City Council — August 20, 2026

All right, colleagues, we're good?

Good, Sue?

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Today is Thursday, August 20th, 2026, at 7:02 PM, and I am calling together this meeting of the New Bedford City Council in the City Council Chambers.

Tonight we'll be led in prayer by Reverend Leona Fisher of In the Name of Jesus Church.

Good evening, everyone.

You know, they really wanted me to do a church service.

Is everybody ready?

They really wanted me to do a church service.

Everyone ready?

No, sir.

I'm kidding.

Good evening.

Thanks for the invitation.

I greet you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Father God, we take this pause between the busy day that is now behind us and the busy evening that is still before us, to acknowledge you and to invite your presence.

I pray you provide each council member rejuvenation of body, mind, and spirit in order to process and resolve the agenda items set before them.

May their labors and commitment result in positive change and growth for the city and the citizens of New Bedford.

Father, I pray you empower them with courage and patience to hold fast to what is right.

And at the end of the day, God, Bless them with peaceful rest, knowing that they did what is right.

I pray you keep your hand of grace and mercy upon our city, our nation, and all nations of the world.

This I pray in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

Thank you, Reverend.

We'll be led tonight in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilor of Ward 3, Sean Oliver.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor.

Tonight I am joined in the City Council chambers by my colleagues, Councilor at Large Ian Abreu, Councilor of Ward 2 Scott Pemberton, Councilor of Ward 1 Leo Choquette, Councilor of Ward 5 Joseph Lopes, Councilor at Large Brian Gomes, Councilor at Large James Roy, Councilor at Large Naomi Carney, Councilor of Ward 3 Sean Oliver, Councilor at Large and Vice President Shane Burgow, Councilor of Ward 4 Derek Baptiste, and I'm Councilor of Ward 6 Ryan Pereira.

I'd like to note this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.

I'll ask the clerk if there are any letters to be read into the record at this time.

Mr. President, there are none.

Okay, thank you.

This time I'll ask the clerk to read item number 1.

Mr. President, item 1 is a resolution from City Council President Pereira commemorating the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America.

Second.

And adopt.

Motion and adopt.

Made by Councilor Abrams, seconded by Councilor Burgo.

At this time, um, should we All those in favor of adoption say aye.

Roll call.

Roll call vote has been requested.

Councillor Abreu.

Yes.

Councillor Baptiste.

Yes.

Councillor Burgos.

Yes.

Councillor Carney.

Yes.

Councillor Chauquet.

Yes.

Councillor Gomes.

Yes.

Councillor Lopes.

Yes.

Councillor Oliver.

Yes.

Councillor Pemberton.

Yes.

Councillor Pereira.

Yes.

Councillor Roy.

Yes, yes, passes 11 to 0, Mr. President.

Item passes 11 to 0.

The resolution has been adopted, and I will ask the clerk to read the resolution.

Accompanied with the resolution is a replica of the Declaration of Independence that was given to the city of New Bedford and the residents of New Bedford through the state delegation representatives Antonio Cabral, Chris Hendricks, Senator Mark— Senator Tigney.

Jeez, what a brain fart.

Sorry.

And the entire delegation.

So I'll ask the clerk to read the resolution.

Mr. President, the resolution reads as follows: A resolution commemorating the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America.

Whereas July 4th, 2026 marked the 250th anniversary, semi-quincentennial, of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, signifying the founding of the United States of America; and whereas the Declaration of Independence proclaimed timeless principles of profound significance to the national heritage of the United States, including that all are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and whereas the founding of the United States established the principle of federalism, emphasizing a decentralized system of government wherein powers are divided between national and state governments, fostering liberty, accountability, and responsiveness to local communities; and whereas this decentralized governance model has allowed for innovation, diverse policy approaches, and stronger accountability to the citizens of each state, ensuring that government remains close to and reflective of the people's will; and whereas the founding of the United States initiated a journey toward forming a more perfect union marked by historic achievements, struggles, and progress in realizing the nation's founding ideals for all citizens; and whereas the State of Massachusetts has played a significant role throughout the history of the United States, contributing to the nation's development, culture, economy, and defense through the efforts and sacrifices of its citizens; and whereas the Semi-Quincentennial offers a unique opportunity for the people of Massachusetts to reflect on our shared history, honor the diverse contributions of all Americans, celebrate our heritage of liberty, and look forward to the future we strive to create for subsequent generations.

And now, therefore, be it resolved that the New Bedford City Council hereby recognizes and commemorates the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America, celebrated on July 4th, 2026, and formally accepts this replica of the Declaration of Independence presented by State Representative Antonio F.D.

Cabral to the New Bedford City Council at a City Council meeting held on August 20th, 2026.

Be it further resolved that the New Bedford City Council encourages all residents, visitors, educational institutions, civic organizations, businesses, and surrounding communities to take the opportunity to view this remarkable piece of American history.

Be it further resolved that this replica of the Declaration of Independence shall be available for public viewing through December 31st, 2026.

Thereafter, it shall be permanently displayed in the New Bedford City Council Chambers as a lasting tribute to the principles of liberty, democracy, and the nation's founding for generations to come.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to mayor's papers.

I will ask the clerk to read item M1, please.

Mr. President, M1 is communication from the mayor to the council submitting a veto of the ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the city code relative to paid family leave.

This veto was received in the city council office on July 10th, and the order was spread on the record on July 16th.

M1A is the ordinance.

Move to approve notwithstanding the objections of the mayor.

Second.

Motion to approve notwithstanding the objections of the mayor made by Councilor Burgos.

Second.

Waiving Rule 40.

And waive Rule 40, made by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Roy.

On the question, the chair recognizes Councilor Burgos.

Thank you, Mr. President.

After nearly 3 years of work, this veto is a bad faith attempt to kill legislation that was developed carefully and in good faith.

This conversation started in August of 2023 when a city employee came to me with a very real problem.

Problem.

Since then, we have worked through this issue in committee, considered the financial implications, and developed a reasonable policy to allow city employees to care for their families without exhausting the vacation and sick time they have earned.

And now, after all that work, we're being told this is the product of special interests, that it's legally defective, and that it will somehow burden the tax These are all foolish claims.

First, let's address the special interests.

The employees this ordinance helps are not represented by a bargaining unit.

They are Unit C employees.

They don't have a union negotiating these benefits for them.

They have us.

That's why we are here, to fill a gap in our city's employee benefits.

And I have to say, it seems this administration has a problem when someone other than the mayor identifies a problem, develops a solution, and actually gets something done.

A good idea doesn't become a bad idea simply because it didn't come from the corner office.

Second, these alleged legal defects.

This ordinance does not take away a single right protected under state or federal law.

It does not prevent anyone from taking FMLA.

Or other legally protected leave.

It simply determines when the city will continue paying an eligible employee while they are out on that leave.

Unpaid protected leave and paid municipal leave are not the same thing.

So if the administration is claiming that this ordinance violates state or federal law, then show us the law, show us the legal opinion, show us the specific provision we supposedly violated.

Because after 3 years of discussion, those concerns should have been raised before we passed this ordinance, not suddenly appear in a veto message.

Lastly, he talks about the budget.

We were told this would have a budgetary impact, but during our work on this ordinance, the city's own CFO explained that this does not create a new operating budget line item.

We are not creating positions or a new department or adding millions of dollars to the budget.

These employees already have salaries appropriated in the city's operating budget.

This ordinance simply allows an eligible employee to receive paid leave using the salary already budgeted for that position.

And yes, there are operational considerations when an employee is absent, but that happens every day.

Employees take vacation, they call out sick, they take unpaid leave, they retire, they transfer, or they get laid off like we've seen in this past budget.

Our departments already manage those situations.

Coworkers step up, supervisors adjust, and departments adapt.

So let's not pretend this ordinance creates some unprecedented operational burden.

What it does create is an opportunity for an employee to welcome a child into their family without having to choose between being there for that moment and preserving the vacation and sick time they've earned.

For years, this administration has talked about recruitment and retention.

Well, if they want to compete for good employees, we need competitive benefits.

Supporting employees when they welcome a child into their family is a basic part part of being a modern employer.

This ordinance is about our employees.

It's about a mother who should not have to burn through her vacation time to recover from childbirth and care for her newborn.

It's about a father who should be able to be home to support his partner and bond with his child.

It's about an employee welcoming a child through adoption and knowing that their employer recognizes that their family matters.

And it's about telling our employees that they should not have to choose between being there for their families and protecting the leave they've earned.

Tonight, despite the administration's attempt to stop it, we have an opportunity to finally deliver it.

And I am proud to stand on the side of our employees, on the side of working families.

And after nearly 3 years of work, I'm proud that this council is standing up for them too.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I just ask that during debate, no applause during debate, please and thank you.

Anyone else on the question?

Okay.

This time I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the motion to override the veto and waive Rule 4.

Councillor Abreu.

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Absolutely.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 11 to 0, Mr. President.

Item, item passes 11 to 0 and has been ordained.

We'll ask the clerk, uh, clerk to read item M2, please.

Mr. President, M2 is communication from the mayor to the council submitting an order for the appropriation of $39 million— I'm sorry, $39,303.75 from the Housing Works grant through the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and within the custody of the Department of Public Infrastructure to public way layout and taking damages for a future signalized intersection at the intersection of Hillman and Purchase Streets.

For the purchase and Pleasant Street improvement project, M2A is the order.

Motion to adopt the order made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question?

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Bergo?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Excuse me.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Item passes 11 to 0.

I will ask the clerk to read item M3.

Mr. President, item M3 is communication from Mayor Mitchell to the City Council submitting an order for the proposed lease agreement between French Street Realty LLC and Comcast LLC and 3 Make a motion to receive and place on file and adopt the order as presented.

Motion to adopt the order made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Without objection, the chair will take items M4 through M6 together.

I'll ask the clerk to read.

Mr. President, M4 is communication from the mayor to the council submitting a sewer abatement request for Tarquin Hill Realty Corporation at 627 Tarquin Hill Road, New Bedford, in the amount of $26,574.

M5A is a sewer abatement request from the mayor for Tamara Ramsey at 161 Campbell Street, New Bedford, in the amount of $1,607.07.

And M6 is a sewer abatement request for Chevaroya McElroy at 234 Austin Street, New Bedford, in the amount of $235.

Motion to grant the abatement for M4, 5, and 6.

Second.

Motion to grant the abatements for 4, 5, and 6 made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone on the question?

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abram.

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Burgo.

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Yes, Councilor Oliver.

Yes, yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Yes, yes, Councilor Pereira.

Yes, yes, Councilor Roy.

Yes, yes.

Passes 11-0.

Item passes 11-0.

I will ask the clerk to read items M7 and M8 together without objection.

Okay, Mr. President, M7 is communication from the the mayor to the council submitting the reappointment of Scott Grant of New Bedford to the Conservation Commission.

This term will expire in June of 2029.

And M8 is communication from the mayor to the council submitting the reappointment of Rebecca Lennart of New Bedford to the Conservation Commission.

This term will also expire in June of 2029.

Make a motion to receive M7 and M8, waive Rule 38 and waive Rule 40 with one vote, and grant— and grant the reappointment.

Motion has been made to waive Rules 38 and 40 and grant the reappointments by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Burgos.

Anyone on the question?

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abram.

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste.

Yes.

Councilor Burgos.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy.

Yes.

Yes, item passes 11 to 0.

I will ask the clerk to— oh, sorry, are they here?

I don't know.

Is Scott or Rebecca here?

Okay, perfect.

I'll ask the clerk to read item M9.

Mr. President, M9 is communication from the mayor to the council submitting the appointment of Brian J. Souza of New Bedford to the election commission.

This term will expire in April of 2029.

Motion to refer to the Committee on Appointments and Briefings.

Second.

Motion to refer to the Committee on Appointments and Briefings, made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor— everybody, uh, but seconded by Councilor Oliver.

On the question, the chair recognizes Councilor Burgo.

Um, I, I just wanted to address this, um, Communication from the mayor's office, which was sent now.

The reason why that's significant is much like everything that comes from the mayor's office.

It's very, very late.

Although he's had this name for quite some time, and as always, he's asking the council to rush.

I'm sure many people are aware, or I hope that everyone's aware.

We have an election coming up on September first.

And our city charter, for those who don't know, and I would hope that our mayor who's been here for over a decade should know our city charter, this council only has one meeting in July and one meeting in August.

And he saw it fit to send this appointment to us at our one meeting in August, which is today, August 20th.

It is customary for a new candidate to go to committee to be screened.

We just did this with the last election commissioner that we had when there was a vacancy.

That election commission, when it went vacant, was sent to us in a timely manner.

It came before us.

It went to committee.

The chairwoman of the Committee on Appointments and Briefing put it at the next possible available meeting.

There are no delays here on the council.

We do our work.

The problem here are the delays in the corner office, even with their full-time staff, the million-dollar— well, more than a million-dollar budget they have up there.

They make mistake after mistake after mistake, and then they expect us to clean it up.

So I just want to make it very clear for people, because we know the coroner office is going to point the finger and say, oh, look what— how terrible that council is that they didn't waive the screening and appoint Mr. Souza.

And it's unfortunate.

Mr. Souza is here tonight.

I got to meet him.

He's a very nice gentleman.

And it's unfortunate he's here and he was expecting to be sworn in tonight, but that is not the way this works.

He has to be screened.

That is how we do this.

That's how every other election commissioner has gotten on.

And in some rare cases, maybe we waive the screening, but in this case, we're referring it to committee, how it should be done.

And I don't want this administration to make it seem as though we have done something wrong when it was them.

So I just want to be very clear here.

This mayor has sat on this name for months and decided to wait till the last possible second, even though he knows the schedule of not only the election schedule but the council schedule.

And we are following the procedure here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I'll be brief because many of the same points that I was going to say were spoken by the councilor before me.

Obviously, this is coming on the heels or coming on the eve of a state primary.

And as the councilor who spoke before me stated, I hope a lot of people realize that there is a primary.

I know, I know there is a state primary.

But here's another example of us on the second floor cleaning up the inefficiency of the third floor.

Or the lack of attention to detail.

Now, the councilor from Purchase Street spoke that we— the mayor has been given the— this gentleman's name, or has sat on this name for months.

And that's true, as many of us do.

We sit in different capacities at different boards, commissions, and groups throughout the city.

And I know for a fact, as the chair of the Republican City Committee, the Republican City has sent communication to the administration with 2 names for consideration for this vacancy on the Election Commission.

That was on— in April, April 28th to be exact.

I believe I— you were actually CC'd on that correspondence.

I've actually provided that to the office so our councilors can all see that correspondence.

But what it is, is this is something that should have been taken care of months ago, not a week and a half before the primary election.

The process is a process for a reason.

It's so that the applicant can come up here, speak, to introduce themselves in a lot of cases to people and the public for the very first time.

So although I do recognize that this vacancy has to be filled, It should not be rushed through because these— this board is in charge of upholding the integrity and facilitating our elections here in the city of New Bedford.

So I apologize that Mr. Sousa is here tonight, but it gave him at least the opportunity to introduce himself to a lot of people here.

So although I will be supporting him, I hope my colleagues will do the same in the future date when this is properly before this council.

So thank you.

With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the question?

Just briefly from the chair, if there's one committee, uh, colleagues, that deserves to have a proper screening, it is the committee— the commission— the Elections Commission to uphold integrity of elections in our city.

There is one commission or board in this city that deserves a full screening.

It is this one.

It is too important.

Thank you.

Without seeing any other questions, all those in favor of referral to committee say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item M10.

Mr. President, M10 is a communication from the mayor to the city council submitting the reappointment of Joseph Latimer of New Bedford as a constable.

M10A is his application.

Waiving Rule 38 and 40.

Motion to waive Rules 38 and 40, made by— and grant the appointment, made by Councilor Abruzzo, seconded by Councilor Burgow.

Anyone on the question?

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Hebrew?

Yes.

Council Baptist?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Burgo?

Yes.

Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Choquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 11 to 0, Mr. President.

Item passes 11 to 0.

Colleagues, without any objection at this time, I would like to take out of order items 14 through 17, have them all read together.

Without objection.

Without objection.

At this time, I will have the clerk read items 14 through 17.

Mr. President, item 14 is a written motion from Councilor Gomes requesting that the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods immediately meet with Police Chief Jason Foti, a representative from the mayor's office, and a representative from Flock Safety.

This meeting is to bring all parties together for the purpose of enhancing policies and ensuring procedures and strengthening community trust around the use of these cameras.

The policy is ensuring that the policy is transparent, every search being logged, and additional safeguards in place not only to protect the civil rights of the citizens but for the police department as well.

Item 15 is a written motion from Councillors Burgo, Lopes, and Abreu requesting that the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods meet with the representatives of the New Bedford Police Department, the city solicitor, the Information Technology Department, and any other appropriate officials to discuss discuss the city's use of law enforcement surveillance technologies, including but not limited to automated license plate reader systems, flock safety cameras, public safety camera networks, and any other technologies capable of collecting or retaining data on the movement of vehicles or individuals.

And further, that the committee review the city's policies governing the collection, retention, sharing, security, and deletion of data generated by such technologies.

The circumstances under which such data may be accessed or shared with outside law enforcement agencies, the safeguards in place to protect residents' constitutional rights and privacy, and whether additional local policies or ordinances are warranted to promote transparency, accountability, and public confidence while preserving the legitimate public safety benefits these technologies provide.

Item 16 is written motion from Councilors Burgo, Abreu, and Lopes requesting that the Committee on Ordinances consider whether the appropriate policy outcome is either the complete removal and abolition of automated license plate reader systems and other similarly invasive surveillance technologies within the City of New Bedford, or in the alternative, establishing municipal automated license plate reader privacy and transparency standards.

Item 17, Mr. President, is a written motion from Councilor Choquette requesting that the city of New Bedford immediately cease the use of flock cameras citywide until such time permanent legislation can be enacted as to their use.

Refer to Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods.

Second.

So, so for items 14 and 15?

Correct.

So Council will, will refer items 14 and 15 to Public Safety, 16 to Ordinance, and 17 receive and place on file.

Is that okay?

That's fine.

Okay, made by Councilor Gomes.

Seconded by Councillor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

Chair recognizes Councillor Lopes.

Thank you, Council President.

I will be extremely brief.

We have all seen across the country and our own city that the proposed safeguards don't work.

The only safeguard is the actual removal of the cameras to provide the safety to the neighborhoods that they so rightfully deserve.

We have seen firsthand that when you put safeguards in place, people will look for ways around them.

The entire company has had to do a complete 360 in the last 30 days in regards to faults that they realized they implemented.

I commend the chief for trying to put safeguards in place, but we're trying to put safeguards in place after incidents have already happened, and we're seeing it within the own department that he is running.

So the only safeguard and the only mechanism that we can actually justify is shutting them down and removing them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Just in the gallery, if we could just refrain from applause while debate is ongoing, I'd appreciate that.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councillor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I rise to speak in favor of, of the ordinance going— the motions going to Public Safety, the motions going to Ordinance, and to receive the councilor from Ward 1's motion on file.

Um, I want to speak to public— the public hearing in Public Safety and, um, the policy review we want to do there.

We have a 3-hour public forum In a packed auditorium at Pulaski School with Chief Thody, a representative from Flock Safety, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and members of the community.

More than 100 people attended, and roughly 2 dozen residents spoke, not to mention the folks outside today and the folks in this room.

Their message was clear: people have serious concerns about privacy in New Bedford, the disproportionate impact that these technologies have on the BIPOC community, oversight, and any lack of a public process before these cameras were installed.

After that forum, I continued to ask residents and workers I encountered throughout the city what they thought of Flock, and their concerns were reasonable based on the reports of misuse nationwide.

The recent incident involving our own New Bedford police officer shows that our city is not immune to those same risks, and we cannot dismiss our residents' concerns as hypothetical when our own city is now confronting the very questions they raised.

I support additional public hearings and a review of the city's policies.

I trust that the Public Safety Committee will ensure that the community plays a meaningful role in both the discussion and the policy review.

Now, the item that we're referring to ordinance, I also support.

I support sending the matter to the Ordinance Committee, and I trust that that committee will use that process to listen to the community and develop comprehensive policies for New Bedford going forward.

I think many of the safeguards that the chief outlined in his recent release are important and overdue: a clear standard for searches, documentation of every search, regular audits, restrictions on outside agency access, prohibited uses, data retention limits, and public transparency reporting.

Reporting, excuse me.

However, I am not convinced that Flock Safety is the right partner for New Bedford.

Given the controversies surrounding the company and its nationwide data-sharing network, I still have serious questions about whether we can adequately protect residents' privacy, their civil rights, their civil liberties and their personal safety.

But this issue is bigger than Flock, right?

There are other types of cameras with facial recognition.

There are cell site simulators, predictive policing systems, and future tech we don't know about.

Our city has used surveillance technologies for years without sufficient transparency or accountability.

While these tools may provide public safety benefits, their use has also caused harm.

So I support sending this motion to Ordinance Committee because all surveillance technology currently used or considered for future use by the city should be subject to clear standards and public oversight, Mr. President.

The public should know what surveillance technology is being used or exposed, how it's used and shared, and what safeguards are in place.

Residents should have a meaningful opportunity to weigh in on its use and the rules governing it.

Their elected representatives, us, should vote on whether its use is approved.

And if it is approved, there must be ongoing transparency and accountability for how it's actually used.

Mr. President, the basic premise is simple: surveillance technology must be governed by clear rules that protect our safety and our rights, and decisions about its use must be made in the open, with meaningful public participation and democratic oversight.

Finally, I believe the chief should keep FLOC suspended while we review the city's policies, while we develop comprehensive legislation and determine if FLOC is appropriate for New Bedford at all.

And with that, I yield, Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Did we orchestrate this this evening, or was this just how we planned it?

I have been a proponent for cameras in the city of New Bedford for a long time.

I was one of the first.

I've been here a while when, um, we had other police agencies who had cameras in their cruisers and we had none.

We finally got them, but they broke them.

They weren't working.

I asked for police cameras on police officers.

I asked for cameras within our neighborhoods to bring public safety to a place where we could get the criminal.

The criminal could be seen.

Flock has come along, and we wouldn't even have known about this.

And let me say this.

The first thing we did wrong in this city, and we didn't do it, the administration did it, was not tell the people of what this was all about.

Not even some of us knew that these cameras were up throughout the city.

They should have had a public announcement, said that the cameras were going up.

We know the cameras are watching you everywhere.

Cameras are watching you everywhere.

When you go into the shopping store, when you go in the mall, when you go into neighborhoods.

The first thing our police department is doing when a crime is committed within the city is going to residential houses to see if they have caught anything on their cameras that can possibly assist in the criminal action that has been taken and the arrests that should be made on that.

I'm a proponent of the cameras, but what I'm not a proponent of is using the cameras in a way that is unconstitutional and against people's rights.

And that's why this motion is here tonight.

I'm basically asking that we go into public safety, we go through all of this, you give me a guarantee that these cameras will not be messed with in unjustified ways, and I'm okay with that.

But as far as— No!

Take them down!

Excuse me.

Excuse me, there'll be— please refrain yourselves in the gallery.

I would hope that you would do that.

You know, the same respect that we show you, show us.

Mr. President, while we have a chamber of people here tonight, this is not the 100,000 people that we represent.

You're a class act.

I got half of a house that wouldn't even stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance tonight.

Now they're not going to even let the representation speak.

Motion to recess.

Can we get a recess, please, Mr.

Chair?

Do what you have to do.

Can we just— can we have a recess, please?

No, you owe my wife, and you can talk to me this evening, this tonight, and I've given you the respect.

What do you want me to do?

You want me to sit down, Mr. President?

One minute, please.

Is that what you want me to do?

Because this is out of hand as Pulaski was out of hand.

I would just ask.

I would just ask that the members of Parliament.

A motion to recess has been made.

We'll take a recess.

Thank you.

Yep, I know, I know.

All right, we're calling together back this meeting on the City Council.

I would like to ask members of the gallery, rule number 4 in the council chambers dictates proper decorum in the council.

That is to refrain from outbursts, applause, commentary.

What I would ask is that while you might disagree with members of my, my colleagues, members of the city council are saying, or you might agree with what they are saying, I ask that you maintain proper decorum so we can effectively get through the meeting.

You will hear what everyone has to say on the matter.

They will— this is being referred to committees.

Proper decorum will be had.

If we cannot get through that I will have to suspend these items so that we can have proper debate at an appropriate time.

So I'm just asking that members refrain outbursts and comments from the gallery so that we may get through the debate of my colleagues.

So if everyone is amenable to that, I appreciate it and can withhold from applause, clapping, or speaking.

Thank you very much.

And with that, I will recognize Councilor Gomes.

Thank you again, Mr. President.

Mr. President, my intentions were to fix the problem that has arisen here, to bring all parties together in public safety, to make sure that these flock cameras were not violating anybody's rights.

They were protecting the people of the city of New Bedford, not violating anyone's rights.

I'm really sorry tonight that this body, in the American way, could not— I could not stand up as a councilor and just say what I had to say without the retaliation that has happened here tonight.

Councilor Gomes, take your seat, please.

The city council Excuse me.

I love this.

Take a seat, please.

At this time, at this time, we cannot appropriately and effectively handle these items.

They will be tabled.

These will be tabled, and we will, we will, if we can Cover every single camera.

Cover them all.

That's, that's, that's what you— yeah.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is 7:53.

The meeting has been suspended due to lack of decorum.

Thank you.

We are adjourned at 7:53 PM.