Ordinance Committee — September 8, 2026

All right, all set.

Good evening.

It is 7 p.m. on September 8th, 2026.

Note this meeting is being livestreamed and recorded.

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

This is the Committee on Ordinances.

I should have read that first.

Are there any letters to be read into the record?

There are no letters.

All right.

I'm joined in the chamber.

By Councilor at Large Ian Abreu, Councilor of Ward 2 Scott Pemberton, Councilor of Ward 1 Leo Choquette, Councilor of Ward 5 Joe Lopes, Councilor at Large Brian Gomes, Councilor of Ward 6 and Council President Ryan Pereira, Councilor at Large James Roy, Councilor at Large and Second Vice President Naomi Carney, and Councilor of Ward 3 Sean Oliver.

And I am Shane Burgo, your chairman extraordinaire.

I will ask the clerk to read the first item.

Item number 1 is a written motion by Councilor Extraordinaire Burgo, Abreu, and Lopes requesting that the Committee on Ordinances consider whether the appropriate policy outcome is either the complete removal or the 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.

It was referred here on August 25th, 2026, and is now before you.

Motion received and placed on file made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Um, I would entertain a motion to receive and place on file, uh, this ordinance that you all have before you, made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Drafted, uh, and basically the long and short of it, based on what we've— the clerk just read into the record What I look to do here is strike a balance between canceling out existing ALPR contracts that we have while also recognizing if the city wants to enter into a new contract, these are the guidelines and safeguards that they would have to enter into.

So with that, I will open the floor to anyone that would have questions.

For any specific invitees.

Uh, Councilor, um, Lopes.

Thank you.

My question would be for Attorney Gartowski.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Uh, Attorney Gartowski and Councilor Lopes, the floor is still yours.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Chairman Extraordinaire.

So, Attorney Gartowski, 2 quick questions as it relates to I'm asking you to give an opinion on something that hasn't happened at the state level.

The state has had a hearing and it's tabled right now that they're looking at the possibility to do red light cameras across the Commonwealth.

Red light cameras read license plates.

So if we pass this, would we be able to move forward if the state does enact the red light cameras?

Would we be able to enact red light cameras understanding that it is an automatic license reader?

It depends what the state law says, which I don't know what it says.

I know what this says.

I don't know what the state— I don't know what the state law— you're asking me to speculate what a state law would say.

It could be a local adoption.

It could say this is the state, but might allow municipalities to be more restrictive.

It all depends on what that state law— the specifics of the state law.

So it would be, from what I've read, it's local adoption.

So each municipality would have to adopt it.

It wouldn't be, you know, a blanket policy for the Commonwealth where, but it would give the municipalities the ability if they wanted to enact a public safety device that they would be able to get into it.

Right, right, and I think that the ordinance that was sent to me by the chairman that I looked at also allows, This is always— I don't know, is that ringing in my head?

I don't know.

Um, I guess that whatever the state law says, it might allow for that.

Um, but it appears to me that the ordinance that is— was put before you also allows for such, um, cameras as well, and it has a specific process in it.

Okay, and then my last question would be, if this is passed, are we overstepping our authorities in regards to the— our charter and our ability to enter into or not enter into contracts?

That's normally a mayoral privy.

This— would that interfere, or— Yeah, I think there's always a concern about the legislative interference in the administrative end of the city.

However, the— this is more than just an administrative function.

You're talking about an effect on the public in general.

And so I think that putting a law in place that puts procedures that safeguards the general public, I think, would be allowable.

It's not just a matter of, you know, some sort of contract so that the administration can perform its administrative duties.

This is something that they're taking a step that, that, um, has an impact on the public in general.

So I think an ordinance is— to me, I, I believe is, is wholly appropriate to put protections in place for the general public.

Thank you, Attorney Grotowski.

Thank you, Chairman Virgo.

Appreciate it.

Chair, recognize Councilor Abramowicz first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Attorney Grotowski, while you were there, I'm just, you know, up and down.

Um, in Section G of the ordinance We talk about mass location tracking technology.

If we were to pass this tonight, move it forward, then ordain it, could that— I'm just trying to play, you know, figuring it out here— could that potentially encompass other technologies used by the police department that we're not thinking about or we're not intended in this, like say body cameras, for example?

I mean, I don't know.

I just want to make sure that, you know, we don't unfortunately find ourselves in maybe an unintended consequence with other types of cameras or so forth and so on.

Well, you'd have to tell me specifically what you're talking about and then see if it fits within the definition.

There's always a possibility when you define something in a law that something will come along that fits into that definition that we don't anticipate now.

And that's why laws can be changed, because you can say, well, this new technology came along, it doesn't impact the public like this does, but it falls under the definition of mass location tracking technology.

Therefore, we want to make some change to the law to exempt that particular technology that comes along that we don't even know yet.

Um, and that's why laws can always be amended and changed so that you, at any period in time that you find something that this is too broad to and it encompasses some tool that you don't want it to encompass, you can tinker with the definition to exclude that.

That's always— but to sit here and speculate what would come along and fit into that, I don't know.

I would just hate to see, for example, well, body cameras are now off, you know, because you passed this.

I'm not saying that would happen.

I'm just to go in the worst-case scenario, I'd hate to see something like that happen because that's a great tool for both the officer.

Well, I guess the question is, the question is, you look at the mass location tracking technology definition and you have to ask someone who's familiar with body cameras, does that device systematically record, collect, store, analyze, track movements, locations, travel pattern?

You ask the questions about whether it does or it doesn't.

Doesn't.

And then if it does and you want to make some exemption for that, you could do that.

But, you know, I don't know exactly what the body cameras do.

I know that they get turned on when I get pulled over for speeding, which has happened, and they tell you, I'm putting my body camera on, and it's on, and I know that they're recording at that point.

But I don't know whether— what it tracks, what it collects.

Does it collect movements?

I don't I don't know.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Garatowski.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll yield for now.

Councilor Baptiste on his first.

Don't, don't go anywhere.

Um, first and foremost, I just want to go on the record.

I wish we can just make an ordinance to just cancel the flock camera completely, but I know that, you know, you need 8 votes to, to order to pass the ordinance.

But what I wanted to ask was, um, if we pass this ordinance right here, will it Will they have to terminate flock cameras immediately and take them down and then go through this whole process?

Yeah, I think to put them back up, I think what it speaks to is an existing system, um, that upon the, the expiration of that contract that you may have, then it says if you're going to renew it or you're going to modify it, then you have to go through this process.

Um, it doesn't— it doesn't— whatever contract— the way this is written, it doesn't seem to stop a contract that's in effect right now, right?

So it honors whatever that contract is in place right now, but upon the expiration of that contract, then any renewal of that would have to go through the process that is outlined in this ordinance.

That's the way I read it.

And if we have a majority vote to say, no, we wouldn't want that.

So then they wouldn't be able to go forward with it.

Right.

So it requires an assessment.

You know, if you come back in and they— and, you know, the administration of the police department is proposing to put these somewhere, there's guidelines in here that say you come before, you lay out what you're doing.

There's an assessment done about the impact it has on the public that gets public.

The public gets to see all that.

It looks like it comes back for a public hearing where the people can come and comment on that.

And eventually a vote gets taken by the city council.

So this council could determine that it's maybe— it's fine, it works well.

The police make a presentation and they say, you know, this is how we're going to— besides all that, there's going to be— this requires a city to adopt a policy, to put policies in place to address a lot of the concerns even before such a proposal would get to you.

So you're going to know a lot of what can and can't be done based upon the policy that the city adopts.

And then if it comes before you and for some reason it doesn't seem to be something that works, then if 6 people vote against it, it wouldn't get adopted.

So it does have a lot of public process in this, in what I read here, as well as a standard policy that every contract and every proposal is going to have to abide by whatever that policy may be.

And then it'll come down to the council making the vote.

Correct.

All right.

So, so with this being said, you know, the thing is, you know, we want the public to have more of a say-so over what's going on.

And as it is right now, how the police have this contract that they're currently in, we have no say-so or any power to do anything over that, correct?

Well, that's right.

So as of right now, there really isn't any city policy about these.

There's no law in place that gives the council any input.

I mean, you certainly can do things through budget votes that you have.

You can try to take votes of your approval or disapproval.

But right now there's no impact of that vote.

So for example, when the council votes to suspend use of flock cameras, you really don't have the authority to do that because there's no law in place that gives you that authority right now.

Right now it's legal to have these and it relies on the administration to put whatever— put whatever restrictions in place they want to do.

And if they don't want to put restrictions, they don't have to.

The council doesn't have a say.

I think this provides more— this gives the council, if this ordinance is in place, it gives the council more authority to be involved in dealing with where these cameras go, what the policy is, what is analyzed when you are making a decision on whether to have them or not.

Or if they go up or stay down.

Yeah, it appears that you have to have a vote to do that.

So, all right, so, so all that stuff gets put in play with this.

Now I know that, you know, there's sort of these, these interests on both sides where some people will say this isn't restrictive enough, some people will say it's too restrictive.

Um, that's the nature of these things, right?

That when you try to balance these competing interests where the police want to use this as a tool to fight crime, and maybe you say, yeah, in certain circumstances this would be something that could be helpful, but at the same time there are people that are concerned about how they're being tracked by the government, and there's some distrust in the government, and that's been the way this country's been for 200 years.

There's distrust in the government, and sometimes rightfully so, right?

But it also gives them the right Right, there's competing interests here, so this tries to bring together both of those interests to say we're trying to balance those 2 things.

And sometimes when that happens, from a standpoint of whether you guys get criticized for this or not, sometimes both of those 2 interests are going to criticize you, even though you're doing what you can to balance both.

Because everybody has an interest, right?

Everybody has something to say about this.

And some of those, some of those opinions are very divided.

And in this way, I think this is an attempt, whether it works or not, we don't know, is an attempt to try to bring those 2 interests to some middle ground about how we can do this better.

And as we go through, if you adopt this ordinance, if you happen to do so, And we go through this process.

It may or may not work, and we don't know yet.

But I think it's a— it's an attempt here to try to balance those, those interests.

So, and that's something that each of you are going to have to decide for yourself, how much balance you want.

Is the scale tipped towards, you know, too much flock cameras or too much restrictions on flock cameras?

That's something you're all going to have to weigh in your own minds when you vote on this.

And the problem is it's not going to be balanced because it's going to be balanced towards the way where people that live in certain neighborhoods are going to get more flock cameras and get more surveillance and be uncomfortable where they live because of a few individuals.

And not— it's not going to be dispersed evenly and it's not going to be done evenly.

It's not even being— it's not even being put out here transparently.

So that's, that's the issue that we're having with this.

But yeah, I think, I think you're right.

And I think that's, that's part of what this process can bring out, right?

You bring You bring the proposal to this body, you bring the public in here, you talk about where it's going to go.

Why is it going to go there?

That's the question.

What is important about that particular location?

Those are the things that you guys are going to ask, those questions, when a particular proposal comes before you.

The answers you get may satisfy you, it may not satisfy you, and that's going to drive whether you support the location of this or not.

It's going to be one of the things that drives that.

Why this particular area?

Why not that area?

Maybe the police show you, well, look, Councilor, in the last, you know, year, that's where the issues have been arising, and that the data may support it.

The data may not support it, but those are the answers that you're going to come— you're going to question you're going to ask for when you review this, if this ordinance passes.

Right now you can't do that.

And so, so hopefully we can do that.

And then people pay attention to how people, how people lean their votes in making sure what, you know, what rights they're taking away from others.

I yield the floor.

Thank you so much, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Oliver on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

David, thank you for staying up there.

Um, trying to get up.

How much of, how much of this ordinance did you draft, or— I, I did not draft this ordinance.

I reviewed it with the chairman, um, and, and that's— but I didn't draft it.

It's not my, my written hand.

Okay, so our legal counsel hasn't drafted it.

I assume you made some alterations to it to make— um, there were a few, but, um, for the most part You know, it— the basics of it were what the chairman envisioned as a proper balance for what he wants to do.

And he, he asked me— I made some formatting changes, but not very much.

And it wasn't my role to say what I liked in it and what I didn't like in it.

I may like some things.

I may not like some things in it, but it's not my It's— that's not important to anyone.

What's important is what you guys decide you want to do.

So I raised a few concerns with him.

He made— we went through it, made a few changes.

But other than what you see before you is mainly what was put together by the chairman and sent to me.

Okay.

Do you know what the reference material was?

I don't.

No.

Okay.

I don't know.

I I've heard about what it is, but I don't know.

I can't tell you for sure.

Um, so you didn't pen it?

You don't— you heard of what it is, but you're not sure on what all of this came— who— where this all originated from?

No, I don't know where it originated from.

Okay.

Um, the— when it comes— I'm looking at— and it's, it's been a, a hot topic, so I'm gonna just hop right into it.

There's a section here in Section I that talks about technology being collected to be used with federal agencies outside law enforcement, private entities, and so on.

With, with that, with us being so close to Rhode Island, is it a concern that like if something were to happen that they— what's the process for like Rhode Island State Police or something like that to, aside from just getting a subpoena or a court order to release it, is that the only mechanism that they would have?

Well, the, the question is always what falls under the public records law as well, because the public records law is quite broad in Massachusetts where the public is allowed to get information, and there's specific exemptions to the public records law But I'm not sure that some of this would fall under those exemptions.

So we may say, you know, the city can't just share it, but if it comes in a public records law, it's determined to be a public record, we would have to share it because the public records law would supersede us prohibiting that.

Now, the prohibition here says you can't just pass it out to people, right?

But if they— if someone uses a particular law like the public records law to access it, They could, unless there's an exemption that when they request it, and usually that request can't come from what's the purpose of it, right?

We don't get to say whether someone's using the public record, what purpose they get to use it for.

So we don't say, well, what are you going to use it for?

And if you don't— if we don't like what you're going to use it for, we won't give it to you.

We're not allowed to do that.

So the public records law may may come into play here depending on what exactly and what the exemptions are that we might be able to cite to not give it out.

But we're still subject to the state law on that.

So it, it says, you know, you say valid— it says nothing to prohibit disclosure required pursuant to valid court order, warrant, subpoena, or other legally binding process.

So if the public records law, for example, would be a legally binding process so long as we can't cite an exemption to it.

Okay.

Um, and then, um, I think I had one more.

Hold on a second before I have you sit down.

I think that's going to be it for right now.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Thank you.

Appreciate you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chair recognizes Councilor Roy on his first.

Thank you, um, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, David.

How you doing?

I'm all right.

All right, good.

You're doing all right.

I didn't realize I was going to be the— You didn't realize?

Under the— You had no idea?

I didn't.

I didn't think— I didn't think so.

So you've obviously, you know, read this.

Would you say this is like a narrowly tailored ordinance, especially to just like automated license plate readers and systems or tech that track locations, right?

Yeah, it seems to narrow the field to, you know, the types of cameras that can do tracking based on the definitions.

So every surveillance technology isn't necessarily covered under mass location tracking, right?

And the automatic license plate reader.

So those are specific, the specific 2 things that it's involving is Those 2 definitions there are what you've got to pay attention to.

So facial recognition, do you think that would fall under mass location tracking technology?

It seems to, if it tracks the movements and travel patterns of members of the general public based upon that, then it probably would fall under that particular definition, yeah.

You could use facial recognition technology not to track somebody, just to identify somebody, correct?

Um, all right, what about like biometric technology, voice recognition?

I, I guess I'm getting to the point that, you know, there's a lot more surveillance tech that, that may not be covered under this ordinance.

Yep.

Um, all right, is it— do you think it's— I mean, and, and what about the tech that that the councilor from Ricketts Street talked about earlier, body cameras, that is not included in the ordinance, right?

But could it be?

I guess it could be.

You can include it if we wanted to.

You can, you can exclude those specifically with some definition.

I don't know what exactly the body cams— I don't think body cameras are considered license plate readers.

Automated— it's not an automated means, right?

Um, and I don't think that the body cameras continuously and systematically record and store data, um, that, that deals with travel patterns and things like that.

So I'm not sure those would fit here.

You could add or subtract things as, you know, as you realize that it's— oh, it's over-broadly encompassing things you didn't want it to, or it's, it's not broad enough to capture some of the things you might want.

So we could specifically have a section that defines surveillance tech the way we would like it to be defined, to, to possibly, you know, stop an administration that may want to acquire a tech, even if we pass this ordinance, acquire a new tech that, you know, um, that isn't covered by the definition here.

Yeah, that's always— now would be the time to do it.

That's always the tricky issue when you're writing ordinances, because there are some, some companies, for example, they look at ordinances that are spreading around and they, they tailor their technology to make— to purposefully not fit into these definitions.

And then the legislative body always has to keep trying to keep chasing the changes that, you know, in the technology that don't fit into those definitions.

So that's always part of the chase with legislation is you defining what exactly you're doing.

And then people change to try to get around that definition and then you've got to update your definition.

So that's always part of the game with legislation.

I mean, is it of your opinion we should be more specific or we should, or we should write a broad— I can't tell you that because I don't know what you're trying to keep and what you're trying to exclude.

So, you know, if we, if you, we come up and we say, okay, we want to, like, we heard body cameras.

Let's say we, we, we have someone come up here and talk about what body cameras do and don't do.

And because I don't know.

Right?

And they say this is what they do and they don't do.

And then we, we, um, we determine— council determines they want to include that, but it doesn't fit in these definitions.

We would have to come up with a definition to include that based upon what we're told about what they do and don't do.

So, um, you know, that's something you can keep exploring.

Um, whatever you do with this ordinance, you can add to it You can amend it, change it before you pass it or even after you pass it if you, if you are so inclined.

So either way, you can make changes to it before it— you will try to make it law, or even after it becomes law, you can say, ah, there's something else I want to add to it, and you propose to do that also.

So either way, whether you amend it before or after it passes, you can Um, do that.

Do you think, um, gunshot detection technology is covered by this ordinance?

Gunshot detection?

Yeah, ShotSpotter.

Um, I, I don't know.

I don't know everything that ShotSpotter does.

I know that it, when shots go off, it, it alerts to where those shots are coming from.

Um, I don't think ShotSpotter reads license plates.

Um, I don't know whether it tracks whereabouts of people.

Um, it does seem to detect where a shot came from.

That's pretty much the extent of my knowledge about ShotSpotter.

Thanks, David.

You're asking a— uh, thank you so much for your time.

Non-law enforcement.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Councillor Cherkedon is first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Attorney.

Sorry to keep you running through the gauntlet here.

Just another question.

So if and when the grand and glorious General Court of the Commonwealth, a.k.a.

our state legislature, does come up with some kind of law or statute in this instance, would that then overrule what we're doing here tonight?

I think in same kind of answer that I gave to Councilor Lopes's question, it depends on what the legislation says.

Yeah, um, I can't speculate as to what it would say when they pass something, if they, if they do at all.

Um, I don't know what they're talking about up there, um, on Beacon Hill.

I don't know.

But whether it supersedes this or not would depend on what the specific language of the legislation says.

And that I can't tell you what, what it is.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Anyone else on there first for Attorney Gieratowski?

All right, the chair recognizes Councilor Oliver on his second.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, Attorney Gieratowski, this is— this only applies to, uh, city-owned and city contracts that if the city chooses to enter to, because there is a private application for Flock where common man can get Flock camera technology and put it on their home, their property, things of that nature.

Does that— yes, this only pertains to the city.

It does not seem to indicate— it says that city departments, agencies, boards, commissions, office authority other municipal entity.

That's— so it's only the municipal government that this is saying.

Someone wants to put a camera on their own property, this does not address that.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

That's all.

Councilor Trickett on his second.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So piggybacking off, um, the councilor from Upton Street, uh, his, his, his comments, um, I guess in this instance it's fortunate we don't have any big box retailers in the city of New Bedford, but But if we did, then they would still have the right to use those cameras on their private property, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah, this wouldn't— this does not prohibit that.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Anyone else on their first or second for Attorney Gieratowski?

Okay.

We also have with us tonight Director of IT John Costa.

Um, City Solicitor Eric Jakes and Chief of Police Jason Thode.

Does anyone have any questions for any of our other invitees tonight?

Chair, Chief Thode.

Chief Thode, if you could take the microphone.

Councilor Loeb should recognize, uh, Councilor Oliver, you're on deck.

Good evening, Chief.

Have you had a chance to review this?

I got it this afternoon.

I looked through it briefly, but Not, not as thoroughly as I'd like to.

Okay.

So I'll ask a very broad question to start with on G, data governance requirements.

City data.

The policy should include at a minimum fixed and clearly defined maximum data retention period.

You as the police chief, what do you think is a maximum retention policy or a duration of time that works for you and your department?

So originally it was 30 days.

That's what I think generally most of these systems have out there.

The ACLU is recommending 14.

So when I put out my original proposal for, for changes, I put in 14.

There's been certainly discussion.

Even, even FLOC's new recommendation is 7.

I think for the vast majority of crimes that where this technology would be important, I think, you know, we would probably capture that certainly in 7 days.

I think most of the time you're going to get a complaint.

The only concerns that I would have is, you know, if you get a missing person that is like on vacation, right?

Most people take vacation for 7 days.

And if we didn't know about it and we lost some, some retention there, then, then that would be a possibility.

But again, I think it would be rare.

So I think, you know, now I think that the conservative approach is somewhere between 7 and 14 days.

And then additionally, staying within that area, what do you think the level of officer that should have access— should it be all patrolmen or just sergeants, lieutenants, and captains up from there?

No.

So I think it should be more significantly restricted than that.

And I think here, you know, we had about maybe a little bit short of half the the police officers had signed up.

And that's how they had it set up here, was like if you wanted it, you would send an email and you would sign an MOU and you would sign up.

I don't think it needs to be that broadly distributed throughout the department.

You know, one of the things that I'm looking at is that, you know, all of our officers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week have access to dispatch, right?

So if we had like the dispatch supervisors that all had access to this, you know, you're talking about less than, you know, 6 or 8 supervisors, sergeants, where these searches can be done, you know, over the radio if they had to be done quickly.

Or, you know, entering a progressive approach where if it didn't have to be done immediately, if this was a past tense crime, we could do it with a more extensive paper-based process.

But I do think that, you know, that— and this is where the balance becomes a little bit tricky when it comes to outside agencies, right?

I think, you know, that it's easy to say let's not share, let's not share with anybody, right?

But we know that sometimes with our, you know, our city, our city limits don't, don't stop criminals.

And when they, you know, when they commit crimes, they tend to flee and go farther away.

So I think coming up with some system where outside agencies, be it, you Fairhaven, Dartmouth, whoever, could, could call communications again, the dispatch center, and provide us with, you know, the same restricted reasons that we hold our officers accountable to.

And we'd be able to give that data on a case-by-case basis versus general sharing, which is kind of what goes on.

Before I shut it off, we had like a general sharing in all of Massachusetts and parts of Rhode Island.

I think it needs to be more restricted than that.

Um, so I, I do think we'd have to significantly limit who has access to it.

And then my final question— sorry, my final question has 2 parts: internal and external audit.

So an internal audit, what do you think the parameters for an internal audit should be, as well as within your department, who would handle that internal audit?

And then externally, if we— who would handle the external audit and the time period on which you think it should be done?

You know, right now it says annually.

Is this something that should be a little more reviewed externally where it would happen more times than once a year, or more being done internally to limit the external need?

Yeah, there's no way that I think we should do it annually.

Having, having, have our professional standards unit is going through and auditing that system now.

That's way too long and it takes way too long.

My proposal in the, in the and the suggestions that I gave was monthly.

If we limit the number of searches based on a legal standard, reasonable suspicion, or if we don't think that goes too far enough, we go to probable cause.

I think if we go far enough to say we need a search warrant every time, we might be putting ourselves up against a time crunch there where we can't use the system as effectively.

But I think that, one, that's going to reduce the number of searches.

So the audit will be a lot easier.

2, in my proposed, you know, new policy requirements would be police reports that actually have to back up every one of those searches in a narrative, right?

It's not just a dropdown box.

I'd have to tell a story like, this is what I was encountering, this is the reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

So it's going to be a lot easier to audit those, but professional standards should do it because they're not using the technology.

On a daily basis to investigate crime like the Detective Division or even patrol.

So I think they should do the internal audits and I think they should be done monthly.

You know, as I've said, too, there's a lot of vendors out there.

I think, you know, there's a lot of focus on Flock and I've hesitated to go too far forward in looking at other vendors because, as I proposed, I think we should put together a working group to look at those vendors.

Like, we, we kind of got here because it was the police department alone that was looking at this.

I don't think we should look at it alone, right?

Um, I don't know.

I have heard, I have seen some, uh, you know, some stuff out there.

There's a lot, obviously it's a hot topic.

Um, there are vendors out there that, uh, anonymize the LPR data.

So as they draw in all this information, they do suck in a lot of information, right?

Um, they anonymize it and it's a, it's a separate, and maybe the this might be where IT comes in, but there's a separate almost like decoder that's then used so, so the data is more secure.

You almost need to, you almost need to, you need to break into like 2 systems to actually get the data.

So there's some stuff out there I think that, um, you know, may be able to answer a lot of our questions.

As far as an outside audit goes, we would have to look in to see if, um, you know, who we think can be trusted to do that, right?

Is it the DA's office?

I don't know, um, is it, you know, is it the state police or is it like an anonymous, you know, is it, is it like a completely, uh, like a law firm or something like that?

So out exterior audits, we would have to really talk about and see who's, who's out there that's available to do that.

What's the cost of that?

Um, who's legitimate?

Like, who, who are we gonna have legitimacy into looking at that?

I will say that, you know, the, the, um, the audit that we're doing now, uh, you know, some of the software that's built into the FLOC system with the automated data, the automated audit tool has been very helpful in narrowing a lot of the manual work that, that goes into looking at every single license plate search.

Thank you, Chief.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Chairman.

Chair recognizes Councilor Oliver on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Chief Doty, for being here.

One of my questions was asked, so I appreciate that.

My question to you, since since you have only recently received this and had a little bit of time to peruse it, would you feel comfortable taking some serious time and looking at it and maybe perhaps making some recommendations?

That would be outstanding.

How much time do you think would— I know you have a lot of work to do.

I want to make sure that you're able to— Yeah, but this is a priority.

I mean, I think if if we had a week to really look at it, dig into it.

You know, and I also think that I'm not necessarily the, you know, the only person, right?

There's— as we— the attorney was up here for a little while and we have another attorney.

But you guys are going to be implementing it too.

So I don't— you know, and pardon the pun here, I don't want to— whether we do— whether we adopt flock technology, don't restrict it, it's a tool in your tool belt that, you know, I'm not in the business of taking tools away from law enforcement, but you guys are going to be the one implementing it and using it.

So I want to make sure that this— whatever we draft doesn't handcuff the police department, that the technology is utterly useless.

I would be very happy to read it thoroughly and give my 2 cents.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chief, uh, basically what my colleague asked before, but if this body was to move forward and this does get referred out of committee tonight, it would appear on the September 24th council agenda.

Do you think you would be able to respond to this before that meeting?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I think a week is fair.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Very good.

24 gives me enough time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh, um, my other question goes out to the, uh, uh, fact of if this does get enacted and an ordinance is drafted, uh, the, uh, our attorney has spoken.

It is a matter of fact that ordinances can be amended even after passage.

We're always tweaking ordinances.

Can you commit to working with the council and making recommendations to changing the ordinance to better suit either the application for officers or the public's general needs?

Absolutely.

I mean, I've sent a couple correspondence along early on with some of my thoughts about, uh, some of the guardrails that we can put in here.

And, and in reading this, I think even some of those could be incorporated into here that, um, you know, that may not be.

You know, there's, um, um, there was a few things that I saw, um, that I think, you know, maybe could even be added.

Um, so yeah, I would definitely commit to that.

Thank you.

I appreciate you for that.

For your commitment here on that.

Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At an appropriate time, I would like to speak with Solicitor Jakes.

Okay, Councilor Abreu on his first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Chief.

Good to see you.

Good evening.

Um, I know we have some pretty significant moderate to significant retention issues in the ranks right now.

I'm not going to get into the why or how that's happening right now.

That's not on the question of this, but that's a fact.

Does— given the fact that we're a little below manpower and a little bit lower than what we would like and what we budgeted for, with the numbers continuing to dissipate, does technology concern you?

Meaning, as technology now being used as sort of an avenue or a scapegoat for, well, we're down in the ranks, let's deploy more technology because that can sort of pinch-hit, if you will, or fill some of the void of no men and women out on the streets.

I would think— I know you're not the union president, but I would think from a labor standpoint there'd be some concerns about that.

I just wondered— I was wondering what your take was on that issue as far as technology substituting an actual rank-and-file officer.

You don't pay health insurance, right, for a camera or technology.

You don't pay pension credits towards a camera.

You don't pay salaries and wages towards camera.

So I'd like to get your thoughts on that.

I think that there may come a day where that's a concern.

None of the technology that we use now is a supplement for officers.

Every single technology that we have, from ShotSpotter to, to, to the ALPR technology, is just a— is just that.

It's a tool.

A flock hit cannot establish probable cause.

An officer has to go back and do that.

So there's no— there's no technology that's currently in place that's a supplement for officers.

Now, I've said before, and I'd say again, it is a force multiplier when it comes to, you know, basically everything that we hope that a witness could provide us at a crime, right?

License plate, vehicle description, you know, these— the closed-circuit cameras that are out there, almost 250 of them in the city, and technology like LPR technology is— it doesn't miss that, right?

It's not as unreliable as a witness, but this is all data that can be absorbed by people as well.

It's just technology is more efficient in doing it.

Um, and it, and to the privacy concerns, it absorbs a lot more data than a witness can or that a human mind can.

Technically, you know, any one of us could stand under one of these flock things and if we were fast enough and efficient enough, we could write down everybody's plate, right?

Um, so it's not doing anything that people can't do, it's just doing it more efficiently.

But there's nothing about this technology that replaces or can be used as an excuse to replace police officers, in my opinion.

Okay.

Are there any— off the cuff here— are there any, in your thoughts, crimes or investigations that this technology and its capabilities can provide that traditional policing for all these years cannot provide through investigative work, detective work?

Is there anything that's we need the flock because we can't, you know, we have the A plus blank equals C. Well, we need the B. I mean, is this the B?

I mean, you've always had the A plus B equals C, correct?

This is just an additional tool.

I mean, explain that because I've seen some concerns and I've heard some concerns from some that says basically, well, we need this technology.

We need it.

We need it because of investigations and whatnot.

So I'd like to get your thoughts on that as well.

Yeah, I mean, this technology, again, it's been around for a long time.

It has proven very useful in law enforcement investigations, basically any investigation that relates to a vehicle, right?

So anything from an Amber Alert where a child was taken by a parent that doesn't have custody and you see, you know, you see the Amber Alerts on the roadways, to a homicide or any, you know, anything that involves a vehicle.

A lot of times we see Most of our, most of our crimes, especially our significant crimes like shootings and things like that, are perpetrated with a stolen vehicle, right?

So they go out, they steal a car so it's not traceable, then they go and they commit the crime.

And, and this technology allows us to identify those vehicles and kind of back into that investigation with, with a piece of information that we wouldn't otherwise have.

We do know that, you know, our witnesses can be, you know, so one witness is sees a white car, one witness sees a red car, and then we're left like trying to pull over every white and red car out there to find that, that are in, that's in the area to try to find out who actually did the crime.

So it's a, it's a useful tool.

Acknowledging the privacy concerns and, and how this is used, you know, this is not a, you know, misuse of Flock is not a hypothetical here anymore.

You know, we just, we had that happen.

So, you know, we got to acknowledge that too.

But there's no doubt, I mean, just in the last week We had 2 shots fired incidents, one back on the 2nd and one this Sunday on the 6th.

And, you know, the detectives are already, you know, noticing that that's, that's a piece of— that's a piece of— that's a tool that they don't have because I have it shut off right now.

So I don't think there's any doubt that our abilities would be impacted by not having a tech— a tool like this, especially because we've had it— we've had it around already.

Well, that leads me— that's a perfect segue to my next and last question for you for this round anyway.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

How many investigations have— has this technology assisted your department with over the last 6 months to a year?

Do you know offhand?

I pulled up, you know, I have some, some, some of the more significant ones, you know, homicides, things like that.

But as far as like each and every case, I, you know, I suppose we could go in there and probably pull that.

I don't have that though.

I was just curious.

I mean, all right.

Yeah, I mean, the officers that we— and this is another, this is another problem too, right?

Some of the officers got to using this technology all the time.

It was like a box that they would check as part of an investigation.

And that could lead to overuse.

It might be legitimate, you know, it's not an inappropriate search, but do we really need to be searching that every time?

And that's where I think, you know, we need to really put some controls in there.

And that is, there is none right now when it comes to why you're doing a search.

You don't need reasonable suspicion.

You don't need probable cause.

We've gotta implement those.

So that, so this technology can, can work when it needs to work.

It's analogous to if you're investigating a potential crime that was committed by a suspect.

If you have, if you, if your investigative work has found probable cause, you have to get a warrant from a judge, correct?

And the judge is that check and balance, correct?

The judge has to sign off on the warrant to see if you have cause, is that correct?

So you're saying it's somewhat similar?

It's, it's, it depends on the case, right?

Sometimes you can, you can make an arrest on speedy information, there's exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

But, but there is a process that has to be followed where certain things are triggered by certain facts, and I think that's how we have to use this technology as well.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'll yield.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes Councilor Carney on her first.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Um, good evening.

How are you tonight?

So I, I know the big concerns of FLOC or the the recognition is overstepping, overstepping its bounds, meaning the facial recognition.

You know, I've heard people say, does it see in my house?

And what does this actual camera detect?

The way we're using it in the city of New Bedford, is it only focusing on license plates?

Can this technology do anything else in your department that we're doing that can be misused?

Well, so the obvious answer to can it be misused is yes.

Well, yeah, I know it can be misused because somebody can, but it's just on the license plate.

But I'm saying the facial recognition, the things that people invading their privacies that the concerns have come up, is that part of Flock?

Do they have that?

I don't know what they have capacity to do as a company.

Our subscription and everyone's subscription that I know of is a license plate reader, right?

So it just, it takes point-in-time license plate data.

That's, I know that to be factual because that's what we can search, right?

We have, and, and I'm glad to, uh, to show you that you can come and see what it can and can't search.

Right now we'd have to, um, it's deactivated, so we'd have to run it in a, in like a, in like a test mode.

But, um, what we're able to input and ask that info, that, that software to look for is in one search, it's like a quick search, is license plate data.

And then in another search, that's a more expanded search, we can look for make, model, color, damage.

Uh, we had a pretty significant case that, that we were able to put in that one, one headlight was dimmer than the other headlight.

And it, and it looked for that.

Um, so it's all vehicle, um, based.

It's all, uh, you know, color, make, model.

And license plate.

There is no— the, you know, the flock cameras that are, that are the stationary cameras that you see are point-in-time.

They take a snapshot, and that's what we're able to see.

So no, I mean, I see all the information out there too.

It's tough to decipher what's real and what's not.

I don't know if the company has ambitions of doing facial recognition.

We didn't do facial recognition in my previous department.

I certainly wouldn't advocate to do it here.

I think that's a next, like a next level technology that we really got to start, you know, kind of thinking about.

Um, this technology, in, in my opinion, is, you know, a government issued license plate regulated, mandated to be on the back of your car by the government.

You know, it's, this is, this is not intrusive in a way that facial recognition or something like that would be.

So no, uh, there is no ability to search the database for any of that information.

And our technology does not do that.

So when it takes a snapshot of the vehicle, like you said, if there's a dent on it, headlights, when it takes that snapshot and there's— it's coming at you and it's a smash on the hood, you're not getting any picture of a driver?

Well, so they tell you that in that snapshot, like let's say that someone's walking across the street, that there's no guarantee that that person isn't inadvertently taken a picture of, right?

But that's not searchable.

We can't search for that person.

There's no way to search for that information.

There's no way to search for driver information.

You know, we're looking for a white male, black female, whatever it might be, right?

There's no way for us to do that.

Because it's a picture and we don't know, like, if a bird's flying by or a person's crossing the street, they could be in that picture.

But it's no— it's background noise.

It's not searchable.

Right.

So basically that the city of New Bedford is just using it for the license plates, correct?

Which— and vehicle identifiers.

And okay, so, so that's all we're using for it, just for as a tool, because you— everybody can't sit there and write down license plates when they see things, but people do and submit it to the police department anyway.

So this is just doing the license plates to help you as a tool for the police department.

And that's it.

And right now it's suspended, correct?

Yes.

And do you have— do you have a timeline when you want to put them back online after the suspension?

No.

Uh, you know, like I've said, I mean, this is— this is part of that process.

I think the working group is— is really important to get some opinions from people.

And maybe when we— you know, if we decide to go back online, maybe Flock is not the vendor that we use.

You know, I said before, I'm not committed to them as a vendor.

I have firm beliefs that the technology is very useful in law enforcement and can keep the people of New Bedford safer.

But how we do that, you know, I'm not gonna turn them back on until, you know, I'm satisfied that, you know, that we've heard everybody and that we've gone through this and we've done it the right way.

So, so, I mean, I know that we need to put some policies in place for FLOCK— or I'm not going to use the word FLOCK because we might not even use FLOCK— but for an automatic license plate reader.

There's going to be policies within the department, and we're creating ordinances right now to oversee that.

Now, what I don't want to do is go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.

I'd rather see this issue tabled with ER letting us know that it's not going back online.

So it gives the council enough time to look over this and make— because there's a lot of good questions that came up from my colleagues, you know, about what the state does and what's this doing.

And, you know, and I just want to make sure that when we put an ordinance in place, we've got the input from your department, we're putting input in from the attorneys, and actually look at this.

But, you know, I think the fear is is it's going back online and then we have no safeguards.

So if you can give us a safeguard that it's not going to go back online until we have all those discussions and those policies in place and the ordinance all set, then, you know, I feel fine to just table it so we can work on it.

Because like I said, I don't want to pass it and then 4 days from now you're going to send me something and I'm going to have to scurry through this line at whatever and try to get something passed.

I'd rather make sure when we do it, it's done right the first time.

I mean, there's always going to be changes, evolution happens, but at least we have a solid ground with all the input that we need to have inputted.

And we have— make sure that we don't take the tools away from the police department that they need, because it's public safety and we need to keep the city safe.

For as many people that don't like the flocks, I'm getting the same that we want, we want cameras in the city, we want to be safe.

So I just want to make sure we do it right the first time.

And that way, as long as I have your guarantee that we're not going to move forward with it, then let's give us a breathing time to get this done and get your information back to us so we can look into it and put it into our ordinance.

Yeah, I 100% agree.

I have— you have my commitment that we're not turning it back on until we can figure this out.

Again, we've, we've put a survey out publicly, we've gotten some good feedback about some ideas that, you know, we didn't think about, some safeguards that people may want to see.

I think that's the input.

Can I, can I guarantee that, you know, we're going to get to a place where everyone, everyone agrees?

Probably not.

But I want to get as much, you know, as much information as possible before we turn it back on or turn a different vendor on or whatever we do.

All right.

So if this drags on after the contract that ends, ends, Do you have any intention of renewing the contract?

I don't think it ends for a while, but I wouldn't renew this contract until, until we're solid on, on what we're going to do with this moving forward.

I also, you know, we also have to look into the potential if we do decide to go with a different vendor about what potentially canceling this contract looks like.

Can we get a refund?

Like, you know, how's that?

So we're looking into that as well.

So when does this contract end?

What's the— do we have the end date on this contract?

I think it's November.

I think it's November.

It's either November or January of either end of this year, 2006, or January of 2027.

It'd be January '27, November '26, right?

So I mean, so it's— so there's nothing going to happen until we do that.

And if this— and if the contract runs out, we're not going to have to worry about paying a fee or canceling?

Well, I'm not going to renew it when it's off, right?

Because it's— because it's set.

You already suspended it and you'd have no intention of turning on, correct, until this council gets this ordinance, you get your policies in place, until you vet— till we properly vet this whole— right.

There's also a pretty good chance that we're going to want different contract language, right?

I mean, that was one of the suggestions here too, is that we look at this contract language about, you know, who— who— what can they do with this data, right?

I want that in writing.

So I don't think any, you know, any contract would be renewed in its current form.

We would, we would need more safeguards built into that contract as well, whether it's with Flock or whether it's with any vendor, correct?

So I think the contract piece is going to have to start from scratch.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes on his first.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Chief, um, I appreciate, uh, some of your comments this evening, um, and As far as the ordinance is concerned, I don't want to prematurely put an ordinance into effect that I haven't had the opportunity— see, the intentions originally through Public Safety was to get you in here and your staff, get FLOC in here, get us to grill them, grill yourself, find out what policies and procedures possibly putting in place, what can FLOC do, what they can't do.

Those are some questions that we have not had answered yet.

I'm being handed amendments tonight.

Um, I'm not ready to move on anything with this ordinance.

And as I asked you in the hallway if you were ready for public safety tomorrow night, and you said yes, you were, I would hope that my colleagues, even though there's a rush to move this through, um, with the date setting and everything the way it's been, that, uh, you give the opportunity for us to have the public safety meeting where some of these questions can be asked and of all parties concerned, because I'm not about to give up on FLOC immediately.

Yeah, I know you've suspended it, and I want to talk about it.

I want to find out what the goods— are you all right, Joe?

That's okay.

You all right?

I want to know what the goods and the bads are on the whole thing.

I know what my opinion is, the opinion of others that we've heard from some of the public.

I've heard from the general public quite extensively, and I'm not about to do anything until we get an opportunity to talk to you.

And I would hope that my colleagues would give that opportunity to come in tomorrow night in Public Safety.

It's coincidental how all of this happened, how we took it out of auto, what came up, what didn't come up.

How we did it, how we got to the date of tonight and tomorrow night.

Give us the opportunity in public safety to take this thing apart and find out exactly what the chief has done in, in his workings along with his staff.

What we're looking for also, the opportunity— again, I didn't want to cancel FLOC, but I wanted to protect the people of this city.

I didn't want nobody's rights violated in any way, form.

I think your rights are being violated each and every day.

You're violated when they walk out the door.

There's cameras watching you, everything, everywhere.

You can also watch the camera that you carry in your pocket, that, um, iPhone or whatever.

So I would hope my colleagues would give us that opportunity to take a look at this.

But I do have a question for David Gierutelski, uh, City Attorney for the City Council.

Maybe hypothetical.

Would you allow that to be answered, sir?

Um, Certainly, I guess I would appreciate it.

Yeah, I would appreciate my longtime tenure that if I wanted to ask a question, I would have that opportunity.

No, I was just— I know other people had questions for Chief Doty.

That was— I understand.

I'm sorry to mess you up.

David, very hypothetical.

We have a situation in the country right now where ShotSpotter was shut down.

A man was shot.

They never knew about him being shot in the neighborhood because ShotSpot had been shut down.

They are now suing the city.

Now I'm going to reverse that to these flock cameras.

We have an incident happen in this city where a child's abducted, something's gone, murder or whatever, and we cannot use these flock cameras— excuse me— right now.

Could the city be held accountable just as in that other case with this spot shotter, and they're going after the city due to the fact that they shut off the spot shotter and this could have saved this man's life.

It's a national story if you haven't seen it.

If you haven't seen it, Google it.

You don't understand the question?

I think I understand the question.

You're saying— I'm trying to find out if we, we're liable, which with this system being off right now and the police not being able to solve a case of some kind that may happen while these cameras were down and could have been, could we be held liable?

Without more, it's hard to say, but I can't think of a scenario that we would be required to be held liable if we decided as a city not to.

Even though this system was implemented almost 2 years ago, and was part of the security and the procedures of police.

Yeah, I mean, for example, if for budgetary reasons we had to cut the police force, I don't think we'd be held liable because we don't have a certain number of police that could fight crime.

So I don't— I can't think of a legal theory that would hold them liable.

Do you understand?

Maybe I didn't say it in lawyer man's terms, and I'm sorry.

We have an incident that is a national story in the country right now where a city is being sued and a police department due to the fact that the ShotSpotter was shut down because of all this that's going on.

And the family and the whole story is this man would have lived, but he died on the street that night because that ShotSpotter never sent the communication.

And this is where I even differ with the chief.

Where he said originally when this was going to— when we were going to shut it down, people are calling.

Maybe it wasn't even him.

Maybe it's the illustrious mayor upstairs that says people are getting on the phone.

At 2 o'clock in the morning when shots are fired on Cedar Street or Summer Street or whatever, everybody's not up.

The call has to be made.

Again, if I'm asking you the wrong question, you really don't understand it, or— I'm just looking to see if we're liable right now with the stand shutdown.

And I think my answer is I can't think of a legal theory where if we did not use cameras or ShotSpotter that we would be held liable for some injury occurring to someone.

I don't think we're obligated to have to use it.

I haven't seen this lawsuit about the ShotSpotter.

I don't know what the legal theory behind the filing of the lawsuit is.

The lawsuit is that the man died because the ShotSpotter never picked it up that night that would regularly have picked it up and sent units to that area.

Even if nothing was found, he would have been found.

There still has to be some legal cause of action, right?

I'm not a lawyer.

I don't know what that is.

Okay.

But people file lawsuits all the time.

That doesn't mean they're meritorious or they're— people file lawsuits all the time and hoping to see if they can gain a settlement or— but from a legal theory, I can't think of one off the top of my head by which— So you don't think we would be held liable?

I don't— I can't think— My whole point was to find out if the FLOC system being down, unable— you've heard the chief already say that there's been a couple of incidents where police could not use it.

If it was a life and death or kidnapping or whatever and we couldn't get to that person because of that and that person was found maybe later on either in another state or dead somewhere, could we be held responsible?

That's all I was trying to find out.

Yeah, I don't— I would say I don't want to be— I don't want to give a hypothetical answer because it would have to be a real situation for me to comment.

But I can't really think of a legal theory by which we could be sued because we shut off— My questioning came on that ShotSpotter incident that has happened.

If you have a chance— Somebody filed a lawsuit, but I'm not sure what their cause of action is or what the particulars are about that.

The particulars were the ShotSpotter was shut down.

Well, there's more particulars to that.

A family member would have been found if ShotSpotter had been working.

That's the whole thing behind the story and what's going on.

Story, but The story is different from a legal complaint.

I understand.

Before you insult me, I appreciate you answering my questions.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me ask Attorney Garatelsky the question that I wanted to.

Again, I would urge my colleagues not to move on this this evening until we have an opportunity to get this into Public Safety where some good questioning and answer can be asked by the chief, the people from FLOC, and the administration.

And give us an opportunity to go through this.

We were just handed this in the past 48 hours, if not less than that, and immediate action to be taken.

I'm not about to do that.

And again, I represent 100,000 people in this city, if not more.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Anyone else on that first for Chief Thody?

Seeing none, uh, Councilor Perron is second.

Thank you.

Chief, you are not in civil service, correct?

Your position?

Uh, I don't know.

I'm not— okay.

Uh, my colleague from Jenny Lind Street, uh, got reassurances from you that you would not advocate for turning the cameras on or renewing a contract until you've had time to either look at an ordinance or implement a policy.

But the mayor could instruct you to do that, correct?

Yeah, he— yeah, he could.

Okay.

I mean, I've had pretty extensive conversations with him.

I— we're on the same page.

Okay, and that's fine.

I just— there are— there is a possibility that that could happen, and I just wanted to make sure that for the record that is stated.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Anyone else on their first for Chief Doty?

Anyone on their second?

Anyone for— oh, well, thank you, Chief Doty.

Uh, anyone for Solicitor Jakes or Director Costa?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director Costa.

Director Costa, you can take the podium, and Councilor Abreu, on your first.

Thank you, sir.

Hi, John.

Good to see you.

Can you talk a little bit about what your role was, if any, your department was in setting these up, erecting them, and how quickly can you take them down and put them up if we were to go forward with this, and what's the turnaround on that?

So actually, my department was not involved in the procurement or the installation.

Okay.

Of any of these cameras.

So what's your role, if anything, in this?

None whatsoever?

None.

Okay.

Well, we'll stop there.

Why are you here, man?

Because they told me to come.

Thank you, John.

Mr. Chairman, I'm all done.

I'm all done with him.

I'll yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Costa.

Anyone else for Sosa-Jakes or any of our invitees?

All right, seeing none, your pleasure.

Excuse me, I'd like to make a motion to table.

A motion to table has been made by Councilor Carney, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Roll call.

Roll call.

A roll call has been made on a motion to table.

Councilor Ebru?

No.

Councilor Ebru.

Councilor Baptiste?

No.

No, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgos?

No.

No, Councilor Burgos.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Turkett?

No.

No, Councilor Turkett.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

No.

No, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

No.

No.

So that fails 6 to 5.

Mr.

Chair, I have a motion to amend.

Um, it's, it's rather lengthy.

I, I passed it out to you folks before.

Should I read it?

Should I have the, the clerk read it?

Um, what do you think, Mr.

Chair?

Um, did everyone get a copy of Amendment 1.

Oh, I guess actually it would be appropriate to read, right?

For the— yeah, we have to.

Yes, so we have to read it into the record.

So I would ask that you read it since it's your amendment.

Okay, sure.

Great.

Yeah, go with the first.

Bear with me.

I move to amend subsection A, definitions, by inserting the following definition of surveillance technology, and to amend subsection B, prohibition, as follows.

Follows.

Surveillance technology shall mean any electronic device, hardware, software, system, service, or technology capable of collecting, capturing, recording, retaining, processing, intercepting, analyzing, monitoring, or sharing audio, visual, digital, location, thermal, biometric, or similar information or communications associated with or capable of being associated with an identifiable individual or group.

Surveillance technology includes but is not limited to cell site simulators, fixed or mobile surveillance cameras, facial, voice, iris, gait, or other biometric recognition technology, drones equipped with surveillance capabilities, gunshot detection or location technology, social media monitoring software, Bluetooth, RFID, or other wireless scanning technology and software designed to integrate, track, analyze, or make predictions from surveillance data.

Surveillance technology does not include the following devices, hardware, software, or systems unless they are equipped with, modified to include, or used in conjunction with surveillance technology covered by this section.

1, Routine hardware and equipment in widespread public use, including televisions, computers, printers, telephones, and similar equipment, when not used for a surveillance or surveillance-related function.

2, parking ticket devices and other similar equipment used primarily for parking enforcement.

3, manually operated, non-wearable, handheld digital cameras audio recorders or video recorders that are not designed to be used surreptitiously or whose functionality is primarily limited to manually capturing and downloading audio, photographs, or video.

4, body-worn cameras used by law enforcement personnel in accordance with applicable law and departmental policy, provided that this exclusion shall not extend to facial recognition, biometric identification, real-time tracking, automated analytics, and other additional surveillance capabilities incorporated into or used in conjunction with a body-worn camera system.

5, devices that cannot record or transmit audio or video and cannot be remotely accessed, including image stabilizing binoculars or ordinary night vision equipment.

6, municipal databases that do not contain data or information collected, captured, recorded, retained, processed, intercepted, or analyzed through surveillance technology.

And 7, manually operated technological devices used primarily for internal municipal communications and not designed to surreptitiously collect surveillance data, including ordinary radios and email systems.

I further move to amend subsection B prohibition by adding the following paragraph at the end of the second paragraph: No city department, agency, board, commission, office, authority, or other municipal entity shall acquire, purchase, lease, license, renew, expand, newly deploy, or materially modify any surveillance technology without first complying with the applicable public hearing, privacy, civil liberties impact assessment, data governance, independent audit, and public reporting requirements of this section.

Motion to amend was made by Councilor Roy.

Is there a second?

Second.

Made by Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone on the question?

Are you raising your hand?

I am.

You were holding up paper, so I was so sorry.

Sorry, Chairman, I'm raising my hand.

All right.

Councilor Roya, on the question.

So I offered this amendment because I think the discussion we had earlier with, with the legislative counsel highlighted a gap in the ordinance we have before us.

The ordinance— this ordinance does have strong protections when the technology being used is an ALPR technology or is systematically tracking people's locations.

But surveillance technology does much more than track where someone or their vehicle has been.

Surveillance technology can tell the government who you are, what you look like, what you say, what you post online, who you associate with, what devices you carry, and what you're doing.

Facial recognition, biometric identification, social media monitoring, cell site simulators, wireless scanning, and emerging surveillance analytics can collect extraordinarily sensitive information without necessarily falling within the current definition of mass location tracking technology as provided in the ordinance in front of us.

And those technologies raise many of the exact same questions, Mr.

Chair, that brought us to this meeting in the first place.

What information is being collected?

Who can search it?

Who can it be shared with?

Can an outside agency access it?

Can a private vendor access it?

Is access logged?

Is it audited?

And importantly, does the public even know that technology is being acquired before it's deployed?

The ordinance before us already recognizes that these questions matter, Mr.

Chair.

It establishes requirements concerning public notice, privacy and civil liberties, data retention, searches, access, sharing, auditing, cybersecurity, vendors, and public reporting.

I don't see a policy reason why those concerns should matter when the city collects someone's license plate, but suddenly matter less when the information being collected is someone's face, someone's voice, someone's biometric information, social media activity, or any other identifying information.

This is why this amendment defines surveillance technology based on what the technology can actually do, rather than trying to predict every individual product or device the city might encounter in the future.

At the same time, the amendment contains clear exclusions for ordinary municipal technology that we are not trying to regulate.

And I want to be very clear about what this amendment does not do.

It does not change what this ordinance does with ALPR.

The prohibition of ALPR remains.

It does not prohibit New Bedford from ever using another surveillance technology.

What it says is that if the city wants to acquire or newly deploy another powerful surveillance technology in the future, like Flock, we should have a process in place before that happens.

We learned what— we've learned from Flock and ALPR why transparency and oversight should come before deployments, not after.

We should not have to go through this same controversy again every time new surveillance technology appears.

We cannot— we can make one decision about ALPR in this ordinance, while also making sure we're prepared for whatever other technology comes to us.

For those reasons, I urge that we adopt this amendment.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh, Chair recognizes Councilor Oliver on his first.

Thank, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, oh, I'm sorry, on the question.

I apologize.

Yes, thank you.

First on the question.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, you know, we just had a robust discussion for an hour or almost an hour and a half about a city order, about an ordinance, 7-page ordinance, and then 25 minutes ago we get another page and a half to absorb, making it an 8.5-page ordinance or whatever.

There could be, there could be great language in here.

I'm sure there is, but This is what we're having this whole discussion about— the drafting of an ordinance, what it's going to look like.

The chief has assured us that he's going to weigh in on what his recommendations are.

Um, I think that the conversation needs to continue and not just consolidated into one night, uh, one, you know, and then we're changing it on top of it.

So if we are to lead, as we always say, New Bedford should lead, then we need to lead and make sure that we are acting in a manner that is appropriate and not trying to ram a policy through for public appearance and then on top of it add a whole other page and a half of language that we haven't been able to absorbed.

So, um, I, I don't know enough about this amendment to support it, and for that I will not be voting for it tonight.

And I hope my colleagues feel the same.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Abron is first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Um, um, my recommendation through you to the filer of this amendment is, um, it's, it's well written and I know it's well intended I would recommend that if this ordinance were to go forward tonight, hold on to this amendment.

And we're going to rehear this or hear this for the first reading on the 24th.

In the meantime, in that 3.5-week gap, give your colleagues the chance to look through it.

Let's have these conversations.

Let's delve into this a little bit more and let's do the work with this.

And then if it looks like the good councilor can get the votes, or even if he doesn't look like he can get the votes, he can present this amendment on the floor on the 24th.

I guess that'd be my recommendation, would be to hold on to this.

But it is tough because I received this too, like the good councilor from Ward 3 said, while we were in a lot of Q&A back and forth at the time.

I believe it was Councilor Carney or the councilor from Jenny Lind Street speaking with the chief, and I was trying to pay attention.

There was a lot going on, a lot of information, right?

A lot of reading.

And I mean, it looks good on the surface.

It looks interesting.

I'd like to do my homework on this, as we all would with anything like this.

So for that, you know, if this comes to a roll call tonight, I'm going to have to say no.

But let's have the conversation and let's really delve into this over the next couple of weeks.

If the good councilor who filed this amendment chooses to do so.

On that, I'll yield.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the question?

Roll call vote.

Seeing none, again, we're voting on the amendment that was read into the record by Councilor Roy, and a roll call has been requested again on the amendment that was read regarding, uh, subsection A of definitions for surveillance technology and subsection B on prohibition.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on that amendment.

On the motion to amend, Councilor Abril?

No.

Councilor Abril, Councilor Baptiste?

No.

Councilor Baptiste, Councilor Virgo?

No.

No.

Councilor Virgo, Councilor Carney?

No.

No.

Councilor Carney, Councilor Trickett?

No.

No.

Councilor Trickett, Councilor Gomes?

No.

No.

Councilor Gomes, Councilor Lopes?

No, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

No.

No, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

No.

No, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

That fails 10 to 1.

Fails 10 to 1.

Motion to refer to the full city council for adoption made by Councilor Pereira.

On the question, I have 3 possible amendments that I'd like to make as well.

Okay, so I don't think we should vote on the question.

Motion to amend first.

Yes, I would say takes precedent.

And we also didn't get a second for Councilor Pereira.

Anyone to second Councilor Pereira's motion to refer out to— thank you, seconded by Councilor Baptiste.

But then I will recognize Councilor Lopez's amendment.

So I can take one at a time, or I can give you all 3, however you'd like as the chair.

One at a time, however you prefer.

I'd prefer one at a time.

Okay, so Section G, number 1, add after the word period of 7 days.

So that would allow the, the policy shall have a fixed and clear defined maximum data retention period of 7 days.

So it's adding a defined period of time.

Okay, so motion made by Councilor Lopes to add a fixed time in advance of of 7 days.

Is there a second?

Second by, uh, Councillor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Again, this is under Section G, Data Governance and Requirements.

Anyone on the question?

On the question, I would just say we heard from the chief, you know, from 30 to 14, and he was okay with a reduced period of 7 days.

Okay, um, I don't know if I should give up my gavel to— no objection from the chair.

Am I— is it okay if I say I just want to clarify again with this ordinance, the way it's worded here, it's— it— I, I would caution us to specify in this ordinance already a set time.

The way this was designed was for the administration to work with whatever vendor, if they choose to— if they decide to go in with Flock or whatever vendor to have an ALPR, they work that out with that vendor to determine those guidelines.

And then when those parameters in D, E, F, and G are worked out, they would present that to the council, and that's when all of that would be worked out.

But if we go in and already set a specific timeframe already, that would lock it in.

So this way it's set up right now, a fixed and clearly defined maximum data retention, it's just saying that when a contract is put forward to the council for adoption, you need to have that clearly defined.

It's not saying it needs to be defined right now.

It just This means when under Section K, when it comes before the City Council for final adoption, that needs to be clearly defined in the contract.

So that's why I would caution us not to make that amendment to set a timeframe already in advance, because that is something I think the administration and the vendor, if they decide to enter into a new contract with an ALPR, they work out those agreements and then they present that to us, and then we can make those amendments when the contract's in front of us.

This is not— this ordinance before us is not for us to be setting any, uh, contracts.

It's to set the parameters for if the administration wants to enter into a contract.

These are the mechanisms of what they need to have in detail for us to be presented to us to make a decision.

Which is why I would caution any amendments to specify any of those specific details now, because then it would basically hogtie them to say any vendor that they go to, you have to do this.

I don't know if that was too wordy.

Not for me.

For me, if we're already adding restrictions into it, I would rather somebody bidding on something understand the full parameters of it than have— I just wanted to put that explanation of my My intention, just so if that wasn't clear, I just wanted to put that out there.

But if that's what the body wants to do to make sure whatever contract is already worked into is 7 days, I just wanted to to put in that that's what that wording means is that it leaves it up to the administration, the chief of police to work out that agreement, and then when they present it to us, we could then make those changes if we see fit.

But again, the motion at hand.

Is to amend under G, data governance— sorry, turn back to it— uh, data governance requirements, to amend under number 1, a fixed and clearly defined maximum data retention period, to list an actual specific time of 7 days.

Is that correct, Councilor?

Yes, sir.

Motion was seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Motion to table.

Second.

All right, a motion to table was made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Carney.

That takes precedent.

A roll call has been requested.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

A motion to table has been made with this amendment pending.

If The table, if that actually passes, that's the mechanism that would happen.

So right now, this vote is not regarding the amendment.

It's regarding Council Oliver's motion to table, which has been seconded by Council Carney.

Again, this is on a motion to table, and I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on a motion to table.

Table the whole thing?

To table this whole discussion and for us to go home.

So, okay, sorry, go ahead to call them.

I just wanted to explain again, this is on a motion to table.

Councilor Abel?

No.

Councilor Abel.

Councilor Baptiste?

No.

Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgos?

No.

No.

Councilor Burgos.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

No.

No.

Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

No.

No.

Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

No.

Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

No.

Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

I don't want to table.

No.

So you're saying yes?

No, he's saying no.

No, no, no.

So no to tabling.

So that fails 8 to 3.

Fails 8 to 3.

So we are now back with the amendment that has been proposed by Councilor Lopes and Again, this amendment has been made by Councilor Lopes under Section G data governance requirements to strike the language of a fixed and clearly defined maximum data retention period and to put in, in this case, an actual fixed amount of 7 days for data retention period of 7 days.

And that has been seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Anyone else on the question of this amendment of 7 days?

For data retention.

No one else?

Seeing none, I'll ask for a roll call.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Abreu.

Councilor Baptiste?

No.

No, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgos?

No.

No, Councilor Burgos.

Councilor Carney?

No.

No, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Trickett?

No.

No, Councilor Trickett.

Councilor Gomes?

No.

No, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

No.

No, Councilor Councillor Pereira?

No.

Councillor Pereira?

Councillor Roy?

No.

No, that fails 9 to 2.

Fails 9 to 2.

Councillor Lopes?

Yep, I have 2 more to make.

On number 2— on what, uh, Section G?

These are all in Section G. Section G. Okay, sorry.

Section G, number 2, add after the words required by law Usage will be limited to use by sergeants, lieutenants, captains, deputy police chiefs, and the police chief.

I'm sorry, sergeants, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, deputies, and the police chief.

Sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and police chiefs and the deputy in the club.

Oh, and deputy.

Sorry, deputy.

So sergeants and up, basically.

Okay, but I just— I didn't want to say sergeants and up.

Okay, well, just for my— yeah.

Okay, so motion made by Councilor Lopes, uh, under again Section G, Data Governance Requirements, item number 2, after the wording of the sentence required by law, adding in only to be used by, uh, those that have the ranking of sergeant and higher.

He listed, obviously, you know, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, deputy, uh, police chief.

Um, but, um, anyone for a second?

Are you seconding?

No.

Okay, so we need a second first, and if we get a second, then you can speak on the question, Councilor Carney.

I'm sorry, I thought there was.

Going once.

Councilor Abreu on a second.

Anyone on the question?

I first want to recognize the maker of the motion, and then I'll get you, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Lopes, each one of my amendments follows the discussions that I had with the police chief when he was at the podium and limited it to the sergeants and up that would utilize the, the technology.

Okay, Councilor Carney, on your first.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would prefer not to put anything in at this time and wait for the discussion with the police chief.

And talk to him about, um, who he wants to have access.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else on there first?

Roll call vote has been requested.

Again, this is on an amendment by Councilor Lopes to add in under Section G, number 2, to add in after the end of the sentence of number 2 that only those with the rank of sergeant or higher be allowed to utilize this.

Seconded by Councilor Abreu.

No one else on the question.

Roll call.

Councilor Abreu?

No.

Councilor Abreu.

Councilor Baptiste?

No.

Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgo?

No.

No.

Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney?

No.

No.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

No.

No.

Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

No.

No.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

No.

No, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

No.

Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

Nope.

No, that fails 10 to 1.

And then the last one, it was 10 to 1.

And yes, Councilor Lopes.

Last one would be a new number 9 in Section G. Okay, the Department of Professional Standards would conduct a monthly audit of the prior 30-day searches of any ALPR device used in the City of New Bedford.

Okay, so the Department of Professional Standards will do a monthly audit of the prior 30-day searches of any ALPR device used in the City of New Bedford, and that is adding in number 9 under Section G of data governance requirements.

Requirements.

That's been made by Councilor Lopes.

Any second?

Fails due to a lack of a second.

At this time, if there's no other amendments, I am now recognizing Councilor Pereira's referral out to the full City Council for adoption, which has been duly seconded.

Anyone on the question?

Motion at table.

Chair.

Okay, motion to table made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Carney.

And I'll ask for a roll call again.

This is on motion to table.

This vote is on a motion to table.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on a motion to table.

One more time.

What's this motion on?

On tabling.

Thank you.

One more time.

What was it?

I Just to make sure that people are paying attention that this is on tabling.

Councilor Abu?

No.

Councilor Abu.

Councilor Baptiste?

No.

No.

Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgo?

No.

No.

Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

No.

No.

Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

No.

No, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

No.

No, um, that's me.

No, Councilor Roy?

No, that's me.

Fails 7 to 4.

7 to 4.

All right, got that right.

Okay, 7 to 4.

Third time's not the charm.

Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira on the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On referral out to the City Council that we're on now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to just say, uh, you know, this is being referred out.

It will make the September 24th agenda if so moved.

At that point, it goes to a second reading.

It probably won't make the October 8th.

It might even be a little after that.

At the end of the day, there are multiple opportunities for input.

I spoke to my colleague to my right and said if there is substantial new evidence we hear tomorrow, or the police chief has any corrections, I will be the first to make amendments, any recommended amendments, or refer it back if needed.

I committed that to him.

I committed that to the public as a whole.

Furthermore, there's plenty of times for amending this, plenty of opportunities for amending this, even opportunities to refer it back to committee if something is so egregiously seen here.

I think there is some urgency here with us.

There is some urgency here with us.

I don't think, you know, we heard from the police chief here this evening, and while he has reassured us it is his intention to not turn them on or renew a contract, I cannot say I am confident that the administration will take that same stance in conversations publicly on the radio or an interview or privately, I do not get that feeling that that is the same sentiment shared by the administration that our police chief stood here and committed to us.

So that is a caution that I have and why I think it is important to get the ball rolling on this ordinance.

I think we all agree it was unfair how this all went down and how it was implemented without council knowledge.

It was, it was done under the radar, and this ordinance allows for the council to be notified when this type of technology is brought before us.

You know, I, I think that many of the safeguards implemented in this ordinance are sound, are reasonable, and is a compromise.

And while then our attorney put it that both sides might not get exactly what they would have liked to see, it is a compromising position.

No piece of legislation is perfect from the top to the bottom, but the beauty of our government is the ability to make changes and edits along the way.

And the police chief here has committed to making recommendations to this body before and after adoption of this ordinance— possible adoption of this ordinance— to giving this council recommendations on future changes and amendments to this ordinance.

And that is the beauty of our government, is that we can make those changes even after this is adopted.

If this is adopted and passed into law, we still have the ability to make changes and edits moving forward.

I think that we should be cautious and wary of the administration when it comes to this item.

I believe that when we, we look at this Uh, in totality, and look at the past history of this administration.

If it's something he doesn't agree with, they will spin their tires and stall to continue to delay this council, such as the Paid Family Medical Leave— Paid Parental Leave Act that this council waited 3 years to pass.

The administration did not support it.

They clearly did not support it and vetoed it and stalled for 3 years.

I just don't want to see this item stall for 3 years.

I respect my colleagues' opinions on this.

I am looking forward to a rigorous conversation tomorrow night, which may input some of my decision-making come the 24th— tomorrow night being the Public Safety Committee meeting.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

But I would just like to state that this councillor is always open to amendments and referrals if needed come the 24th or October 8th or October 22nd.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Anyone else on the question?

Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote against it because I feel that there's an urgency to address this issue, but there's not an urgency that the world is going to come apart or this— excuse me, the sky is going to fall tomorrow morning because of this issue.

Excuse me.

And furthermore, this has all been done very quickly.

Again, not given the opportunity to hear from the department, hear from the administration, hear from FLOT what policies and procedures can be put in to protect the people without this wide-range ordinance that just almost puts everything to a stop.

I don't understand that.

I also don't understand how we do an ordinance like this where we often speak and you often hear in this room about public hearings.

Let's hear from the public.

How many have you heard from your Crime Watch groups?

How many of you— have you talked to those people that attend those meetings?

How many people have you talked to over the past weekend or the past 7 days or whatever about this issue?

How many times did it come up?

Why is there such an urgency that we pass this tonight without having all the information that we need for— and more importantly, getting the right sources in here that can answer some of the questions?

What policies and procedures have been put into place to protect the people?

Again, I'm not going to take away the rights of the people.

I'm not going to take away the rights of the department or the city to provide public safety in the 21st century.

I don't give a darn what anybody says.

Yes, I want to protect your rights.

I don't want them in your backyard.

I don't want them in your front window.

But I do want to have public safety in the 21st century that it just should be.

Listen to that amendment tonight.

No drones, no nothing.

So many months ago we voted, yeah, let's stop talking about the drones.

I've been talking about drones for a long time.

I know it can assist the police.

I know how it can.

That's all been explained.

But we don't want to talk mainly why so quick.

Why are we moving this so quick?

You can feel it in this room.

I felt it before I even walked in here.

I've been here long enough.

You don't pull the wool over my head and think that we just walked in here tonight and we just all sat down and we get that.

I never had no calls on this.

I did have one call, and that was from you, Mr. Chairman, which I refuse refused to take at the time because I just do, because I'm hotheaded with you, and I'll be honest with you, and you know why.

And that's all right, you can smile, and— but you're, you're a big man and you can understand what I'm saying.

I'm not happy with what was pulled on me last time.

I'm not happy with what has been pulled in this chambers.

So while you giggle and smile, I'm not happy with some of the actions that have been pulled in this chambers.

I know, I know.

It's Brian.

Shh.

I'm not going along with it.

I'm not the go-along-to-get-along guy, and I didn't take your phone call.

I didn't hear from any of my colleagues.

I didn't get to hear from the general public.

Point of order.

Point of order, Mr.

Chair.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the motion in front of us right now, but I think we should vote on that.

Oh, oh, from the rookie.

From the rookie.

From the rookie councilor from Clarence Street.

Excuse me.

Thank you for the time, Mr.

Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sick and tired of speaking and getting, um, Mr.

Chair, interrupted by my colleagues.

Has the floor.

I'm done.

Okay, Councillor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, simply put, there is no rush.

There's no reason to rush.

They are suspended.

The contract is ending.

We heard from the police chief who says that he's in good communication with the administration, which we know we are not.

So if we're to be partners with the police department, and we should trust them and say allow them the time to— for us to get this right, and that's what we're doing.

We just— we talked about family medical leave for 3 years, and this council exhibited the ability to do it despite every effort from the administration to see that it doesn't happen, and this council stood up and fought for it.

So although tonight we had very spirited discussions about a 7-page ordinance, a page and a quarter— I was corrected, sorry, page and a quarter amendment, 3 other amendments— one thing is for certain.

Yes, this ordinance is not perfect and still needs to have further discussion.

And for that, I move to adjourn tonight.

Motion to adjourn has been made, seconded by Councilor Carney.

Um, roll call has been made on a motion to adjourn.

On a motion to adjourn, to end the meeting.

Again, roll call on a I know.

So, so we don't— so we don't vote on— no, so a motion to adjourn takes precedent.

And so, so yeah, so motion to adjourn.

Yeah, so motion to adjourn.

Roll call vote, please.

Yep, I'm just explaining, Councilor Oliver, which I'm allowed to do as the chair.

Um, so motion to adjourn has been made, Councilor Baptiste, to your inquiry.

And so we're going to now have the clerk do a roll call on a motion to adjourn.

Which would end the meeting if that were to pass.

So now the clerk will ask a roll call on a motion to adjourn.

Councilor Abreu?

No.

Councilor Abreu.

Councilor Ortiz?

No.

No.

Councilor Ortiz.

Councilor Burgos?

No.

No.

Councilor Burgos.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Truquette?

No.

No.

Councilor Truquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Oliver.

Councillor Pemberton?

No.

No, Councillor Pemberton.

Councillor Pereira?

No.

No, Councillor Pereira.

Councillor Roy?

No.

No, it fails.

Fails 7 to 4.

7 to 4.

Yes, fails 7 to 4.

Anyone else on the question of referral out to the full City Council?

Chair recognizes Councillor Carney.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

We all know that we need an ordinance in place place to regulate the surveillance of whatever technology we'll be using.

But we got this— was emailed at 10 o'clock yesterday, so 10:00 a.m. We have a little over 24 hours to review this.

This is a great ordinance.

I mean, this is an ordinance that needs to be put in place, but there's a lot of people at the table that we need to listen to.

I know we can go back and forth, and I know, you know, I'm afraid— everybody's afraid of the mayor's gonna just institute it and that's going to be it.

But I do have faith in the police chief who said that the mayor is on the same page with him right now.

We're talking about November when this would expire, when the contract is up, or possibly January.

We do have time to get this thing to do it right to get the input, to have more discussion on it.

Putting amendments in here and, and trying to— these amendments at this time, I think it's rushing it.

We do have time.

I don't believe that the mayor is going to sit there and say, okay, then put flock cameras back on tomorrow online.

I don't think the chief is going to let him do that.

I think we need more vetting of this thing.

I think we need more input, and I think we need to get this down right.

Get this right the first time instead of keep going back and make amendments.

That's why I won't support it tonight until we add more, until we do some more work on this.

Like I said, 10 o'clock, 10 o'clock was not— 10 o'clock yesterday was not enough time to sit there and vent and to make my amendments or what I want to do, the changes.

Thank you.

Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr.

Chair.

Are we adopting If we vote, can we adopt this ordinance tonight?

No, we cannot.

All right.

And we can make amendments at a future date at a full city council, correct?

So this isn't the last night that we have this ordinance in front of us?

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Chair recognizes Councilor Baptiste.

Now, I was just gonna say what Councilor Roy said, so can we just vote and go home?

Yes, it sounds like you're making a motion to move the question.

Is what I'm hearing.

I was just going to say just what Councilor Roy said.

This ain't the last time we're going to hear this.

Anybody can make a motion to move the question was made by Councilor Baptiste.

Again, this is on a motion to refer out to the full city council.

There is no previous question.

Playing all these games.

Oh, or not.

Okay, then that's fine.

We don't have to.

Anyone else on the question?

No.

All right, so, okay.

Second point of parliamentary inquiry: is there new business that has been made evident to the committee that would allow adjournment to be re-voted upon?

No.

Then I don't know.

I do not believe a motion to adjourn is appropriate.

We already voted on it with no new business.

Okay.

Is that accurate, Attorney?

I'm Kieratowski.

I assume Councilor Gomes— so yes, on the motion to table, as similar to the motion to adjourn, you took a vote and it failed.

The only way to renew those motions is if you have intervening business in between.

So for example, when the motion to table was first made, then Councilor— it failed.

Councilor Roy made an amendment, that failed.

That was the intervening business.

Then a new motion to table took place.

But if the last vote you took was on adjournment, then it would not be appropriate, would not be in order to have another motion to adjourn unless you had intervening business first.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so we're doing now— all those in favor for referral out to the full city council say aye.

Motion to amend.

Motion to amend made by Councilor Oliver to add language that the retention be— is this under G?

14 days.

Okay.

Second.

So under Section G of data governance requirements, uh, number 1, to add a fixed date of 14 days, made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Anyone on the question?

Councilor Oliver is the maker of the motion.

Would you like to speak on it?

No, no, speaks for itself.

Okay.

Councilor Roy, did you have your hand up?

Thank you though.

On the question, Chair recognizes Councilor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, again, I do not know why we received this on Labor Day weekend, as it's been stated by other colleagues in here, and we are in such a rush.

What happened over the weekend?

This has nothing to do with the motion.

Here we go, here we go again.

Nothing to do with the motion in front of us.

Here we go again.

I'm being interrupted by a legitimate interruption.

I, I have the— I have the floor now, Councilor Roy.

I am going to recognize Councilor Gones because I will say that it, it does pertain to his, uh, feelings of not feeling prepared for the meeting.

So I will recognize his statement at this time.

Councilor Gomes, you have the floor.

I can't believe that I'm sitting in a council tonight that is going to stop me from speaking because I'm looking for time to, you know, digest this whole thing.

What is the urgency that you— that this has to pass this evening?

I don't understand that.

I don't, and I'll never understand it.

I've never rushed through any type of ordinance like this because it's just the thing to do.

What is the urgency?

Who are we making happy?

I don't know.

I really don't know.

Not given a chance.

And now this is the last thing I'll say.

I do have a public safety meeting scheduled tomorrow night to address this issue through the department, as it's been publicly said.

But if what happens to me that happened last public safety meeting meeting, I will expose each and every one that participates in it.

I just want you to understand that.

And I've never been in this position.

I've been in a position of protecting my colleagues, supporting my colleagues, speaking with my colleagues, debating good debate, and moving on.

But it has turned into something else.

In 24 hours, we are going to rush this through.

I hope the general public is watching very closely.

And I still say that you, the people who are supporting all of this tonight, you have not crisscrossed this city to talk to your constituency on how they feel about this issue or what ordinance or what should be in place.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

The chair recognizes Councilor Oliver on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I put this amendment forward today because— tonight because the conversation needs to continue.

Everybody has different opinions.

We heard 7 days, 30 days.

I'm presenting 14 days.

We just don't know because we haven't done the work yet.

Like the good colleague who spoke before me, we are ramming through an ordinance.

Yes, it can be changed, it can be amended, it can be sent back, but We can have those conversations in the appropriate committee here in ordinance, listening to the representatives who are going to be implementing this stuff.

If 14 days is right, if 14 days is wrong, um, I, I feel like we are getting lost here.

Nobody is saying we want to stop this and we want to squelch it and we don't want to have the discussions.

That's exactly what we're doing.

Okay, let's be a well-informed body before we send this down the river.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the question on this amendment?

Seeing none, if you'll allow from the chair, I think what you're attempting to do in this amendment is exactly what you're arguing against.

The language here allows for those parties that you're talking about, the partners with the police that you were advocating for earlier.

This ordinance, again, as I mentioned to our colleague from Ward 5, a fixed and clearly defined maximum data retention period.

It's broad in that sense to allow for our police partnership to have that discussion when that time comes, if that time comes, if they decide to enter into an ALPR contract and to have that conversation at a later date.

I think that, again, I keep reiterating this, this ordinance is not to set into the terms now.

This is worded in a way for if those, uh, the chief or the mayor and the administration want to enter into a contract, they will work out all of those details that you are concerned that we're trying to set now.

This ordinance in no way, shape, or form is setting any specific details.

It allows for a mechanism for those details to be set, which they never were, because when this was first implemented and purchased in 2024, no parameters were set ever.

And that's why this ordinance, if adopted, will make sure that that never happens again, and it will never have this city council blindsided or the general public blindsided.

Decided by it.

That's why any such amendment like this actually does what you're arguing against by saying let's put a set amount in it.

By saying 14 days, you're doing the exact opposite of what you're arguing against.

And the fact that the other thing that you all keep saying about the chief won't let him do that, the chief can't tell the mayor what to order for lunch, let alone what kind of flock system.

He's already said that here.

Pay attention, people.

All due respect to Chief Thody here, he's a very honorable man, and I appreciate the work that he has done here.

But at the end of the day, Jonathan Fitzpatrick Mitchell will do whatever he wants to do.

And that's, at the end of the day, why we need this ordinance in place, because we need to make sure that this body has some say over what contracts we're entering into.

And that's why I I'm shocked that we're not looking at this to say if a contract comes forward that this city council should be looking at this and working with all these partners that we want to be working with.

That's what it says.

It doesn't say we're getting rid of these and we never want to see them.

It says if we have an opportunity to work with ALPRs and match tracking, then I want to have a conversation And I want to be a part of it and bring all these people in and see the contract and then work out these details at that time.

That's what it says.

And all the arguments that have been made already about not having enough time to read it are legitimate arguments, and you are absolutely right.

But it does not mean that we should stop this progress because there is an urgency.

November 26th is right around the corner, and this mayor is going to veto this.

Make no mistake, he is going to veto this.

He is.

And so that's why if we don't put this in place now and they renew this contract, what I— the chief can stand up there all day and tell you we might not renew this.

He can't make that decision.

Mayor Mitchell's the only one who can make that decision.

And I'm tired of telling our constituency that, oh, it's not up to us, it's up to the mayor.

This ordinance finally gives us that power and that accountability and responsibility to say It's us and the mayor and the public that can do this.

And so if you vote against this ordinance in this sense, you're basically saying we only want the mayor so we can point the finger at him and not have that accountability.

So we have plenty of time to argue this up until September 24th and the second reading, but I just caution you to take the time to read it.

And again, I— my pledge to you is that if you do point out some fallacies in here, as the chairman of ordinance, we can refer this back and make those amendments if that is the will of the body, because we're going to need 8 votes to override a veto that I assure you will be coming down from that office.

Anyone else on the question?

Chair recognizes— oh, Councilor Gomes, did you have Councilor Carney on the question?

So I, I heard you loud and clear.

Uh, what you said.

So, so I'm going to flip that on the opposite.

So I will not support it this evening, but we do have the time.

We still have the time so I can look at it, ask more questions, and if I want to make some amendments by September, I can do so.

So we still have the time to get things done whether or not I vote yes or no.

So I'm not going to support it because I believe I need some more time.

Thank you again.

On the question of this amendment that's been made by Council Oliver to have a set parameter, unless he wants to withdraw that amendment at this time.

No?

Okay.

Anyone else on the question of the amendment of 14 days?

No?

All right.

So we're going to do a roll call again under Section G of data governance requirements under item 1 to set a fixed date— excuse me, fixed days of 14-day data retention period.

And I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the amendment of 14 days.

Councilor Ebru?

No, Councilor Ebru.

Councilor Baptiste?

No, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Virgo?

No, no, Councilor Virgo.

Councilor Carney?

No, no, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Truquette?

No, no, Councilor Truquette.

Councilor Gomes?

No, no, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes, yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

No, no, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

No.

No, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

No.

No, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

No.

No.

So fails 10 to 1.

Yes.

Motion.

I make a motion to move the previous question.

Motion to move the previous question, which is referral out to the full city council, which was made by— second by, uh, Councilor Baptiste.

So on motion to move the question, motion to move the question takes precedent.

Motion to table.

So motion to move the question takes precedent still, but I will recognize that if this motion to move the question fails.

So again, this is a motion to move the question on— again, it's basically, for those who aren't aware, motion to move the question is on ending all debate and now taking a roll call vote on referral out to the full City Council.

So a yes vote would say yes, we're done discussing this, let's get to the actual vote of referring this out to the full City Council.

That was a second by Councilor Baptiste.

It was made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Baptiste.

So this vote right now is on a motion to move to the question and end all debate and all questions and move to that vote.

Roll call.

Councilor Abruzzo.

Yes, Councilor Abel.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Burgos.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

No.

No, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

92.

That passes 9-2.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Oh, so it doesn't work that way.

Oh, you're just teasing me.

Okay, so motion to move the question passes 9-2.

We are now— a motion to refer out to the full City Council is now before us.

Again, I just want to reiterate, this is on a motion to refer out to the full City Council for adoption.

Councilor Abril.

Yes, Councilor Abel.

Councilor Baptiste.

I'm sorry.

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney.

No.

No, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes.

No.

No, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver.

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira.

Yes, Council Proctor.

Council Roy?

Yes.

That passes 8 to 3.

Passes 8 to 3.

Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Baptiste, seconded by Councilor Abril.

Anyone on the question of motion to adjourn?

A roll call has been requested.

Is that serious, Councilor Oliver?

Okay, roll call has been requested on motion to adjourn.

It was made by Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

I didn't make no— for a motion to adjourn and a roll call.

Councilor Oliver has requested a roll call.

He's serious.

Yes, made by Baptiste, seconded by Abreu.

On adjourning, Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Councilor Abreu.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Burgos.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

That passes 10 to 1.

Passes 10 to 1.

We are adjourned at 9:04 post-meridian.

Come.