Special City Council Meeting — August 25, 2026

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Today is Tuesday, August 25th, and I am calling the special meeting of the New Bedford City Council to order at 7:01 PM.

We do not have a member of the clergy, so I will take a moment of silence.

Thank you.

Tonight we are led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilor-at-Large Shane Burgow.

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

Amen.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor.

I am joined tonight in the New Bedford City Council chambers by my colleagues, Councilor-at-Large Ian Abreu, Councilor of Ward 2, Scott Pemberton.

Councilor of Ward 1, Leo Choquette.

Councilor of Ward 5, Joseph Lopes.

Councilor at Large, Brian Gomes.

Councilor at Large, James Roy.

Councilor at Large, Naomi Carney.

Councilor of Ward 3, Sean Oliver.

Councilor at Large and First Vice President, Shane Burgo.

Councilor of Ward 4, Derek Baptiste.

And I am City Council President and Councilor of Ward 6, Ryan Pereira.

Like to note that this meeting is being— excuse me, are there any letters to be read into the record?

No, sir.

Thank you.

I would like to note that this meeting is being livestreamed and recorded.

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

Before we get to the business, the chair would just like to read a brief announcement.

We are all aware of the occurrence last week, and now that everyone has had time to settle down from the emotions that sprung up during last week's meetings, We need to conduct the business of the city in an orderly and deliberate manner.

So there's no need to rewind or replay what happened last week, but only the need to remind everyone of some basic ground rules for proceeding in an orderly way.

The president is responsible to preserve decorum.

There are rules of decorum that detail some expectations of everyone in attendance at meetings of the City Council, and, and the rules are posted here at City Hall.

The rules posted, however, are not exhaustive, and the Chair reserves the right to preserve order in his sole discretion.

In preserving decorum and order, no person other than members of the City Council may speak or address the meeting without the explicit permission of the Chair.

Members of the City Council are also responsible to maintain order as well.

Councillors must confine their remarks to the merits of the pending question.

In preserving decorum and order, the president requires that all remarks be made through the chair, and the chair will not allow members of the council to directly address each other, the media, or any other persons.

Once debate ends and a vote is being taken, no member of the council shall give commentary during the vote and shall simply answer yes or no on each question put to a vote.

Disruptions of this meeting will not be allowed.

Should the chair determine that a particular person is disrupting the meeting, the chair may alert the person that the behavior is causing a disruption, and the chair could ask the person to leave.

The chair is now advising everyone that yelling or shouting out loud or making noise during the course of debate will be considered a disruption.

If after being warned and then requesting the person disrupting to leave the meeting refuses to leave voluntarily, The chair will be left with no choice but to have the disrupting person removed by the police at the chair's direction.

It is the chair's expectation that the need for such action will not be necessary, but everyone should understand how the chair intends to proceed.

I ask for everyone's assistance in keeping order and conducting tonight's government business.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, item 1 is communication from Council President Pereira calling a special city council meeting for Tuesday, August 25th, 2026 at 7 PM for the purpose of considering and hearing the unfinished business remaining from the city council meeting agenda previously scheduled for Thursday, August 20th, 2026, which was unexpectedly adjourned.

Motion received and placed on file.

Second.

Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Burgo.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 2.

Mr. President, item 2 is an ordinance amending Chapter 9 of Comprehensive Zoning, form-based code districts.

This was passed to a second reading on July 16th, 2026.

A motion to pass to be ordained made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

We'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Bruggo?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 11 to 0, Mr. President.

Item passes 11 to 0.

The ordinance has been ordained.

I will ask the clerk to read item 3.

Mr. President, item 3 is a report from the Special Committee on Special Permits and Licensing recommending to the council approval of the application, application for a new private livery license on behalf of George Almeida, doing business as All Needs Transportation, located at 32 Liberia Lane in New Bedford.

3A is the communication.

Second.

Motion to grant the livery license made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 4.

Mr. President, item 4 is a report from the Special Committee on Special Permits and Licensing recommending to the City Council approval of the petition for the waiver of residency on behalf of Anna Thomas of Fall River, Mass., doing business as All Things with Anna, located at 127 West Rodney French Boulevard in New Bedford, requesting a waiver of residency in accordance with Section 15-38 of the city code To obtain a license to deal in junk, old metals, or any other secondhand articles.

4A is the communication.

Motion to grant the waiver made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Burgos.

Anyone on the question?

I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choukat?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

11 to 0, Mr. President.

Item passes 11 to 0.

The waiver is granted.

We'll ask the clerk to read item number 5.

Mr. President, item 5 is a report from the Committee on Appointments and Briefings recommending the city council grant the demolition of the building located at 535 Brock Avenue known as the Coffin Howland House.

Map 011, Lot 0056.

5A is the communication.

Motion to grant the demolition.

Motion to grant the demolition made by Councilor Burgo.

Second.

Second by Councilor Oliver.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item number 6.

Mr. President, item 6 is report from the Committee on Appointments and Briefings recommending to the council approval of the appointment of Justin Olson of New Bedford, Massachusetts to the Water Board.

6A is the communication.

Motion received and placed on file, grant the appointment and waive Rule 40.

Second.

Motion to grant the appointment of Justin Olson and waive Rule 40, made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Excuse me.

Councilor Abril?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choukat?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 11-0, Mr. President.

Item passes 11-0.

He's not here.

He's not?

Okay.

I'll ask the clerk to read item number 7, please.

Mr. President, item 7 is a report from the Committee on Finance recommending the City Council approval of the Housing Development Incentive Program and resolution for a tax increment exemption for Vanco Studio Architects LLC 7A is the Housing Development Incentive Program, and 7B is the resolution.

Motion to approve the HDIP and grant the resolution made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Burgo.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item number 8.

Mr. President, item 8 is a report from the Committee on Finance Recommending to the City Council adoption of the orders for the layout and taking of Hillman Street at the terminus of Pleasant Street for the purpose of realigning Hillman Street to the west so a new signalized intersection can be built.

8A is the registered land and 8B is the recorded land.

Motion to adopt the orders of taking made by Councilor Abrams, second by Councilor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item number 9.

Mr. President, item 9 is a report from the Committee on City Property recommending the City Council approval of the proposal submitted by South Coast Investments Incorporated for the development of Fire Station Number 3, located at 834 Kempton Street, and approval of the proposal submitted by Gavush Development for the development of Fire Station Number 11, located at 754 Brock Avenue.

9A is the order, and 9B and C are the proposals.

Motion received and placed on file, and grant the proposal of the fire stations.

Second.

Motion to grant the approval of the proposals of the fire stations, made by Councilor Oliver, second by Councilor Gomes.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Colleagues, items 10 through 12A are all reports out of committee for no further action.

I The chair would like to waive the readings and take no further action.

Second.

Made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

That brings us to item number 13, please.

Mr. President, item 13 is a written motion from Councilor Lopes requesting that the Committee on Ordinances and the Planning Board rezone Plot 39, Lot 22, 30 Brigham Street from a split zoning of Residential B and Mixed Use Business to Mixed Use Business for the entire parcel.

Follow recommendation and— follow recommendation and refer to the Committee on Ordinances and the Planning Board and receive and place on file.

Motion to refer the items to the Committee on Ordinances and the Planning Board made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Motion speaks for itself.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 14.

Mr. President, item 14 is written motion from Councilor Gomes requesting that the City Council go on record for the 3rd time against Massachusetts House Bill H2196 and Senate Bill S1393 that would authorize safe injection sites in cities and towns across the Commonwealth, considering that under U.S. Department of Justice federal law 21 U.S.C.

Section 856, injections— injection sites are deemed illegal, and further requesting that letters be sent to Governor Maura Healey our state delegation, and the Senate and House speakers expressing opposition to any site being located in the city of New Bedford, and further requesting that the New Bedford Board of Health decline to vote on implementation of any site proposed within the city.

Follow recommendation, waive Rule 40.

Second, and waive Rule 17.

So we're going to waive Rule 17 first because it's a pending legislation.

Uh, so I have a motion made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Carney, to waive Rule 17.

And then we can— Councilor Raybould?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Chauquet?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 11 to 0, Mr. President.

Rule 17 is waived.

11 to 0.

Motion of— motion to follow the recommendation.

Okay, made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Carney.

On the question, chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, this is our 3rd rodeo with this issue, seeing that, uh, Bill has been, um, up in Boston once more.

Um, I do not support drug injection sites of any kind.

We should be helping these people to get off whatever drug they're on and see a better life.

For me to open up an injection site where we'll have police officers arrest somebody with drugs on them in a neighborhood or in a pullover, but I'm gonna invite people to come to a site where you can inject drugs into you, illegal drugs, I, I can't be a part of that, and I will not be a part of it.

And I hope that my colleagues— we voted on this a couple of times already— I hope my colleagues will follow that same suit.

New Bedford wants to lead, not follow.

I'm not following the state as far as an injection site.

I believe this is not good for the city of New Bedford.

It's not good for the people.

Again, we want to help these people who have the problem.

I don't want to hinder or, or contribute to it in any way.

Again, and I don't want to put our law enforcement and others in line to deal with this on a daily basis here in the city of New Bedford.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Um, I oppose this motion, uh, respectfully for a few reasons.

Uh, This motion, Mr. President, it oversimplifies this legislation.

This legislation is much broader than safe injection sites.

It addresses harm reduction services that includes overdose prevention and reversal, health screenings, referrals to treatment and recovery services, and other social supports.

We should be fair in considering the full scope of the legislation before we take position on it.

Also, I— Mr. President, I'm firmly in the belief that our policies that we create here should be based in evidence and not fear.

There's too often that fear leads policymakers to adopt ineffective programs or reject effective ones.

Substance use is a complicated public health issue that is deeply shaped by stigma and prejudice.

As policymakers, Mr. President, we have a responsibility to understand the research and follow the public health evidence.

And, you know, we really shouldn't be taking potential public health tools off the table before they're even proposed.

Any program would require approval from our local board of health, and in New Bedford, we may ultimately decide that certain harm reduction services are not right for our city.

But that's a very different thing from deciding in advance that they should never even be considered.

We should not take public health tools off the table before our public health experts have had an opportunity to evaluate them.

And, you know, federal law is a legitimate question, but it shouldn't freeze us when it hasn't frozen our state legislators.

There are legitimate questions about how state authorization interacts with federal law, to be true.

Our state lawmakers are grappling with those questions right now and have attempted to address them through state legal protections.

But the bottom line is that any unresolved legal questions don't require us to preemptively shut down the conversation here on harm reduction services.

Mr. President, and before I, before I yield, I think it's important that as a body we should actually know what legislation we're opposing.

The councilor, the good councilor from Clara Street's motion references H2196, but that House bill, Mr. President, was redrafted And has a different bill number, and both Rep. Hendricks and Cabral are co-sponsors.

But if we're going to take a formal position as a city council drafting letters to state leaders, we should be looking at the current bill and understand what it actually does.

Some of you know that my dad died.

Of a heroin overdose, and many people in this room have lost loved ones to substance use disorder.

Thankfully, overdoses in our city are declining, and certain harm reduction services may never be needed or may ultimately not be the right fit for New Bedford.

But these raise difficult and necessary questions, and I'm not in favor of closing the door on that conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

The chair recognizes Councillor Burgo.

Uh, thank you, Mr. President.

Um, I agree with my colleague from Hussey Street.

I'm glad he mentioned the, the change in the House bill.

So I think, um, if the maker of the motion, uh, would be amenable, that he would want to amend to reflect the correct, uh, H, uh, 5274 bill.

I think we all know I've been very vocal in my support for harm reduction.

I believe harm reduction saves lives.

I believe that when someone is struggling with substance use disorder, our first responsibility as a community should be to keep that person alive long enough to have another opportunity to recover.

Whether that means access to Narcan or treatment or recovery services, that means meeting people where they are, even when they are not ready to meet us where we want them to be.

And I don't believe that supporting harm reduction means that we must ignore the legitimate concerns of residents, businesses, neighborhoods, law enforcement, public health officials, or municipal government.

In fact, I believe the opposite.

I've said before that you cannot simply force something like this onto a community and expect it to work.

If we are going to consider new approaches to addressing the overdose crisis, they have to be implemented responsibly.

They should be phased in, be transparent, and have accountability.

And most importantly, there has to be meaningful community involvement.

That is where my concern with the current legislation comes in.

The current House Bill H5274 does something that I think is important.

It recognizes that the local community should have a voice.

It requires approval from the Board of Health in the host municipality before a harm reduction program can be established.

I think that's a step in the right direction, but I believe we can and should go further.

If we are talking about placing a program of this nature in a municipality, I believe the elected representatives of that municipality should have a voice in that decision as well.

I would support a House and Senate bill that says, in effect, that before a harm reduction program can be established in a community, there must be approval from both the local board of health and the local legislative body.

In New Bedford, that means the board of health and this city council.

That, to me, is a reasonable balance.

It doesn't say no or never.

It doesn't reject harm reduction.

It says that if we're going to do this, we're going to do it with the people who live and are at the table.

We should be able to have public discussion and establish expectations.

And we're going to make sure that the people who are ultimately responsible for the health, safety, and well-being of this community have an opportunity to participate in the decision.

That is the kind of legislation I could support.

But that brings me to the second part of this motion.

The motion doesn't simply ask us to express concerns about how these programs should be regulated.

It asks this council to send a letter expressing opposition to any such site being located in the City of New Bedford, and it asks our Board of Health to decline the vote on implementation of any site proposed within the city.

That is where I have a problem, because my objection is not to harm reduction.

My objection is not that I believe we should categorically prohibit these programs from ever being considered in New Bedford.

My objection is to the question of how we regulate them, how we implement them, and how we involve the community.

Those are very different positions.

And because of that distinction, if this motion remains written as an outright letter of opposition to any site in New Bedford, I would have to vote no.

Not because I support the legislation as currently written, not because I think the concerns raised by residents should be dismissed, and not because I believe New Bedford should have no say.

Quite the opposite.

I am voting no because I believe we should be advocating for a better version of the legislation rather than simply telling the Commonwealth that New Bedford is opposed to the concept altogether.

There is a difference between saying we don't want this here and saying if this is going to be allowed in Massachusetts, here are the protections, safeguards, and local approvals that we believe must be in place before it can happen in our community.

I believe the second position is more responsible, and I also want to address the reference in the motion to federal law.

I understand why that language is included, and I understand the concern concern about the conflict between state authorization and federal law.

But again, that is not the basis for my position tonight.

My position is that Massachusetts needs to establish a clear, transparent, and locally accountable framework for harm reduction programs if the Commonwealth is going to pursue this policy.

I don't want New Bedford's voice to be reduced to a simple yes or no after the fact.

I want New Bedford at the table before the decision is made.

And frankly, I think that is a much stronger position for this council to take.

We can support harm reduction and still demand accountability.

We can acknowledge that overdose prevention saves lives while also insisting that neighborhoods have a voice.

We can support treatment and recovery while insisting on transparency.

And we can recognize that a policy may have merit while still saying that the way it is implemented matters.

That's the position I have consistently tried to take as a councilor.

So I will support amending this motion to correct the House bill number and to make sure that we're accurately describing the legislation before us.

I would also support language that asks our state delegation to pursue legislation requiring both Board of Health approval and approval by the local legislative body before a harm reduction program can be established.

But if the motion ultimately asks me to send a letter saying that I oppose any such site in New Bedford, I will vote no.

And if the majority of the council votes differently than I do, I would respectfully request that the letter reflect the actual vote of this body.

Specifically, I would ask that the letter identify the individual councilors who voted in favor of sending that letter rather than representing the letter as though it reflects the unanimous or collective position of the New Bedford City Council, because I think the people of New Bedford deserve to know where each of us actually stands.

I am perfectly comfortable having my vote attached to my position.

I simply don't believe that my vote should be represented presented as something it was not.

At the end of the day, I think we all agree on one thing: we want fewer people dying from addiction in our community.

Where we may disagree is on the best way to get there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else?

On a second, Councilor— the chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Well, first 2 votes were 11-nothing.

And, um, I don't know what has changed.

As far as the House bill, I want to thank my— both of my colleagues.

I, I would have expected a call if you found this on the agenda and you thought that it was not the wrong, uh, the wrong House bill.

When I looked it up, this is what I got out of, um, uh, of the bill.

So I'll apologize to my colleagues for that.

I will ask the clerk to make the corrections on that.

As far as changing the motion Um, from what it is, I am not about to do that.

I'm going with the motion the way it is.

This council, as I said, voted twice 11-nothing.

Something has changed here, and I understand that, and everyone has the opportunity to do that.

But, um, to, um, both of my colleagues, again, I appreciate you, uh, finding out the right bill.

Um, I'm not going to take it as an insult, but I take it as I thought together, you would call me and tell me something about this.

And I still question whether I have the right bill or whatever.

I know what I got when I looked it up, and that's what I went with.

Again, I stand firm.

I do not want injection sites in the city of New Bedford.

I want to help those that have the problem.

I've been addressing the problem for a long time.

Remember, I'm the guy that's standing here that when this problem first came to the city of New Bedford and we addressed it, we addressed not only Um, this, this other drugs that were being used in the city and asked for that, um, what the city was— what was the city's plan to address this issue?

Have we ever seen a plan?

At least we have put something forward.

Not we, at least I know that I have something for— and we'll talk on the next motion that's out there.

But I would ask my colleagues to follow what is, um, before you.

We took 2 votes, 11-nothing.

I understand we have a new councilor.

But, um, I don't understand what happened to the vote from last time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

So, uh, without objection, the chair— the clerk has updated the bill number to reflect H5274.

That's correct, Councilor?

Okay, thank you.

The H5274, I have it right here.

If we can do that for everybody.

Everybody wants to see what's in the bill before we vote on it, right?

So there was a motion to receive and place on file H5274.

It's been seconded by Councilor Burgos.

Anyone on the question of receiving and placing on file Bill H5274?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The question before us now is an adoption of the motion and waiving Rule 40.

Already did.

Counselor, would you like to include Rule 40 and adoption of the motion in one vote, or would you like 2 separate votes?

One vote.

There was no— the, the maker of the motion wished to amend it.

I am allowing it from the chair without a vote.

All right, can we call the vote?

I'll take that back.

Okay, so we're going to take the first vote on adoption of the motion.

Is that fine, Councilor?

And then a second vote to waive Rule 40.

Okay, so the motion before us has been made to adopt the motion.

I imagine we'll want a roll call vote.

I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor April?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

No.

No.

Councilor Burgos?

No.

No.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

No.

No.

Councilor Pereira?

No.

No.

Councilor Roy?

No.

No.

Passes 6 to 5.

Item passes 6 to 5.

Waive Rule 40.

Motion to waive Rule 40 made by Councilor Gomes.

Seconded by Councilor Carney.

I will— anyone on the question of waiving Rule 40?

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abril?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopez?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 11-0.

Rule 40 passes 11-0.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 15, please.

Mr. President, item 15 is a written motion from Councilor Gomes requesting that the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods meet with the Mitchell administration to discuss and provide the committee with a comprehensive strategic plan of action to address the homelessness, drug drug, mental health, and alcohol-related issues affecting downtown and communities throughout the city, and to also provide the committee with a report identifying all city agencies currently involved in addressing these issues, including their respective roles, programs, and measurable success rates, and further requesting that the administration consider using a portion of the $1.5 million received by the city through the opioid lawsuit settlement toward a addressing this ongoing crisis which is increasingly impacting public spaces, parks, storefronts, properties, and other locations throughout the city.

Further, the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods.

Motion to refer the item to the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Burgo.

Anyone on the question?

The chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Many of you are very aware that, um, of what's been happening, and we've addressed this issue It's another issue that we've already addressed.

We've even made some— I feel I've made some great recommendations.

First of all, take that $1.5 billion, that same money that you received, the same money that this council was told before you went and sued when we were saying to go after the company, the opioid companies, that the administration said that was a long shot and I was up here grandstanding.

It's funny, the grandstand turned into a $2 million whatever that was given to the city of New Bedford.

I understand that the administration has used $500,000 of that, which has gone to different agencies across the city.

I want accountability for where the money's going and how many people are we helping.

You take this $1.5 and put together an operation such as I put before you and I spoke of before, one-stop shop.

One-stop shop.

I can walk in the door and I can turn myself in and look for the help that I need, may it be drug, alcohol, whatever it is.

We can put you in a bed in your own room.

We can give you a job within the city.

All in one place.

But have all those agencies, those agencies that receive all that money, I want them all there.

So that you don't have to go back and forth.

I've said it before.

You go A, B, C, you get to D, and all of a sudden there's no room in the inn.

So where do I end up?

I end up back in the streets.

Back where I came from.

I want to see this go away, and I want to see some type of program put in place.

We have a problem throughout this city that is a very sad situation as far as I'm concerned.

As Public Safety Chair, I see it.

I see it at daytime, and I'm seeing it at night, and it's very scary.

It's very scary to see somebody's daughter, somebody's son out there looking like a zombie.

Just looking for that next fix or whatever.

And really, the city hasn't really stepped up the effort to curb this problem.

And if these programs that are across the city are doing what they're supposed to be doing, they are saving some lives.

I need to save more than that, and I need to save what's happening on our streets of our city.

It's something that I'm not very proud of.

You know, when you talk about tourism and you want to run a tour and you see them coming through downtown with a group of people on a tour walk or whatever, and then just blocks away I have people that are having the problem.

I really have a problem with that, and I want to do something about it.

We received a lot of money.

He's got $1.5 million left.

Let's invest this money into putting together a program that can address the issue that's going on and try to help some of these people so we don't go on with this program.

Because right now what I feel we're doing in this city is, yes, we're helping some people, some people are getting the help because they've got some type of assistance, but what we're doing is just closing the door.

And don't worry about it.

Let it go.

Let Custom House Square be what it is.

Let this place be what it is.

You've got to hear from these business owners.

You've got to hear from these business owners.

How can you have a historical district and look to tourism and have this problem that you're not quite addressing.

It's becoming an epidemic as far as I'm concerned in here, and a crisis in this city, and it needs to be addressed.

And I can't address the issue alone.

This is a collective effort by a city.

I don't care what's going on in Commonwealth of Massachusetts, because we'll hear that it's happening all over the place.

It's happening here.

We're supposed to be the leadership.

We're supposed to be our own drive.

We set the pace.

If we can put together a good program that helps these people, then we'll invite everybody else to join in and we'll give them the book on how it's done.

That's how I work.

That's what I want to see done.

I'm sick and tired of talking about it.

I'm not going to raise my voice tonight as I usually do.

I'm not going to do that.

But what I am going to say, I want the issue addressed.

And we got $1.5 million holding somewhere that can address this issue immediately.

And help some of these people unless that money has been spent somewhere else.

Thank you, Councilor Cherkis.

Councilor Baptiste.

Thank you, Mr. President.

First and foremost, those people are our people.

They are our family.

They are our friends.

They are uncles and aunts, cousins, sisters, brothers.

There's a mental health issue in our city, right?

So when we talk about an addiction issue in our city, we're having a mental health issue.

And we're having an affordable housing issue in our city as well that the mayor chooses to ignore.

And I think a bunch of people choose to ignore.

And I know a lot of these services that are going around the city, they're told not to go for grants now so that the new health department could, you know, get all the money for that.

And that takes a lot of the, you know, the services from people that are actually boots on the ground helping people directly.

I think that it's right.

We should have a one-stop shop.

Right.

And how long are they going to let it go?

Right.

But I can, you know, as a representative of downtown, I understand what every business owner says.

But like, these people have nowhere to go and they've lost trust.

They've lost hope and they've lost help.

Right.

And we— I think that we have to come together a little bit more.

And be a little bit more human in thinking about how do we serve people, how do we talk to people and see what their greatest needs are and make sure that we can get the unhoused housed and get the underserved served.

I had a young lady that was living down South End that's 7 months pregnant.

She can't get into her— she can't get into her storage until the first of the month.

So she has all her stuff outside, 7 months pregnant.

Right.

And she can't get Catholic Social Services because she don't meet the threshold at 7 months pregnant.

You're telling me you can kill a baby in Massachusetts up to 9 months, but you can't help a 7-month pregnant lady that's trying to help herself?

And I think that's absurd that we're not helping people that actually need help.

And I, you know, I'm sorry to say what, like, you know, some people might agree with it, some people might not agree with it, but the mental health problem that we have due to the substance abuse problems, right?

The substance abuse comes from mental health, right?

When we need to get to the root of the problem and peel back the onion before we just throw people out.

And I think that this $1.5 million will help, but it's only going to put a dent into what we have to do into the city because we have a bigger problem in this city, right?

And we have to help our people because unfortunately, like, fortunately, there are people and whether people want to admit it or not, right, because they look like us and, you know, they just fell on hard times.

And not everybody out there is an addict.

Some people just fell on hard times.

You know, they can't pay their rent.

Where are they going to go, right?

They lost their family.

They come out here from long-term substance help and they get in a halfway house and they leave the halfway house with nowhere to go.

How do we help these people, man?

So that's why these services— kicking somebody out the shelter at 7 o'clock in the morning and tell them to find their way.

Until it opens up at 5:00 without actually giving them the proper services that they need to make sure that they have a social role in our society.

Right.

A valuable role in our society.

So I yield the floor with that.

I don't want to be long-winded, but, you know, it's— there's a lot of things that go on.

I'm not— I'm not running for, like, mayor or nothing.

So I didn't write nothing down.

So I don't have no other agendas.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Pemberton.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I'll be quick.

I just want to say that I agree with the, uh, uh, my colleague from Clara Street and then my former— I mean, my colleague, uh, in, in front of me.

I don't, I don't know what the street you lived on, sorry.

Locust Street.

I— this is something I see on a daily basis, every single day.

And they're right.

They're not getting help.

They're not getting the help.

They're, you know, we see them, they're in one location, they're told to move to another location, and then another location, and then another location, and it's just a big, big circle, and there ain't no one helping them.

You know, in the last 10 years, There have been some grants, and those grants came up to over $30 million to help the homeless people.

$30 million.

And we're in the— I mean, I'm not going to say that it's going to end it, but $30 million, the situation is actually worse.

Worse.

So we need to find help.

We need to get help with these people.

Fast.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else on that first?

Anyone on their second?

Chair recognizes Councillor Gomes.

Thank you very much.

I'll be very brief.

Yes, we have people that, uh, have mental disabilities in this city, but what I've been trying to say here is I'm glad, um, council, um, from the North End brought the issue up of how much money has been spent $30 million, if that is the right figure.

What is going on here?

And where is the record of achievement here?

I still have the problem.

I have a problem with it.

Just take a— when we leave tonight, I invite my colleagues to take a walk through downtown with me.

I want to walk you by the Zaiterion so you can look at that beautiful Zaiterion, all them beautiful lights and what's coming, the attractions.

And I want to take you to the next block.

The same people that I'm hearing from that live in Olympia Building downtown, I want you to see what that block looks like from there to the next block where the Vets Hall is.

In between, it's heart-wrenching.

It's heart-wrenching.

Come with me for the walk, gentlemen and ladies.

Come with me for the walk.

Get a look at the Salvation Army building, what it looks like at night.

People smoking crack, people laid out, people laid out in between the churches on the School Street side, one, not even one block from the Zaiterion.

So if I miss the corner at School Street and I go one more street down at Walnut and take that right and come up to head towards the Zaiterion, again, it's heart-wrenching.

That's somebody's daughter, that's somebody's son, that's somebody's father.

I understand all of that.

And I also understand about losing a loved one because of drugs.

I've been in the same situation.

But we have to do something about it.

And just going at the pace that we've been going, I don't see anything being achieved.

And I don't see the help going to these people.

That need to.

And I'm not going to take this all as these are all our people.

Yes, we have people that are out there, but please take a look.

Some of these people are not from the area.

They've came to the area because they found an area where it's tolerated or put up with.

Again, these people need help.

All I want to do is help them, and I want to put a good program together that achieves that, not that we— it becomes moneymakers.

You know, we have programs out there that are just moneymakers, moneymakers.

You want to see somebody get a new life, get a rebirth in their life, get a second chance at being somebody.

I thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on the question?

On referral to the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods, all those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item 16, please.

Mr. President, item 16 is a written motion from Councilor Gomes requesting that the Mitchell administration provide the Committee on City Property with a comprehensive plan of action for the South Terminal, formerly utilized as a Vineyard Wind staging area.

And further, if no current plan exists, that the administration provide a timeline for when a focused effort and strategic plan will be developed to utilize this area for job creation, economic development, and increased revenue for the city.

Refer to the Committee on Property.

Refer to the Committee on City Property, made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

On the question, the chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Another issue that I addressed some time ago— matter of fact, it might be a year, 9 months before the Vineyard Wind and all the wind turbines and everything started coming in, because I wanted to know.

We spent $100 million of taxpayers' money and we had a lot down there sitting doing absolutely nothing.

Well, since the Vineyard Wind and the wind energy thing is all done for the time being, we have that lot again.

Wide open.

Nothing happening down there.

We brought the Portuguese ship in there and at first I questioned that because I thought it was inappropriate for it to be put there.

I thought it would be appropriate to have it downtown where everyone could see it, but then I understood with the amount of people and how they tried to— how they orchestrated everything, that that was suitable for the moment.

We have a little cruise boat down there.

We have nothing going on down there.

I don't care if we receive oranges down there.

I don't care if we ship cars out of there.

We've got to do something to generate jobs here and to get back the money that has been spent down there.

And I'm not going to wait um, another couple of years or 3 years to see what is generated down there, well, with the wind, if that comes back or not.

I want to see some action now that brings jobs to the city of New Bedford, some type of revenue.

And that's why this motion is here.

As I said, this is the second time.

The first time I had this motion on, nobody said a darn word.

Not— I'm talking about my— the body here.

I'm talking about the administration.

But soon after, here came all the wind stuff.

I don't know, it was, it was just coincidental.

But I'm gonna make the move again.

So let's see what we can ship out of here.

Let's see what kind of work we can bring for the longshoremen and many of those on the waterfront.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on the question?

Okay, the question is on referral to the Committee on City Property.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item 17.

Mr. President, item 17 is communication from the city clerk to the City Council, submitting a petition from Mark DeCambra of Somerset, Massachusetts, doing business as SideQuest Complete at 127 West Rodney French Boulevard in New Bedford, requesting a waiver of residence in accordance with Section 15-38 of the city code to obtain a license to deal in junk, old metals, or any other secondhand articles.

Before we make a motion, the chair would just like to inform the body that this is already an existing business and is just coming to have this license.

I just wanted the body to know it's a new owner— excuse me, so it's an existing business with a new owner, so a transfer.

I just wanted the body to make that aware before any motions were made.

Okay, motion to refer to the special— the Committee on Special Permits and Licensure, made by Councillor Abreu, seconded by Councillor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item number 18.

Mr. President, item 18 is communication from the city clerk to the city council submitting a request to increase fees for dog license violations, secondhand dealers, and various city council licenses.

Motion to refer to the Committee on Ordinances made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item number 19.

Mr. President, item 19 is communication from the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Beaches submitting a memorial park bench and tree dedication program application for a bench and plaque to be located at Fort Tabor, replacing an existing bench in memory of Arthur C. Burton Jr. Motion to refer to memorials and dedications.

Motion to refer to memorials and dedications made by Councilor Baptiste, seconded by Councilor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item number 20.

Mr. President, item 20 is communication from the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Beaches.

Sweeney Memorial Park Bench and Tree Dedication Program application for a bench and plaque to be located at the corner of Buttonwood Street and Lake Street to the right of the Italian American Memorial and Memorial in Memory of Carl Nato.

Same course of action.

Second.

Motion's been made to refer to the Committee on Memorials and Dedications by Councilor Baptiste, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor on referral say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item 21.

Mr. President, item 21 is communication from Councilor Burgo submitting signed petitions from residents opposing the closure of Fire Station Number 9 in New Bedford.

Motion to receive and place on file and forward the attached appropriation orders to the the mayor requesting that he submit said appropriations to the city council for approval.

Second.

Motion to receive and place on file the communication and forward the attached sample appropriation orders to the Mitchell administration asking him to submit them to the council has been made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

On the question, the chair recognizes Councilor Burgo.

Thank you, Mr. President.

So we got some more petitions from residents who recognize that public safety is not something we should gamble with.

We saw in the last budget that the mayor was laying off 26 firefighters.

During that budget hearing, we were told that the cost savings for eliminating those 26 firefighters was $1.8 million, and that breakdown was for $1.5 million in fire personnel services for those 26 firefighters and $300,000 for the health insurance associated with those laid-off firefighters.

That is what the $1.8 million equates to.

We know after the fact our state delegation led by Senator Mark Montigny, uh, came through with an additional $500,000, which to my understanding would help out with $500,000 of those personnel services.

Since then, I've reached out to our CFO's office inquiring specific numbers on what we would need to keep Fire Station 9 open.

I would assume that would just mean $1 million for fire personnel services and $300,000 for health insurance since we've received that $500,000 from Senator Mark Montigny.

As our colleagues are aware, Mr. President, this council did the hard work of freeing up space in this bloated budget, and there is money there to save Fire Station 9.

I know there's a lot of ambiguity there because Mayor Mitchell hasn't said much.

He hasn't even told our fire chief when Fire Station 9 is officially closing, and I think that's shameful.

We have 26 firefighters who have families to feed.

They have no clue when or if they are going to be out of a job.

So since clearly this administration can't get the job done, and they've said to us before that we don't need to say mother may I, I've put together these appropriation orders for the Mitchell administration so he doesn't have to do it.

Solicitor Jakes has such a hard job over there.

That's why I didn't wear a tie tonight.

He's relaxing and chilling so he doesn't have to worry about putting together appropriation orders.

Same thing with the CFO's office since he'll be retiring soon.

Well deserved.

Council's already done the job for you.

I'm hoping my colleagues will support this.

You've all received a copy.

The clerk has received received a copy of said appropriation order.

Again, $1 million for fire personnel services and $300,000 for their health insurance.

That will keep Fire Station 9 open.

There should be no argument here.

Send this to the mayor's office, and if he'd like to, just for his cute little bow, he can send it back down to us in the mayor's papers.

Done deal.

Keep Fire Station 9 open.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Choukat.

Good evening, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Um, thank you to all the people that are here tonight for different reasons, but we're all here.

Um, I'd like to say thank you to Councilor Burgo for doing all the hard work ahead of time.

Uh, myself, I've also been inquiring with the administration, you know, what's going on.

Senator Montigny's $500,000 gift is not last forever.

And, you know, firemen don't work for free.

So I say we got about 2 months left until this money's gone.

So, Mr. Mayor, if you're watching this, get to work and get this done and stop gambling with the lives of the people in my community and in this city.

Enough's enough.

Now let's go.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else?

Okay, seeing none, the question before us is on receiving and placing on file and referring the attached appropriation orders to the Mitchell administration.

Anyone, uh, all those in favor say aye.

Roll call vote has been requested.

I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abrams?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 11-0, Mr. President.

Item passes 11-0.

I will ask the clerk to read item number 22.

Mr. President, item 22 is communication from Councilor Gomes submitting a response from Representative Cabral regarding efforts to secure additional funding to address the budget gap facing the city of New Bedford.

Second.

Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

On the question, the chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

This is a response through our motion asking our state delegation to assist us in some way, somehow, with the $32 million deficit the city of New Bedford has.

What I will say to you is I've had calls from the inspector general, and I just want to bring my colleagues up to par on what's happening.

What I really believe is the inspector general has gotten a call from a hierarchy through somewhere because they're giving me a hard time.

You had an 11-nothing vote here on the City Council for a letter to be sent to the Inspector General to find out exactly where the $32 million is.

I believe that something's wrong here in this city, and we don't go from $8 million, as I said, to $8 million good, $12 million, $20 million, the next thing you know we're $32 million in the hole, and nobody's got an explanation for it.

Nobody is accountable for it.

We don't make big mistakes like that, at least where I come from.

Maybe some in this room, you can just accept that.

I'm not accepting that, especially when I see what I see going on throughout the city.

And I don't care, you got to pay attention.

You're seeing a lot of work being done, and I'm wondering how much money, um, was, was in the budget for this?

How much money came in a grant?

Where did the money come from?

Where did the money get spent?

Where's the accountability for $32 million that you're fighting here tonight?

As the councilor just previously stood up speaking of Station 9, Station 9 will stay open.

He is not going to close Station 9.

He's done this before.

This time it's not going to work because we're not going to let that happen.

And I believe that we have a strong enough body here to make sure that that doesn't happen.

That Station 9 is staying open.

That area is too important.

And proud of this city.

What I have seen in the past few weeks with just with some of the situations that have arisen in that area, some of the action calls or whatever for that engine, you don't want to play with it.

You don't want to play.

You're playing life and death here.

And I've said it before, you're playing Jeopardy with people of the North End, this entire city.

We want to find out.

So I wanted to bring you up to date on that, that I'm having a hard time with them.

We've even given them names.

Of prominent department heads that were part of this city, and they don't want to talk to them.

So the only thing I can figure, and you heard me say it here tonight, the call was made to my friend— not my friend, Governor Healey.

Governor Healey made the call down the line.

We're not inspecting anything.

I'm not going to quit.

I'm not going to quit.

We're going to find out when we— how this all happened.

But at the— at the— at this time I want to do everything in my power to make sure that the city continues to work and continues to provide services like police, fire, city services, and schools.

You understand that, that the people of this city should not be shortchanged in any way.

Please follow me.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on that first?

Anyone on their second?

All those in favor of receiving and placing on file say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read without objection items 23 and 24 together.

Without objection, I'll ask the clerk to read.

Mr. President, item 23 is communication from Mason T. Matthew, Esquire, tax title attorney, to the City Council regarding the acquisition of a new deed in lieu, advising that the city has acquired through voluntary deed in lieu of tax foreclosures on the following properties: NS Wells Street, plot 84, lot 178, End of Holbrook Street, also known as RWS Cushion Avenue, plot 134, lot 388, and SS Nye Street, plot 98, lot 224.

Item 24 is communication from Attorney Matthew again regarding the notice of decree of final judgment of the right of redemption in tax lien foreclosure cases.

The following properties have been acquired and held by the City of New Bedford as a tax possession: ES Church Street, plot 127A, lot incorporating Lot 67.

NS Lowell Street, Plot 127C, Lot 14.

SS Pembroke Street, Plot 134, Lots 272, 273, 274, and 275.

And SS Whitman Street, Plot 105, Lot 35.

Callers, the motion would be to refer and place on file these communications.

So moved.

Made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Uh, before we take up consent, there are tabled items.

Would anyone like to remove items from the table?

Motion to remove tabled items dated 08/20/2026.

All 4 of them.

Motion to remove from the table all 4 tabled items made by Councilor Bergo, seconded by Councilor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read the first untabled item.

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

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

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

Motion to refer to the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods made by Councillor Gomes, seconded by Councillor Burgo.

On the question, the chair recognizes Councillor Gomes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, let me make it clear.

If I had the opportunity to finish the other evening, I think it would have been clear to most in here that I have your concerns.

I have your concerns.

You have concerns about these cameras.

I have concerns about them.

And that's why I placed this motion on.

That's why I wanted it to go to committee.

I wanted to have the chief in.

We have the people from FLOC.

We're going to discuss what's in place, what's not in place, what hasn't been in place.

These cameras have been in use for almost 2 years.

Almost 2 years.

Some of us did not know about it.

Criticize us for how we did the budget.

I stand by what I did.

I didn't understand— and not that I didn't understand the way it was worded.

It was a simple adding on to the system that we already have as far as I'm concerned.

But as far as these flood cameras are concerned and the misuse of them, we have to get a hand on it.

And if I had gotten to finish the other night, I'm happy that the chief suspended the cameras at this time.

They should be suspended until we get all the answers that we need to address this issue.

This issue is one that has come to fruition not only here in the city of New Bedford, across the Commonwealth, across the country on what is happening with these cameras.

I don't want to see anybody's rights violated in any way.

But I am also not about to throw the tools away that can make our community safer.

And if we can make our community safer with strategic guidelines, somewhat— people who are accountable, you have to go through certain avenues in order to get to use this system.

I wasn't aware, and I believe many of us were not aware, that this system could just be used randomly.

We just heard of a news story today, 7,700-something times, one officer using this on the same person, putting in different, you know, titles or whatever, drug investigation, suspicious activity.

This can't go on.

And I understand with the people that were here, the people that I represent, but I know I represent 100,000 people, and I know that, you know, since Thursday night I've been across the city.

From Saskatoon down there.

And it's very interesting what I'm hearing.

It's very interesting.

You have people that have the concerns and you have people who support this.

And they support this with the proper policies and procedures put in place to see that this does not happen or no one's rights is violated in any way.

And that's what I'm going to follow.

That's what I'm going to try to do.

We've already got a meeting scheduled for September 9th, ladies and gentlemen.

On this issue, which I took a previous agenda away so that this issue can be addressed so that the people of this city can get answers and we can get the answers that we need.

There's a lot to learn.

I'm learning this about these cameras and what they can do, what they can't do.

I want to make sure that the people of this city are protected, your civil rights are protected.

But again, I'm not going to throw the tools away that can make a safer community.

And I must ask everyone here this evening, God forbid something very bad happened in any house across this city, and these cameras could help to get the suspect, do you want to use them?

Do you want to use your neighbor's cameras?

Do you want to use those city cameras that are all over this city to capture that suspect or that criminal?

I do, and I think most people do.

So, um, if my colleagues, um, see fit, I want to refer this to committee.

Again, this action wasn't completed.

This action was on behalf of the people to get the answers, to understand how this all works, and to understand that we do not— we do not want to play with any type of technology that violates the civil rights or the well-being of a city and its people, and also puts my police department, our police department, the city of New Bedford's police department in any type of jeopardy in any situation.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on the question?

Okay, seeing none, the question before us now is referral to Public Safety.

Roll call.

Roll call vote has been requested.

Councilor Abrum?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Chauquette.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pereira.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Roy.

Yes.

Yes.

Item passes 11 to 0.

I will ask the clerk to read the second tabled item.

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

And further, that the committee review the city's policies governing the collection, retention, sharing, security, and deletion of data generated by such technologies, the circumstances under which such data may be accessed or shared with outside law enforcement agencies, the safeguards in place to protect residents' constitutional rights and privacy, and whether additional local policies or ordinances are warranted to promote transparency, accountability, and public confidence while preserving the legitimate public safety benefits these technologies provide.

Motion to refer to the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods.

Second.

Motion has been made to refer to the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods by Councillor Burgo.

Second— I missed that, I apologize— Councillor Gomes.

On the question Okay, seeing no one on the question, all those in favor say aye.

Roll call.

Oh, roll call has been requested.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Councilor Chauquet?

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Councilor Lopez?

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Passes 11-0.

I forgot my microphone was on.

Passes 11-0.

Scared myself there.

I will ask the clerk to read the next tabled item.

Mr. President, the 3rd tabled item is a written motion from Councilors Burgo, Abreu, and Lopes requesting the Committee on Ordinances consider whether the appropriate policy outcome is either the complete removal and installation 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.

Motion to refer to the Committee on Ordinances.

Motion to refer to the Committee on Ordinances made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

On the question, the chair recognizes Councilor Burgo.

Thank you.

Um, so obviously we know or what we've been told, I should say, that the use from New Bedford has been suspended.

A part of the questions that I think we'll have in the other committee is about whether or not other agencies are utilizing our technology still.

I will be very clear.

I am for terminating usage of automatic license plate readers.

I think what's important, though, beyond just suspension of these technologies that we don't— just because it's suspended does not mean that they're not still active and that other agencies may still be using them.

I have this already planned on our— as you know, I'm the chairman of ordinances, and this is set to be heard on our September 8th ordinance agenda.

I'm hoping that we can act on this soon.

I had outlined in a community meeting yesterday that even if things go well, we all know that the process to draft an ordinance often takes time.

And even if everything goes well on September 8th and we refer something out, we expect a veto from the Mitchell administration.

And therefore, if we follow the process of a veto from the Mitchell administration, the earliest that we could potentially see a veto override is probably not till the end of November, which is why there is a sense of urgency of getting this into the ordinance committee.

So that is my intention.

I want to be very clear that when we get into the Committee on Ordinance on September 8th, I am drafting an ordinance currently that I hope our legislative counsel will review and that my colleagues will review to completely terminate not only the contract but any continued use of this type of technology.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Round 2.

The community is rightfully outraged, Mr. President, and that outrage is justified because the harm mass surveillance technology causes is clear.

Flock must come down right now.

Mayor Mitchell and Chief Thody must take action immediately.

On Thursday at the City Council meeting, and again tonight, I'm speaking to the motion before this City Council and to the council's role as a legislative body.

We need to get rid of Flock, and we need to create a law, an ordinance, to protect the rights and safety of New Bedford residents.

This isn't an either/or, it's a both/and.

We should demand that Flock come down now, while also addressing the larger problem of how surveillance technology is governed in our city.

And that means looking beyond automated license plate readers.

Focusing on just ALPRs would be a mistake and incredibly shortsighted, Mr. President.

Flock is one surveillance technology and one vendor.

New Bedford has and will continue to encounter many others.

Without an ordinance, the mayor or chief could eliminate Flock today and acquire a different surveillance technology tomorrow.

This is why I rise in favor of sending this particular motion to the Ordinance Committee.

An ordinance could govern all surveillance technology currently in use and could stop the city from adopting new surveillance technology in the first place, not just regulate how it's used.

Right now, the mayor and chief have the authority to take down Flock, Mr. President, and they should.

I've spoken with the chief, I've spoken with the mayor, I've urged them to end Flock immediately.

And besides advocates, advocacy.

What we can do as the legislative body is pass a law giving the public and their elected officials a permanent voice in decisions about surveillance technology in New Bedford.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Abreu.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I rise tonight because I support all of these motions, and we need to have a very serious discussion on whether or not Flock belongs in this community.

And the answer is a resounding, in my opinion, No.

I support our police officers having the tools they need to be successful.

When the chief comes before us, or even Deputy Chief Belong, who's been here a while, ask him, has this body ever denied a capital improvement appropriation or a transfer?

The answer is no.

We have always given them the tools they need.

So this is not a defund the police movement.

This is about accountability.

This is about trying to make sure you can balance the needs of constitutional rights and public safety.

You can have both.

Again, I support the police officers having the tools they need, but public safety cannot come at the expense of constitutional rights.

The Fourth Amendment— we all know what the Fourth Amendment is— it protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Article 14, by the way, of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights provides similar protections.

Some of you in this room may have heard about the Supreme Court decision Carpenter v. the United States.

It recognizes in this decision that government access to information revealing a person's historical movements can raise serious Fourth Amendment concerns.

That's the issue here.

It's one thing for an officer to see a license plate while on patrol, right, and to run it if they suspect there's an issue.

And handle it.

It's another thing to create a searchable record and database where vehicles have been, where they've been, where they're going, and that information could be shared with third-party operatives.

And we don't know where that information's going.

I'm not saying that flaw cameras are automatically unconstitutional.

I'm saying it raises some questions and concerns.

But why should we roll the dice and take a chance on a court ruling and telling us we've gone too far?

Why not just rein it in now?

And to the good counsel who spoke before me, let's look at other technologies that aren't as controversial, that haven't had that dark cloud over them.

We need very clear rules, in my opinion, Mr. President, about who can access this information, why they can access it, how long it's been retained, who it can be shared with, and how the searches are audited.

And we'll talk about all this in committee.

We've already seen examples all over the place where this FLOC technology has been abused.

Why continue to risk it?

And I reject the argument too, by the way, well, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about if you're not breaking the law.

Privacy is not something we earn by being innocent.

People should be able to go to work go to their doctor for healthcare, go to church, participate in a political meeting or in a gathering, or simply drive through their city without assuming that the government is creating a searchable record of their movements.

Our responsibility is to protect both public safety and individual liberty.

So I believe we have 2 choices when we get to the committee.

Establish strong privacy and constitutional protections with our legal counsel, or if we cannot guarantee those protections, seriously consider taking them down and taking them down immediately.

Technology should serve the public, not turn the public into a database.

The Fourth Amendment didn't become outdated because technology changed.

Remember that.

If anything, technology makes these protections more important than ever.

On that, Mr. President, I'll yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Baptiste.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I'm not going to be as polished as everybody else.

Sorry.

This shit got to come down immediately.

I think that we have to understand about people's rights and how people feel intrusive.

On their rights, right?

I'm going down Middle Street yesterday and everybody in Temple Lynn is like, you know, we haven't had violence out here in a long time.

We haven't had trouble out here in a long time.

Why are these cameras up over here facing our houses?

Why is the block lit up like Gillette Stadium out here?

You know, and that's going on all over the city, right?

Not to mention, right, this young lady got caught using a flock camera because she had a.209 on her.

How many people were using the flock flock cameras for that same reason without it— with— that we didn't know about for the last 2 years that was snuck right under our noses, right?

I'm sure— I would like to see everybody who used them, what they ran it for, what they did it for, like every single cop that signed up for the program.

I would love to see what they used all them flock— what they used that technology for and how they used it for their own personal use or they used it for somebody else's personal use.

This is a problem all across the country and people across the country.

You know, we got a bunch of people with Ring cameras outside.

We got a bunch of city— you know, if they would invest that money in the city cameras, they wouldn't all be broken.

A lot of these crimes wouldn't, you know, go unsolved and put some money back in the ShotSpotter.

Because if you say that there's crime out here and that BS, that we need these and it keeps people safe, you know, and I'm not against the cop.

Like, my brother got shot on duty.

You understand what I'm saying, man?

Like, I got friends and family that are on the job, you know, and they all feel a certain way about it as well.

You know, we have to look at, you know, what the people— I have to look at the people I represent, right?

I can't look at what everybody else says or how everybody else feels.

I represent the people of Ward 4 and the people of Ward 4— this is what the people of Ward 4 don't want.

For some of the people that do want it, there's a resounding number that don't want it, right?

So I feel like this has to, like, come down immediately.

And I think that Everybody got to get off their high horse, whether it's the chief, whether it's the mayor.

Like, listen to the people that's around here, you know, listen to the people in the city.

And, you know, like, or put the cameras in front of your houses.

Let the cameras go in front of their cribs and let them feel like when they're going in and out the house, they can have them lights shining and people can watch what they do.

You know, let's stop putting it in front of people's houses to make them feel uncomfortable, to make them feel how people that, you know, now it's in Ward 1 and all that, but it was in predominantly brown neighborhoods before that.

And, you know, it wasn't a problem for 2 years before that.

And then it came out that it went into everybody else's neighborhood.

Everybody's up in arms.

But, you know, my people hasn't felt safe forever.

I haven't felt safe in 51 years, you know.

And, you know, the safest place I feel is in my neighborhood.

Right.

And with the people from my neighborhood, right?

And the cops that do a good job in this city protecting our city, right?

And we're just talking about the people who overbear their bounds and take this technology and use it for their own services and are abusing the services.

So if you have to shut it down because people are abusing the services and you're going to make ordinances, what's to say somebody's not going to abuse it again?

It started off with a couple of people having it, then everybody, then anybody could have signed up for the program.

And how many people had could see me riding down the street, could see anybody doing anything, right?

It's so intrusive, man.

You know, everybody got Ring cameras.

The city can invest more in their city cameras.

We, we can invest more in law enforcement, right, and get more cops on the street and help, help that department pay cops more money.

So 25 cops ain't trying to go to Fairhaven and 30 cops ain't trying to go to Bridgewater and everybody's trying to leave the station because they're not getting treated right and the money ain't getting paid right.

But you want to put money into this stuff and not keep the people that keep the city safe here, right?

We got to look out for the people that's keeping the city safe.

And we got to also look out for the safety of people's rights.

And that's all I got to say.

Sorry.

Like, I don't have nothing prepared.

I'm just— I just rode down the street yesterday and I felt like I had to blocked my face, you know, everywhere I went, right?

Because I'm riding down, there's drones up in the sky, there's a flock camera working out there, and then it's lit up like Gillette.

I was like, damn, the Patriots practicing and you're not in front?

Like, what the hell's going on?

So, you know, it's an issue, you know, and these people have real concerns and they're attacked and they are our people, right?

So we have to represent.

I represent Ward 4.

Right?

And I don't know how everybody else feels, but my people, when they call me up, this is what they tell me.

So that's what I got voted in for, to fight for the people.

So I yield the floor on that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Chokat.

Thank you again, Mr. President.

Um, it's tough to follow all that passion.

I'll do my best.

I, uh, got this book here.

It helped me in law school.

It's called the Constitution.

And I just quickly— I don't know if the mayor's copy has dust on his.

Mine, mine doesn't have dust because I look at it quite a bit.

But it says, Amendment 4: The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.

And no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause.

Okay?

So I know the mayor gets that moniker all the time of he's the smartest guy in the room.

Well, I got news for you, pal.

There's the smartest guy in the room, President Washington, and he was one of the founders.

Okay?

And what would President Washington think today that this country has let a surveillance government company make billions of dollars by violating everyone's rights.

And okay, I know some of the people out there who are attorneys are going to say, well, Leo, you know, the case law is not there and it really doesn't— My colleague from Hussey Street actually brought up a point, and yes, I remembered where you live.

He brought up a great point and let me just expound on it from from earlier.

He said it's not so much the Flock technology on its own violating the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment, but the sum total of Flock, drones, facial recognition, all these things form a mosaic, okay?

And now that mosaic is violating the Fourth Amendment.

I don't know how this got out of hand across this country, but we the people need to stand up and stop it now.

Okay, now I have nothing but the utmost respect for the New Bedford Police Department.

I always have and I always will.

This is not about the police.

This is about that goddamn Flock Company, okay, run by a guy named Garrett Lanley, who is— again, like I said, made billions of dollars.

So that is what we need to do.

And, and I also want to say I'm actually excited at the prospect because we don't have the Supreme Court applying the Constitution to this issue, and we don't have the Congress of the United States or the United States Senate writing law, and we don't have the State House and the State Senate doing it either.

So this now falls upon us to figure out how the Fourth Amendment and FLOC works together via case law and via statute.

And as someone who went to law school, that's one of the most exciting things, and I think my colleague from Hussey Street would agree that we're definitely on the frontier here and we're going to be able to write some law that even the Supreme Court of the United States hasn't done yet.

And I spoke my piece.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Chair recognizes Councillor Gomes.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to support this, and I, I support this going to audience, and I hope that something comes out of it that's in the affirmative on behalf of the people.

But I want you to know that, um, I represent 100,000 people in this city, if not more.

They've called it 100,000.

I believe there's 120,000 people in this city.

We have an obligation to listen to all those people.

I've listened to the people who have come here.

I've listened to my constituency.

As I said earlier, I've traveled throughout the city this week, from the north to the south.

There are many people that support this, but they want some provisions put in place to make sure that people's rights are not violated.

Now, I'm going to say this.

I heard a colleague earlier say, my people.

Don't want this in the neighborhood.

I've heard this before, but I've also heard from their neighborhoods and did not hear from their neighborhoods right now that they don't want those cameras in their neighborhoods.

What their concerns are is the shots that are being fired and the boys that are being killed and people being hurt within the neighborhoods.

That's what their concern is.

And representing 100,000 people, I need to hear from everybody.

I cannot just hear from a small group or a group of people that, uh, uh, feel the way they feel, and they have the right to.

Each and every one of us have the right to, but we have to hear from the entire city, and the entire city has not been heard from.

And I heard one councilor, um, I'm not going to mention any names, said, um, on a local broadcast, I, I got to believe that 60% of the people do not want the camera here.

I got to tell you, that's wrong, councilor.

That's wrong because you have not been throughout the city, and you have not heard from the people of this city.

You know, many people are very quiet on this issue.

You have not really heard them.

I know where the noise— I don't want to call it noise, and I'm not going to be rude in any way.

I know where the voices have come from, and I understand your concern.

I really do.

But I also understand that I have a city here, that we've been placed here in a position to keep our city safe and to do what we have to do to keep our city safe.

And I've done that for the time that I've been here.

You know, I remember when you didn't want no cameras on the police officers.

We wanted cameras on the police officers.

Remember the administration told us no?

They said we couldn't use the COVID money to get those cameras, only to do exactly what I said to do after that.

Have you heard anything from the people like we were hearing from the people and the complaints that were coming about this department that was so bad?

So bad that I knew was nothing but a bunch of BS out there.

Were there problems in certain situations?

Sure there was.

But those cameras solved it.

So what I'm saying here tonight is we can look at this in ordinance, but matter of fact, we— maybe we should travel throughout the city.

Maybe we should visit every ward and give every ward the opportunity to come out and express what their opinions are on these cameras before we take action, before we put something in place that does not represent the entire city that I represent, and that's 120,000 people in the city of New Bedford.

And not everyone is against the, the technology.

You don't have a police department that's against the technology.

You have officers out there that want to do the right thing, do the right thing each and every day.

They just don't want to see the system abused like some have chosen to do.

The action that the department has taken is fair.

Suspend it.

Suspend it.

But let's come to the table.

Let's all do this together.

Working together— success comes to those who work together.

Separation comes to those who have an opinion that don't want to listen to the other opinion or try to come up with something that blocks that opinion.

I represent the whole city.

I'll say it one more time, and I want— you must hear from this whole city.

And I don't believe we've heard from this whole city.

We can't fit the whole city in City Council chambers, ladies and gentlemen.

But what we can do is keep our city safe, put the best technology forth that can be in the affirmative without violating rights.

And again, I support this going to ordinance.

We look forward to it in ordinance.

But again, we should hear from the entire city.

And no one in this room is going to tell me— nobody, not one of my colleagues— that you've heard from the entire city, because you have not.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Councilor.

Chair recognizes Councilor Pemberton.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I just want to stand and say that I, I am against the park and I support this motion, and I think that they should come down.

I support our police department.

I always have.

They, they hold— the police department holds a very special place in my heart, and we all know this.

But this is not the correct tool for them to use, uh, and not at the expense of the city of New Bedford, not of the people.

Uh, they also, you know, the other thing I always hear is, you know, we also have phones, our phone trackers, our phone knows what we're doing.

That may be true, but you know something?

I signed up for that.

I knew that.

But I also have control of my phone.

We don't have control of those flood cameras, and we definitely did not sign up for it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on there first?

Okay.

On there second, the chair recognizes Councilor Abreu.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Just 2 quick things.

I just want— I was remiss in my first opening remarks.

One, I do want to praise and commend Chief Thody because we had that community forum about a month ago at Pulaski.

There were some serious concerns about the cameras.

What did the chief do?

I praise his stewardship, and I praise his transparency in conducting the audit and exposing the issue and working with his internal affairs and everyone else to make sure that those issues were eradicated.

And then suspension of Flock until everyone could figure this out.

So I do want to praise him for that.

I have to.

And the other thing I wanted to mention, it's interesting, we, we want more men and women for the ranks, and we want to fill the ranks.

We're losing them left and right for Various reasons which we're not going to get into tonight, but it's funny, from a labor standpoint, from the rank-and-file union standpoint, of which I have always been a supporter of and I've always had their backs, I would think flood cameras or mass surveillance should give them some cause for concern and for pause.

I would think more cameras you have, the less need you have for actual real warm bodies and rank-and-file out on the streets.

Think about it.

It could be a cost-saving measure for a municipality.

Do you pay health insurance on a camera?

Do you pay pension credits towards the pension of a camera?

Nope.

Think about it.

It's an interesting thing.

So, you know, it's just the timing, and we're in a fiscal mess, and cameras, and it's been up for a couple of years, and we've been seeing the slow degradation of where we are with our finances and fiscal matters here in the city.

I don't know.

But those are just 2 points I wanted to mention.

So if, if the union leadership's listening, which I'm sure they are, and they're— think about it.

That's all.

And that's all I recommend.

Think about what we're saying, what I'm saying.

This could have some very serious labor shortage issues for you and your department.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else on their first?

On their second, the chair recognizes Councilor Choquette.

Oh, sorry, excuse me.

Chair recognizes Councilor Carney on her first.

Uh, thank you, Mr. President.

I just rise that we do have some deep concerns about these, um, flock cameras in the city.

Um, I realize that these flock cameras, all of a sudden— it's very suspicious to me.

Didn't hear about them a month, 2 months ago.

All of a sudden, the whole country, within a month's time, flocks been all over the entire country.

This— these have been out since 2017.

It's a $7.5 billion business.

I'm like, and it's on the— it's been on the market.

You can buy stocks in this, this— these companies.

To me, all of a sudden there was nothing and they're all here.

To me, I find a little bit suspicious, and I— we do deserve discussion on this to find out how they work.

I don't know all the technologies.

I've been reading up on that, and they can do just about anything, or they can do nothing.

It's up to the person to install the technologies, but it's all the country, and we don't know from these companies where this— where this data is going, who is sharing it.

And we need some serious discussion in the city of New Bedford as we look at these flood cameras.

So I'm just standing up to support this.

I'm glad that's suspended until we know exactly how they work, what they do, and who's going to be using them.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on their first?

Chair recognizes Councilor Choquette on his second.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I, uh, I would say that something we should look at, okay, would be getting this voter question put on the ballot.

Now, unfortunately, it's too late to do it this fall.

So it would have to be the following year.

Yeah, the election year.

So my recommendation, and obviously we're not going to make anything today, but would be that we put that on the ballot for next year.

And in the meantime, those cameras stay off.

So that way, you know, we won't hear from the 5 people that want these things, you know, in some neighborhood that say that they feel as though they were left out, okay?

I can promise you that there is no way on God's green earth that a majority of this city wants to be surveilled, okay?

Who knew?

People don't like to be surveilled by the government.

It's kind of a shock, right?

I don't know.

But look, I would say we need to make sure that these things stay off until at least the people have voted as to how they feel in a binding question, and we'll explore that later.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on their first?

Anyone else on a second?

All right, seeing none, the motion— the question before us is on referral to the Committee on Ordinance.

All those in favor say Roll call vote has been requested, and I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councillor Abreu?

Yes.

Councillor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Burgault?

Yes.

Councillor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Chauquet?

Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Pemperton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Item passes 11 to 0.

I will ask the clerk to read the final tabled item.

Mr. President, the 4th tabled item is a written motion from Councilor Choquette requesting that the City of New Bedford immediately cease the use of flock cameras citywide until which time permanent legislation can be enacted as to their use.

Motion to receive and place on file and amend to read as the following.

Then after everyone speaks, make a motion to forward to Mayor Mitchell and Chief Thode.

Second.

I'm playing a funny on you guys.

Did you not make a motion to amend?

Was a motion to amend?

The motion is immediately cease the use of flock cameras and to amend and say that, and that the New Bedford Police Department take down or physically obstruct or cover all ALPR technology equipment.

Second.

The amendment to insert in here, uh, after the use— where it says the use of flood cameras— and insert— and the clerk has the language— and that the New Bedford Police Department take down or physically obstruct or cover all ALPR technology equipment citywide has been made by Councilor Choquette, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Anyone on the question of the amendment?

Okay, without— no question on the amendment.

I will ask the clerk, uh, all those in favor of inserting the amendment say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Council, do you have a motion?

Yes, I would like that motion to be sent to the mayor's office, to the mayor, and to Chief Thody, please.

Motion to refer the item to the mayor, the Mitchell administration, and Chief Thody.

Made by Councillor Choquette, seconded by Councillor Burgo.

On the question, the chair recognizes Councillor Burgo.

I want to thank the maker of the motion for making that amendment.

I know my colleague from Jenny Lind Street— sorry, I never know where any of you people live— she mentioned— I know Flock will tell me She mentioned that she's happy that they're suspended, but I want to make a clear note here that these cameras are technically suspended pending an internal investigation.

When that internal investigation ends, we have no clue whether or not they'll be turned right back on.

So that's why I think it's important that while the suspension is in effect right now, we have seen in other municipalities that the camera has still been accessed.

We even saw when this initially went into place back in 2024, there were outside agencies and other municipalities accessing our cameras before we even started utilizing it.

So even though New Bedford might have stopped operation or suspended their use of it, I think that it's prudent that this amendment was made in that we make this request of Mayor Mitchell and Chief Thody that during the suspension they cover up or take down these flock cameras.

Again, this is simply a request, and we know that Mayor Mitchell does not like to be told what to do.

Hopefully he does listen.

And as one of my colleagues has mentioned earlier, that Chief Thody has been a bit more reasonable, so I'm hoping that they will take this request seriously and actually take down those flock cameras.

But I just wanted to make that note that this suspension was only put into place due to a pending investigation, and that I assume once this investigation is over, they will be back up and running.

And they probably still are currently running.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone— Councilor Oliver, excuse me, I apologize.

Thank you, Council President.

I rise today obviously Regardless of how you feel on this issue, whether you're for FLOC or FLOC Technologies or against it, the problem is that public trust has been broken here in the city of New Bedford, where there is the lack of transparency from this administration as far as the directives in which FLOC was instituted.

So I support this, as I did the other motions, to send to the various committees.

So that way we can do the work that this administration didn't do, to start having the discussions not only as far as what an ordinance will look like, but what the public outcry is, whether you're for it or against it.

So the, the fact remains that yes, I trust that the New Bedford Police Department is not utilizing this technology now, but we don't know what the backdoor parameters are for the owners of the technology, of the actual technology and the cameras, what they're doing.

So that's why I support not only turning them off, but covering them so that way the public trust can be restored while this body does the work that the administration failed to do and start having the real discussions as to what flock technology, if at all, looks like for the city of New Bedford.

So thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else?

Okay, seeing none, the question is on referral to the Mitchell administration and Chief Thody.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to take up and adopt consent.

So moved.

Made by Councilor Burgos.

Seconded by Councilor Combs.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Before we adjourn, The chair would just like to acknowledge 2 points to the members of the public in our gallery here this evening.

First, the chair would like to thank everybody for maintaining proper decorum in the chamber this evening, and also would like to recognize the vast majority of you who were here on Thursday were not causing problems, and a few bad actors in the crowd riled everybody up and, and, and were really misbehaving.

And I'd like to thank you And appreciate all of you, uh, this evening for maintaining decorum across this meeting.

With that, motion to adjourn has been made by Councilor Abrams, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it, and we're adjourned at 8:41 PM.