is really nice, and I can see several provisions now expand.

you know protections around like data sharing you know eyes access to facilities and participation and all and I guess my my I'm I just want to get more clarity in terms of the kind of oversight. I just want to make sure that we keep having honing in in terms of oversight. And so I guess what oversight or accountability and training mechanism again that you know I'm sure Director Nagel spoke about that but will be put again continually to ensure that employees and Officers. Consistently, you see that I'm using keywords, you know, that is I understand and follow, you know, kind of like these new requirements.

because you can see that they've been optimized but again there's been you know some we had some loss in the book but now that everything has been revised like how do what is that oversight mechanism you know that has been that you're planning to institute to create that accountability and training you know that will be put in place to ensure that you know city employees and Our officers consistently understand and follow these new requirements.

Fair question. I see Liazen Radassi would like to give an answer to that. Liazen Radassi?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, I'll let Director Nagel speak a little bit more to the training, but I just want to flag the provisions of this ordinance are consistent with our existing policies, and the mayor and the administration share Thank you so much for joining us. and positions that we've already had.

that's understandable but I think the question of what are the accountability mechanisms to ensure that these policies get followed is a relevant one I mean there was just another story today about a local police department providing surveillance camera footage to ICE against town policy. So I think the question is still a relevant one. I see Jeff Bemper would like to speak to that, and then I'll go to Director Dresenick. Chief Benford does not want to speak to that.

Mr. Chair, my apologies. I would defer to Director Nagel and I will follow her up. I know she was recognized and I will follow her.

I think until we actually have any civilian oversight in the city of Somerville, which is something we are still lacking, you are still the primary oversight for the police department. I think it'd be relevant.

Yeah, I'm happy to respond to it. I was just out of courtesy. Her name was mentioned prior to mine, but I'm happy to jump in. Thank you very much for the question. Greatly appreciate it. Certainly for the police department, we've done a number of different things to recognize Tammuz to recognize this value set and the importance of this ordinance and how not only are we police, but how we operate as a city. And there are a number of different things that we've done and put in place to ensure that we are responsive police to not only our community but to our department members ensuring that they get the most important and up-to-date information partnering and working with Sawyer and other city partners to ensure As Director Nagel so aptly mentioned, serving as a bridge where by virtue of the very discipline that we represent, there are natural barriers over time through policy and practice. That has kept us separated from our community.

So she's been a welcomed and very much appreciated partner in that work. Within the police department, I have identified Deputy Chief Donovan, who was unable to be here tonight. He is the point of contact at the executive level for ensuring that we're in compliance with all the provisions of this ordinance, as well as the different steps that we've taken within department to ensure that our officers are informed. and what the expectations are for them under the law as well as under our rules. Additionally, newly appointed Captain de Oliveira, and the Community Relations Division has been working closely with SOYA and is really part of our operational lead in ensuring that The information and the expectations of executive management are really transcending down the organization to our operational practitioners and our police officers and frontline supervisors. Lastly, I would mention the good counselor asked about training.

We do in-service training annually, and as part of in-service training, we revisit our welcoming ordinance annually. to talk about the provisions and the expectations. We've put together helpful tips for our officers so that they have information. in an expedited fashion if presented with a call for service. It's extremely difficult and not to get tunnel visioned on these calls. So we try and provide it at a high level so that it's immediately reflective and accessible for the officers and they have access to the information. And then lastly, I would mention our training documents that we share during in-service which occurs daily. We've done this consistently for the last year and a half. Since this administration has taken office, we've used that as an opportunity and a quick opportunity to share updates and consistently remind officers again of the provision of the city ordinance as well as our department rules. So I will pause there and not just at a high level.

Those are some of the things that we've done internally to apply accountability and oversight, but also to ensure that our officers are getting access to the relevant information as they go about doing their work.

All right. Councilor Mbah, do you have any follow-up on that before I go to other follow-ups on this question?

No, I think the director also probably has something needed to substantiate. So I think no, but thank you, Chief, for that.

All right. Councilor Strezo, is this directed to the chief's response?

No. No, Mr. Chair. Getting in line for next question.

Great. Then I will... I will then invite Director Theresa Nagel to provide any additional context.

Yes, thank you through you, Mr. Chair. One of the most important ways that we are ensuring that there is accountability and follow-up and that what we are doing is practicable is by ensuring that it is in fact able to be practiced. and part of that is providing very clear guidance to staff about what it is that they are supposed to do and what is just not What is not part of their responsibility? We have found this to be incredibly effective because obviously this can be so overwhelming when we are talking about federal agents. Showing up in our city and taking our neighbors, our community members from us and also risking them taking our staff. This is all the same community.

and it is something that is incredibly emotional. We're talking about people's lives here and their ability to remain within Somerville and within the United States and because of the emotional nature of it it is easy to get overwhelmed by what we're asking people to do so we have ensured that the procedures that we have when any event occurs are very clear and that the majority of the responsibility lies on leadership. and not on frontline staff who may themselves be at risk. So that is one way that we are ensuring that folks are able to follow with every single one of the guidelines that are being put forth

whether it be within our welcoming community ordinance or within any of the the different steps that we've taken particularly since this new administration took office this new federal administration took office Additionally, I would add that we at SOYA are regularly available for trainings. We continue to provide trainings, whether that be for staff. We've actually been adapting the original training to particular needs of particular groups of staff given the Thank you so much for joining us. To really adapt in whatever way is needed. I think that oftentimes when we're thinking about accountability and oversight

It is easy to just look at, you know, is there a body? Is there a person that is ensuring that people are following the rules? and what I have seen happen time and time again in different organizations and in different contexts is that most of the attention goes to that and not in ensuring that these are rules that can be in fact followed that are in line with The law that are in line with our commitment and our values to our community and that are in line with what we're reasonably asking of humans in situations of duress to act upon. That is where we have really focused the bulk of our work and are finding it to be quite fruitful. And I have to add on a personal note, It has been so rewarding to be with my fellow colleagues and hear their thought processes, their concerns because overwhelmingly

It's about how do we show up? And I think that that's just also very important to recognize.

All right, thank you for that. Mbah, did you have any conclusion or follow-ups there?

No, Chairman Scott, I'm telling you, Director Nega never disappoints me. You know, she went above and beyond. Thank you, Director Nega. All right, wonderful. And Chairman Scott, can I just take this moment to also appreciate Gideon X's team as well for the work that he's put in, you know, just to say thank you, you know, for everything that, you know, is putting to strengthen this ordinance.

Yeah, wonderful, of course. Councilor Strezo, I believe you have the floor now.

Thank you. Are we ready to introduce a new thought on this? Are we ready to go? All right. And go. I am interested in suggesting an amendment to Section 13B2 and including places of worship because as we know and as Zoya has known that a lot of not only are members of our community afraid to show up to Their places of business and their favorite restaurant, but also places of worship. And there are numerous cases of ICE targeting places of worship for that here. throughout the nation, but closer.

So I think that makes sense to me, but I want to hear from my colleagues on that.

Okay, Guy, if I could just get a clarification. So in 13b-1, it's a protection against engaging, against targeting people for engaging activities protected by the First Amendment, which would include assembly and religion.

I don't see religion specifically. I see provision of food, medicine, clothing, shelter, transportation, health services, legal advice, representation by or under the direct supervision of an attorney. and it goes on to talk about that but does not mention houses of worship and I know that's why I'm asking your thoughts on this but I do think that's a valuable thing to include.

Right, then I think you know I would Why don't we defer to, let's see, I see Endless Salisbury has a drafting thought about that, and then I'd see if Attorney Epstein had a thought about its inclusion or...

Right, because I know that it is a religion and I know that or that religion and where that falls under verse A, which can be argued. Either way, please continue.

Analyst Salisbury.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Brendan Salisbury, Legislative and Policy Analyst for the City Council. I would say that there's no I don't think that there's a particular need to call that out here because these are about specific actions regardless of where they take place. and so the the location of them I think would actually limit this including the specific location like houses of worship because as it stands this is regardless of where these actions take place they are protected actions under this ordinance and if we were to start adding in specific locations we would it would behoove us to add in every location that we think would be appropriate to be covered by this we could certainly do including at you know x place but i think that the inclusion of a specific one and calling that out in particular actually does do us a disservice.

All right. Councilor Davis, did you have something on this point in particular?

Chair, my hand was raised just to generally get in the queue, but since you asked, I agree with Annalise Salisbury. I'm going to reference the Starbucks rule in my list of points to make, but I think it applies here as well. Better not to say one thing because then it's interpreted that you include it elsewhere. Keep it more general. That would be my approach.

All right. Are there any other thoughts on that topic? Streza.

Yes, and Mr. Chair, I'd like to hear from Sawyer on this as well.

All right. Director Theresa Nagel, your opinion's been requested here.

Absolutely. For the record, I am not an attorney. But in terms of the targeting of places of worship, yes, of course. Not only are places of worship targets, but people's personal religions are target. I would say that because of the inclusion of the First Amendment in the first point, that is likely to cover for all of this. And I would also add, not that we should be Only focusing on what already pre-exists at the state level, but with the state's executive order that explicitly calls out places of worship as places where

There cannot be these types of detentions and where ICE should consider them places that are safe for our community that we also have that additional Backing. So not to say through Mr. Chair, Councillor Strezo, that the point that you're not bringing up isn't absolutely salient. I agree with you 100%. It just seems like it would already be covered under the first part.

Thank you, Director Jason Engel, for saying what I was trying to say much more eloquently. And I do see Solicitor Amara also has a hand raised. So since we're getting lawyer opinions, Solicitor Amara.

Well, I figured you might as well get one from a lawyer, right? I agree with everything that's been said and I question and would not want to act on whether What negative implications it could have to do that and arguments that might be problematic, but I do believe that the behaviors are what we are targeting and wherever they occur is... where they are protected and there is no question but that houses of worship like a whole A host of places are being targeted and that are supposed to be safe and aren't. But the ordinance... goes really far substantively to protect people and their rights without calling into question going too far.

All right. Thank you. Can I ask a question on that point or for whoever wants to address it? Sure, please. Thank you. So I guess, you know, to take the The substantive intent here, the spirit of Councilor Strezo's thoughts, the language in... Sorry, and 13B1, you know, which is what has been cited here, is it's your... Activities Protected by the First Amendment or the cited articles of Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. If we're going to quibble about the drafting, right, and we're going to say that that would as stated include exercise of religion.

The phrasing here says including assembly existing outside petitioning and speech, right? and elsewhere in the document we use including without limitation but for the one place where we had said that and it's now deleted which is going to be a question I'm going to have later. When I'm looking at a document, I always worry that if we say including that that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as an exhaustive list and that is therefore excluding anything other than the things that follow the word including. So if I had the pen here, I would write the words without limitation in between including and assembly. So I guess my question would be, was, you know, Is that intentionally not the way it's phrased? And if so, why?

and if not, then could we just add that to make sure it's clear that we're including the concerns that were raised by Councilor Treasurer and anything else that might be deemed to fall under the First Amendment or the referenced sections of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights?

Wonderful question. Let's see, Annalise Salisbury, I saw your hand shoot up there. Maybe you have a drafting comment?

Mr. Chair, you know that I do. Mr. Chair, through you too, Councilor Davis, I will admit that the reason that it is struck in one place and not in another is simply because we did not touch The complaints section, but I would be inclined to strike without limitation there in keeping with the drafting manual that was produced. which does very clearly state that our intent when using the word including is a non-exhaustive list. That document is of course something that you as a body have accepted and have stated is part of your intent. when drafting ordinances so my inclination would be not to add without limitation in because that would be in conflict with other ordinances that are that have been drafted, but rather to remove without limitation from subsection F. All right.

I'd love a good style guide discussion. And fortunately, Davis, the pen is in fact in your hand. We are the Legislative Matters Committee. Solicitor, if you don't mind, would you like to hear Solicitor Amara or would you have more to add?

I'd like to just respond, if I may, to that, Mr. Chair, and, you know, I'm I'll start by expressing, again, my gratitude to Annala Salisbury for his work in helping us define best practices for drafting. As I'm sure you will recall, I specifically objected. To that point and express my disagreement with it. And I believe also stated my intent to continue advocating for drafting with clarity, which I think this discussion Quite perfectly crystallizes the need for that type of a drafting approach. If an offshoot of this is that we need to go back to the drafting guide and have that conversation again, I'm happy to engage in that discussion. But as the point has been raised and as the language, I think,

One could objectively say has been interpreted in a way that raised the concern that something is not included. in that the ordinance as it stands does use the phrase elsewhere. I'm inclined and as it is also on my list of things to raise like why did you take that out? in another section. I think it's more clear with that. I think the reader better understands what we're talking about. I guess I would defer it to Attorney Amara as to how a court might interpret that, but I suspect... that a court might look more to judicial precedent, the jurisprudence that's out there, rather than our style guide as the deciding factor, though I suspect it may be Informative as to legislative intent, but that's not necessarily...

I wouldn't necessarily want to hang a hat on that, Mr. Chair, is I guess what I'm trying to say.

All right. I guess I will go to Solicitor Amara and then we'll return to Councilor Strezo who led this off. Solicitor Amara?

I wish I could say that in my experience, every piece of legislation has been consistent throughout in its use of terms. I cannot. This is no exception and it's not uncommon particularly when you're working off one draft and focusing on changes. I also believe that in terms of clarity Conciseness is the trend? And I have absolutely no question in my mind about our ability to adequately defend including is not exclusive. Because if you mean exclusive, you better say exclusive, right? Because you will always have an argument when people want to broaden something. So if you do not want to broaden, you make it perfectly clear that it's not. And I...

Agree with Legislative Liaison Salisbury that this is in keeping with the more current way of drafting. And I do not think there is any problem with it the way it is drafted in a perfect world I also don't have a problem taking it out later but we really were trying not to go beyond what the changes were all right

Well, I guess that'll be a will of the committee question for a little bit later. Councilor Strezo, did you have anything further?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for all the thoughts on this. I love the dialogue. With what Councilor Davis says, I support that, and I would be interested. And I hear what everyone's saying, and I've been listening intently, but I would feel comfortable including that. Davis was saying.

Okay. All right, then opening this up to other colleagues. Do other colleagues have questions, thoughts, concerns, or amendments to consider?

I have other unrelated... I'm sure you have a list. The first one is directly related to this concept. If it's my turn to go, then I will...

You have it. May really quick uh Mr. Chair are you would you uh with your brain process here would you prefer amendments happen now or would you rather just have the general conversation and then hit amendments after what is

I'd like to conclude the discussion and then based on the totality discussion, we can consider amendments based on the whole context of it. So I'd like to hear what Councilor Davis has to say.

I hear you and through you to Councilor Davis bookmark that conversation we just had.

Councilor Davis you do have the floor sir.

All right thank you Mr. Chair. I am making note of that section as we speak. So my first comment was this exact same point in section E4, role of police in immigration enforcement. And the question was, why are we moving Removing the words without limitation. I think I've heard the answer. That is a style decision, a change made to align with the aforementioned style guide on a point. With which I do not agree. So, yeah, will of the committee, will of the council as to... which approach you want to take just which whatever we do we ought to be consistent which we are currently not um so i'll leave that for future uh deliberation um

In that same, along the same lines, and again, citing the Starbucks rule, espresso unius exclusio alteris, or something along those lines, the The addition in both section E, let's see. E3 and then E4, the concept of except as acquired by federal law or a court order. I didn't see that added anywhere else and I didn't see that we said that anywhere else and I note that we do have and I specifically remember having this discussion in the in the last major overhaul of this that I led in 2019 or something, whatever year that was. I know it would have been 19, well, whatever it was.

The Existence of Section I, which isn't exactly on point, but it's pretty much on point. It pretty much says the same thing, I think. So my question, the drafting question was, you know, why in E3 and 4 add the except as required by federal law or court order and not add it to Every other section. Do we mean it in those sections, but we don't mean that to apply to the other sections? Are we somehow... To my eye, that creates some ambiguity as to its relationship, as to the applicability of Section I to the entire ordinance. And so I just want to understand if there was a, and there may be a really good reason for it. I just, if so, I want to understand what that is.

So to Councilor Ewen-Campen, to Attorney Amara, to Mr. Epstein, whoever can address that.

Mr. Sher, I think I would defer to Liaison Salisbury. I mean, I think the answer is this is where we've made the most substantive changes, but I don't have a good answer for a substantive reason of why to have it here and not elsewhere.

Mr. Chair, with due respect to Councilor Ewen-Campen, I don't actually have an answer for this because I do believe that this was added at the insistence of the administration.

You are muted, Mr. Chair.

All right. Well, we do have representatives of the administration. Would anybody like to fess up? Let's see. Liaison Redas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that because these directly pertain to civil immigration enforcement, We just wanted to be really clear about the limitations that exist if it's required by federal law or court order so that we weren't misleading members of the public that might be looking at the ordinance and think that this would do something that it actually cannot do.

All right, so it sounds like it's for excessive clarity here, Councilor Davis.

So if I may, Mr. Chair, I mean, I guess I go back to my initial question. Is there a concern that Section I doesn't accomplish this? And if so, Is there disagreement that adding what is purported to be clarity actually might create ambiguity because there's now a question as to whether that concept applies to every other section where it's not mentioned.

Analyst Salisbury Mr. Chair, if I may answer half of that question. I cannot speak to I and its applicability and whether this goes further than that or if it is Redundant. I will leave that to the city attorney if necessary, but I will say that if it is redundant, I am inclined to agree consistent with my Pensioned for conciseness that it should not be included.

All right. Does anybody want to make a case for arguing why Councilor Davis shall not strike this? All right. Councilor Davis, I think you've gotten as much answer as you're going to get on this one.

Yeah. So, Mr. Chair, I mean, if I may, you know, I think, like, I don't... I think there's a fair argument that could be made that I maybe isn't as clear as it As to this concept in these two places, I assume they also would agree that to whatever extent something is required by federal law or a court order. Anywhere else in the document, it says we're not going to do it. That same caveat would apply. Perhaps there's an improvement that could be made to I. So that it does apply. Objectively, it is what it is, right? And I think, or at least... As one of the key drafters, one of the main drafters of the existing ordinance, certainly was my intent that if something is required by federal law or a court order, we'll do it.

We're not saying we're not going to do that. That was never sort of my intent to have this ordinance convey that. And so I very much agree. I just think it's a drafting point and so you know I think it might be and I don't know what your intent was Mr. Chair in terms of moving this forward but you know this seems like it might be an opportunity to If we were to leave this a committee to maybe follow up and see if we can A, drill down a little bit to what the rationale was and B, maybe improve I so that it might capture that intent without unnecessarily creating Unattended Ambiguity, if that makes sense. But again, to my colleagues.

Yeah, I mean, again, before we get into amendments, I kind of want to get the totality of the discussion. If, you know, people are in broad agreement here and there are simply a few drafting amendments we made here, I certainly don't have a problem, you know, considering those amendments and approving it this evening. and moving it to the council with a recommendation. That said, if there is a lot of work that's felt that needs to be done, certainly happy to send it back and bring it back for our next legislative matters meeting. Understanding, of course, that our legislative matters schedule is going to be Let's say abbreviated due to the upcoming budget season and recess. Mr.

Chair, if I may, I don't disagree. I think that's a perfectly reasonable take. And given that we do have a week and a couple of days before our next council meeting, I'd also, if you'd like, or if our colleagues would like, I'd be happy to have those conversations in the interim and if anything comes up between now and then you know that is consistent with this discussion, right? We certainly wouldn't suggest that we should adopt anything that we haven't fully discussed here in committee, but if there was language that is consistent with the discussion, that might be in order with something that we could We could present in a week or a couple of days. I've shared my thoughts on this one. If you want, I have one more point and then I'll just shut up and we can have the full list. But I'm also happy to shut up now and hold that last point as you wish.

I love getting the full list. I also just want to say that I think that sounds like it could be a very appropriate approach in the and the interregnum between here and our next council meeting to take the feedback that's been considered and ensure that consistent with the discussion made here that language changes get made and then resubmitted but I do see we've got Councilor Ewen-Campen and then, boy, we've got a bunch of lawyers wanting to jump in here. So Councilor Ewen-Campen, I will give you privilege of place as an actual member of this committee.

Mr. Chair, first of all, I just want to say that I love this. I am, you know, it's funny, like we worked on this for a long time. and I always knew that this was going to come to committee and we were going to hear a lot of really important drafting feedback and I just take a great amount of pleasure from this is the first ordinance I put in this term so I'm Enjoying this greatly, and I thank Councilor Davis. You know, I think... I feel like the argument for including it as was said is I think an unusually large segment of the public will be reading this section right I think this is like very live in people's minds and I think that is why in our discussions it wound up there right to be clear because non-lawyers are going to be reading this and we don't want to give them the wrong impression I'm totally compelled by the argument of

Yeah, but from a legal drafting perspective, which is what this document actually is, it potentially creates some ambiguity, and I'm not at all wedded to keeping it there. I think there's an argument for keeping it there, but... you know as has been mentioned Councilor Davis kind of led the drafting of this initial ordinance and is extremely familiar with it in totality and I think that perspective is really valuable and I'll also just say as a as a tag here um I also have maybe a proposal for how to address the concerns raised by Councilor Strezo. which is just to include in the list of activities that's enumerated in one there to include religious expression. That's something that... that Mr. Epstein had suggested to me.

I don't know if it's strictly legally necessary I don't think that it is as we discussed it's probably covered but if we're going to be listing things I very much understand the desire to include religious activities and would be happy to include it in that way

Yeah, I think that was what I was getting at originally was that since this is covered by First Amendment activity, that probably is where it would need to go. All right. Well, I saw a whole host of lawyers, although I only see one now. So Solicitor Amara, and then I will go to Councilor Strezo, Solicitor Amara.

Yes, I think Jay from my office was going to say pretty much the same thing I am is I don't think either of us are opposed to If there are suggested revisions that are not really substantive, that are more stylistic, that those be discussed first. out of this meeting and worked out so that we don't do them on the fly.

I love saving everybody's time. All right, let's see here. Councilor Strezo, did you have a follow-up?

Yes, Annette, I do support Councilor Ewen-Campen's suggestion of adding that. I think that it's also helpful for the general public if we do have People afraid of going to Mass and worried about an ice raid in there. I think that's good for our constituents.

All right. Davis. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I, on that point, would have no objection to that addition. I guess I will note just because I think it's important to say this when the issue comes up, and we said this, we repeated this often several years ago when we were working on the underlying ordinance, which is that Nothing that we can do here should be interpreted as, you know, Making people feel completely safe or protected from the types of enforcement actions we've seen from the federal government. As we know, there's only so much we could do. And it's part of why We moved away, and this was not the city's sort of initiation, this was the ACLU's recommendation at the time, was to sort of move it away from Ward Sanctuary. We don't want to give folks a false impression.

We want folks to fully understand the lay of the land. We can decide what City resources will be used for and in what manner that we decide that doesn't necessarily you know we don't have any legal authority to stop the federal government from doing various things and so I just I Thank you very much. I should note that the fact that largely my comments here are more sort of drafting nits than real big substantive points should certainly be taken as a credit.

Kippen, and to everyone who put work into this, you know, I'm in full agreement on the substance. I'm curious as to why we removed the severability clause, and I'd like to hear the rationale for that. So that's the very last sentence in J.

All right. I saw Analyst Salisbury very quick on the draw here. I am Mr.

Chair through you to Councilor Davis. I am so excited to answer this. That is because there is a Global Severability Clause in our Code of Ordinances, actually. I don't recall the section off the top of my head, but it is in Chapter 1 of the Code of Ordinances. and it does cover every single section of the code of ordinances and so at every opportunity when we are making amendments to the code of ordinances you will see me removing severability clauses

Mr. Chair, through you, to Annalisa Eldridge, thank you for that. And I understand the rationale and I don't necessarily disagree with that. I just want to note to my colleagues that we very much had this discussion when we were drafting this ordinance and were very much aware that that provision existed and decided to keep it here anyways. Sort of on the same philosophy that I think was just made for including the acceptance requirement of federal law in a few sections here and not the others. So, yeah. You know, it sort of puts me on the opposite side of the argument. Not that I'm making the argument. I'm just sort of pointing out the discussion at the time. So it's... It will require me to agree that we should change the decision we made a few years ago. And I'm not opposed to doing that, but I'm not quite there yet. So I'll leave it at that for the moment, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Davis. As always, my esteem for you as an attorney includes your ability to argue both sides, been a given.

Noting that, of course, I'm not acting as an attorney in this role in any way, shape, or form.

Of course. Celeste Amara, you still have your hand up. Was it relevant to this point?

No, I apologize. I just failed to lower it.

Okay. Alright, well, let's see here then. I guess I'm the only one who hasn't spoken yet, but I see Councilor Mbah and Councilor Ewen-Campen have entries, so Councilor Mbah.

Thank you Chairman Scott. I think the more I hear about all this, how to tighten the knot, You know, one big thing that I'm, you know, looking at this, I mean, there's like a few stuff that, you know, wasn't really like a stickler. But if you look at section F, G, and H, it relies heavily on internal enforcement and reporting by the administration and police department. So we could as well amend these sections to establish an independent civilian oversight body.

you know and also an annual public hearings you know before the city council like there could be a number of stuff that we can add you know in mandatory you know audits for all eyes interactions and Timelines for investigating complaints and all are not.

All right. So if I'm hearing you correct, you're thinking there is room for The addition of more text that explicitly creates a structure for oversight and reporting.

Yes, and also disciplinary consequences for employees who violate the ordinance. That could be... I mean, if we are going down this space, we may as well just kind of like really... Putting stuff that would actually make it have more beef to the bone.

Mr. Chair on this point, do you mind if I respond? Please, Councilor Ewen-Campen. So through you, thank you very much to my colleague. I just want to note a lot of work and thought went into the enforcement section based on pretty extensive conversations internally. um happy to go into the details but i would just say that this was basically copied and pasted from our surveillance oversight ordinance and our facial recognition Both of which I consider to be very successful and have kind of threaded this needle around collective bargaining issues and how... Violations of ordinance can be addressed. So I'm not particularly in favor of opening this can of worms, but obviously it's up to the will of the committee.

all right uh yeah i'd say for myself i think it's an interesting thought but one that i would given given the work and where this is at right now i might encourage uh as we are doing here, revisiting the ordinance to maybe that seems like a larger set of creation in terms of oversight capacity that might be better addressed in a separate revision. Mbah. But, Councilor Mbah, you still have...

Yes. No, no. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Ewen-Campen. I appreciate the insight. Thank you. Chesco for indulging me and then another thing also that I was thinking also when I was reading this ordinance I just realized like you know multiple sections you know contained Very broad exceptions such as except as required by federal law or a court order. If you look at that, like E3, you know, section E3, E4, I think has it. I think E9... and I think also E-11. And, you know, so these provisions, you know, clarify that only criminal judicial warrant I think we can amend, I mean, if we like, this is just the last one I'm thinking about. If we can amend it to clarify that all criminal judicial warrants signed by a federal or state judge may authorize You know, corporations.

So that way, he explicitly stated that, you know, it kind of like, just make it like one stop shop. But again, it's not like, honestly, it's not a stickler, but I would just The more you look at it, the more you think, you know, say, okay, it could be this way. I lost your audio though, Councilor Mbah.

Can you hear me okay? Maybe. Am I the only one who lost that audio? I can hear, Councilor Mbah. One moment. I'm sorry. Pardon me, my speaker died. It was not you, sir. Please.

No, no, no. No worries. You know, again, this is just about closing loopholes, but I mean, like, I also don't want us to kind of, like, get down or so, like, you know I just it's just a thought you know if it's not of a if not um that too much of a big deal that's you know I mean I'm happy to also pass

All right. Councilor Ewen-Campen, I saw you had your hand up first. Talk to that.

Mr. Chair, I have a separate question for Solicitor Amara when we're done with this.

All right. Yeah, I guess, Councilor Mbah, I definitely, let me just say I'm personally very sympathetic to that set of concerns, especially with regard to oversight. And what I would say is perhaps we perhaps you and I and Councilor Ewen-Campen or you and I can work on a set of further amendments and strengthening to as part of ushering in more civilian oversight capacity. I think just given the tightness of our timeline and how right now we're trying to get something done before we go into a legislative recess, I might say let's punt that to later, but I'm very much in agreement with you in terms of the intent. Thank you. All right. Let's see. I saw Councilor Ewen-Campen had a separate set of questions.

Councilor Strezo, is this directly related or?

Mine is on this. I don't know who that was speaking.

Yes, I was also going to say on that.

All right, then I see Councilor Strezo and Councilor Davis on the direct point we were just addressing, and then we will return to Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Okay, well, it's always great to examine the structure and really put that forward. We've had a lot of active snags on when that has happened in the past and why I think that's great to suggest I couldn't and wouldn't support that where it stands right now where this is I think it's a slippery slope I I think A lot of what this already has is already good. And again, we're We're talking about amendments to something that already exists. And any potential structure in place of civilian oversight, et cetera, is assuming that a strong structure is already established. in place to accept that, enact that, and continue to enact that for decades to come, which is still highly uncertain. So at this point, I would not be willing to support that.

All right, Councillor Davis.

Thank you, Sir. Sorry, I couldn't find the unmute button for a minute. Yeah, so just briefly on the language that I had raised earlier about acceptance required by federal law or court order. Mbah's point, that question sort of sparked a question in my head. and this is probably something that we could deal with in the context of potentially an improvement to section i but in in spirit of wanting to make sure we talk about all of the issues um i wanted to raise this here um In looking at the definition of administrative warrant, which is a defined term in this document, And I think this, Mr.

Chair, would be directed through you to the city attorney. Would... Let me rather than question, let me just sort of raise my concern and ask for thoughts. As we're thinking about language and perhaps using this federal court order as a starting point, I have a concern that maybe a court order, because we're very specific about defining an administrative warrant and the handling of administrative warrants, etc., But then we use this concept of a court order, which seems really, all due respect, a lot more loosey-goosey than sort of the other language we've used. And I would worry that maybe an administrative warrant could be considered a court order. I think one might read it that way or perhaps misread it that way.

So I wanted to get the city attorney's thought on that and at least as it relates to potentially reworking Section I to make sure that this concept is more clear and applies throughout the document. Might we be more precise to effectively exclude administrative warrant where it is our intent to do that?

All right, you know, Councilor Davis, can I hand you the chair for a moment? I'm having some technical difficulties with my audio, so I will allow you to follow up on that and I'll return shortly.

I've met my question through you, the chair, to the city attorney and Vice Chair Streza. I assume you can take the chair.

Sorry, Vice Chair Streza.

My apologies.

Would you like me to try to answer?

To the chair, I would value your thoughts.

With all due respect, I'm having a hard time following your question without seeing it in writing It's been very clear through everything we've tried to do on this topic, be it in here and every place else, know your rights trainings. There's a clear distinction between an administrative warrant and a judicial warrant or a judicial order. An administrative order does not come from a court. and so that I don't see it as being confusing but I think if we were to have more discussion on the topic I would prefer to take it up with some of the other things because We've been very clear in everything we've done, executive orders, what we've seen other surrounding cities do has been administrative versus judicial.

Okay, through the chair. Thank you, Attorney Amara. So I guess, all right, so your point would be that the words, so that the phrase that I'm concerned about was... or court order in that new language that was added in section E3 and 4. and whether that could be misinterpreted as including an administrative warrant. But your point is that the definition of an administrative warrant It specifically says that it's something that is issued by an executive officer, not by an officer, not a A court order is by that definition not a court order. So, okay, I'm satisfied with that in my Addressing my concern, and as we talk about whether to roll that concept from

The new proposed language in E3 and E4 into a new Section I. That will inform the drafting process as we go. if we do present something just so folks understand what that might look like.

Thank you Madam Chair.

If I may Madam Chair I have a Question for Solicitor Amara based on a conversation we were having a while ago about severability. Seeing no objection through the chair. Maybe I just missed it. Is it the solicitor's opinion that there's a global severability clause? And I'm just interested in this, you know, in all the ordinances we pass. You know, from the perspective of do we just never need to include that? Is that consistent with the solicitor's opinion?

You know I'm going to have a hard time with the use of the word never, but I will defer to My understanding is that you do have that general clause in the ordinances and it covers everything in the ordinances. So we do not need it. It would be redundant in my opinion. Would it be harmful? No. But in an effort to try to create clarity going forward and because we have these global provisions to make it clear that we don't need to use them when we're making amendments, I do agree with Liaison Salisbury that it's not needed.

Okay, that's all I needed to hear. Thank you very much.

All right, thank you. My apologies for that minor disruption. Vice Chair, where were we in the flow of discussion? Is there somebody still waiting?

Mr. Chair, I think the floor is clear and we're eager to hear your thoughts.

All right. So just to summarize the conversation here to this point in terms of unless there's something more that needs to be discussed on that severability provision, I see the piece about removing the without limitation language in G4, the question as to why in E3 and E4 including an exemption when it's already cited in I, and then the Suggestion that Councilor Ewen-Campen made to include a mention of exercise of religious freedom in 1A in the First Amendment section. Sorry, not of 1A, but of B1, 13B1.

So I think those are the outstanding things that would need to have some revisitation before, I guess, a clean resubmittal. Mr. Chair. Strezo.

We might have had a hiccup with the interwebs. Did we discuss the Davis's proposed language changes.

Councilor Trezza, what I'm referring to right now is the process by which Councilor Davis would work with The drafters and the legal department to handle all of those between now and our next meeting so that a new submission could be provided, which would address all of these concerns rather than have us do it on the fly this evening.

Okay, so your plan is then... Thank you so much. Are you planning to discharge this from committee tonight? Work on it and then proposals and then discharge from committee with amendments to be presented in next city council meeting, Mr. Chair?

This would not, strictly speaking, have to be discharged without recommendation. It would be new submission of clean text would be my intention, but That's just my intention, Councilor Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to defer to the will of my colleagues. To the extent that there is agreement among the committee, it might be helpful to, particularly if we are going to take up a new submission, you know, The night it first appears, it might be helpful to have a motion from the committee, at least on the substance, so that there's clarity as to whether we Whether that was what we intended or not, I think certainly I would very much support if Councilor Chiazza intended to make the motion to amend Section E13B1 to add religious expression, as was noted. I think I'm going to keep my mouth shut as it relates to the without limitation, other than to say, I think it does appear one other place. And if we're going to not use it, we should not use it. So I might...

I might move now since I have the floor to that the that the city council's legislative and policy analysts work with the law department in a In revising the document to remove any other use of without limitation so that it's consistent across the document. and I'll stop there and then of course you want to recognize for the other motion but let's take up one at a time I would assume you want to do Mr. Shearing so I'll put that first motion on the floor just to which is to to remove The remaining use of without limitation in anywhere else that appears in this documentary, I think, is only once.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So... Before entertaining that motion, I guess my inclination would be rather to... I haven't heard a lot of disagreement here in the committee. I think the tone and direction from the conversation is clear, and I think the largest points of disagreement are generally... style guide disagreements between yourself and the policy analyst so my inclination would be rather than a series of specific directives or amendments simply a broad directive yes for the policy analyst and uh Law Department to collaborate with council to provide a drafted update for the next committee or for the next council meeting. But if you feel you want to get into the weeds here, we certainly can.

Mr. Chair, I completely appreciate your eye towards efficiency. Given that by my count, I think we've just got two. I'm inclined to leave the motion that I've made on the floor. It's this one and then I think there's one other and then there'll be no question as to whether the and whether the document conforms with this discussion as it has been a lengthy one to save our colleagues the chore of watching the whole thing to make sure that they did what we asked them to.

God bless. All right then. The motion here from Councilor Davis is requesting that the policy analyst and law department go through to remove the without limitation languages in all the places where it appears in the document as it is already covered in section

Just leave out the last part because we've been advised that we don't need it and it's better without it. And while I still disagree...

All right, removing the without limitation language for clean recent mail. On that motion, I hesitate. Analyst Salisbury.

Mr. Chair, just as a procedural note, and for the sake of your sanity and everyone else's, I do just want to note that it would be my preference to receive specific directions as I will be out of office. starting on Friday of this week and will not be present for the City Council meeting and so a general directive will likely not be able to be accomplished by me in the very short amount of time that I have remaining in the office.

I believe that this motion is attempted to do by Alex Salisbury. I was just clarifying that that would be my preference. That's all. Great. Colleagues, is there any further discussion on this motion? Seeing none, let's call the roll on that motion, please.

All right, this is a roll call on the motion. Councilor Davis? Yes. Councilor Mbah? Ewen-Campen.

Yes.

Councilor Strezo. Yes. Chair Scott.

Yes, please.

All right. With that, that is all votes in the affirmative.

All right, and then I believe the other motion that was there was one from Councilor Ewen Campen to include exercise religious freedom in the 13b1 clause. Is that correct? The chair was to include religious expression. Religious expression.

Thank you. After assembly.

All right, then I will frame that in a request to the analyst and law department to include that language in a clean resubmission to the council. rather than amending the document before us. So on that motion, is there any further discussion? All right, seeing none, let's call the roll on that motion.

All right. The second motion for the religious expression language. Councilor Davis.

Yes.

Councilor Mbah.

Yes.

Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Yes.

Councilor Strezo. Yes. Chair Scott.

Yes.

All right. Again, that is all votes in the affirmative as well.

Councilor Davis, do I see another motion from you? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps not a motion, but I just want to make sure that I ask while we're here in open session if colleagues have strong feelings one way or the other on The removal of the two specific added instances of except as required by federal law court order in favor of perhaps a revision. A to be drafted revision to section I to maybe better capture that concept. I'm happy to work with Councilor Ewen-Campen on that point, but that would be the only person with which either of us could have a conversation once this meeting closes. So I want to make sure that we're...

I certainly don't have a need to be included in that conversation understand the intention clearly and if the goal is to Clarify the drafting of Section I to be able to remove the duplicative pieces in E3 and 4. That's fine by me. Let's see. Are there thoughts on that? Councilor Mbah?

Thank you Chair Scott. Councilor Davis, I guess, is it, are you following up from my initial comment about, you know, the Noticing, you know, like the broad exceptions, you know, that uses such as except as required by federal law or a court order. Is that? and we can admit okay that's good because Mr.

Chair yeah oh sure and thank you as it sits since the Councilor addressed me directly through you Mr. Chair to Councilor Baha um no I'm following up on my initial point that I raised prior to your question. on the same point that I was concerned that the inclusion of those two provisions in those two sections but not elsewhere created ambiguity and perhaps it would be better to address it more broadly through the existing Section I. So that would be my intent, if we decide that's the right thing to do. Having heard the arguing here, I want to redo the document more carefully, and as the attorney noted, and maybe not do this on the fly but and then you know whatever just whatever suggestion is made either I or Councilor Ewen-Campen could explain that to the full council when this comes up at the next meeting.

So it's not directly, but it is related there, Councilor Mbah.

Okay, thank you. So then we can move, you know, I mean... to clarify like you know we can amend this provision now to clarify that Only criminal judicial warrants signed by a federal or state judge may authorize cooperation. That way we can close all these other loopholes because He would explicitly state that ICE detainers, administrative warrants, notices to appear and Civil immigration subpoenas are insufficient grounds for detention or information sharing facilities or cooperation. So, you know, if we really want to close the loop Loopholes that could otherwise allow voluntary collaboration with federal immigration enforcement. We need to clearly state our intent to

I think the point is well taken and can be, could be covered in this, but open to hearing discussion on it.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Sorry I don't want to add more complication to this. I just really as City Attorney Amara said prefer not to start doing amendments on the fly for something like this and really make sure that we're being thoughtful about how were addressing this. So I'm happy to work with the law department and whoever from the committee would want to have this conversation but just want to make sure that we're not starting to throw around language without full consideration.

Yeah, thank you, Liaisoner Dossi. That is exactly what I'm trying to do, is get this conversation offline so that it can be handled before our next council.

Davis. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I appreciate your effort to sort of bring this conversation to a close. And I guess on that point, I would point out through you to the good councilor at large that There is significant language in the document right now that addresses administrative warrants. I'm not sure that The language that we're talking about here is really relevant to what sounds to me is the issue that you're concerned about. I think that To my eye, the document addresses the concerns that I think I'm hearing because there is, as I said, there is a full definition of administrative warrants and there are multiple sections that explicitly address those.

So

It's not my intent to revise Section I as in the way the revisions that we just discussed. It's not my intent in any way to address the concern that you raised there because I think the document already addresses that. I'll stop there, Mr.

Chair. Yeah, on that point, Chairman Scott, that's why I say I was quiet when Councilor Davis, the first amendment that he made and the city attorney said there's other document. I mean, I still defer to like Councilor Ewen-Campen because they said these documents are copy and paste. So, Councilor Davis just made an amendment to one section, and there's duplicative, which is completely different from the other section that it said. I'm not sure. That's why I'm still reading. I'm trying to like I have like two different stuff open in front of me I'm not sure like what how that The amendment that you made in the beginning, I was still unclear, like how that is, and how that isn't being repeated, you know, in other sections.

Councilor Davis, perhaps you can help Councilor Mbah?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The proposed change to language that I've suggested would remove the addition of the... The two proposed additions of except is required by federal law or court order and more clearly state that concept in section I so that it applies to the entirety of the document wherever it would by its nature apply. That's about all I can say, Mr. Chair. I think if there's more to it than that, then I think we probably need to keep this in committee and have that discussion. But I don't think there is. I think the document does what we're trying to do other than things that we've specifically taken votes on and then that one changed so my preference Mr. Chair if you're interested is to

Keep this one in committee for a future placing on file once we've taken a vote on the... Or if you wanted to have a more cleaner and a deferred... We could refer it without a recommendation such that it could be done away with next Thursday alongside a new revision, but that's administrative. preference that I don't really have a strong opinion on.

Just as a procedural matter, I'd be inclined, rather than discharging without recommendation, which might lead to some confusion about whether or not we were proposing amendments to the existing text. I'd rather keep this in committee, request a clean resubmittal at the next council meeting, and then we can place this on file at a future meeting. Councilor Mbah and then Councilor Strezo.

Sorry, Chairman Scott, I think my hand, I don't know, my hand should have been down. I'm just reading some stuff here, sorry. Okay, great. Councilor Strezo.

Thank you. On Councilor Davis' suggestions, The original suggestions of these two language changes and having our legislative analyst revise that and move forward. I support that. I would like to move forward with that and I think again that this is a modification of an already existing ordinance that has been planned, thought out, Considered, Researched, etc. And I think it's in a good place where it is at this very second. I respect my colleagues' opinions and thoughts on this. But that is where I stand.

All right, so I believe we have made all the appropriate motions and given the directives to... To the Policy Analyst and Law Department, there was one final outstanding one, which was a motion from Councilor Davis, I believe, for uh forum forum Considering removal of the exceptions in section E3 and 4 and considering any needed revision to section I to accommodate that. Is that correct, Councilor Davis?

Mr. Chair, I believe that the intent, the discussion that we've just had with in terms of proposing a new Section I, you know, It wasn't my intent to make a motion on that. It was more just to hear the discussion here. Certainly, if you prefer that I vote be taken on that, I'm happy to make that motion. But I think this one probably falls a little more in the... Let's, let's, let's work on it and include that submission and then explain because I think, as I said, I, I'm actually, you know, there's a universe where once I look at this, this specific point, now hearing the The answers to my questions, maybe we take a different route. And so my intent is to put forward what I think in collaboration with Councilor Kemp and everyone else is the best response and then explain that to folks next Thursday based on our discussion here.

That sounds like a great solution, Councilor Davis. Then I propose we stop beating the horse and keep this item in committee and move on. Are there any further discussion on the item before I do that? All right, well then, seeing that in the context of the discussion, the motions have been made, I look forward to receiving a clean draft at our next council meeting, which hopefully we can take up and explain to our colleagues and vote on. All right, with that done, let's move on to item number four of our agenda this evening. That's item number 251822. This is requesting ordainment of an amendment to Chapter 7 of the Code of Ordinances to establish a rental registry and energy disclosure.

Now, in full transparency, this is an item that the council had discussed for a very long time in terms of the creation of a rental registry. This was work that had been undertaken by the previous administration. And then on the very, perhaps the very last meeting before going on the way out the door, this was submitted. It has been sitting in our box since and there has been, I have certainly been engaged in some conversations with the administration about how they would like to proceed here. I know there is still Desire expressed by many members of the committee and the council at large to move forward with a rental registry ordinance. So I've placed it on the agenda this evening so that we can hear from the administration as to their

So with that said, I will Recognize Liaison Radassi, who was a member of both previous administration and this one. Liaison Radassi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just wanted to say that the administration is still fully in support of this policy and would like to move forward with it. However, we are not at this time ready to discuss tonight. We recognize a lot of the work that's been done over the past few years, including by the Rental Registry Working Group and also Councilors and staffers who were previously part of these discussions. So we are currently working to identify which department will be overseeing and enforcing the elements of the rental registry. as this work involves collaboration and coordination of multiple departments and we'll have more clarity around the outstanding pieces after the budget process. which will outline changes in the current departmental structures and this is really just to make sure that as we're moving this forward and doing this right that some one department has ownership and is able to enforce the provisions of this ordinance so at this time

The administration would like to request that any conversation on this wait until after the reorganization that will be happening as part of the budget process.

All right. I'm curious to hear my colleagues' thoughts to that particular response. I will point out that at my request, there was a convening of city staff, and I believe Councilor Sait was also present for that discussion. where the status of the rental registry ordinance that had been submitted was discussed and that was on April 9th. So now this has been before us as a council for approximately six months and presumably before the administration as well. And so it is the administration's position that there is... Not enough information to proceed at this point?

Mr. Chair, I think it's It's a need to dedicate resources by centralizing this in one department to be able to lead this effort, which we are not able to do at this time until the reorganization happens.

Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for putting this on the agenda. You and I spoke about this and I very much agree that it's appropriate to have this here because I know There is a lot of interest in the public to move this forward. And I think just in the interest of transparency, my opinion was that there's no reason not to Thank you very much. At the end of the last administration, of course, as you know, Mr. Chair, the first iteration of the rental registry was submitted, I believe, during the Cartone administration. This goes back many, many, many, many, many years.

and for whatever reason this concept seems to be one that it's sort of put forward and then oh wait a minute you know it's complicated we don't know we can do it right And I will say I appreciate the desire to make sure we can get it right. and that we can actually enforce it. And while I'm frustrated that we're here literally years later and still talking about it, I don't disagree with the administration's request that We need to have a plan to enforce it. And if anyone thinks that that isn't necessary, I only refer you to the vacant property ordinance as an example of that. What happens when an administration isn't on board with moving forward with something and doesn't have a way to enforce it?

Yeah, of course.

Look forward to that actually being the law that's enforced someday. In the meantime, though, all due respect to the administration, I agree, I understand, I'm appreciative that they are looking at this. I do understand that there's going to be some reorganization changes and it strikes me as perfectly logical that they ought to get that figured out before we plow forward with this too much. So while I... Restate my frustration and as well as my significant interest in moving this forward. I trust that the administration also shares that view and I look forward to working with them on making it a thing. Once we've got all the right pieces in place. Thank you.

Well, thank you for that, Councilor Davis. And I appreciate your reference of the vacant property ordinance. I could also reference the but truck skirt ordinance and the leaf blower ordinance and several others that this council has passed during our shared tenure here which have never been enforced um in many cases simply because the administration disagreed with the policy preference being expressed by the city council. And so that- Mr.

Chair, I'll take an exception to sidewall ordinance, but we can have that discussion over a glass of whiskey sometime.

That sounds great. I will say that I have observed that there is there has been a clear path of the city council when the city council is advocating for a policy position the executive of the city disagrees with The passing of an ordinance is mooted by the fact that the administration devotes zero resources to actually implementing that policy or enforcing that ordinance. And while that is frustrating, I think it is a mistake. philosophically speaking to then abdicate our role in terms of pushing these policy proposals and implementing ordinances. Because at the point at which the public asks, why hasn't someone does something? I would much rather be the person who can say, well, as I as a legislator have created the laws, have created the framework and have with the assent of my colleagues established a law.

And the fact that that law is not being enforced is entirely a function of the executive, of the mayor. Because the only accountability in those situations, given that we lack a lawyer and are not in the practice of applying for a writ of mandamus, the only recourse we are told is electoral. So rather than abdicate our responsibility as legislators, I do feel it is relevant to pass ordinances with however broad a mandate they are. and then delegate to the executive, the executive's responsibility for implementing those laws. for enforcing those laws and whether that enforcement sits within one department or two departments, three departments or a collaboration of departments or in fact an entirely new department. That's something that the administration, the executive in our current form of government has broad discretion in how to implement.

And in fact, the entire budgetary discretion in how to do so. So my inclination when it comes to these things is not to simply wait until we have convinced the executive, convinced the mayor and mayor staff that our policy goals are laudable or supportable. but rather to express the will of the council and then rely on our expectation as a society that the executive will faithfully execute the laws that are passed. Now that's my personal preference. although I understand the need to defer to collaboration when it comes to making things happen but I do believe that is an important I am happy to

If it is the will of this committee to place this once more on the sideboard and wait and see what June brings us or July or August, that's fine. But I will say as one member and as the chair, It will be my inclination to bring this up at the beginning of our next legislative session in August. or after the recess I should say in August and September to make this conversation move forward and if the administration continues to not believe in the Thank you for joining us today. and then rely upon the executive to either implement the will of the council and the laws as faithfully passed should be faithfully executed or to simply not.

either by veto or by, let's say, executive intransigence. That's my thought on Councilor Davis and colleagues. I'm open to hearing anybody else's thoughts on how to proceed on an item that has been sitting fallow for far too long. Well, I neither hear a clamor of agreement nor disagreement. Does anybody else have any further comments?

Well, Mr. Chair, just do what we do at HCDE and leave it in committee. See you in August.

Well, there we have it. Hearing a motion to leave this item in committee.

There we have it.

I guess I'll see you all in August.

Mr. Chair we will all see each other far earlier than that.

Then with that item being left in committee and hopefully my clear intention communicated, that I believe brings us to the end of our items this evening. Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Mr. Chair, I just don't want to miss the opportunity to say I appreciate the urgency you're placing on this. This is something I very strongly have supported for many years. obviously understand that the administration has to do some work to get their ducks in a row to take this up. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that you know it is part of our job is to make sure that the urgency is understood and that this is prioritized I appreciate you doing that thank you Councilor Ewen-Campen I appreciate that Councilor Mbah

Yeah, thank you. Cheers, Scott. You know, Councilor Ewen-Campen is always a tough act to follow. First, this was even my item that I submitted many years ago. There was even a press release. By the Curaton administration on that, you know, so, you know, I'm just like so many things that, you know, sometimes you don't even know where something is until you see, you find it again somewhere, you're like, wow, at least. I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward and really hammering on it. That's all. I just wanted to just, you know, appreciate you for The steady hawk on this policy conversation and the urgency that we need because this is also in line with Thank you for watching!

People that have houses here that are dilapidated. And there's all these pieces that it will help them also constrain them. Then it's not like we also have grants. you know that we can also like incentivize people to actually bring their houses up to court it's not you know onto compliance so they oh it's like a win-win i don't understand What the problem is. And then people will be exempted. Because I remember when we were having this conversation, people say, oh, I don't want anybody to come to my house. I'm like, if you live in your house, you'll be exempt. You're taking care of your house. Because you're there, we know that you take care of your tenants. So it's not... You know, so this is kind of like a small, I don't think that it's like a heavy lift to carry this through. It is like a win-win for everybody. So, no, I just want to say thank you. I mean, Councilor Ewen-Campen got me going.

I was just like, okay, I'm just going to just chill and the hour is late and let's just... Let's just flow, but I guess I just want to say thank you for doing this and for continuing to put your thumb on the scale on our relevant policy discussion that we need.

Thank you, Councilor Mbah. I think there might be a theme for the second half of this year of 2026 where I bring back all the dead ordinances that have been left fallow. and I also appreciate the reference as a hawk I do not have a proper keening call or cry to uh but uh Yeah, I'm sure the hawks of Union Square also are cheering in agreement right now. So with that said, we do have two items for approval. That's the minutes of May 5th and April 28th. and then a motion to adjourn as well. Let's go ahead. I will make the motion to adjourn and the motion to approve those two items. And I believe we can take a roll call vote to approve all three of those at once.

That we can. Councilor Davis.

Yes.

Councilor Mbah. Mbah, you're muted.

Oh, yes.

Sorry. Sorry. Councilor Ewen-Campen.

Yes.

Councilor Strezo. Yes. Chair Scott. Yes. All right, with that, those minutes are approved and it's 7.53 and we are adjourned.

All right, thank you everybody for your attention and effort this evening, including all city staff, and we'll see you shortly. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.