2026-09-15 - City Council

00:00The city council is the sole legislative

00:03body of the city of Framingham and is

00:04therefore [music] responsible for

00:06passing city ordinances. The city

00:07council is made up of 11 members who

00:09[music] exercise the legislative powers

00:11of Framingham. Two of these members are

00:13known as counselors at large and nine

00:15members are known as district

00:16counselors. [music] The city council

00:17serves as a link between the citizens of

00:19Framingham and their municipal

00:20government. Counselors [music] help

00:22constituents by connecting them to

00:23resources, services, and city

00:25departments and also serve as advocates

00:27for all Framingham residents. The

00:29following city council coverage is

00:31brought to [music] you by the Government

00:32Channel, a service of the city of

00:34Framingham.

00:39[music]

00:46[music]

00:52[music]

00:56Good evening and welcome to the city

00:58council meeting for the 15th of

01:00September, 2026.

01:03We're using version one of our agenda

01:04posted in the public meeting portal and

01:06published to I legislate on Thursday the

01:0910th of September. Okay, so we have uh

01:12eight councilors in the room and we have

01:14three councils remote. Uh councilors

01:16Bryant, Long and Alexander I believe are

01:19remote. Actually, I'm not sure council

01:21Bryant is remote.

01:23I've heard from the other two. Okay. So,

01:26the first in item on the agenda would be

01:29the minutes from the 18th.

01:30>> Motion to approve.

01:31>> Second.

01:32>> Okay. Just want I want to get my list

01:35out here. Sorry.

01:36>> He was first from last time. I think I

01:39know but no, I did not know. Mr. Ward,

01:42>> yes.

01:43>> Miss Feny, yes.

01:43>> Mr. Cannon,

01:44>> yes.

01:44>> Mr. Alexander, are you here yet?

01:47>> He is joining us. I know. Mr. Avani,

01:49>> yes.

01:49>> Miss Malik,

01:50>> yes.

01:51>> Yes.

01:51>> Miss Brian, are you here?

01:53>> Yes. Okay. Myself.

01:55>> Yes.

01:55>> I got you. Myself. Yes. Miss L Brown.

01:58Miss Long.

02:00>> Yes.

02:00>> And in favor? None opposed.

02:02>> We have no proclamations tonight. Public

02:04participation.

02:06Uh Mr. Chick.

02:11Uh Ron Chick. I just want to thank um

02:15the mayor's office, the um

02:18>> now you know this, you have three

02:19minutes.

02:20>> Yes. Okay. uh the mayor's office, the uh

02:23CFO, director of planning, our Sarakus

02:26Arcesian, and the conservation

02:28department for their diligent and

02:30perseverance on acquiring and securing

02:33103 Guild Street. Uh it's an amazing

02:36property. Some of you have been there.

02:39Um it's it's

02:41an existing footprint of wonderful

02:44trails through a woodland. Uh the

02:47property also connects to about 3 400

02:49acres of deed conservation land and it's

02:52an amazing acquisition and also thanking

02:55trustees of reservation for holding the

02:58deed restriction. So a big thank you to

03:00all.

03:01>> Thank you Mr. Ch.

03:02>> Don't forget the people that okay the

03:04checkbook.

03:05>> Thank you Mr. Chick for your efforts.

03:09>> No need to thank me.

03:10>> Good job Ron.

03:12>> Okay. Next is uh Mr. Bloomfield. You got

03:14three minutes.

03:18Mr. Bloomfield, you have three minutes.

03:21>> Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?

03:23>> Yes, you have three minutes.

03:25>> Yes. Thank you very much. And I'll use

03:27all three minutes probably, but uh I

03:30think these are worthwhile bits of

03:32information. Item, school enrollment

03:35numbers impacts FY28 money from Beacon

03:38Hill. Those enrollment numbers have to

03:41be posted to Boston by the 1 of October.

03:46Item city, schoolwide FY28 expenses

03:49versus revenue. It's a big deal. We need

03:52to get on top of it early. Item

03:55projected state and federal municipality

03:58grants more and more important than

04:00ever. We need to stay on top of that, of

04:03course. ED item EDC success dip guidance

04:08generating new revenue impacting

04:11uh initiating new FY28 programs. We need

04:15the money to do that and it has to come

04:17from somewhere and it's not going to be

04:20all from our taxpayers and Framingham we

04:22hope. Item improving utilization

04:26therefore lowering operating costs by

04:28way of cross-training school and city

04:31employees must be undertaken. Item

04:35no lifeguards at city beaches major

04:38impact on community needs to be

04:40addressed if beaches are to remain open

04:43in to the public in the future.

04:48Item Knobscot, Edgel, Edmmonds Road.

04:51Thousands and thousands of no

04:54to Knobscot resoning signs across four

04:57districts encompassing all of North

04:59Framingham being threatened by a

05:02developer forcing overdevelopment

05:05of former sacred Nipmunk land that the

05:08Nipmunk's people lived on for thousands

05:12of years.

05:14item. Long before the pilgrims ever

05:16landed in Plymouth, the Nipc worked that

05:20land and that land was their sacred

05:22land. The land should be held aside

05:25immemorial and be memorialized as a

05:28park. Its real history, real history,

05:31the respected and archeologically uh

05:35artifacts studied. Firmingham history

05:38should not be forsaken.

05:41I'm just about done. Mr. chairperson.

05:44Item lastly, the bankrupt department

05:47expansion has come back to life. Oh boy.

05:50Making matters even worse. One of the

05:53worst ever. An independent oversight

05:55review of the project needs to be

05:57performed. A complete assessment

06:00performed and reported to the people of

06:02Framingham, the residents, as soon as

06:04possible. Thank you. Good luck. Good

06:07night and goodbye. Thank you, Mr.

06:10Hfield.

06:13Next is a public hearing upon the

06:14request of the finance subcommittee. A

06:16public hearing report a recommendation

06:17regarding the supplemental budget

06:19appropriation for parks and rec

06:20department for Mary Dennis and Park.

06:22This was continued from our meeting on

06:23the 3rd of September where uh we

06:26discussed this and the public hearing is

06:28required by the um charter. It was

06:32posted on the on 9226 is required on the

06:36council web page with the city clerk's

06:37office municipal bulletin board.

06:41Okay. Is there a motion to open? Second.

06:44Second.

06:45>> Okay. Moved by Mr. Daviani, seconded by

06:47Miss Le Bruno to open the public

06:49hearing. All those in favor? Miss. Ward.

06:51I'm sorry, Miss Feny.

06:52>> Yes.

06:53>> Mr. Cannon.

06:54>> Yes.

06:54>> Mr. Alexander.

06:56>> Yes.

06:57>> Mr. Daviani.

06:58>> Yeah.

06:58>> Miss Malik. Yes. Mr. Stephanie.

07:00>> Yes. M. Bryant.

07:01>> Yes.

07:02>> Myself? Yes. Miss Bruno?

07:03>> Yes.

07:04>> Miss Long?

07:05>> Yes.

07:06>> Mr. Ward?

07:06>> Yes.

07:08>> Okay. So the public hearing is now open.

07:11Uh we had a discussion last time

07:13regarding the proposal to add four

07:16additional workers for the uh assigned

07:19to the Mary Dennis Park. Are there any

07:21members of the public who would like to

07:22speak on this item?

07:24>> Do you want the recommendation of the

07:25finance subcommittee after

07:27>> uh you can yeah sure give it.

07:29>> Okay. Um this part of the item was

07:31discussed at the 831 finance

07:32subcommittee meeting. It was decided to

07:34make a favorable recommendation for

07:35$183,000 transfer from local revenue

07:37receipts. the item require a public

07:39hearing which we're doing tonight. It

07:40was advertised. Um it says here this

07:43item would require two votes because it

07:45is an appropriation and we voted um

07:47unanimously for the um four positions.

07:50>> Okay. Is there a second to that?

07:51>> Second.

07:52>> Okay. Again, any question any questions

07:55from the public? Let me see if there's

07:57anyone on Zoom who would be interested

07:58in speaking on it. Seeing no one. Is

08:01anyone on the council's coming up

08:02>> speak? What's that?

08:03>> I think somebody's coming up.

08:04>> Oh, I I didn't see you. I'm sorry.

08:06>> Okay. Just a a point of clarification.

08:09The item that is respect to um automated

08:12license plate readers where it stands on

08:14the agenda, will there be opportunities

08:15to make public comment or

08:17>> Yes. Yes. Yes.

08:18>> Thank you. That's all I need.

08:19>> Do you want to talk about the park or

08:21you all set with that? Okay. [laughter]

08:25>> Okay.

08:27Okay. So, there's a motion made and

08:29seconded. Is there any other discussion

08:30with the council? Seeing none.

08:33>> Yes. Yes. Sorry, I didn't see anything.

08:37I don't see any

08:39>> because I can't get the picture on.

08:40>> Yeah, well, I know. That's why seeing

08:42now was correct.

08:44>> Clicking. There we go. Okay. Um, so

08:47>> go ahead. you. Okay. So, I just wanted

08:50to say um

08:53I just feel like in in giving it more

08:56thought again um I go back to my

09:00original the um after the analysis was

09:04done by Parks and Wreck and they and

09:08their analysis says that 10 are needed

09:10to to really staff this park, right? But

09:14of course we um you know the mayor has

09:16said that they will add additional as

09:18needed. But you know an ounce of

09:20prevention is worth a pound of cure. But

09:23I know we want to be fiscal responsible.

09:25But I I just feel deep down that we

09:28should at least do five or six like half

09:31of what they what what they know to be

09:35the the real um you know need for the

09:38the size of the park or whatever. So

09:42going to four is just a like a little it

09:47just it seems like we're we're risking a

09:50lot and then we if it isn't enough which

09:54it likely won't be we'll be trying to

09:56play catchup later. So if someone could

09:59just um I don't know

10:03make me believe that four will be

10:05enough. Is there any kind of um like

10:09assessment timeline where they're going

10:11to be watching and then in like a month

10:15make um you know come back to go back to

10:18the mayor and say this is what we found

10:21um you know two months 3 months are

10:23there going to be incremental checks um

10:26so that we don't become behind the

10:29eightball with managing the park. Well,

10:32Miss Brian, you may remember the

10:33discussion from last time. We did point

10:34out it's it's late in the fall that we

10:37put these positions on. So, it may take

10:38more than a month to figure out uh you

10:41know how sufficient the staffing is. Mr.

10:43Daviani,

10:44>> I was just going to make the point you

10:45did, Mr. Chair. And also at our finance

10:47subcommittee meeting, we thought that

10:49giving them four was reasonable. We

10:51compromised on it because sometimes if

10:53you give too many, you never see

10:54government positions get taken back. So,

10:57we specifically said if there's a need

10:59for more, come back in. come to the

11:01mayor's office, come to the finance

11:02subcommittee, and we'd do what we had to

11:04do. But after listening to Mr. Palini

11:05and his team, we thought four was a good

11:07number to start, and if more is needed,

11:09we're sure they'll be coming back, and

11:11we're more than happy to work with them.

11:12>> Okay. Any further discussion?

11:15>> Okay. See, Miss Brian again?

11:17>> Yes. I just wanted to correct. I didn't

11:19say um I said in increments, one month,

11:22two months, whatever. Did they have a

11:24plan like a specific plan to check or

11:27they were just going to keep an eye out?

11:29And because it is the fall, perhaps

11:32there won't be as great a need, but

11:34definitely by spring there would be

11:35probably.

11:36>> I believe they say they're just going to

11:37keep monitoring it. If that's different,

11:38Mr. Palin, let me know. But if that's

11:41>> okay,

11:41>> that's correct. Okay. So, all right. So,

11:45that having been said, I see no other

11:47questions from the council. So, on the

11:49main motion, uh, Mr. Cannon,

11:52>> yes.

11:53>> Mr. Alexander,

11:56>> yes.

11:57>> Mr.

11:58Yes.

11:59>> Miss Malik,

11:59>> yes.

12:00>> Mr. Stephanie,

12:00>> yes.

12:01>> Miss Bryant,

12:02>> yes.

12:02>> Myself, yes. Mr. Lebro,

12:04>> yes.

12:05>> Miss [clears throat] Long,

12:06>> yes.

12:07>> Mr. Ward,

12:08>> yes.

12:08>> Miss Feny,

12:09>> yes. [snorts]

12:10>> Okay, that passes unanimously. Thank

12:13you. All right. Next on the agenda, upon

12:15request of the finance subcommittee, a

12:17report and recommendation regarding the

12:18compensation of classifications of park

12:20and recreation positions for Mary

12:22Dennison Parking.

12:24>> Yeah. At the meeting on August 31st, the

12:26finance subcommittee, a motion was made

12:28by Stephanie. There was a friendly

12:30amendment by um councelor King to have

12:32four positions. It was voted 500. The

12:35item requires one vote and no vote was

12:36taken at our 93 meeting.

12:38>> So, what do we move? What's the motion?

12:44>> That we approve what was presented on

12:45the on the on the um

12:47>> what what are we doing? Are we adding

12:48positions to the classification and

12:49compensation plan?

12:51>> Well, you were at the same meeting I

12:52was. This is what I've got in front of

12:53you.

12:53>> I didn't, right? And I kind of didn't

12:54don't remember that aspect of the vote,

12:56but m

12:58>> maybe we can ask Mr. Palini exactly what

12:59it is. But that's these because I have

13:01number three ahead of number two on this

13:03list.

13:03>> I understand the money obviously and

13:05that pays for the positions. I would

13:07have thought the positions are already

13:08on the classification plan. So I'm not

13:10sure why we have to add them

13:12>> uh through you Mr. Chair. So the

13:14positions that we have made the

13:17recommendation for are already part of

13:18the classification because it's two

13:21MEO1s and working supervisors which are

13:23already part of a the compensation

13:25schedule.

13:26>> Right. So since we voted the money and

13:28understanding it's four people I don't

13:29think we need this vote.

13:31>> Okay.

13:31>> Unless you see it differently.

13:33>> Uh no I I don't believe we do since they

13:35are we're not creating new

13:37>> plan and we've authorized four positions

13:38and the salaries for them. So

13:40>> correct.

13:40>> I think they're all good. I think it's

13:42all set. Right. Thank you.

13:44>> Okay. Items four and five involve the

13:47licensing coordinator who is with us on

13:49Zoom. Um

13:53>> make a motion we approve.

13:55>> Second.

13:55>> Um

13:56>> wait wait wait.

13:56>> One you want one at a time.

13:58>> The first is request of the license

13:59coordinator vote on new junk dealers and

14:01or antique secondhand goods license for

14:05National Rarities LLC for a 3-day event

14:08from 10:20 to 10:22.

14:11>> So moved.

14:11>> Second. Any further questions? Mr. Ken,

14:14>> just a process question. I I support

14:16both of these, but um it it's more of a

14:19and perhaps the licensing coordinator

14:20can how does the the system work in a

14:24case where and I don't know that this

14:25happened. I don't think it did. I just

14:26have been meaning to ask this question.

14:28If one of these individuals who signs

14:30off on the approval trail

14:33is out,

14:35how does how does the system handle

14:37that?

14:39>> Mr. Rice, are you with us?

14:42I am. And uh councelor Cannon, can you

14:45go a little bit more specific for me?

14:48You mean like if

14:49>> Yeah, thank you.

14:50>> So if you if we go into national

14:52rarities just since it's on the agenda

14:54and we approve this every year um on

14:57page,

14:58of course things are reloading slowly.

15:01The page where it load where it lists

15:03all the different I guess it's labeled

15:06timeline. So Dennis McAffrey completed

15:08Michael Royce, Fred Bray, Carolyn Lions,

15:10Tyson Moore, will and it goes down the

15:12list of everybody that seems to have

15:14signed off on this. If

15:16>> y and I'm not questioning it, I just

15:18don't know the answer. If you're out,

15:20for example,

15:22how does how would this appear

15:27that someone who was covering for you

15:29signed off on this or completed that

15:30step? What what just what's the internal

15:32process?

15:33>> Yeah, so it would look exactly the same.

15:35Um, so like you said for my name, if I'm

15:38out, it would be someone else under the

15:40assenee. Um, and it would say the same

15:42thing as completed. Um, for instance,

15:46uh, board of health, um, they were going

15:48on, um, Bethany Yates was on vacation.

15:51So, she let me know that Shawn Hobbs

15:53would be doing all of her duties for the

15:55week she was out. So, I would reassign

15:58the task to Shawn. And then you would

16:00see, like I said, you wouldn't see

16:02Bethy's name, you would see Shawn's

16:03name, and completed. Okay, perfect. That

16:05was what I was hoping you'd say. And

16:07Bethany Yates is on here, so that was a

16:09hypothetical you gave me, right?

16:11>> Yeah. Yes. So, she was on vacation last

16:12week or something like that, but that

16:14that was the best I could do for you.

16:15>> Perfect. Excellent. Thank you very much.

16:16That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

16:18>> Of course.

16:18>> Okay. All those in No other discussion.

16:20All those in favor?

16:22[clears throat and snorts] Mr.

16:22Alexander?

16:24>> Yes.

16:24>> Mr. Aani? Yes.

16:26>> Miss Malik? Yes.

16:26>> Mr. Stephanie. Miss Bryant?

16:28>> Yes.

16:29>> Myself? Yes. Mr.

16:30>> Yes. Miss Long?

16:32>> Yes.

16:32>> Mr. Ward?

16:33>> Yes.

16:33>> Miss Feny? Yes,

16:34>> Mr. Canon.

16:35>> Yes.

16:36>> Okay. Next is a request to license

16:38coordinator vote upon a new junk dealer

16:40and or and or antique secondhand goods

16:43annual two licenses for road show

16:45concepts from 921 to 92526 and from 1214

16:50through 18th the

16:51>> motion to approve is recommended.

16:54>> Okay. All those in favori

16:57>> I have a question. I'm sorry.

16:59>> Apologize. Um, I just, this might be a

17:02question for um, the licensing

17:04coordinator, but on the application it

17:06makes mention that the owner is the Sher

17:08and Tara. I thought they were no longer

17:11the Sheran Tara.

17:12>> The Renaissance.

17:13>> They're the Renaissance. Now,

17:15>> a couple different things like three

17:16things up there.

17:17>> Yeah, you're right. And just a point of

17:18information, they must have confidence

17:20in our vote because I got a postcard in

17:21the mail about the the event. Three-day

17:24event was in the mail. Use Rolexes,

17:27gold, silver. tell you to go to the

17:28Sherant Tara or to the

17:30>> Renaissance. Can you explain that?

17:33>> I guess it has the location. It has the

17:35address.

17:37>> Mr. Royce, are you still there?

17:39>> Yep. Yep. Yep. Sorry. Yep. Yep. Sorry, I

17:41clicked the wrong button. Um, so I'm

17:43looking at it. I bet that the problem is

17:46since they changed their name, um, that

17:49it just didn't update in OpenG yet. So

17:52that that's kind of the only thing I

17:54have there because they did change from

17:56the uh Sherin to the Renaissance. So my

17:59my only guess I didn't notice that.

18:00That's a great catch. I will look at it

18:02tomorrow. Um but like I said, I think

18:04the only thing is that uh just didn't

18:06change the name and open.

18:08>> So it's a fair assumption that's at that

18:10building. Correct.

18:11>> It is in the narrative. It says

18:13>> it hasn't been address.

18:18>> Right. So, we're voting for the location

18:20at the Shervin Hotel on the Renaissance

18:23Hotel now on Worester Road. Okay,

18:26everybody all set?

18:28Questions? None. Mr. Mavani?

18:31>> Yes.

18:31>> Miss Malik?

18:32>> Yes.

18:32>> Stephanie? Miss Bryant?

18:35Miss Bryant?

18:38I think there's a yes. M. Myself? Yes.

18:40Mr. Lebrono?

18:41>> Yes.

18:41>> Miss Long?

18:42>> Yes.

18:43>> Mr. Ward? Yes. Miss Feny? Yes.

18:45>> Mr. Canon? Yes. Mr. Alexander?

18:47Yep.

18:48>> Okay.

18:50Thank you.

18:50>> Thank you all. Have a great night.

18:52>> Thank you.

18:54Okay. So, next is the upon a request of

18:56the rules on subcommittee report and

18:58recommendation guide development

18:59ordinance to ban surveillance technology

19:01city of Framingham. The question was

19:03asked before would there be public

19:04participation? There will be as with

19:06every um item on our agenda. There's a

19:08provision for public participation up to

19:1015 minutes. Last time I did make an

19:12error. Uh, so we'll see how many people

19:15want to speak and we'll divide the 15

19:17minutes that way. But it has to be you

19:19have to be a Framingian resident. So I'm

19:20going to ask you to state your name and

19:22address. Okay? Can't I can't have

19:24non-residents. I did allow that last

19:26time, but that was an error on my part.

19:30[cough]

19:31[clears throat]

19:31>> Mr. Chairman,

19:32>> Mr. Stephanie,

19:34>> thank you. Um the rules ordinance um an

19:38ethics subcommittee which this was

19:39referred voted 2 to1 to recommend the

19:42adoption of the attached ordinance. Uh,

19:46as you know, the committee spent six

19:48months meeting with neighbors, the

19:51police chief, the deputy police chief,

19:54um, the solicitor and others to talk

19:57about automatic license plate readers,

19:59facial recognition technology,

20:01uh, immigration related issues and, uh,

20:06balancing the

20:10civil rights concerns raised by

20:13residents and advocates

20:15with the utility from a local law

20:18enforcement standpoint with the deputy

20:20chief and police chief. In the

20:22environment we're in, it's pretty clear

20:25that uh to maintain respect, trust in

20:29our local law enforcement, it's

20:31important for us to have and to exercise

20:35a ban on ALPR, automatic license plate

20:38readers, and facial recognition

20:40technology. In addition to that, this

20:42ordinance deals with an issue that was

20:45raised relative to uh ICE agents

20:48accessing federal property. In addition

20:51to that, there were other outstanding

20:53issues that we did not deal with in this

20:56because they have a much higher degree

20:58of complexity which is still before the

21:00committee and we will continue to look

21:02at and we'll report back as we complete.

21:08>> Okay. So, is there a motion? Um, I don't

21:11think you need a motion, do you? If

21:13we're voting once on ordinances, this

21:14would be the first hearing.

21:18>> Well, we did discuss it last time. I

21:20guess this is a brand new one, so I

21:21think Okay, thank you.

21:22>> Whatever you want to do.

21:23>> No, it's fine.

21:24>> Okay.

21:26>> I have a procedural question. It's not

21:29listed as a public hearing on our

21:31agenda. Is that

21:33>> public hearing required for an

21:34ordinance?

21:35>> For an ordinance [snorts] is not

21:36required. Okay. But we do have a city we

21:41I don't know if it's required but a city

21:43solicitor letter or recommendation or

21:47approval is my understanding for an

21:49ordinance is required.

21:51>> We sub submit it to the solicitor and

21:53the solicitor can give us input if she

21:55so desires. We've submitted this several

21:57times to the solicitor.

21:59>> So I am going to treat it I think it's a

22:00good point as a new ordinance since it

22:02is different than the last one even

22:04though it's the same subject. So, uh, we

22:06will consider this as the first reading,

22:08first discussion. Um, so I'll take

22:11questions from the board from the

22:13council.

22:15Miss Bryant.

22:17>> Okay. I I was the um dissenting vote in

22:21terms of approving it. Well, in in terms

22:24of approving it coming up to um the uh

22:28council and as was I felt then and I

22:32still feel very strongly unequivocally

22:35in fact that um not that we don't need

22:40um an ordinance uh to ban surveillance

22:43technology. We do. But that this one is

22:47not ready for prime time. And the input

22:51of the people who have consistently uh

22:54dedicated their time and their um

22:57background uh expertise to advising the

23:02the subcommittee. Um they more of that

23:07needs to actually get into it and a lot

23:10of the preamble needs to be edited. Um

23:14but we do definitely need a ban on it

23:17but this is not um

23:21this is not yet ready for ready to go.

23:24So I would ask that we um send it back

23:27and with the proviso that um the the

23:31people who um that we work on it right

23:34in front of them to get like at at one

23:37of our meetings um at the subcommittee

23:40meeting but that can be dealt with in

23:42the subcommittee. But I would recommend

23:43it goes back.

23:45>> Are you recommending a moving, Miss

23:46Bryant?

23:48>> I'm making a motion that it it it goes

23:50back to the subcommittee for um further

23:54editing.

23:55>> I'll second that,

23:57>> Mr. Chairman.

23:58>> Mr. Stephanie.

23:59>> So, the uh there has been an active

24:03group of residents and citizens. you see

24:06them here this evening led by uh Kate

24:09Samantha Ladybug and a few others that

24:12have testified throughout this. I don't

24:14know and I'll leave it to them to

24:16testify that there is any objection to

24:19an outright absolute ban on a ALPR and

24:22on facial recognition technology. The

24:25issue that became before the committee

24:27was whether or not we should ban the use

24:30of all

24:31uh surveillance technology, all cameras,

24:35technology of any kind, drones, and the

24:38committee [snorts] did not have the

24:40information or wherewithal. Framingham

24:42does have drones and we do use it. There

24:44was a kid who was recently uh uh saved

24:48from drowning in a pond by the police

24:50use of a drone. Uh we all know the

24:53person who was hit by a vehicle and

24:55we've had difficulty finding the person

24:57because cameras do not exist. There are

25:00Department of Transportation [snorts]

25:01cameras that exist at intersections that

25:04tell us when the traffic is heavy and

25:06when it isn't uh that are utilized. In

25:09addition to that, the police have

25:10cameras and access to cameras in public

25:13facilities. There are dash cam cameras.

25:16There are uh personal cameras that

25:18police officers wear. The technology

25:21goes on and on and on and on and we did

25:24not feel comfortable going with an

25:26absolute ban on technology with not

25:28without understanding the limits and the

25:31parameters with which that technology

25:33would be and so we split this into two

25:36pieces with the latter requiring more

25:39detail. It took us six months to work

25:41through the issues on this and it will

25:43take us time to deal with [snorts]

25:46the issue of that. In addition to that,

25:49one of the issues we heard loud and

25:51clear from our immigrant community over

25:53the last six months um and advocates for

25:57the American community is the need for

25:59clear language. And part of the reason

26:01why this balancing act, we've come out

26:03on the side of banning ALPR and facial

26:06recognition technology outright

26:09as opposed to regulating it into a

26:12locally used only is in part because of

26:16the treatment we have seen firsthand of

26:19our immigrant community. The wherees

26:21that are listed in the beginning of this

26:24make that case very clear. Um whereas

26:27the Trump administration

26:28indiscriminately and violently and often

26:30unlawfully target uh targeting of

26:34law-abiding immigrants and United States

26:35citizens has made our schools,

26:37businesses, place of worship and

26:38community less safe. Whereas the Trump

26:40administration's use of untrained,

26:43masked, and heavily armed posi roaming

26:46the streets of Framingham threaten and

26:47intimidate our entire community. Whereas

26:50the Trump administration's actions have

26:52instilled fear in our local immigrant

26:54community, threatening trust and

26:56confidence in our local law enforcement.

26:58Whereas the surveillance programs are

27:01susceptible to being manipulated for

27:02such corrupt purposes. Whereas it is not

27:05within the purview nor the mandate of

27:07the framing city of Framingham to

27:08enforce federal immigration law or seek

27:11detention, transfer or deportation of

27:13Framingham residents for civil

27:14immigration purposes. nor should city

27:17resources be expended towards that end.

27:20Whereas the city of Frammingham will

27:21equally enforce the laws and serve the

27:23public without consideration of

27:24immigration status, citizenship,

27:26national origin, race or ethnicity.

27:29Whereas all persons coming into contact

27:31with law enforcement personnel of the

27:34city of Framingham shall continue to be

27:36afforded all of the civil and human

27:38rights and due process and equal

27:40protections safeguards available under

27:42the constitution and laws of the United

27:44States of America and the Commonwealth

27:46of Massachusetts and the city of

27:47Framingham irrespective of their

27:49immigration status. That is, I believe,

27:54just as important a message to our

27:56immigrant community and to our

27:57residents, which is what people have

27:59asked us to look at. It was the

28:02foundation of councelor Ward's initial

28:05uh piece of this, and I think it's an

28:07important part of what we state here.

28:10Miss Bryant talks to the unfinished

28:13business and I fully acknowledge that

28:15it's unfinished business, but we're not

28:17in the business of passing ordinances in

28:19haste. And so banning all resources and

28:23technology

28:25without first understanding the scope

28:28and scale of what they are, where they

28:29are, and how they deal with it. I can

28:32see that having a lot of exemptions

28:34built into it because we want body

28:37cameras. We want um uh dash cams on the

28:43cars. We want the Department of

28:44Transportation to have uh cameras

28:47telling us about what they're doing. So,

28:50yes, it is complicated. We've taken the

28:52simplest, easiest piece of this so that

28:55we can make a clear statement to the

28:57community and we can make a clear ban of

29:01these particular technologies while we

29:03look at the broader technologies in

29:06question. Okay. Are there any questions

29:08from the council beyond that?

29:13Bryant,

29:15>> just um a quick point. I'm saying

29:18[clears throat] I I can I agree with

29:20we're going to do the bigger ban, but

29:22this um this piece in itself, there are

29:27minor edits um that need to be made and

29:30the input needs to be done. So, we need

29:33to um go over those. the wherees and I

29:38mean and it's an ordinance so how to do

29:41have have it properly done there's some

29:43minor tweaks um that need to be done

29:46before it goes on the books that we

29:48present it to be put on the books as a

29:52law of Framingham an ordinance of

29:53Framingham

29:55>> well just to clarify um I I have some

29:58questions about all the wherees and the

30:00preamble I I mean I don't I'm not it

30:03doesn't go into the ordinance so that's

30:05just for us that does not become part of

30:07the ordinance.

30:07>> It's part of the legislative history,

30:09but it doesn't go into the ordinance,

30:10>> right? It's not in the ordinance. So, if

30:11we adopt this, this stuff is in our

30:14minutes, but it never goes into the

30:15ordinance books. Okay? Because it's not

30:17an ordinance. It's a statement. So,

30:21>> we

30:23question

30:25>> we didn't get to discuss um all the

30:28wherees

30:30um that he wrote up.

30:31>> Okay, that's fine. Your motion's on the

30:33table. I just need to take comments

30:34first. M Miss Long and Minister Ward.

30:39>> Uh yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I

30:43think the same way uh Council Bryant

30:45thinks on this, and I will just straight

30:47out say I don't believe that political

30:50inflammatory

30:52uh in my opinion, biased statements

30:54belong in either a resolution or or our

30:57ordinances because administrations

30:59change from time to time. And I don't

31:02think this is the proper way to address

31:04what's being addressed. There's uh the

31:07content of what you're trying to address

31:09makes sense, but the way it's being

31:11said, in my opinion, is totally

31:14inappropriate, and I would not vote for

31:16that to be representing this council

31:18with that type of language. Uh

31:20regardless who the president is, I just

31:22think it's inappropriate, inflammatory,

31:24and I have objections to that. So, and I

31:29don't think that belongs in this. And I

31:31don't know why it needs to be in there.

31:32You the rest of it speaks for itself as

31:35to what you're trying to accomplish. And

31:37that's really all you need to do. It

31:38doesn't need to be a political

31:40statement. So, I think that's just

31:42asking for trouble. And I don't think

31:46everybody in Framingham would agree to

31:48this. So, maybe there's a group of

31:49people that think that's appropriate

31:51language, but I certainly don't. Thank

31:54you.

31:54>> Thank you, M. Long. Uh, Mr. award to Mr.

31:57Canon and Mr. Aani.

31:59>> Uh, thank you, chair. Um, yeah, thank

32:03thanks to councelor Stephanini and the

32:04subcommittee for their work on this and

32:06for being amendable to go back to the

32:08drawing board based on feedback from the

32:10council and making this an ALPR ban as

32:12opposed to, you know,

32:15the thoughtful but, you know, maybe more

32:19nuanced work they had put in but wasn't

32:20necessarily getting us to where we

32:22wanted to be. Um, this is obviously, as

32:24you kind of alluded to, pretty different

32:25than what was submitted by me over a

32:27year ago. I think as was discussed at

32:30the subcommittee level. Some of the

32:31things that I had suggested were no

32:33longer relevant once the protect Act was

32:35passed by the state legislature. Uh,

32:37obviously the one thing that has kind of

32:39made its way into this is some of the

32:41reporting requirements. And I wonder if

32:42you could comment on you know the

32:45reporting requirement language in this

32:47ordinance is quite

32:50um I don't know vague is the right word

32:52but it's just kind of up to leaves a

32:55little bit up to the interpretation of

32:57the police department and the police

32:58chief on what they're reporting on

33:00especially as it comes to you know and

33:03other actions taken including the

33:05involvement if any with federal state

33:07agencies like what you know I think I'd

33:10be interested in hearing from the

33:11subcommittee or from councelor

33:12Stephanini on what they imagine that

33:15entails and if we can be maybe a little

33:17bit more specific with that language.

33:19>> Mr. Chairman,

33:21>> question was directed to you so I

33:23recognize you Mr. Stephanie.

33:24>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um

33:27so the reporting requirement comes uh in

33:30essence out of what you had filed

33:32earlier and to date the council

33:36only on an episodic basis really gets

33:39reports from the police chief at least

33:40in the nine years we've been a city.

33:44This requires quarterly reports. Um, and

33:46while the groupings are a whole host of

33:50things, as the council gets those, the

33:52council will look at them, review them,

33:54ask questions, it creates a public forum

33:56by which those discussions can take

33:59place. Right now, unless a counselor

34:02puts it on the agenda and the chair

34:04agrees to put it on the agenda, there

34:06has been very little reporting from the

34:08police department to the council. This

34:12makes it a quarterly activity. So

34:14there's a checkbox every quarter to be

34:16able to look at the data, the review,

34:18the conversation and ask questions, to

34:20do whatever is necessary. In addition to

34:23that, the last piece number six on this

34:27also is from the previous thing that you

34:30had put together, which is the use of

34:32public resources, funds, equipment,

34:34personnel, facilities, or property by

34:36federal immigration, customs and

34:37enforcement officials is strictly

34:39prohibited. I think that's pretty clear

34:41and it addresses some of the issues and

34:44concerns that have been raised about

34:45whether or not public property, parking

34:48lots, facilities have been used as um

34:52part of this.

34:56>> Yeah, I guess my only um question or

34:59continued question is one of the things

35:01that we were looking for were specific

35:02requests that were coming in from ICE

35:04and potential reimbursements that were

35:06being received. And I wonder if that was

35:08discussed. I I didn't I admittedly

35:11haven't like listened probably cover to

35:14cover of all of the subcommittee

35:15meetings but majority I have and I don't

35:18remember there being a specific

35:20discussion on those items. So we don't

35:22have 287 and G agreement so we're not

35:24getting reimbursed under that piece. So

35:28the the answer is zero was the report we

35:31got.

35:34>> There are there is interaction on drugs

35:37and gangs and etc.

35:40>> So

35:43there's no reimbursement coming from ICE

35:46for any work being done even when it's

35:48done related to us providing support on

35:51someone that has a criminal history that

35:53we're handing over to ICE.

35:55>> I don't I believe the answer to that is

35:57no.

35:57>> I don't think ICE gives us any money. I

36:00mean, we obviously have federal funds

36:01that theoretically could be

36:04>> Yeah. but not specifically from ICE

36:07>> or [snorts] from um DHS or

36:09>> who knows right I mean other places have

36:11had that experience

36:12>> I guess I guess we can ask that question

36:13quarterly but that that's I think that

36:15remains a a concern or question of mine

36:19>> Mr. Canon you are next

36:21>> thank you Mr. Chairman help me

36:22understand um through you Mr. Chairman I

36:25guess to Mr. Stephanie, the chair of

36:26that committee, who who wrote the

36:28recital, the the whereas language, it

36:30sounded like from councelor Bryant that

36:31was not voted on by the subcommittee.

36:33>> It was voted two to one by the

36:35subcommittee.

36:35>> It was considered by the subcommittee

36:37>> and it was v and it was presented in

36:39advance. We talked about it.

36:40>> Okay. Thank you. That answers my

36:41question. I guess my trouble with that

36:43is

36:45it it seems both political and

36:47unnecessary and inflammatory. If we're

36:49passing an ordinance, it should apply to

36:50whichever the administration happens to

36:52be holding the office, whether we agree

36:55with them, whether we don't agree with

36:56them, whether we like them, whether we

36:57don't like them. This seems to single

36:59out a particular administration

37:01unnecessarily for, I think, political

37:03points. And for something that is going

37:05out of its way to highlight uh the lack

37:09of relevance of immigration status, this

37:13mentions immigration or the word

37:15immigrant, some form of that word at

37:17least seven times. And while I

37:19appreciate that you're pointing to six

37:20or seven people in the room who seem to

37:22have guided this process, and I I assume

37:24they're all Framingham residents, it's a

37:25complicated issue for 80,000 people. So

37:29um I am very troubled by I mean you

37:32don't have to look far to because your

37:36language compelled me to look but what

37:38are the success stories from this what

37:40you call

37:42untrained masked and heavily armed posi

37:47roaming the streets of Framingham. And I

37:49guess that's easy to see if you get

37:50caught up with you know the the the the

37:53rhetoric. But if you're I mean some of

37:56the the the success stories and I I you

37:59know it points to a larger conversation.

38:01If you're a victim of domestic violence

38:04in a very and there are numerous cases

38:06and this is only the stuff that I could

38:08find and I don't think the communication

38:10has been great. I mean if you're getting

38:12those people I think we can assume off

38:14the street I would imagine that at least

38:17in that household it makes that

38:19household and those kids more safe. So

38:22the the broad strokes of this language

38:24are really troubling and and overly

38:26political. I I think some of this has to

38:29do with the fact that there isn't

38:31cooperation between the different

38:32branches of of law enforcement.

38:37It seems in the states where I don't

38:38read about the the the the scariness,

38:43we'll just call it broadly an innocent

38:44word, the scariness of of this kind of

38:46enforcement, those are states, and I

38:48would include Massachusetts in that

38:50where there isn't cooperation. So if

38:52there's someone that's that is that

38:53everybody in this room would agree we

38:55want off the street no matter your

38:57political persuasion in the states that

39:00are doing this well there is

39:02collaboration between the areas of law

39:04enforcement to identify where that

39:05person is going to be and get them in a

39:07courthouse or get them coming there's an

39:09orderly transfer that takes one agent

39:12two agents from immigrations and

39:15immigration and customs enforcement in

39:17states where it's not going well and

39:18there's a lot of fear in the community

39:20and I would put Massachusetts in that

39:21category.

39:22It's where there isn't that

39:25collaboration and they got to send a

39:27swarm of people

39:30into the community and it creates a lot

39:32of fear. So, I just wish we would not be

39:35in the business of of the the name

39:37calling and the nons and see if there's

39:39a better way that we can make the

39:40community safer without this. So, I I

39:42object to that language. Um,

39:45I I can support Councelor Bryant and um

39:48Councelor uh Long's uh motion to to send

39:52this back because I think it's becoming

39:53more political than it is uh the

39:56original um the original intent. Uh I

40:01would also hope that we can work uh

40:03collaboratively with our state

40:04delegation on seeing what the state's

40:06going to do. This is one of those things

40:07that if Massachusetts is going to make

40:09progress in not spying on everybody to

40:12find specific people, which is what this

40:15technology does. Yes, it's easy to catch

40:17people after the fact when you spy on

40:19your entire community. The state needs

40:21to figure out what it is so each

40:22community isn't inventing its own uh

40:25wheels. I appreci its own rules. Um but

40:28I appreciate the the work that's been

40:30done.

40:30>> Mr. Chairman,

40:31>> I'd like to respond to

40:33>> I'd like to respond to the point that

40:34was made. I'm not right now unless

40:36there's a question. I have a couple of

40:37the people recognized and you can

40:38respond. So, if you could just write

40:40down what you want to respond to, I

40:42don't want to go back and forth with you

40:43and every speaker. Um, Mr. Aani and Mr.

40:47>> I I I appreciate the thought and effort

40:49that went into this, but I I too as

40:50well. We need to do something. I I got I

40:52got a text from a constituent in my

40:54district. She followed, you know, an ICE

40:57vehicle up to the top of the garage on

40:59Pearl Street. Then they're parking

41:01behind Marian High School in the fence.

41:03and I've reached out to Mr. Paleolini to

41:05see what we can do about those kind of

41:06things. But then on the other hand, I

41:08get a call from somebody um in police

41:10enforcement, you know, concerned about

41:12the three accidents that have happened

41:14in Framingham, and they tell me, you

41:15know, if we had some type of system in

41:18place, we we could have tracked down

41:20that hit-and- run person sooner rather

41:21than later over there on the first one.

41:23And we just had our third fat fatality

41:25in Framingham. And I can't remember the

41:27last time we've had three incidents like

41:28that. And then all of a sudden, it's

41:29just compounding. But um we need to do

41:32something. But um there's got to be some

41:35sort of balance I think.

41:38>> Do you have a hands up?

41:40>> Thank you. I um I agree with um Phil

41:43your comments because it is it's it's a

41:45very it's a tough balance because we do

41:48hear the stories and we also hear the

41:51stories you know of the fear um and you

41:54hear the success stories that you know

41:57clearly not as much. Um, so I think that

42:00there is a need, you know, to also keep

42:02people safe. Um, but I agree with the

42:07language at the beginning. You know, the

42:09it almost looks like it's like um a

42:12resolution written. Um, and I think that

42:15the language is inflammatory. I think

42:17that it's, you know, it does, you know,

42:20come off as being overly political. And

42:22I watched the meeting and you know it

42:25was you know I give them a lot of credit

42:27for working with folks and trying to um

42:31you know find something that you know we

42:36could maybe come to an agreement on um

42:38and I know a lot of work went into it

42:40but you know the meeting was like two

42:42hours and there was you know I felt that

42:44the meeting was a couple of times it was

42:47said you know it's going to be a very

42:48contentious vote. um there's going to be

42:51a lot of people that are not going to

42:52agree and as if that if you don't agree

42:56with it then that you are anti-immigrant

43:00or anti- um neighbor and I I didn't like

43:03that part of it either. So, I think that

43:07that that that front piece of it, the

43:09preamble um or whatnot. Um I think and

43:14with parts of the meeting I did watch

43:16and it just seemed like, you know, it

43:19was almost, you know, we were going to

43:21come in and have this fight and I didn't

43:23think that it's not the way we want to

43:25do this. And I think that if we do have

43:28questions um like you know Tracy um and

43:31some concerns like some of the others it

43:34doesn't mean that we are you know anti-

43:37um neighbor to our immigrant families

43:39because that's the farthest thing from

43:41the truth but we need to have something

43:43that we can all feel comfortable um and

43:46I don't know how far off we actually

43:48really are but when it starts out like

43:50this I think it kind of pushes us

43:52farther away than um than we should

43:56So, thank you.

43:58>> I just have a couple comments, too. I

44:00think first of all, I support strongly

44:03the idea of eliminating the automatic

44:05license plate readers, the flock

44:07cameras, that that type of thing. I I

44:09had that feeling well before. Um, and

44:13maybe I didn't voice it like I should

44:14have, but I didn't know there'd be so

44:16much interest in it to be honest with

44:17you. But, um, it um, I had that feeling

44:22before it was tied to some of these

44:24issues that are raised in the preamble

44:26or other issues. I just think it's a

44:27matter of fundamental civil rights and

44:30that type of thing that why we shouldn't

44:32have them. I don't

44:35disagree that what Mr. Audibani said

44:37that we do give up a little bit by not

44:39having them, but you know, it's a

44:40balancing act. So certainly we'd all

44:43love to catch the hit and run driver who

44:44ran somebody over and killed them.

44:46There's no question about that, but you

44:48know, and but there's a balancing act.

44:51So I support the um the ordinance as

44:55written and I appreciate the committee

44:56writing it. I don't think as a council

44:59it helps us with these lengthy preamles

45:02because then we take what should be a

45:05pretty basic subject. Are we in favor of

45:08ALPRS or not? And then it ejects

45:11politics into it. [clears throat] Now,

45:12that's a fine motivation. I mean, if

45:14that's your motivation to vote for it,

45:16that's fantastic. I have no problem and

45:18I have no problem you stating that. Not

45:20you particularly, but any the general

45:21you. [snorts] I have no problem with

45:23anyone stating that in the record for

45:25our minutes. you know it's or for our

45:28videos or whatever the case may be but

45:31because everybody has their rights you

45:32know to do it I am just basically

45:34opposed to it so but when we put

45:37preamles in with those things that you

45:39know have to be written by one person by

45:40definition I mean it's be very hard to

45:42write it we add additional things we

45:45need to discuss into it that take time

45:48and take away from the focus I you know

45:50somewhat controversial with some people

45:52I know from the outset for the 10 years

45:54I've been here have I do not like this

45:57council waiting into state and national

46:00politics. Not because we don't all have

46:02opinions, because we all do. I think a

46:04lot of us make them pretty clear what

46:05they are. But it's just not directly the

46:08business of this council. And frankly,

46:09we have enough challenges doing our own

46:11business in an efficient and in a good

46:14manner without bringing other people

46:17national and state government. I'm not

46:18saying we should have our head in the

46:19sands. That's not what I'm saying. But

46:21in our in in our role as counselors, I

46:24just don't see how it helps us that

46:25much. So not not just for this, but for

46:28any ordinance, I I would prefer that we

46:30not have any preamles. I just prefer the

46:32audiences come forward and people can

46:34vote for them for whatever reason they

46:35want and they can state what their

46:36reasons are and you know and that's fine

46:40and and and all those reasons that are

46:43listed may very be very legitimate

46:45reasons for people but you know there

46:48may be legitimate reasons like my

46:50legitimate reason is not in there

46:52whereas I don't want them you know

46:55people don't want them so um that's my

46:58concern so I I would ask I would I'd

47:00like to see us in the future not adopt

47:03ordinances that have any preamles

47:05whether I agree with them, disagree with

47:07them, like them, don't like them,

47:08neutral on them, whatever the case may

47:10be, but I think it just introduces too

47:12much controversy into what we're trying

47:14to do.

47:16Okay, Mr. Alexander, Miss Feny, then Mr.

47:18Alexander.

47:19>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of

47:21points. One, we wouldn't be having this

47:23discussion if it wasn't for this

47:25administration.

47:27We had a gentleman who came to our last

47:29meeting who brought a child's shoe that

47:31he he obtained during when he was going

47:36to be a witness watching uh an ICE raid.

47:41National politics whether we like it or

47:43not is in our community right now. And I

47:47see these whereases as a way to make a

47:50statement to our immigrant community and

47:52to others that we take we see them we

47:56take this seriously and that yeah our

47:58neighbors are getting taken off the

48:01street. We have kids who are coming home

48:03wondering where mom and dad are.

48:06So we can say these things aren't you

48:09know we shouldn't be talking about

48:10national things. We shouldn't be talking

48:12about state things. I I don't know how

48:15we have the luxury of not talking about

48:19these things when they're happening to

48:20our neighbors and they're happening on

48:22our streets. The most important thing, I

48:24mean, this is why we're having this

48:26discussion, but I encourage my

48:28colleagues to vote for this because this

48:31bans what we've been asked about the ARP

48:34data. This bans facial recognition. It

48:38gives us the quarterly reporting

48:39requirement, which we don't have right

48:41now, and it bans the use of public

48:43resources, funds, equipment, and

48:45personnel, facilities, and property by

48:46federal immigration, customs, and

48:48enforcement officials. We don't have

48:50time to keep going back and forth in

48:53hopes that we'll find this perfect

48:55document. This bands, these puts

48:57important things into place right now.

48:59We will go back. I'm a member of the

49:01rules committee. I have said this to

49:02many of you. We will go back and

49:04continue to do the work that we need to

49:06do. But this is the first step that we

49:08need to take. This is the first step

49:09that's going to continue to protect our

49:11residents whether they have just arrived

49:14here yesterday or they are townies just

49:16like me. So we can be cynical about you

49:21know what's next and that whether or not

49:22this is going to happen.

49:25I ask you to put your cynicism down as

49:28my old boss Dval Patrick used to tell us

49:31and we need to work together. And again,

49:34what's happening on the federal level is

49:35affecting each and every one of us. And

49:38it's important for councils, I believe,

49:40to tackle these issues so that our

49:42residents know that they are safe.

49:45>> Okay, Mr. Alexander?

49:49>> Hi. Anybody hear me? Um, yeah, thank

49:52you, Mr. Chair. Um I I have um some

49:57issue with um the preamble part. Um as

50:01others have stated um I I don't think

50:04that um we need to um uh have this

50:09heightened uh um language and um you

50:14know combative kind of language um in

50:17this uh this uh ordinance. Um, I think

50:21everybody knows

50:23I mean everybody knows the reason why

50:27and I don't think we need to be

50:28advertising that even though I know it

50:31makes people uh it feels good, sounds

50:33good and everything, but um I I like to

50:37take temperature down a little bit and

50:39just focus on the issue at hand and

50:42that's the uh the license plate readers.

50:45Um so

50:48I I suggested it um you know

50:52um it's tough this is this is tough

50:56times and it's it's a it's a highwire

50:59balancing act uh and I know it it makes

51:02uh on one side it makes people feel um a

51:06little bit more secure and on the other

51:08hand it just frightens the hell out of

51:10everybody. Um and uh uh so it's um

51:17it's a hard um you know dice to swallow,

51:20but uh I think um we've heard enough

51:23from um our residents uh and we've seen

51:27um a lot of things on TV and in the

51:29press and um enough to um

51:32[clears throat] be extremely concerned

51:34about uh this type of technology. So, um

51:38I I'm reluctantly in favor of like of of

51:43uh this ban um

51:46because of uh some of the uh the things

51:48that it it can bring on the other side

51:51of the the coin um of finding um uh

51:56criminals and uh or or would be

51:59terrorists. Um so u but um I I

52:04understand um the people's fear. So, um,

52:07with that said, u, Mr. Chair, um, I

52:10that's all I wanted to say. Thank you,

52:11>> Mr. Chairman.

52:13>> Miss Malik, Miss Malik, Miss Bryant,

52:16you've already spoken twice, Miss Malik,

52:19>> thank you. Um,

52:22and thanks to the committee for the work

52:25and the due diligence.

52:28It feels a little ingenuine to me to say

52:31that been working on this for six

52:33months. I I feel like you've been

52:35working like the ordinance that came

52:38before us previously that really broke

52:41down data sharing or not like all of the

52:45details and restrictions on ALPR like

52:48that was really the substance of that

52:51that I feel like was workshopped for

52:53many months um in a very like

52:57substantive way whereas this

53:01respectfully feels like it sort of came

53:03together very quickly since then based

53:07on the conversations like rooted and

53:09grounded in the previous conversations

53:12but um

53:15but but but not so to me well let me

53:20also say that I do support banning ALPR

53:24technology in Framingham um and I also

53:28very much support a um deeper dive into

53:34um restricting some of the other

53:35automated technologies that are coming

53:37up. Not all technology.

53:40I agree body cameras are a good thing.

53:44Um but but I do think that in this day

53:47and age, I mean, I've asked the mayor

53:50previously like where's our AI policy? I

53:52know other municipalities, other school

53:54districts like what are we doing about

53:56AI? How's that being used? Like we got

53:59to get into that. Um, and you know, this

54:02doesn't get into that. It just gets into

54:04ALPRs, which again, I support banning.

54:07So, I think that sort of mass

54:09surveillance in,

54:11you know, there you can do cameras that

54:13are not AI cameras, right? Like there

54:17there are nuances to this. Um and so I

54:21think that um so supporting this and

54:25also supporting you know maybe step two

54:28if you will which we've heard the

54:31committee is intending to do so I feel

54:33good about that. Um, I want to build on

54:36what councelor Ward was referencing in

54:38terms of the reporting requirements and

54:41I definitely appreciate what councelor

54:43Stephanini was saying about like we

54:45don't have insight and we don't have

54:47those conversations now but I also want

54:50to say that we haven't to my knowledge

54:53maybe I'm wrong but as a council we

54:56haven't asked for that and I can tell

54:59you that I get monthly reports from the

55:02police department on arrests and the

55:04breakdown in my district. So, like I

55:08don't you know I I don't I think there

55:12needs to be more to this. Like we're not

55:14looking for the breakdown of arrests.

55:15Like breakdown of arrests, we could ask

55:17the police department and they would

55:18give it to us and likely they could give

55:20it to us even on a monthly basis. If

55:22they're producing it for my district on

55:23a monthly basis, I can't imagine that

55:25they wouldn't be able to produce it for

55:26the entire city on a monthly basis. Um

55:30so I would like so I was looking you

55:34know if it is about immigration then

55:36then that's the reports that we should

55:41be asking for and I don't know that the

55:43police because they're not doing civil

55:45immigration detainers like they're not

55:47going to have you know reports on that.

55:50It is the involvement with federal

55:52agencies. I think we could ask the, you

55:56know, maybe the detainer requests that

55:59they get from the federal government.

56:01Um,

56:03if there are folks that are transferred

56:06based on criminal

56:08um, charges, we could ask those types of

56:11things. But to me, this feels vague

56:15um, in its reporting requirements. And I

56:17guess I'm curious maybe for some

56:20feedback from the chief

56:23um in terms of what they can they can

56:27produce or not, you know. Um so I don't

56:31know if but I I agree that we should be

56:36having a conversation with our police

56:38chief on a regular basis about sort of

56:41what is happening from that safety

56:43perspective. I just I'm not convinced

56:46that this is going to be helpful because

56:50it's so vague. Um and

56:55yeah, I think that's all I have for now.

56:58>> Okay, Miss Brian, you've spoken twice.

57:01I'm going to let you speak for one

57:02minute a third time. Okay. And then I'm

57:04gonna let Mr. Stephanie wrap it up.

57:07>> All right. Because um I needed to

57:09correct something that was stated. So go

57:11ahead.

57:12>> I will just go ahead. So my basic issue

57:14is process about how um we did not the

57:19way it went is we had discussions about

57:22um immigration with ICE issues and we

57:25had it was two issues and then there was

57:27the um the cameras the fly cameras the

57:30banning um you know the surveillance

57:32technology all of that now um this final

57:36draft as with many of them I know

57:38councelor Stephanini has had he's had

57:40double the meetings that um myself and

57:44the public at our meetings have had

57:46because he met with the chief and other

57:48other or you know he he met with them

57:50first and then he brought stuff back to

57:52us. We all met, you know, they came to

57:54our meeting. So, we met like he's done

57:57to double the work and he put together

57:59this based on like some of the meetings,

58:02but we did not get to in a subcommittee

58:05meeting go over this final draft that

58:09before it went to the council line by

58:10line so that we could have input. It's

58:13not that I don't want it, but bra um

58:15councelor Ward, councelor Malik

58:19brought up the same concerns that I had

58:21and other people had. Too vague. And now

58:24the the public that wants the ban are

58:27concerned that they they they wanted a

58:30little they they just want it to be

58:34well done, you know, and and and do what

58:36it's supposed to do, but they're afraid

58:38if they don't because it was sent up to

58:40the council. um without them getting to

58:44really um have a say on this final draft

58:47before it went to the council that they

58:49have to say yes or there'll be no ban.

58:52But it can go back where we can have a

58:55meeting and we could have taken out or

58:57not taken out but edit it just a little

59:00bit um discussed these things and or and

59:03had people bring up the same issues that

59:06council ward council mal everybody

59:08brought.

59:09>> Okay, Miss Brian I said you could have a

59:10minute. So, I'm going to I'm going to do

59:13the council.

59:14>> Miss Brian, please. Miss Bryant, Miss

59:16Bryant,

59:17>> as a subcommittee,

59:19>> Brian,

59:19>> line by line.

59:20>> That's all.

59:21>> That really wasn't even new. It's what

59:23you said before, but

59:24>> it was new. It wasn't what I said.

59:25>> Whatever. So, uh, I'm going to I'm going

59:28to let Mr. Stephanie respond to several

59:30items brought up as I said I would as

59:32the chairman of the committee. Then I'm

59:34going to take 15 minutes of public

59:36input. Then we will vote on Miss Bryan's

59:39motion to send it back. And if that

59:41passes, that's what happens. If it

59:43doesn't pass, uh, we'll have a motion, I

59:46guess, to adopt it or adopt it as

59:48amended. So, Mr. Stephanie, then the

59:49audience and the vote.

59:51>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. uh a few

59:53responses, questions, comments

59:55starting [clears throat] first with the

59:58overall sort of philosophy and I agree

1:00:02with the chair's assessment that in most

1:00:05instances most of the things I have

1:00:07written presented gone forward we have

1:00:10tried to keep the national state

1:00:14political world legislative worlds out

1:00:17of our government unless and the

1:00:19exception to that rule has been unless

1:00:22impacts us directly. We have taken it up

1:00:25when it has impacted us directly and and

1:00:28we can all sit here [clears throat] and

1:00:30pretend based on our perspectives

1:00:32because our talking points are informed

1:00:34by that and you can hear it in people's

1:00:36voices. Whether you come from a more

1:00:38conservative or a more liberal

1:00:40perspective on the way you look at

1:00:41immigration doesn't really matter. in

1:00:45our community.

1:00:47I have personally seen I've personally

1:00:49talked with lots of people who have seen

1:00:52this is not a statistic. Nationally, 21%

1:00:55of the people that are stopped by ICE

1:00:58have some criminal problem issue

1:01:01history.

1:01:03Lots of these folks are American

1:01:05citizens, are people who have green

1:01:08cards, have legal status,

1:01:11have whatever they may be. And in our

1:01:14community, our nursing homes and elderly

1:01:16are suffering because of uh TPS policies

1:01:20and what that has meant to the

1:01:22availability of direct care workers. Our

1:01:25school system is down almost a thousand

1:01:27kids because of immigration policies and

1:01:31what they mean to our community. Our

1:01:33downtown businesses are down 40%

1:01:37and struggling because of this issue.

1:01:41construction and other issues have had

1:01:43problems with workforce issues and

1:01:46everything else. This isn't a small

1:01:47issue and I agree and understand that

1:01:51it's uncomfortable. It's uncomfortable

1:01:53for folks who have different

1:01:55philosophical beliefs.

1:01:57To me, this is very basic. This is about

1:02:00our churches, our businesses, our

1:02:02neighbors, my neighbors who are having

1:02:07very real interaction with people

1:02:10wearing masks who don't have training,

1:02:12who are picking people up from uh racial

1:02:15profiling and throwing them in the back

1:02:16of a car.

1:02:18>> And I'm sorry if it's offensive, Mr.

1:02:19Stephanie.

1:02:20>> I am I'm getting there.

1:02:21>> Well, let's get Mr.

1:02:21>> Chairman, I have the floor

1:02:23>> for a while. I have the floor which

1:02:24means under the rules I have the ability

1:02:26to the point I'm speaking to the point

1:02:28that you spoke to allow me to speak

1:02:30multiple time I I understand that but I

1:02:32was

1:02:33>> I'm addressing your comment Mr. Chairman

1:02:34>> I was speaking as a counselor you're

1:02:36speaking as the chairman of the

1:02:38committee and audience and rule that's

1:02:39correct that's why you're being allowed

1:02:40>> I'm explaining I'm explaining the where

1:02:43Mr. Chairman if you don't agree with

1:02:44what I'm saying don't censor it

1:02:46>> I am not censoring I don't disagree with

1:02:49>> Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the

1:02:52whereases which have been a big part of

1:02:53this which you raised as a topic and I

1:02:56wanted to explain why they are different

1:02:59and I know the politics of this can make

1:03:02people uncomfortable but these are our

1:03:04neighbors. These are our kids. These are

1:03:07our places of worship and the local

1:03:09statistics and data are an important

1:03:11part of differentiating this from

1:03:13national politics. a thousand kids from

1:03:16our school system, 40% of our local

1:03:18businesses, our places of worship where

1:03:21people people are fearful of. The

1:03:23gentleman who stood here was not from

1:03:25Kansas. He was from Framingham with a

1:03:28size two or three uh shoe explaining how

1:03:32he personally witnessed what had

1:03:34happened and how these people were in

1:03:37fear. That's why this is different. So

1:03:40great, if you support it, don't support

1:03:43it, that's fine. But let's be clear,

1:03:45this is a statement in support of our

1:03:47local immigrant community. And that's

1:03:49what this vote is about. It's

1:03:50intentional. So it's not random. It's

1:03:53not, you know, gee, we backed into this.

1:03:56These are intentional words that are

1:03:58dealing with the moment in time we're in

1:04:00and what it means for the community of

1:04:03Framingham, not Kansas. Couple of other

1:04:06issues.

1:04:10There's been a lot of questions around

1:04:12perfection.

1:04:14And we can um let the uh perfect be the

1:04:18enemy of the good.

1:04:21And we can use that as an excuse not to

1:04:22stand with our immigrant neighbors. And

1:04:25if that's the way people want to cover

1:04:27themselves, that's fine. I personally

1:04:30think this is a moment in time where we

1:04:32need to be counted and where we need to

1:04:34stand up for our neighbors. If the

1:04:36reporting requirements aren't perfect,

1:04:37they'll be corrected. But we haven't had

1:04:40a report from the police chief other

1:04:42than an episode in the last nine years.

1:04:45So, it seems to me starting somewhere

1:04:48gets us started, starts the

1:04:50conversation. And you're right, the data

1:04:52exists.

1:04:53So, we can manipulate and change that

1:04:56report as we go forward.

1:04:59Everyone does not know why.

1:05:04It needs to be said.

1:05:06It needs to be said what is going on in

1:05:08our community so that we stand with the

1:05:11folks who are there.

1:05:14The language that's in this ordinance is

1:05:16very straightforward. It's a

1:05:18straightforward ban on ALPR. It's a very

1:05:20straightforward ban on facial

1:05:22recognition technology and it require in

1:05:26addition to reporting requirements it

1:05:28sets up um and was clear in terms of the

1:05:32use of public resources by immigration

1:05:35customs and enforcement. I don't think

1:05:37that can be any clearer. Is it perfect?

1:05:40No. Does it cover every scenario? No. We

1:05:43got to go back and we got to deal with

1:05:45those things. But some of the simplicity

1:05:47of this is you know ban all technology

1:05:51whatever we don't even know what

1:05:53technology is being used. We don't know

1:05:54what technology is going to be used and

1:05:57we certainly know that some of that

1:05:59technology is userfriendly like body

1:06:02cameras like dash cams like the dot

1:06:05cameras that exist and yes that video

1:06:08can be translated into AI once the data

1:06:11is created it can be used for all kinds

1:06:14of other issues. So, we do need to be

1:06:16sensitive to these things, but we need

1:06:18to think through and balance this police

1:06:21public safety back and forth. I hope

1:06:25that the ordinance is adopted and that

1:06:27we do not send this back to the

1:06:29committee. And yes, we have spent six

1:06:30months talking about immigration and

1:06:32enforcement and police and all of these

1:06:35different issues. This is a different

1:06:37take on it, but it's a different take on

1:06:39it because the times and it was a

1:06:42counselor. the council suggested that it

1:06:44come back for something like this, which

1:06:47is why I decided to take an approach

1:06:50other than the more nuanced approach,

1:06:52which was the first iteration of this.

1:06:54Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1:06:56>> I'm going to take a point of personal

1:06:57privilege here because you stated you

1:06:59respond to what I said. So, I don't I

1:07:01don't think you understood what I said.

1:07:04I take great offense to the idea that if

1:07:08we don't support putting this

1:07:10rhetoricfilled preamble in front of a

1:07:13license plate reader ordinance that we

1:07:16are somehow not supporting our immigrant

1:07:18community. That's just not right. I

1:07:21think it was before I don't really

1:07:23understand how the two issues have

1:07:25married themselves together as they

1:07:28have. It's actually

1:07:31shocking to me that the fury and energy

1:07:34you're supporting this tonight where two

1:07:36weeks ago you had to be convinced

1:07:39not to support a a ordinance that I

1:07:42think would have still done many of the

1:07:44things that you're now railing against.

1:07:46So I'm not even sure philosophically

1:07:47what you state because last week's

1:07:49ordinance was quite permissive and you

1:07:52were advocating for that quite strongly

1:07:54and I think all the issues you have

1:07:56concerning now in the immigrant

1:07:57community weren't reflected two weeks

1:07:59ago. So so for you to jump into that

1:08:02position and suddenly tell anybody who

1:08:05may be opposed to the preamble

1:08:08I think is unfair. I think that you know

1:08:10we all can talk about that subject. It's

1:08:13a different subject. I see this as a

1:08:15subject about automated license plate

1:08:17readers and I will say you know I don't

1:08:20talk about it much but I certainly

1:08:22understand the issue of immigration

1:08:25immigration enforcement and the impacts

1:08:27on people on a daily basis. I have

1:08:30clients who are impacted by this issue.

1:08:32I have been personally in the middle of

1:08:34a situation where where an ice raid for

1:08:38a better lack of a better term where we

1:08:41were walking out of a co house and there

1:08:42are four black vehicles surrounded us

1:08:44and took my client. It's not pleasant.

1:08:47It's frightening.

1:08:49And I knew with relative assurance that

1:08:53those cars when they were pulling around

1:08:54me weren't coming for me.

1:08:57And it was still frightening. So I

1:08:59understand that.

1:09:01But we can't

1:09:05we can't regulate everything here. We

1:09:08can say things. We can do things. We can

1:09:10be community leaders. That's what we

1:09:11are. But if we want to talk about

1:09:13license plate reader ordinance, that's

1:09:15fine. But I don't want to be judging

1:09:18other people's positions on immigration

1:09:20and immigration enforcement or any of

1:09:22those things because that's not fair and

1:09:25has nothing to do with a license plate

1:09:26reading. All right. I'm going to go to

1:09:28the audience. I said I would for 15

1:09:30minutes. So you have to be resident of

1:09:32Framingham. Um how many people would

1:09:34like to speak?

1:09:35>> One, two, three, four. So everybody can

1:09:38everybody resident of five. Everybody

1:09:40resident. Okay.

1:09:41>> Six.

1:09:42>> Six. Okay. So give everybody two and a

1:09:44half minutes. So six people you can come

1:09:48up state your name and address. You have

1:09:49two and a half minutes. Thank you.

1:09:52>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kate Merido, 205

1:09:55Surro Drive, Framingham

1:09:57District Council Area 3. whatever the

1:10:00hell that is. Excuse me. Pardon me.

1:10:04[laughter]

1:10:05With all due respect, Mr. Stephanie, I

1:10:08ask that you do not speak on the council

1:10:11on our coalition's behalf. We did not

1:10:14make any statements that we were willing

1:10:16to go on record in the subcommittee that

1:10:19says that you gives you the opportunity

1:10:21to repeat them here. We did not make in

1:10:24those statements.

1:10:27Second,

1:10:30we're unaware of any formal dialogue

1:10:32with the immigrant community, most

1:10:35likely due to the fact that we don't

1:10:37provide translation for them. How can

1:10:40they participate without this

1:10:41translation? We all have emotional

1:10:45connections to this. The immigrant

1:10:48community deserves to have a separate

1:10:52standalone ordinance addressing their

1:10:55unique needs.

1:10:57An APLR license document addresses

1:11:00everybody. Everybody has first amendment

1:11:03and fourth amendment things in jeopardy

1:11:06with license plate readers. Immigration

1:11:09does not belong in this policy in my

1:11:11opinion.

1:11:13We had asked that they be separated.

1:11:16They were not in the subcommittee and we

1:11:18were unaware of the whereas statements.

1:11:21Those never came by the residents for

1:11:24what it's worth. Points seven and nine

1:11:27in the original document that was

1:11:29submitted previously are not even

1:11:32anywhere to be found which we have

1:11:34tremendous concern that we are not fully

1:11:38addressing immigrants needs separate of

1:11:42a ban of surveillance technology.

1:11:47And let's see

1:11:50and just as a point of clarification a

1:11:53question was about 287gs. 287gs do not

1:11:56provide provisions for funding

1:11:58reimbursement. It is a separate act

1:12:00which the number is escaping me right

1:12:02now. 287s just provide a provision as to

1:12:06whether the police department will

1:12:08provide allowed their deputy their

1:12:11officers to be deputized to act as ICE

1:12:13officers. Thank you.

1:12:14>> Thank you. Next,

1:12:18Andrew. Two and a half minutes.

1:12:21>> Good evening, Andrew, resident of

1:12:23district 2. I think as offered, the

1:12:25ordinance is better than nothing.

1:12:27However, it reads more as something that

1:12:29is uh written for the year 2021 than for

1:12:32today. Councilors were recently made

1:12:35aware of requirements for when an

1:12:36emergency ordinance can be introduced

1:12:38and passed. And I think it's warranted

1:12:40to presume that all surveillance

1:12:43technology that's out there is bad until

1:12:46proven otherwise and an emergency

1:12:48ordinance banning all surveillance

1:12:50technology perhaps with a carveout for

1:12:51body cameras perhaps not until after

1:12:54further discussion may be warranted.

1:12:57Furthermore, the attached report

1:12:59attributed to the subcommittee is

1:13:00questionable at best and should be

1:13:02rejected. Earlier this year, Chief Baker

1:13:05and Deputy Chief Riley answered

1:13:06questions from the public, as we all

1:13:09know. When asked about ways to verify

1:13:12whether police requests from other

1:13:14agencies are legitimate, he just said

1:13:16that they presume that they are. Um,

1:13:19however, yesterday, reporting from the

1:13:21Electronic Fountain Foundation found

1:13:23that across numerous jurisdictions in

1:13:25many different states, that is far from

1:13:27the case. For example, uh officers

1:13:30searching through camera networks had

1:13:32written the following as their reason

1:13:33for justifying a multi-jurisdictional

1:13:35search. Quote, "Idk

1:13:39blah

1:13:40sexy lmao in all caps. Weird kid in all

1:13:45caps. Robbery, I don't remember the case

1:13:48number. Leave me alone." along with many

1:13:50variations on a keyboard matching theme.

1:13:53The EFF piece continues when law

1:13:55enforcement and tech salespeople pitch

1:13:58uh ALPRs to city councils. They stick to

1:14:00a familiar script. Um and then later on,

1:14:04but when you strip away the carefully

1:14:05curated talking points, the data

1:14:07continues to reveal a different and

1:14:08frankly ridiculous story. Instead of

1:14:11treating the chief and deputy chief as

1:14:14biased salespeople for a technology that

1:14:16they had covertly deployed against

1:14:18residents and non-residents alike for

1:14:19many years, they were permitted to share

1:14:22anecdotal evidence as justification for

1:14:24why mass surveillance is in fact

1:14:27beneficial that were included in the

1:14:29subcommittee report. Of course, when

1:14:31everyone is under perpetual

1:14:32surveillance, sometimes you know who

1:14:34committed certain crimes. However, that

1:14:36is not an environment in which anyone

1:14:38wishes to live, and it would be

1:14:39shameful, especially in the context of

1:14:41the 250th anniversary of this country's

1:14:44founding.

1:14:46Also, as this council has been already

1:14:48told in a past meeting, there's little

1:14:50correlation between an increase in

1:14:51surveillance and a reduction in crime.

1:14:54Um, the report also quotes Commonwealth

1:14:56versus McCarthy in an effort to downplay

1:14:59concerns about surveillance tech, as was

1:15:01mentioned on multiple occasions,

1:15:03including by your time is up. Okay.

1:15:05Sorry.

1:15:06>> All right. Um,

1:15:08>> Andrew, your time is up. I'm sorry.

1:15:10Next.

1:15:18>> Hey. Um, I'm Lee from District 1. I

1:15:23wanted my voice to be heard in saying

1:15:25that I believe personally that the

1:15:27preamble is optional. I agree with a lot

1:15:30of the points raised about divisive

1:15:34language, even though I personally agree

1:15:36with a lot of the whereas statements.

1:15:38Um, and I think a lot of that goes to

1:15:40the history of how this ordinance got

1:15:42here and disentangling it from um,

1:15:46another ordinance that was discussed and

1:15:48a lot of parts of the ordinance that

1:15:49were separated out that um, were more

1:15:52about protecting the immigrant community

1:15:54and figuring out exactly how to do that.

1:15:57and um Stephanie and the rest of the

1:16:01subcommittee, I wanted to thank you for

1:16:03continuing to discuss that and agreeing

1:16:06to continue to discuss that with all of

1:16:08the coalition members. Um but I think

1:16:11that the substance of the bill is or the

1:16:14substance of the ordinance is very

1:16:16important. I'm very happy to hear the

1:16:18support for um the ban on ALPRs. I think

1:16:22that that speaks for itself in a lot of

1:16:24ways. And I think that to address the

1:16:29concern of shortness, um I think

1:16:31sometimes a good ordinance can be like

1:16:34good poetry. Sometimes shorter is better

1:16:38where uh [clears throat] comprehensive

1:16:40definition and a clear statement of

1:16:45disallowing something is all that's

1:16:47needed. Um, and I'm happy that that's

1:16:50what we're presented with today is a

1:16:51straightforward ban on ALPRs. So, I look

1:16:54forward to continuing discussions about

1:16:57how flock cameras were allowed to be put

1:17:00up in the community in the first place

1:17:02when there's this kind of support on the

1:17:05council and in the community for having

1:17:08them removed and banned outright and a

1:17:11discussion on maybe how we can continue

1:17:13to survey new technologies and prevent

1:17:16ones that lack this kind of support from

1:17:19being put up and then questioned later

1:17:21instead of

1:17:23um or preventing that from being the

1:17:25status quo of being put up and then

1:17:27questioned later and maybe questioning

1:17:30them before and then preventing the

1:17:34headache of removal afterwards. Thank

1:17:36you all.

1:17:37>> We got three more people who asked to

1:17:38speak. Are you still wanting to speak?

1:17:42Can you please state your address, your

1:17:44name and address when you come up here,

1:17:45please?

1:17:47>> Do you need address or is district okay?

1:17:49>> No address. Uh Bobby Eley, 14 Burgatti

1:17:52Terrace, District 1. Um I wanted to

1:17:57speak to the

1:18:00surveillance um which many many people

1:18:02have said here,

1:18:04it doesn't matter who is president at

1:18:07the time, surveillance is unacceptable.

1:18:09I don't care if it's Biden. I don't care

1:18:11who is there. Um it goes against our

1:18:15rights and it doesn't help anyone. Um,

1:18:20on this point, the hit and run that was

1:18:22brought up earlier, there were no

1:18:25cameras on that street, Lexington.

1:18:27So, there's a very high likelihood that

1:18:29cameras would not have caught that. Um,

1:18:32and I think to the point uh that was

1:18:35brought up earlier that the only way to

1:18:37catch everything is to have a camera

1:18:39everywhere. And it's just not feasible.

1:18:42So, saying that we would have these

1:18:44cameras here would help us catch

1:18:46something is not true.

1:18:49And on top of that, from what I

1:18:51understand, there was no license plate

1:18:52for this hit and run either. So, it was

1:18:55a matter of searching for a description

1:18:57of a car, which cameras are not

1:19:00guaranteed to help with either. Um, the

1:19:04immigration piece is very important. Um

1:19:08I know personally that

1:19:12it it's affecting everyone um immigrant

1:19:15or not but

1:19:19and that needs to be spoken to as well

1:19:21but ALPRs and the surveillance tech is

1:19:24not um it it doesn't matter who's in

1:19:27power and who is controlling ICE at that

1:19:30point. Um and they need to be separated

1:19:33into two things. Those are my main

1:19:34points. Thank you.

1:19:36>> Thank you. Two more people.

1:19:48>> I'm Ladybug. I live in District 9. I

1:19:50don't feel comfortable giving my address

1:19:52for safety reasons.

1:19:54>> Um, I have commentary on the ordinance

1:19:57itself, like about how it could be more

1:20:00thorough and in-depth. Um, proposed like

1:20:02language replacements. Um, I have like a

1:20:05recommended definition for automatic

1:20:07license plate recognition system, ALPR

1:20:09data, remote biometric surveillance

1:20:11system, remote biometric surveillance

1:20:13data. city develop the prohibitions that

1:20:16no city department officer, employee,

1:20:18agent or contractor shall acquire,

1:20:19purchase, lease, subscribe to, accept,

1:20:21test, borrow, install, operate, or

1:20:23maintain an ALPR system or remote

1:20:25biometric surveillance system, collect,

1:20:27generate, access, search, query,

1:20:28request, receive, purchase, retain,

1:20:30analyze, disclose, disseminate, or use

1:20:32ALPR data or remote biometric

1:20:34surveillance data. Request or direct

1:20:36another person, agency, task force,

1:20:38fusion center, or private entity to

1:20:39perform an action prohibited by the

1:20:40subsection on the city's behalf. Access

1:20:42such a system or data through another

1:20:44agency's account, vendor network, trial

1:20:46account, personal account, task force

1:20:48assignment, or informal request. Upload

1:20:50city data including plate numbers,

1:20:51photographs, audio, video, body, one

1:20:53camera recordings, or information

1:20:54concerning any known or unknown person

1:20:56to such a system. Enter into or renew

1:20:58any contract memorandum of understanding

1:20:59mutual aid agreement, data sharing

1:21:01agreement, or any other arrangement

1:21:02authorizing any prohibited activity or

1:21:04use information derived from a

1:21:06prohibited system or search as a basis

1:21:08for an investigation, stop, detention,

1:21:09search, arrest, citation, prosecution,

1:21:11referral, intelligence, product, or

1:21:13other governmental action. And that this

1:21:15prohibition applies regardless of

1:21:17whether the system or data is owned,

1:21:18hosted, controlled by the city or by a

1:21:20public or private third party. And

1:21:22regardless of whether access is provided

1:21:23without charge. Um further on incidental

1:21:26damages um existing data in agreements

1:21:29that within 30 days of the date um that

1:21:32all the data shall be deleted at the

1:21:34earliest time permitted by applicable

1:21:35records retention law. I also then have

1:21:38comments on item five um proposing more

1:21:42>> 30 seconds left. Okay.

1:21:43>> Okay. I have 10 points on to how like

1:21:46more reporting how that could be like

1:21:48more in depth. So like I have actual

1:21:49like issues with the um um proposed

1:21:52ordinance as the things are written. I

1:21:54think that they could be more thorough

1:21:55and transparent and clear. Um the

1:21:59reporting would refer like yeah as was

1:22:01stated earlier by uh councelor Malik um

1:22:04to actually for the police to know what

1:22:06they're reporting on and I'd be happy to

1:22:08share those amendments but I would also

1:22:10like this to refer back to be more

1:22:11deeply um evolved.

1:22:14>> Thank you. And last person who wanted to

1:22:16speak still there want to speak?

1:22:18Yes. Thank you. State your name and

1:22:20address.

1:22:22you have uh two and a half minutes.

1:22:24Thank you.

1:22:25>> Hi folks, my name is Leela. Um I'm in

1:22:27District 7 in downtown Framingham. Um

1:22:29I'm also the co-director of a nonprofit

1:22:31in Framingham. Um I started this

1:22:33morning.

1:22:34>> We do we do require addresses. I if

1:22:37people feel unsafe I I guess you know

1:22:39I'm not going to push it but we really I

1:22:41should be asking for addresses. So even

1:22:44if it's a street can you tell us where

1:22:45you live in frame?

1:22:46>> Congress street.

1:22:46>> Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, I started

1:22:49this morning responding to three

1:22:51detentions in Framingham. Um, and that

1:22:53was a profiling of a work van. Uh, I

1:22:55have there's no known criminal that that

1:22:57was present. Um, and that's what's

1:22:59happening in Framingham. Uh, there are

1:23:01variety of ways that this could be

1:23:03strengthened. What I'm hearing from

1:23:04immigrant members of our community is

1:23:06wanting real protections. Um, folks are

1:23:08not really reading city council

1:23:10ordinances, but would love for their

1:23:12lives to be safer. Um, I'm really glad

1:23:14that the council's taken up this issue

1:23:15and I would love for this to be as

1:23:17strong as possible before it becomes

1:23:18finalized. Um, there are a couple

1:23:21recommendations that I could share, but

1:23:22one kind of would be to ban town

1:23:24officials um, employees, officers from

1:23:27circumventing the intentions of this by,

1:23:29for example, um, requesting another

1:23:31agency or person to query ALPR data um,

1:23:33on their behalf. Um, I have personally

1:23:36spoken to a resident who was released

1:23:38from police custody through the back

1:23:39door instead of the front door where

1:23:40they should be released, straight into

1:23:42ICE's hands. Um, and I would love to see

1:23:43data on that. So, I think there could be

1:23:45ways that um, the data we're requesting

1:23:47could be enumerated. Um, as a former

1:23:49local elector who has initiated data

1:23:52reporting from two different police

1:23:53departments, um, it's remarkably

1:23:54difficult to retroactively get more

1:23:56information. So, I would love for things

1:23:58to be as strong as possible before it's

1:23:59finalized. Um, and I guess last, I'll

1:24:02just end with by saying that I'm happy

1:24:04to make myself available for future

1:24:05conversations. Um, the folks who've been

1:24:06emailing about this issue have my

1:24:08contact information. Um so please reach

1:24:10out if you'd love to better understand

1:24:11the devastation that has been happening

1:24:13for Frammingham residents um resulting

1:24:15from surveillance and immigration

1:24:16enforcement in Framingham.

1:24:18>> Thank you very much. Okay, we're going

1:24:19to take a vote on the Mr.

1:24:22>> I don't know if the friendly amendment

1:24:23or we can do an amendment but um can can

1:24:26we change it the preamble just talk

1:24:28about the present administration or do

1:24:29something so we can I know we need

1:24:31>> right now the motion not motion's on the

1:24:33table the motion on the table is to send

1:24:34back. So, okay. So, you want

1:24:36>> So, right now there's no amendment to be

1:24:38made.

1:24:40>> Okay. So, Mr. Cannon, is there

1:24:42>> Yeah, I have a friendly amendment if

1:24:43it's all right.

1:24:44>> So, the motion on the table.

1:24:45>> The motion is to send it back, right?

1:24:47That's correct.

1:24:47>> Yes, it is part of it.

1:24:48>> Okay. Thank you.

1:24:49>> Um if it's okay with Miss Bryant. Uh, I

1:24:52would like the city solicitor to weigh

1:24:53in um on section one six, which

1:24:58restricts

1:25:00um use of things like city property by

1:25:04the use of federal uh law enforcement. I

1:25:07don't believe we have the purview to do

1:25:08that. Um I'd like

1:25:11>> Okay. Is that an acceptable amendment,

1:25:12Miss Bryant?

1:25:14>> Yes.

1:25:15>> Okay. All right. With that,

1:25:17>> wait, what number was it, though? You

1:25:18said um one

1:25:19>> can I finish the point though?

1:25:21>> Well, I'm not I'm not taking any more

1:25:23speech. We're only taking amendments.

1:25:25So, I mean, in fairness, I say I cut it

1:25:28off. So,

1:25:28>> okay, that's fine.

1:25:30>> I mean, if you just want to spend 15

1:25:32seconds explain what what you're trying

1:25:33to do, if that's what you're trying to I

1:25:34don't that's fine, but I I don't want a

1:25:36another debate.

1:25:38>> That that was my goal

1:25:40>> to explain why I'm making these briefly.

1:25:42>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um

1:25:44>> could I just get the number again?

1:25:45Sorry.

1:25:46>> I was going to give it.

1:25:47>> Yes. Section 16, use of public

1:25:49resources, funds, equipment, personnel.

1:25:50It's the it's the property piece. I

1:25:53don't know that we can tell federal law

1:25:54enforcement not to be on in essence

1:25:57public property. I also would like the

1:25:59committee to discuss uh is that wise

1:26:02when Boston and other communities have

1:26:04did have done that, it kind of put a

1:26:05target on their back which seems

1:26:07antithetical. I do also want to

1:26:09appreciate uh want to thank the

1:26:11committee for the work. This is a 180

1:26:13from what was proposed by the

1:26:14subcommittee uh a few weeks ago and and

1:26:16I appreciate the all the work that's uh

1:26:18gone into that.

1:26:19>> Okay. So that's just for the council for

1:26:21the solicitor to weigh in, right?

1:26:23>> Yes.

1:26:23>> Okay. All right. So right now we're

1:26:26taking the on the motion to refer back

1:26:30to the committee. It starts with Miss

1:26:32Malik.

1:26:34>> Yes.

1:26:34>> Mr. Stephanie?

1:26:35>> No.

1:26:36>> Miss Bryant?

1:26:38>> Yes.

1:26:38>> Myself? Yes. Mr. Leo?

1:26:40>> Yes. Miss Long,

1:26:42>> yes.

1:26:43>> Mr. Ward,

1:26:44>> no.

1:26:44>> Miss Feny,

1:26:45>> no.

1:26:46>> Mr. Cannon,

1:26:47>> yes.

1:26:48>> Mr. Alexander,

1:26:49>> yes.

1:26:50>> Mr. Aviani,

1:26:51>> yes.

1:26:51>> Eight in favor, three opposed. It's

1:26:53referred back.

1:26:54>> Thank you.

1:26:55>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you all and thank

1:26:57you for staying with your time limits

1:26:58and stating your address. I appreciate

1:27:00it. Um,

1:27:02>> next up, upon request of council Malik,

1:27:04referral the rules, ordinance, and

1:27:05ethics club committee establishment of

1:27:07council leaison positions. Um, I guess

1:27:09that's referred unless there's a

1:27:10question.

1:27:12Upon request of the chief financial

1:27:13officer, referral of the finance

1:27:15subcommittee consideration of the

1:27:16reauthorization the opioid opioid

1:27:18stabilization fund unless there's an

1:27:20object.

1:27:20>> Mr. Chairman,

1:27:21>> yep.

1:27:22>> I would ask that we add to that. I'd

1:27:24like to ask a question first if I could

1:27:26of this of the uh CFO. You had said to

1:27:29us during the finance committee meetings

1:27:30that these funds required annual

1:27:33authorization, not just this one, but

1:27:35all of those particular funds that we

1:27:37had put in our ordinance. Do you stand

1:27:39by that? Because we have not

1:27:41reauthorized it and if we need to, we

1:27:43should include all of those as well.

1:27:50>> Sorry. Uh through you, Mr. Chair. So I

1:27:52think we're referring to two different

1:27:54things. This is a stabilization fund

1:27:56that you had that the council had

1:27:57adopted um and specifically put a

1:28:00three-year stat limitation under chapter

1:28:0340 section 5B which requires a minimum

1:28:05of 3 years for adoption. That is

1:28:08different than the revolving funds which

1:28:10are on an annual basis to reauthorize

1:28:12the spending limits and the city

1:28:14solicitor is currently working on an

1:28:16ordinance to clearly define which ones

1:28:19have already been approved. and we will

1:28:21be coming back shortly with a request to

1:28:24adopt the ordinance for the approved

1:28:26um revolving funds because she can't

1:28:28find that it's been updated and then

1:28:31also with a request to authorize the

1:28:33spending limits retroactive to July 1st.

1:28:35So these are two different things.

1:28:37>> So two follow-ups on that. First on the

1:28:40issue of the revolving funds when you

1:28:41come back as we requested at the finance

1:28:43committee what we've spent that money on

1:28:45over the last year and [snorts] what

1:28:48we're going to spend it on for the year

1:28:49ahead. Same with the um

1:28:53opioid stabilization. What have we spent

1:28:55the money on over the last year? What

1:28:57are we going to spend it on over three

1:29:00years or a year ahead?

1:29:01>> So through you, Mr. Chair. So when we

1:29:03come back when we go to the finance

1:29:04subcommittee with this we plan on

1:29:06presenting what we've received to date

1:29:08what's been appropriated or approved for

1:29:10spending what we have spent and how much

1:29:12is left actually in the stabilization to

1:29:14be that could be appropriated for the um

1:29:18any anything in conjunction with what

1:29:21the settlements were for with those

1:29:23respective companies and we would do the

1:29:25same with the revolving funds once I

1:29:27finalized the work with the city

1:29:29solicitor.

1:29:30>> Okay. Okay.

1:29:30>> Thank you. So, it's referred unless

1:29:32there's anything else. Very good. Um,

1:29:35just a couple of things on the council

1:29:36chair report. On September 8th, we

1:29:38received an email from the council

1:29:40office. Everybody should have got a copy

1:29:42of it from the Department of

1:29:43Environmental Protection Waterways

1:29:45Regulation Program regarding an NStar

1:29:47application for it's in district 9. So,

1:29:50the public comment deadline is September

1:29:5228th for anybody who is interested

1:29:56[clears throat] or concerned about that.

1:29:58Um so see that email you got on 98 for

1:30:01more information. Um reports of

1:30:04subcommittees. Any subcommittee have a

1:30:05report? Seeing none.

1:30:08>> Um

1:30:09>> seeing one.

1:30:11>> It's not a subcommittee but just to say

1:30:13that the youth council subcommittees

1:30:15have started meeting as well. Um and

1:30:18they are actually really interested in

1:30:21talking about AI and abuse and misuse of

1:30:24AI.

1:30:25>> Cool. That's fun. and reports of

1:30:27counselors. So, go around the table,

1:30:30start my left, Miss Mall, you have

1:30:31anything?

1:30:32>> Um, I would like to thank um the

1:30:36volunteers who are out in the community

1:30:39on a regular basis documenting the

1:30:42disappearance of our neighbors on a

1:30:44regular basis.

1:30:47>> Yes. Uh so, um on Thursday, I'll be back

1:30:49at the farmers market for office hours.

1:30:51I'll be there from 3:30 to 6. I'll be

1:30:53under the blue tent by Kona Ice. What a

1:30:56great location. Um I had about 30 people

1:30:59out last time. Let's try to beat that

1:31:00number. That would be great. Um and come

1:31:02on by. It was really great conversation.

1:31:05Uh another thing I'd like to share is

1:31:06that the Framingham Garden Club is

1:31:08holding their flower show, which is the

1:31:10first time they've done it in 26 years.

1:31:12And it is right on the line of beautiful

1:31:15district 3 and beautiful district 6 at

1:31:17Village Hall. And uh it's tomorrow from

1:31:202 to 4 and Thursday 11 to 6:30. And

1:31:24don't forget, I hear all the time about

1:31:26how do we support our small businesses

1:31:27and downtown and our immigrants. Come

1:31:30downtown on Saturday. It's the business

1:31:32expo and uh it will be a great time.

1:31:36>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um

1:31:39uh I guess I I should mention the

1:31:41Copenville Tripley Neighborhood

1:31:42Association, which covers the a big

1:31:44chunk of District 8, is having its

1:31:47monthly meeting next Monday night at

1:31:506:30 p.m. at the Bari Elementary School.

1:31:52the focus is on education. Uh we'll hear

1:31:54an update and discussion with the

1:31:56superintendent. If folks are interested,

1:31:58join us.

1:32:00>> Okay.

1:32:00>> Anybody over here have anything? Okay.

1:32:03Uh Miss Bryant and then we will be done.

1:32:06>> I simply um there's a lot and I just um

1:32:09advise that people check out all of the

1:32:12happenings in Framingham uh right now

1:32:14going on. Uh, but I would ask that um

1:32:18once we before we close that we take a

1:32:20moment of silence for the family of Bana

1:32:24Connelly, a young woman who was um

1:32:27murdered um uh on Waly Street uh

1:32:31recently.

1:32:33>> Okay. Have a moment of silence, please.

1:32:42>> Thank you, Miss Bright.

1:32:44Move to adjurnn, Mr. Chairman.

1:32:46>> Okay. All those in favor on my left,

1:32:48Miss Malik.

1:32:50>> Yes.

1:32:51>> Yes.

1:32:51>> Yes.

1:32:52>> Yes.

1:32:53>> Yes.

1:32:54>> M Mr. Canon.

1:32:55>> Yes. Yes.

1:32:57Mr.

1:32:58>> Yeah.

1:32:58>> Miss Bryant.

1:33:00>> Yes.

1:33:00>> M. Long.

1:33:01>> Yes.

1:33:02>> Mr. Alexander.

1:33:03>> Big Longhorn. Yes.

1:33:06>> Good work on the Longhorn. Saturday

1:33:07night. It was close for a while. It

1:33:09didn't look good for a while.

1:33:10>> Pulled it off at the end.

1:33:12>> Steaky horns. Heat.

1:33:16[music]

1:33:28[music]

1:33:32Heat.

1:33:39>> [music]