►
Description
Docket #0312 - Message and ordinance amending the City of Boston Code, Ordinances, Chapter XVI, regarding targeted residential picketing
A
This
document
sponsored
by
the
mayor
in
accordance
with
chapter
22,
of
the
acts
of
2022,
modifying
certain
requirements
of
the
open
meeting
law
and
relieving
public
bodies
of
certain
requirements,
including
the
requirement
that
political,
that
public
bodies
relieving
public
bodies
of
certain
requirements,
including
the
requirement
that
public
bodies
conduct
its
meetings
in
a
public
place
that
is
open
and
physically
accessible
to
the
public.
The
city
council
will
be
conducting
this
working
session
remotely.
A
This
enables
the
city
council
to
carry
out
its
responsibilities,
while
ensuring
public
access
to
deliberations
through
adequate
alternative
means.
This
the
public
may
watch
this
working
session
via
live
stream
at
www.boston.gov
city
council
tv
and
on
xfinity
8
rcn
82,
verizon
964..
It
will
also
be
rebroadcasted
at
a
later
date.
Written
comments
may
be
sent
to
the
committee
email
at
ccc.go
go
at
boston.gov
and
will
be
made
a
part
of
the
record
and
available
to
all
counselors.
Since
this
is
a
working
session,
there
will
not
be
a
public
comment
period.
A
The
purpose
of
this
working
session
will
be
for
counselors
to
review
the
specific
language
of
the
docket
and
to
address
issues
and
questions
that
arose
from
the
hearing.
This
afternoon
I
am
joined
by
my
council
colleagues,
counselors
aaron
murphy
counselor,
michael
flaherty,
counselor
kendra,
lara
counselor,
tanya
fernandez,
anderson
counselor,
brian
morrell.
A
We
are
also
joined
by
members
of
the
administration
chief
milor
from
the
office
of
community
engagement
attorney,
adam
cederbaum,
corporation
counsel,
from
the
law
department
attorney,
rob
archangel,
arkanselli
arkham
helle.
Hopefully
you
can
correct
that
when
I
get
to
you
assistant
corporation
counsel,
from
the
law
department
and
superintendent
gerard
bailey
from
the
police
department's
bureau
of
field
services,
the
committee
helped
me.
A
And
as
councilmember
has
let
you
know,
council
mejia
is
here
as
well.
The
committee
held
a
hearing
on
this
matter
on
march
14th
2022.
This
proposal
would
prohibit
targeted
residential,
picketing
directed
towards
a
particular
residence
during
certain
hours.
All
other
ordinances
and
statutes
would
apply,
including
laws
regarding
excessive
noise,
disturbing
police
and
blocking
streets
and
sidewalks.
The
provisions
of
this
proposal
would
be
enforced
by
the
boston
police
department,
also
known
as
bpd.
A
The
violators
would
be
subject
to
fines
of
increasing
amounts
based
upon
the
number
of
offenses.
The
committee
discussed
the
letter
from
corporation
council
adam
cederbaum
who's
here
today,
which
stated
that
the
proposed
ordinance
serves
as
a
reasonable
time
placed
a
manner
restriction
on
speech
that
is,
content
neutral
and
narrowly
tailored
to
achieve
a
significant
government
interest
of
protecting
the
privacy
of
individuals
in
their
homes,
while
allowing
for
ample
alternative
channels
of
communication.
A
The
letters
cited
the
frisbee
v
schultz
decision,
where
the
united
states
supreme
court
upheld
a
similar
town,
ordinance
prohibiting
picketing
targeted
at
a
particular
residence.
The
committee
discussed
the
legal
standard
of
narrowly
tailored
to
serve
a
significant
governmental
interest
and
discuss
the
balance
of
individuals,
rights
to
protest
and
individuals,
rights
to
privacy
in
their
homes.
Counselors
also
expressed
concern
with
having
enforcement
by
bpd
and
concerned
about
disproportionate
impact
on
certain
groups
on
equal
enforcement
and
over
policing
of
black
and
brown
communities.
A
Counselors
inquired
about
the
enforcement
and
applicability
of
current
ordinances
report
regarding
noise
and
disturbing
the
peace
and
discussed,
including
a
sunset
clause,
which
I,
as
the
chair,
actually
opposed
for
legal
purposes.
But
the
committee
heard
public
testimony
at
the
hearing
with
reflective
support
of
in
opposition
to
the
ordinance
comments
supporting
the
ordinance
expressed
support
because
of
quality
of
life.
Issues.
Comments
against
the
ordinance
are
posted
on
the
basis
that
it
violates
the
freedom
of
speech
rights
and
their
right
to
protest.
A
The
number
of
attorneys
within
the
law
department,
their
responsibilities
and
their
salaries,
as
well
as
the
amount
of
money
spent
on
contacting
contracting
outside
legal
counsel
and
whether
a
stay
away
order
would
be
a
more
effective
punitive
measure
rather
than
fines
before
I
turn
it
over
to
my
council
colleagues,
I'd
like
to
read
a
letter
of
absence
from
counselor
back
into
the
record.
Dear
chair
royal,
please
excuse
my
absence
from
today's
working
session
regarding
targeted
residential
picketing.
A
I
believe
the
mayor's
proposal
is
a
reasonable
in
the
tradition
of
narrowly
tailored
and
evenly
applied
time
place
and
manner,
restrictions
that
the
supreme
court
has
upheld
as
fully
compatible
with
the
first
amendment.
Furthermore,
I
believe
it's
limited
limited
penalties
will
ensure
that,
like
our
existing
noise
ordinance,
its
enforcement
remains
squarely
in
the
civil
rather
than
criminal
realm.
I
want
to
reiterate
my
concern
about
any
sunset
provision,
as
I
believe
it
would
run
a
file
of
the
content,
mutual
intent
of
the
ordinance.
A
I
regret
that
a
long
scheduled
absence
from
the
city
this
afternoon
prevents
me
from
attending
this
session,
but
I
will
review
the
tapes
and
follow
up
with
any
questions
or
concerns.
Thank
you,
counselor,
kenzie,
bach
and
now,
by
order
of
arrival.
I
will
turn
it
over
to
my
council's
colleagues
for
some
brief
opening
remarks
or
any
language
changes
that
would
like
to
see.
A
I
would
also
like
to
note
that
we've
been
joined
by
counselor
rusi
louis
jen
and
council
presidents,
ed
flynn,
I'm
gonna
begin
our
speaking
order
and
word
of
arrival.
So
that's
counselor,
aaron
murphy,
followed
by
counselor
michael
flaherty,
followed
by
counselor
lara,
so
counselor
aaron
murphy.
The
floor
is
yours.
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
counselor
arroyo
and
you
did
a
great
job
summarizing
our
first
session.
So
all
those
questions,
I'm
hoping
we
get
answered
in
this
meeting
and
I
do
want
to
thank
brianna
malloy.
You
were
on
our
at
our
meeting
last
time,
so
thank
you
for
coming
back
and
being
there
the
first
time,
but
also
on
adam
c
de
bomb
rob
and
from
the
police
department
officer
bailey.
Thank
you
for
being
here
and
I'm
just
looking
forward
to
getting
answers
to.
You
know
the
questions
we
have
and
thank
you
very
much.
E
Thank
you,
chair
for
holding
this
working
session.
My
typical
script
to
follow
during
a
hearing
would
be
to
thank
everyone
who's
here,
and
so
I
will
extend
my
gratitude
for
the
administration
and
the
folks
from
the
bottom
police
department
who
are
attending,
and
typically
I
would
share
my
excitement
to
be
in
conversation
with
my
colleagues
about
any
specific
issue.
But
the
truth
is
that
I'm
not
excited
to
be
here.
E
It's
not
lost
on
me
the
impact
that
these
protests
are
having
on
mayor
wu
and,
most
recently
on
councilor
arroyo's
family,
but
I
think
that
we
have
an
obvious
problem
that
I
don't
think
this
is
the
solution
to,
and
my
hope
is
that
we
can
make
some
changes
that
will
lessen
the
harm
that
this
ordinance
could
cause
in
the
future.
So
I
look
forward
to
getting
answers
to
some
of
our
questions.
A
B
A
F
Good
afternoon
mr
chair
I'd
like
to
thank
everyone,
who's
here,
panelists
and
public
or
community
members
who
are
here
to
offer
more.
I
respect.
I
just
wanted
to
express
my
respect
for
my
colleague
councillor
for
taking
her
position,
and
this
is
an
example,
although
she
may
need
more
time
or
feels
we
need
more
time,
but
it
is
an
example
of
where
we
can
disagree
and
work
through
it,
and
hopefully
that
we
hear
both
sides
and
are
able
to
work
through
this
working
session
without
rushing
anything.
F
F
G
B
H
I
I
I
I
I
wanted
to
highlight
the
the
protesting
out
out
front
of
elected
officials
homes,
but
especially
outside
of
the
home
of
of
the
mayor.
I
think
I
think
that's
beyond
protesting.
I
think
it's.
I
think
it's
certainly
harassment
and
in
trying
to
intimidate,
intimidate
an
elected
official
to
to
support
a
particular
issue
and
not
support
a
particular
issue
through
through
harassment
and
in
in
this.
I
I
I
I
respect
my
colleagues
decision
that
they
may
not
agree
with
me,
but
I
think
there's
an
opportunity
for
us
to
come
to
some
common
ground
in
compromise
on
this,
but
I
also
know
that
these
these
protests
should
not
be
used
as
an
opportunity
to
intimidate
an
elected
official,
because
what
what
signal
does
that
say
to
a
young
mother
or
a
young
father
that
want
to
someday
run
for
run
for
public
office?
That
this
is
the
way
we
treat
elected
officials
by
harassing
them
and
harassing
their
their
children
and
neighbors,
especially
the
neighbors?
I
A
You
councillor
flynn,
and
I
just
wanna-
do
a
quick
before
I
kick
it
over
to
the
administration.
I
just
want
to
summarize
what
is
before
us.
The
ordinance
would
limit
the
ability
to
engage
in
targeted
picketing
of
a
residence
between
nine
pm
and
nine
am
targeted,
picketing
means
picketing,
protesting
or
demonstrating
directed
towards
a
specific
resonance.
A
This
ordinance
would
work
in
addition
to
existing
laws
around
excessive
noise,
disturbing
the
police
and
blocking
the
sidewalks
violation
of
the
ordinance
would
result
in
a
fine
of
100
for
a
first
offense
200
for
the
second
offense
and
300
for
a
third
or
or
next
offense.
The
ordinance
would
be
enforced
by
the
boston
police
department,
and
with
that
I
want
to
go
to
our
administration.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
an
order
that
you
would
like
to
go
in,
but
the
floor
is
yours.
J
J
As
we
learned
in
the
initial
hearing
that
I
was
able
to
attend
and
from
the
public
testimony
and
the
concerns
of
our
neighbors,
this
ordinance
is
necessary
and
crucial
to
safeguard
the
quality
of
life
of
all
of
our
constituents.
I
look
forward
to
working
collaboratively
collaboratively
with
the
city
council
and
the
members
of
the
community
to
really
support
to
agree
on
supportive
language
that
will
protect
the
health
and
well-being
of
all
of
our
residents
against
targeted,
picketing
and
target,
while
preserving
the
right
to.
Thank
you.
K
L
Chair
arroyo,
all
the
other
counselors
good
afternoon.
My
name
is
robert
arcangeli.
I
am
an
assistant
corporation
council
in
the
city
law
department
in
the
session.
I
hope
I
am
able
to
provide
some
further
clarity
on
the
legal
analysis
that
was
provided
by
corporation
council
in
his
letter
on
march
14th,
and
I
hope
I'm
able
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have
to
the
extent
that
I'm
able
to.
M
Good
afternoon
council
royal
canal
good
afternoon,
everyone,
my
name-
is
girard
bailey,
I'm
a
superintendent
with
the
boston
police
department
in
charge
of
the
bureau
of
field
services.
I
appreciate
the
invitation
to
participate
in
the
support
and
discussion.
The
palestine
police
department
supports
all
efforts
to
keep
our
neighbors
safe,
comfortable
places
to
live,
while
preserving
all
citizens
right
to
peaceful
protests.
M
The
officers
of
the
boston
police
department
approach
all
complaints
of
excessive
noise,
regardless
of
whether
they
originate
from
a
protest,
a
house
body
or
other
gathering
with
the
attempt
to
dis,
de-escalate
negotiate
and
gain
compliance,
citations
and
criminal.
Summonses
and
arrests
are
only
used
as
a
last
resort.
Again,
I
look
forward
to
this
conversation
and
thank
you,
council,
royale.
A
Thank
you
for
being
with
us,
superintendent,
bailey,
and
so
with
that
I'm
gonna
just
jump
right
into
the
actual
ordinance
itself.
It's
not
very
large,
and
so
I
will
read
it
in
full
and
then
we
can
go
in
order
of
folks
who
have
edits
or
questions
about
this
specific
thing
or
any
other
questions
and
we'll
do
that
in
order
of
arrival.
A
For
the
purpose
of
this
section,
targeted,
residential,
picketing
means
picketing,
protesting
or
demonstrating,
with
or
without
signs
that
is
specifically
directed
towards
a
particular
residence
or
one
or
more
occupants
of
the
residence
and
which
takes
place
before
or
about
the
targeted
residence.
Those
engaged
in
targeted
residential
picketing
between
the
hours
of
nine
am
and
nine
pm
remain
subject
to
all
other
ordinances
and
statues,
including,
but
not
limited
to
laws
concerning
excessive
noise,
disturbing
the
peace
and
blocking
of
the
streets
and
sidewalks.
A
Any
violation
of
this
section
shall
be
punishable
by
a
fine
of
100
dollars
for
the
first
offense
200.
For
the
second
offense
and
300
for
any
third
in
subsequent
offense-
and
this
section
shall
be
enforced
by
the
boston
police
department,
that
is
all
of
the
language,
and
so
with
that
I'm
happy
to
go
in
order
of
a
rival
or
an
order
of
hands.
A
I
know
counselor,
flaherty
and
counselor
lara
have
questions
about
language,
I'm
not
sure
if
other
colleagues
do,
but
I
I
will
do
this
in
order
of
arrival.
If
you
don't
have
a
question
at
this
time,
you
can
simply
just
say
next
time
around
I'll
come
back
around
or
or
we
can
try
and
make
this
as
organic
as
possible,
but
counselor
murphy
that
would
place
you
first.
C
Thank
you
quick
question.
It
may
come
out
in
different
questions
that
get
answered,
but
if
this
isn't
specifically
protesting
like
how
has
this
behavior
crossed
the
line
and
is
there
any
behavior
that
is
already
happening
at
the
house
of
the
mayor
that
could
be
offensible,
so
maybe
officer
bailey?
Is
there
any
behavior
that
we
could
already
be
arresting,
or
you
know,
giving
fines
to
the
protesters
now.
M
M
We
we
just
started
to.
We
contacted
west
rochester
court
about
the
noise
violations,
and
that
is
something
that
we
set
up
on
monday
and
we
have
notified
protesters
about
the
noise
ordinance
and
we
can
set
up
hearings
out
there
in
conjunction
with
west
rochester
district
court,
which
we
started
on
monday.
However,
we
had
we
had
not
to
issue
any
citations
this
past
week
as
a
result
of
that
council,
murphy,
okay,.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I'm
sort
of
on
the
same
lines
as
councilman
murphy's
inquiry.
There's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
regarding
the
noise
ordinance,
particularly
from
the
hearing,
and
why
the
ordinance
has
or
has
not
been
enforced.
Can
someone,
maybe
it's
superintendent
bailey.
Can
someone
explain
the
decimals
that
would
merit
enforcement
in
the
in
the
zoning
area
and
there
are
varying
zoning
areas
across
the
city
and
whether
or
not
whether
it's
the
sub
districts
etc?
D
With
those
decimals
change,
that's
the
first
one
and
then
the
second
piece
is
do
does
bpd
and
or
isd.
Do
they
keep
a
record
of
the
noise
complaints
and
noise
violations
and
or
any
other
sort
of
clear
data
that
gives
us
a
sense
as
to
how
many
noise
violation
calls
or
requests
we
get
and
that
you
guys
need
to
enforce
each
year?
M
9-1-1
calls,
they
are
tracked,
I
believe
council
flaherty,
but
as
far
as
a
protest
coming
from
a
protest,
I
don't
know
if
we
track
noise
violations
coming
from
a
protest
or
similar
events,
but
clearly
for
like
a
loud
party
disturbance,
type
of
thing.
I
believe
we
do
track
them,
but,
as
far
as
I
have
my
knowledge,
there's
been
no.
No
one's
cited
for
noise
violation
of
any
first
amendment
protected
event,
protests
in
2021.
E
Okay,
thank
you.
So
some
of
my
colleagues
have
already
made
comments
about
these
not
being
protests
but
in
fact,
being
targeted
harassment
and
we
do
have
a
law
in
the
state
against
targeted
harassment
that,
at
least
to
me
when
I
read
it,
is
very
obvious
that
is
what's
happening
at
the
mayor's
house
and
everybody
else's
house,
and
so
and
just
for
the
record
I'll
read
what
the
the
state
law
says.
E
K
E
N
M
Yeah
council
royal
her
harassment
again,
if
it's
probable
cause
that
we
we
can,
that
shows
that
willfully
violating
and
targeting
harassment
again,
I
believe
it's
a
series
of
three
different
events
in
order
to
constitute
the
harassment,
but
again
our
our
stand
on
any
type
of
approach.
Protest,
particularly
with
first
amendment
issues.
Ma'am
we've
had
a
long
history
of
using
discretion
and
de-escalation
to
manage
situations
in
all
our
boston
neighborhoods,
including
protests
and
demonstrations.
E
Thank
you,
and
I
appreciate
that,
and
I
think
that
that
approach
should
be
maintained,
and
I
think
that
10
weeks
of
what
we've
seen
of
singing
happy
birthday,
hitler
outside
of
the
mayor's
house
and
following
her
while
she's
walking
her
kids
to
school
and
showing
up
at
people's
homes
goes
beyond
what
you're
referencing
in
terms
of
the
first
amendment
in
protest
right.
So
I
I
think
that
that
is
the
approach
that
we
should
take,
and
I
want
to
maintain
that
approach
in
terms
of
de-escalation.
M
Well,
the
incident
you're
referring
to
ma'am,
I
believe
as
well.
The
male
was
walking
to
walking
dinner
children's
school
and
they
they
fall
down
the
street.
There
was
approximately
five
to
six
officers
in
between
the
two
two
parties,
the
mayor
and
the
protesters,
and
again
her
public.
Her
safety
is
paramount
to
us
and
her
children
as
well
as
the
neighbors,
and
we
we
had
her
protected
that
day.
Ma'am.
E
Thank
you.
I
really
appreciate
you
affirming
that
the
mayor
was
protected
and
being
cared
for
and
the
individual
still
took
the
action,
and
so
you
know
given
what
we're
having
here
we're
you
know.
We
already
have
ordinances
against
excessive
noise,
disturbing
the
peace
blocking
world
and
sidewalks,
all
of
which
we
have
talked
about
here.
They've
also
violated
all
of
those
ordinances.
E
It's
very
clear
that
the
length
of
the
state
law
shows
that
they
are
guilty
of
criminal
harassment,
or
at
least
could
be
brought
in
for
for
criminal
harassment,
and
so
how
have
any
of
these
been
enforced
in
the
past
10
weeks?
Or
do
you
know
how
many
citations
have
been
handed
down,
because
at
this
point
you
know
the
mayor
is
protected,
but
the
mayor
is
one
person,
and
these
folks
are
having
an
impact
on,
like,
like
chief
miller,
said
on
the
community
and
they're,
not
just
harassing
the
mayor.
M
M
Again,
ma'am
they've
heard
the
mayor's
safety.
Her
children
are
paramount
to
us
and
and
if,
if
the
mayor,
I
believe
you
know
if
this
ordinance
is,
you
know
initiated
for
for
her
safety
or
her
house
the
targeting
if
she,
if
the
mayor,
chose
to
file
her
harassment
order,
the
mayor
could
do
that
and
we
could
cite
the
three.
You
know
three
incidents
that
she
felt
that
she
was
threatened
and
I
believe
her
attorneys
could
apply
for
a
harassment
order.
So
the
city,
my
attorneys,
might
want
to
answer
that.
A
A
I
think
when
you're
talking
about
young
children
being
screamed
at
and
yelled
at
and
having
their
parents
screamed
at
and
yelled
that
on
the
way
to
school,
there
is
a
certainly
an
emotional
in
mental
attack
that
is
happening
there,
whether
or
not
they
are
physically
being
harmed,
they're,
certainly
emotionally
being
harmed,
and
I
think
the
question
that
I
certainly
have
had
watching
these
videos
is,
you
know
I
appreciate
and,
and
frankly
I'm
proud
that
we
are
attempting
to
de-escalate
and
divert.
That
is
work
that
I
commend.
A
But
I
also
think
there
comes
a
time
where
we
we
see
lines
crossed
and
for
me,
children
fit
that
line
pretty
pretty
astutely,
and
so,
when
we're
talking
about
a
harassment
order
being
the
mayor's
job
to
to
bring
one
forward
for
you
to
enforce
it.
Could
a
neighbor
bring
one
forward
as
well,
since
they
are
also
sort
of
being
disturbed
in
this
way,
they're
being
sort
of
having
their
piece
disrupted
and
being
targeted
in
the
neighborhood?
M
Council
royal,
I
agree
with
you
about
the
children.
You
know.
That's,
you
know,
that's
taken
a
step
too
far.
You
know
with
the
children.
I
agree
with
you
as
far
as
the
neighbor
filing
harassment
in
this
ordinance
that
I'm
reading
it's
it's
targeting.
So
I
don't
know
if
they're,
actually
targeting
them
council
royal
would
be
able
to
do
that.
But
I'm
sure
one
of
the
attorneys
from
the
city
might
be
able
to
answer
that,
but
again
they're
targeting
your
house,
but
I
live
beside
you.
A
A
E
A
Thank
you
and
we'll
certainly
come
back
to
them
for
language
as
well
on
on
when
we
get
to
the
ordinance
part
of
this,
I
want
to
give
counselor
edwards,
who
didn't
get
a
chance
to
open
to
give
an
opening
and
then
I'll
go
back
to
the
line
of
questioning
and
and
you'll
be
added
to
the
counselor
edwards.
If
you're
ready
now.
F
Thank
you.
I
guess
I
just
want
to
you
know
understand
we
we're
here
essentially
to
to
talk
about
picketing,
but
then
we're
also
making
it
clear
that
this
is
not.
This
is
not
just
a
protest.
It's
turned
into
harassment
so
that
we're
clear
that
if
this
is
not
violating
the
first
amendment
rights,
then
we're
talking
about
harassment,
and
I
think
that
will
guide
the
direction
in
which
which
we
go
in
terms
of
the
purpose
for
this
hearing.
F
F
You
know
when
you're
working
with
the
mayor
or
when
there's
detail
assigned
to
the
mayor,
the
mayor
that
there
are
levels
of
this
thing
right
where
sometimes
we
can
just
do
a
little
bit
more
so
that
people
can
feel
protected
and
so
that
the
people
doing
their
harassing
understand
that
there
is
there
are
boundaries
set
and-
and
I-
and
I
just
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there,
because
we're
talking
about
a
woman
taking
her
children
to
school.
We're
talking
about
a
woman
of
color
taking
her
children
to
school,
then
we're
talking
about.
F
F
If
she's.
If
she's
traumatized
to
this
magnitude
where,
when
there
are
details
signed
to
her-
and
she
does
not
feel
that
she's
particular
that
their
harassers
don't
understand
that
there's
clear
boundaries,
then
I
guess
I'm
having
a
hard
time
understanding
that-
and
I
just
want
to
bring
that
out,
because
there
are
human
dynamics
at
play,
that
we
don't
necessarily
talk
about
when
we're
talking
about
breaking
laws
right.
And
so
what
about
that?
F
I
think
for
the
superintendent,
if
he,
if
you
know
I
want
to
communicate
this
to
the
superintendent
or
to
the
boston
police
department,
if
you
can
imagine
that
this
was
your
mother
or
sister
or
wife
or
daughter,
they're,
again
again,
I'm
just
trying
to
see
if
people
can
understand
that,
there's
more
than
just
you
know,
different
steps
that
we
can
take
in
order
to
for
us
not
to
be
harassed
or
feel
harassed
or
follow
the
law.
I
think
there
are
again
relationships.
F
How
do
we
have
communications,
or
do
we
need
to
sit
down
with
the
boston
police
department?
How
are
we
actually
executing
that
and
the
things
again
the
things
that
we
are
not
necessarily
talking
about
right
now
that
I
can
imagine
if
I
was
in
her
shoes,
I
would
be
feeling
if
I
don't
feel
protected
or
if
that
continues,
or
if
people
don't
feel
understand.
Clearly
that
there's
a
boundary
how
those
things
are
not
being
communicated.
A
Thank
you
counselors,
and
I
just
do
want
to
note.
We've
spent
some
time
here
discussing,
I
think,
rightfully
so,
mayor
wu
and
what
is
happening
at
her
home,
but
this
is
not
isolated
to
her
home
and
her
neighbors.
This
has
happened
to
now
councillor
flynn,
who
does
not
have
the
luxury
of
the
detail
to
my
own
mother,
who
has
never
held
elected
office
and
certainly
does
not
have
the
luxury
of
a
detail
into
myself.
A
But
I
I
do
think
when
we're
getting
to
a
point
where
it's
you
know:
happy
birthday,
hitler
and
your
evil
and
and
the
the
things
that
we're
talking
about
being
yelled
out
in
residential
neighborhoods.
That
folks
have
a
right
to
peace
in
in
those
neighborhoods.
And
so
I
guess
the
question
is:
why
has
bpd
decided
not
to
write
or
cite
noise
ordinances
here?
I
know
they
were.
There
was
drumming
at
my
mother's
home.
A
I
know
that
when
we
get
to
our
my
district,
where,
where
mayor
wu
lives,
there's
been
sort
of
banging
of
of
noise
and
and
lately
there's
been
an
attempt
to
try
and
keep
that
from
happening.
I
know
in
my
home
there
were
whistles
in
banging,
and
so
the
question
is
what
what
has
led
to,
for
instance,
the
enforcement
of
a
noise
ordinance
for
a
party,
but
not
the
enforcement
of
a
noise
ordinance
for
essentially
a
a
protest
in
front
of
someone's
home
at
seven
in
the
morning.
A
M
M
As
far
as
the
criminal
harassment
we
would
arrest.
If
we
have
problems
cause
to
do
that.
As
far
as
the
noise,
it's
not
it's
not
an
informal.
It's
not
a
rule.
Council
royal,
like
I
said
to
you
earlier
the
first
amendment,
the
protest.
It's
a
very
delicate
balance.
We're
trying
to
weigh
the
protesters
first,
amendment
rights
and
the
people
they're
protesting
against
as
far
as
the
noise
at
any
type
of
protest
any
protected.
First
amendment
protected
event,
whether
it's
a
protest
or
march
in
front
of
the
mayor's
house
we
haven't
decided.
M
Like
I
said
we
start,
captain
greeley
is
out
in
e5
out
in
west
roxbury,
he
coordinated
with
west
roxbury
court
and,
as
as
of
monday
they're
going
to
do
noise
ordinances.
There
was
people
out
there.
I
believe
on
thursday
or
wednesday.
Excuse
me,
and
there
was
a
sergeant
out.
There
explained
it
that
noise
ordinance
to
them
and
they
didn't
have
any
noise
devices
with
them
again.
M
Our
position
has
been
in
it
and
it's
you
know.
It's
been
like
that
for
a
number
of
years
is
de-escalation
diversion
negotiation
for
people
to
comply,
people
haven't
been
blocking,
sidewalks
people
have
been
moving
back
again.
The
noise
violation
again
is
going
to
be
in
effect,
it
is
in
effect,
and
there
hasn't
been
any
noise
violations
or
citations
for
that
matter.
For
any
event,
first
amendment
event
leading
up
to
today.
F
A
B
Yeah,
no,
I'm
so
glad
that
we're
talking
about
what
I
always
say
is
the
elephant
in
the
room
like
we're
really
talking
about.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
there
is
a
level
of
disregard
for
the
harassment
that
has
been
going
on
for
10
weeks
right
in
terms
of
what
the
what
this
conversation
is
and
really
about
the
accountability
in
terms
of
who
and
what
we're
choosing
to
uphold
right
and
the
fact
that
we're
now
thinking
about
a
poor
up
holding.
B
B
But
I
do
think
that
there's
an
opportunity
for
us
to
really
also
look
at
and
while
I
appreciate
adam's
comments
in
terms
of
not
being
able
to
provide
residents
any
legal
counsel-
and
I
totally
understand
that.
But
we
also
have
to
be
super
mindful
of
the
unintended
consequence
and
the
residual
trauma
and
the
vicarious
trauma
that
the
neighbors
are
experiencing
right.
B
So
if
we
are
seriously
understanding
that
we
represent
700
000
constituents,
their
mental
and
social
and
emotional
well-being
should
be
something
that
the
city
is
also
held
accountable
to,
because
it's
not
just
about
marijuana
as
councilor
stated
and
other
elected
officials.
It's
really
the
surrounding
neighbors,
and
I
think
that
we
have
a
responsibility
and
an
opportunity
to
really
lean
into
this
conversation
and
I'm
just
incredibly
curious
about
the
who
and
and
what
we're
choosing
to
uphold.
Because
if,
if
it's
targeted
harassment,
it's
going
beyond
targeted
picketing.
B
A
M
No
problem
council
roy
again
our
position
on
this
first
amendment
issue
has
been
discretion:
de-escalation
and
having
people
comply.
As
far
as
I
know,
the
other
counselor
mentioned
the
mayor's
safety.
I've
talked
to
the
mayor
personally,
chief
long
talks
to
the
mayor.
We've
talked
to
her
dignitary
protection
group.
B
B
I'm
asking
about
in
terms
of
I'm
talking
specifically
about
why
weren't
citations
around
the
noise
ordinance,
knowing
that
there
was
the
issue
of
of
quality
of
life
and
that
already
this
ordinance
exists
in
the
city.
Why
won't
we
adhering
to
it
and
I'm
also
curious
if
we
are
about
making
sure
that
permissible
cause
or
whatever
it
was
that
we
you
mentioned
earlier,
I'm
just
a
little
bit
confused
as
to
if
we
know
that
this
is
being
targeted
and
it's
targeted
harassment.
B
Why?
Why
wasn't
it
addressed?
Because
I
do
believe
that
to
counselor
tanya
anderson's
point
in
terms
of
just
human
dynamics
is
that
if
you
can
get
away
with
something
you're
going
to
and
and
and
they
had
been
given
permission,
if
you
will
for
the
last
10
weeks
to
get
away
with
it
for
that
long?
So
I'm
just
curious
as
to
why
weren't
we
upholding
existing
ordinances
to
protect
the
mayor.
B
M
B
In
terms
of
why
I
just
want
to
know
10
for
10
weeks,
we've
allowed
folks
right
to
violate
the
noise
ordinance.
That's
in
place
for
10
weeks
right,
we've
allowed
folks
to
targeted
harassment.
So
I'm
curious
what
level
of
communication
and
protocols
were
put
in
place
to
help
address
the
bad
behavior
of
the
protesters.
A
M
I
thank
you,
council
royale.
As
far
as
what
steps
we
have
taken
like
I
said
earlier,
we
have
put
additional
offices
out
there
from
various
different
districts
out
at
the
mayor's
house.
When
she's
leaving
the
house,
we
have
used
de-escalation
tactics
out
there.
We
have
spoken
to
the
mayor
and
spoken
to
her
dignitary
protection.
M
We
actually
put
that
ordinance.
In
effect
it
doesn't
happen
every
day.
Council
mejia,
the
people
don't
show
up
there
every
day.
I
know
it's
been
going
on
for
10
weeks
in
the
past
two
weeks.
I
think
it's
only
been
three
times
one
or
two
people
have
been
out
there:
they're,
not
always
playing
drums
they're,
not
always
whistling
again.
M
There
was
a
sergeant
out
there
on
thursday
told
them
about
the
noise
ordnance
and
they
didn't
play
any.
They
didn't
use
any
devices,
so
we
we
decided
to
do
it
on
monday
and
after
the
captain
arranged
it
with
wes
rashbury.
Could
that
was
put
in
effect
as
far
as
the
harassment
that
is
being
talked
about
in
this
ordinance
and
again,
if
this
ordinance
passes
we'll
use
this
as
another
tool
in
our
toolbox
and
we'll
use
a
discretion
to
you
know
in
de-escalation
and
this
as
well.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
sergeant
and
I
know
we
keep
going
back
to
the
same
questions
and
we
really
do
appreciate
your
patience
and
answering
them
and,
and
they
come
in
all
different
forms,
so
appreciate
that
this
question
is
specifically
for
rob
or
adam
right.
You
know
the
city
council,
we
we
see
ourselves
as
the
the
financial
stewards
of
the
city,
and
you
know
I
know
you
guys
are
always
yielding
lawsuits
from
all
different
spaces
and
places,
and
so
I'm
curious.
B
B
If,
if
people
you
know
begin
to
say
that
now
their
their
their
well-being
is
not
being
protected
by
the
city
is
there
is
there
a
way
where
we
can
potentially
end
up
being
sued
by
those
neighbors
and
will
that
will
move
us
to
act
differently
and
and
ricardo
also
is
a
great
translator.
So
he
usually
understands
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at.
So
if
there
is
any
need
for
translation
from
a
legal.
G
A
K
K
I
do
not
see
the
primary
potential
cost
as
being
legal
liability
to
the
city,
but
I
do
not
think
that
just
because
I
don't
see
an
immediate
path
to
sort
of
legal
monetary
liability
that
it
doesn't
mean
that
the
sort
of
social
and
psychic
and
quality
of
life
costs
that
you
identified
aren't
real
and
that
that's
not.
That
is
the
important
work
of
I
think
our
city
and
in
this
body
in
this
government,
and
just
because
I
don't
see
a
immediate
path.
K
M
M
B
Have
to
go
to
work
and
if
you
are
a
remote
worker
that
that
will
impact
your
ability
to
also
function.
So
I
just
kind
of
want
to
name
that,
and
although
this
might
not
be
the
topic
of
conversation
in
terms
of
the
unintended
consequences
that
it
goes
beyond
the
targeted
people,
but
just
how
it
it
spills
over
to
the
larger
community-
and
I
just
kind
of
want
to
uplift
that
here
in
this
conversation.
A
Thank
you,
counselor
mejia,
and
so
on.
This
first
pass
through
we're
gonna.
Do
these
we'll
continue
the
questions
on
the
second
pass
through
it'll
be
a
show
of
hands
and
an
order
of
hands
for
language.
If
folks
have
language
changes,
they'd
like
to
make
so
in
order,
so
folks
can
be
prepared.
It's
going
to
be
counselor
louis
jen,
followed
by
council
president
flynn,
followed
by
councillor
edwards,
so
counselor
louisiana.
H
I
think
it
was
superintendent
bailey-
and
you
may
have
already
answered
this,
but
just
to
ask
to
be
very
clear-
and
this
is
going
to
probably
require
input
from
the
law
department,
but
there's
no
legal
difference
between
the
source
of
the
noise
in
terms
of
enforcement
of
the
unreasonable
noise
ordinance
under
the
city
right.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
there's
no
legal
difference
between
the
source
of
the
noise
in
terms
of
enforcement
under
city
law.
K
I
can
say
sort
of
simply
that
your
description
of
our
various
noise
ordinances
and
there's
probably
a
few
that
are
relevant
but
they're,
all
sort
of
in
chapter
16,
section
26
of
the
code
yeah.
I
I
would.
I
would
say
that
description
is
absolutely
accurate.
It
always
describes
it
in
terms
of
amount
of
noise
or
decibels.
It
does
not.
With
a
few.
There
are
some
specific
sections
that
sort
of
talk
about
specific
types
of
amplification
devices,
and
things
like
that.
A
M
I
once
particular
days,
ma'am
they've
asked
to
put
whistles
away
drums
and
things
of
that
nature.
Again.
70
decibels
is
not
much
more
than
a
con,
a
little
louder
than
a
conversation
ma'am.
So
without
measuring
it
personally
out
there,
I
could
only
speculate,
but
there
have
been
other
noise
devices
up
out
there
and
if
it's
70
decibels
there's
not
much
over
a
normal
conversation,
I
would
say
yes.
H
Yeah
and
yeah
I
mean
I,
I
speak
loudly
and
I
often
violate
that.
I
could
easily
violate
that.
So
I
can
see
how
people
together
that
are
congregating
are
habitually,
can
be
violating
that
decibel
requirement,
and
then
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
give
us
example
of
any
citations
or
citations
made
in
the
last
10
weeks
or
that
you're
familiar
with
that
have
violated
this
unreasonable
noise
provision
not
connected
to
the
mayor's
home.
M
Not
connected
to
the
mayor's
old
man,
I
I
have
no
knowledge
at
20
and
since
last
year,
up
until
this
year,
I
have
no
personal
knowledge
of
anyone
being
any
person
being
cited
for
a
noise
violation
at
any
type
of
first
amendment
protected
events,
whether
it's
a
protest
at
the
mayor's
house,
a
protest,
a
march
somewhere
else
ma'am.
I
I
personally
cannot
think
of
one
person
that
was
cited
for
a
noise
violation.
H
Yeah
I
appreciate
that
answer
superintendent,
but
you
see
how
that
connects
to
the
first
question
in
that,
if
the
unreasonable
noise
issue
is
unrelated
to
the
type
you
know
it's
unrelated
to
whether
it's
a
first
amendment
protest
or
a
party
right,
I'm.
So
I'm
actually
talking
about
more
generally
citations
for
violations
of
the
unreasonable
noise
ordinance,
not
necessarily
related
to
the
first
amendment.
M
H
H
And
then,
but,
and
so
then,
I
think
this
is
a
more
targeted
question
to
you
as
well,
because
you
know
even
how
you
answer
that
question
in
terms
of
no
citations
related
to
first
amendment.
It
seems
as
though,
although
not
written
anywhere
required,
that
there
is
differential
treatment
in
terms
of
the
source
of
the
noise
by
your
department.
So
we
tend
to
offer
more
leniency
to
when
someone
is.
You
know
when
the
source
of
the
noise
is
related
to
someone's
first
amendment
right
is
that
right?
Is
that
correct
from
you
from
your
department.
H
M
I
don't,
I
don't
think,
there's
many
noise
citations
any
at
any
process
or
event
like
I
said,
as
far
as
if
we
wrote
any
mem
and
not
to
treat
anything
differently,
we
don't
treat
anything
differently,
but
the
only
time
I
think
there
has
been
some
written.
It
says
something
to
do
with
a
bar
or
over
loud
noise
at
two
or
one
o'clock
in
the
morning.
Something
like
that.
H
H
I
really
appreciate
that
data.
Thank
you
and
then
just.
Lastly,
I'm
just
you
know
trying
to
also
make
sure
that
we
are
being
very
intentional
about
the
language
that
is
currently
in
the
ordinance.
The
third
question
is
examples
of
recent
citations
or
arrests
made
for
blocking
sidewalks
and
streets,
also
within
the
similar
time
frames,
just
so
that
we
can
offer
so
that
we
can
have
a
good
comparative
lens.
H
I
10
weeks
for
the
purpose
of
this
conversation
I
think,
is
helpful
because
for
that
comparative
lens,
but
potentially
there's
nothing
in
the
last
10
weeks.
So
if
you
could
also
extend
the
request
back
for
a
year,
that
would
be
helpful
too,
so
both
10
weeks
and
a
year,
because
again
this
shouldn't
be
about
any
singular
individual.
This
is
about
you
know,
protest
and
actions
in
general
and
so
to
ensure
that
that
is
the
case.
I
think
a
wider
lens
here
would
be
helpful.
Thank
you.
I
I
I
It's
trying
to
hurt
her
and
her
family
and
her
neighbors,
and
we
have
to.
We
can't
lose
focus
on
that
that
this
vindictiveness
of
of
harassment-
I
don't
even
call
it
protesting.
This-
is
harassment,
it's
intentional
and
it's
it's
meant
to
cause
pain
and
cause
harm
to
the
mayor
and
into
her
family,
and
that's
that's.
The
troubling
part
is:
is
these
protesters
want
to
hurt
her
personally
and
they
want
to
hurt
her
family
and
they
don't
the
protesters,
don't
care
about
the
neighbors,
many
of
them.
Many
of
them
are
seniors
one
of
them.
I
One
of
the
gentlemen
is
a
world
war
ii
veteran
someone
else.
Someone
else
supported
various
military
exercises
overseas,
there's
little
children.
So
these
these
protesters
don't
care
about
anybody
at
all,
but
themselves-
and
you
know
they
intentionally-
want
to
hurt
the
mayor.
So
I'm
I'm
frustrated
with
this
conversation.
I'm
going
to
be
honest,
I'm
frustrated
because
I
don't
want
us
to
lose
sight
of
the
fact
that
this
is
intentional
and
it's
it's
trying
to
cause
pain
in
in
hurt
in
in
a
woman
of
color.
That's
that's
our
mayor.
I
That
represents
the
people
of
boston.
So
that's
that's
how
I
feel
about
this
about
this
issue
and
just
want
to
say
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
for
your
important
work
on
this.
I
respect
the
work
you
are
doing.
Let
me
just
let
me
just
ask
one
question,
and
this
is
to
adam
and
adam.
If
you
could
give
me
a
direct
answer,
you've
watched
the
videos
like
I've
watched
the
videos.
I
Have
you
seen
anything
on
those
videos
that
you
found
in
violation
of
any
civil
statute
or
a
criminal
statue
as
well
in
in
in
and
and
just
be
direct
with
me?
So
you
know
so
I
can
so
I
can
understand
it.
What
was
there
anything
that
you
saw?
That's
that's
a
violation
or
no,
that
there
wasn't
a
violation.
K
I
I
I
need
you
guys
to
to
to
spend
30
minutes
this
weekend
and
take
a
look
at
the
videos
and
and
tell
us
what
you
see
in
the
videos
is
if
there
is
any
violation
as
as
as
a
professional
lawyer
or
someone
that
is
skilled
in
the
law,
but
you
you
can't,
really
engage
in
this
conversation.
Unless
you
see
the
videos
and
know
most
people
in
the
city
have
have
seen
the
video.
K
I
I
allow
me
to
I
I
appreciate
and
will
follow
up
on
the
the
that
suggestion.
But
let
me
add
one
thing:
just
from
the
law
department's
perspective,
which
is
it
it
is
clear
sort
of
what
the
event
in
our
community
that
has
prompted
this
legislative
action
or
inquiry
is
but
from
the
law
department's
perspective.
K
You
know
it's
that
is
sort
of
routine
there's,
always
not
always
there's
almost
always
some
crystallizing
event
in
the
world
that
that
highlights
for
the
legislative
or
law
making
bodies
the
need
to
deal
with
something.
But
then
the
law
department
really
is
looking
at
this
as
just
the
ordinance
as
written,
which
is
going
to
if
it
were
enacted,
will
apply.
You
know
it's
just
to
everybody
across
the
board
throughout
the
city,
so.
I
A
N
N
N
N
N
I
guess
silent
protests
at
3
a.m
or
silent
protests
that
do
not
block
sidewalks
and
there
needs
to
be
some
more
context
for
what
the
protest
is
for.
Why
I
would
make
sure
that
it
only
happens
within
certain
hours
is
is
my
concern
is,
is
really
my
concern
adam
and
rob
so
our
the
definitions
of
what
is
picketing?
What
is
demonstrating
it's
pretty
broad
that
activity
right,
that
you're,
limiting
to
certain
timetables
and
some
of
that
activity
does
not
cause
harm.
N
Some
of
it
doesn't
if
it's
quiet,
if
it's
one
person,
if
it's
you
know
someone
who's
specifically
targeting
a
person
or
a
business,
that
is,
you
know,
open
24
hours,
they're
they're
or
I'm
sorry,
a
business,
that's
within
a
residential
neighborhood
or
a
person
who
has
a
business.
I
think
my
concern
is
that
there's
no
context
put
on
these
terms
there's
no
context
for
what
is
the
protest?
N
N
They
came
in
quiet
to
protest,
our
our
budget
votes
and
my
my
house
wasn't
as
defaced
as
others,
but
they
didn't
come
in
the
middle
of
the
night
and
put
things
all
over
our
our
homes,
and
you
know
what
we
did
is
we
we
addressed
them.
Those
who
chose
to
go
to
the
police
went
to
the
police
and
filed
complaints.
N
You
know,
I
don't
believe
that
that
certainly
wasn't
an
attempt
at
free
speech
right.
It
was
a.
I
didn't
feel
that
way.
There
was
no
message
delivered.
The
action
had
already
happened,
but
whatever
that
the
the
action
happened
and
we
had
the
right
to
go
to
and
file
complaints
if
we
wanted
to
so
I
think
my
concern
is
there's
no
definition
of
this
activity.
N
So
if
it's
these
activities
that
are
intended
to
cause
harm
or
start
asians,
they
intend
to
cause
harm
because
they
would
be
banned
intended
to
cause
certain
noise
levels
or
intent
and
block
access
to
streets.
Or
you
know,
there's
got
to
be
something
that
is
added
in
a
context
that
these
activities
are
causing.
N
I
believe
quite
firmly,
you
know
the
nine
to
nine
is
reasonable,
because
I
do
believe
a
loud
protest
at
7
a.m.
Isn't
meant
to
deliver
a
message
at
all:
it's
meant
to
cause
harm,
but
it's
because
it's
loud
and
it's
at
7am,
not
because
it's
just
a
protest
at
7am,
which
could
be
quiet
which
could
be
a
hunger
strike
which
could
be
a
sign
which
could
be
a
lot
of
things
and
and
which
could
could
unintentionally
be
defined
to
include
children
crying
outside
people
sleeping
and
homeless
people
sleeping
in
front
of
your
home.
N
You
can,
you
can
be
overly
inclusive
of
certain
activities,
so
I
would.
I
would
love
for
the
creativity
of
this
conversation
to
come
up
with
some
context,
because
I
do
I
do
want
to
support
this.
I
absolutely
want
to
support
a
9
00
p.m,
to
9
a.m,
restriction
on
certain
activities
that
block
public
way
that
rise
above
the
noise
level,
the
decibel
level
or
pick,
and
you
can
pick
the
decimal
level
it
could
be
for
me.
If
it's
3
am
I
don't
need
the
7.
I
think
70
is
too
high
for
3am.
N
I
would
put
it
even
lower,
but
that
do
these
things
the
time
and
the
noise
level.
I
would
want
those
restrictions
to
be
put
in.
So
that's
that's
what
I
I
think,
the
time
we
have.
What
we
don't
have
is
the
noise
level,
and
I
don't
and
then,
if
you
can
put
that
in
there,
I
would
support
this,
because
I
believe
at
that
point
it's
crazy
hard.
N
K
K
K
Offering
changes
to
the
policy
of
this
body
certainly
can
and
we're
happy
to
sort
of
work
with
you
and
engage
in
that
conversation,
and
I
I
think
that
you
know
so
I
mean
I
guess,
that's
all
I
can
really
say
right
now,
which
is.
We
are
always
very
willing
to
look
at
proposed
language,
whether
it's
right
here
in
the
working
session
or
you
know
in
any
other
context,
and
I
unite,
and
I
see
what
you're
talking
about
counselor
edwards,
I
just.
K
N
L
Yes
and
counselor
just
to
point
out
what
you
said-
and
this
is
speaking
specifically
to
the
silent
protest,
noise
levels
and
such
in
the
decision
in
the
frisbee
v
schultz
case.
The
significant
government
interest
that
was
recognized
was
the
interest
that
people
have
in
privacy
and
protection
within
their
homes.
N
And
the
government
interest
is
the
production
of
privacy
within
the
home
correct,
and
so
I
think
that
the
difference
would
be
then
might
be.
I
know
we're
talking
it's
not
about
the
mayor
of
boston
or
any
of
us
as
elected
officials,
but
there
might
be
a
certain
level.
I
wonder
the
case
law
that
says
about
that.
My
expectation
of
privacy
within
my
home
and
residential
as
an
elected
official,
where
my
address
is
put
out
every
time
you
know
I'm
sworn
in
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
the
expectations
of
my
neighbors
are
different.
N
I
don't
know
this
doesn't
make
a
distinction
between
the
two,
it's
treating
us
treating
me
and
michelle
and
kendra
and
ricardo,
like
our
you
know,
neighbors
who
are
anonymous
non-elected
and
not
public
servants,
and
not
people
who
would
become
people
wouldn't
be
coming
to
them
to
redress
necessarily
their
their
constitutional
rights,
so
that
there
is
no
distinction
might
also
be
a
problem
because
I
don't
know
of
too
many.
I
don't
know
of
too
many
non-political
figures
who
are
getting
targeted
residential
protests.
N
N
I
also
still
think
that
there
might
be
some
and
I
can
send
in
some
suggested
scrivening
words
that
might
help
to
literally
tailor
it,
but
I
I
do
think
that
there's
there's
going
to
be
a
concern
when
it's
a
silent
protest
outside
someone's
house
and
it
would
be
on
you
know
the
person
who's
being
protested
to
prove
that
it
would
intimidate
them
violate
their
privacy.
I
understand
the
burden
of
proof
would
be
on
them
or
on
the
government
who
tried
to
enforce
it
so,
but
thank
you
so
much
for
this.
N
A
E
So
thank
you,
chair
for
letting
me
go
first.
I
have
a
young
child
that
I
have
to
get
off
the
school
bus,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
share
my
remarks.
So
you've
already
answered
these
questions
for
me,
but
I
would
like
for
the
record,
to
share
similar
to
what
council
edwards
is
kind
of
the
backline
to
that.
E
Unfortunately,
sometimes
in
the
city
of
boston,
we
lose
young
people
to
gun
violence
and
people,
and
community
members
often
gather
in
what
could
be
described
as
a
demonstration
outside
of
the
deceased
person's
home.
If
someone
called
the
police,
would
they
also
be
subjected
to
these
kinds
of
fines.
K
I
am
not
familiar
enough
with
like
an
early
morning,
eviction
action
or
a
foreclosure
auction
action,
but
I
will,
I
guess,
just
go
back
to
the
language
of
the
proposed
ordinance,
which
is
that
it
is
picketing
protesting
or
demonstrating
that
is
specifically
directed
towards
a
particular
residence
or
the
occupants
of
the
residence
and
what
takes
place
there.
So,
in
your
scenario,
clearly,
there
is
a
form
of
protest
taking
place
before
or
about
a
specific
targeted
residence.
E
So
they
would
these
these
do
target
a
residence,
so
they
would
be
subject
to
the
ordinance
like
an
eviction
blockade
to
use
as
an
example,
folks
would
be
showing
up
to
someone's
home
to
stop
an
eviction
from
happening
to
prevent
entry
either
to
the
home
or
to
stop
people's
homes
from
moving
out
and
so
you're
saying
that
that
would
not
be
considered
something
that
would
be
targeting
a
revenant.
You.
K
A
I
hear
like
so
basically
what
I
think
you're
trying
to
say
adam,
and
you
correct
me
wrong
on
this-
is
that
this
paragraph
they
need
to
hit
every
single
point
on
it.
So
basically
it's
picketing
protesting
or
demonstrating
specifically
a
particular
residence
or
the
occupants
of
the
residents
right,
and
so
I
think
the
question
here
is
the
the
residence
itself
is
obviously
the
focus
on
a
foreclosure
proceeding
right.
So
if
there's
a
foreclosure
proceeding,
it's
the
president
nobody's
targeting
the
individual
who
lives
in
the
home.
A
We're
talking
about
a
landlord-occupied
home,
which
is
a
good
distinction,
and
so
there's
a
couple
different
levels
here
you
could
be
talking
about
a
landlord
level
occupied
home.
You
could
be
talking
about
a
home
that
has
somebody
who
still
lives
there,
who
is
trying
to
protect
and
keep
their
own
home,
and
you
might
have
a
home
that
the
bank
is
is
in
in
possession
of,
essentially
with
the
targeting
of
the
residents
like
that,
even
if
you're
not
targeting,
though
you
could
be
in
the
landlord
version,
the
individual
who
lives
in
the
home.
K
I
think
it's
no
known
yes,
so
if
it's
targeted,
I
will
concede.
I
think
I
think
that
in
the
landlord-occupied
home
example,
the
landlord
is
going
back
to
my
priority.
The
landlord
is
in
the
shoes
of
the
financial
institution
right.
So
yes,
if
the
protest
is
directed
at
that
person's
residence
like
where
they
live
and
it's
there,
I
believe
that
it
would
apply.
K
E
E
The
answer
to
the
question
that
I
just
asked
being
unclear
means
that
we
need
to
be
clearer
about
what
we're
trying
to
say.
So.
Somebody,
for
example,
going
to
someone's
home
and
trying
to
stop
them
from
being
evicted
is
a
protest
or
a
demonstration
that
is
in
support
of
the
people
who
live
in
that
home.
E
It
also
removes
some
of
that
gray
area,
because
a
residence
is
like
a
is
a
physical
building.
It's
like
it
could
be
any
place
where
anybody
lives,
whether
or
not
they're
targeting
the
people
who
live
there,
and
so,
if
we're
trying
to
stop,
I
think
the
ordinance
will
do
the
same
thing.
If
we
remove
residents
and
say
one
or
more
occupants
of
the
residents,
I
think
it
still
gets
the
point
across
the
last
thing
that
I
have
that.
L
Yeah
no,
this
this
would
not
qualify
as
any
sort
of
criminal
violation.
Criminal
violations
need
to
be
derived
from
state
statute.
The
city
doesn't
have
the
ability
to
promulgate
ordinances
or
pass
ordinances
that
would
attach
criminal
liability
to
individuals.
Those
types
of
laws
need
to
come
from
the
state.
E
K
A
I
think
so
I
I
guess
the
question
I
have
for
this
is:
would
they
be
going
to
a
courthouse
for
this
for
an
infraction
like
this
or
they'd,
be
going
to
the
city
itself,
the
way
people
challenge
parking
tickets
and
other
sort
of
city
versions
of
tickets
that
come?
You
know,
for
instance,
I'll
give
you
a
version
I
get
called
for
as
a
counselor.
I
got
a
ticket
because
my
grass
was
too
long
or
whatever
it
is
that
doesn't
go
to
a
criminal
court.
My
understanding
is,
it
goes
to
the
city.
A
E
E
Obviously
that's
a
long
shot.
86
defined
is
my
suggestion
for
the
record
and
if
not,
there
needs
to
be
clarity
of
process,
whether
it
be
written
in
the
ordinance
or
shared
with
the
city
council
about
how
people
appeal
this,
because
if
there
is
in
any
way
shape
or
form,
if
it
could
create
more
of
a
problem
for
black
and
brown
people
who
are
protesting.
Who
are
mostly
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
disproportionately
impacted
by
this,
then
we
need
to
know
that
if
it
it.
E
If
it's
going
to
be
at
any
point
in
the
implementation,
I
want
to
be
aware
of
what
what
needs
to
be
worked
out
and
what
things
need
to
be
worked
out.
So
if
there
is
a
process
that
currently
exists,
I
would
request
clarity
on
that
process
and,
if
there's
not
request
that
wouldn't
be
created
and
better
yet
that
there
be
no
fine
attached
to
this
ordinance.
A
E
Removal
from
the
location,
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
that
there
needs
to
be
any
one:
a
hundred
dollars,
200
300
fines
for
the
folks
that
can
afford
them
are
going
to
be
nothing.
They
will
pay
them.
These
folks
will
run
a
gofundme
and
get
their
people
who
are
all
supportive
of
them
to
pay
for
their
fines.
It's
not
going
to
be
a
deterrent.
E
It
is
going
to
be
a
determine
for
people
who
can't
afford
those
fines
and
for
people
who
think
that
they
receive
the
fines
in
error
who
have
to
waste
time,
energy
and
resources
to
go
to
court,
to
appeal
it
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So,
ultimately,
there's
only
one
group
of
people
that's
going
to
lose
out
with
these
fines.
Removal
from
the
premises
fixes
the
issue
of
removing
people
from
wherever
they're
protesting
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
A
And
so
I
just
got
to
be.
I
guess
this
is
a
question
on
that
to
superintendent
bailey.
You
know
from
a
criminal
law
standpoint
that
certainly
sounds
like
detention
and
arrest
to
to
remove
somebody
by
force.
I
guess
the
question
is:
am
I
incorrect,
you
know
and
in
the
understanding
that
there's
no
like
in
terms
of
removal
if
they
were
if
they
refused
to
remove
themselves,
and
that
would
essentially
in
order
to
effectuate
that
removal
it
would
have
to
be
through
an
arrest?
Is
that
is
that
accurate
superintendent,
bailly
you're,
muted?
A
M
Sorry,
sir
you're
exactly
right,
there
would
have
to
be
some
sort
of
probable
cause
for
a
violation
of
law.
Just
you
know
reach.
The
council
has
raised
good
points,
councillor
edwards
as
well.
You
know
we
we've
talked
to
the
neighbors
out
at
the
mayor's
house.
They've
been
out
there
in
support
of
her.
M
E
A
A
G
K
Attorney
they're
all
fine
yeah.
This
is
this
is
going
to
be
one
of
those
examples
of
like
you
know
we're
here
we're
getting
a
legal
question
here
in
real
time,
which
is
a,
I
think,
a
really
interesting
one,
and
I
think
we're
going
to
ask
for
you
know
we
will
need
to
to
look
at
that.
Rather
than
just
give
you
a
verbal
offer
perfectly.
A
Do
you
see
any
issue
with
the
removal
of
particular
residents
if
it
still
contains
the
one
or
more
occupants
of
a
resident?
So
in
other
words
the
the
protesting
or
picketing
of
say
an
empty
home,
wouldn't
wouldn't
lead
to
any
issues
on
this,
but
if
it
has
an
occupant
who
is
the
subject
of
the
protest
in
and
of
itself,
it
would
do.
Do
you
see
any
issues
with
the
removal
of
particular
residents.
K
Sorry
before
I
say
anything,
I
want
to
back
up
one
second,
because
I
actually
had
a
slightly
different
understanding
than
what
you
just
laid
out
chair
arroyo
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure.
Were
you
asking
in
your
in
your
scenario
there
are
you
saying
that
it
would
hinge
on
whether
somebody
is
home
right
then?
E
No,
no,
it
doesn't.
I
think,
if
someone
someone
doesn't
have
to
be
physically
in
the
home,
they
live
there.
It's
fine,
but
more
so
removing
because
it
already
says
on
the
second
half
you
know
in
the
residence
and
which
takes
place
before
or
about
the
targeted
residence.
So
that's
already
there
and
so
removing
a
particular
residence.
I
think
would
make
it
clearer,
but
it
would
also
kind
of
remove
some
of
the
ambiguity
of
like
an
eviction.
E
E
E
A
So
an
individual
who
lives
there.
I
think
this
gets
to
the
point
that
we're
trying
to
get
to,
which
is
we
don't
want
people
necessarily
put
targeting
somebody's
home
because
they
live
in
it
at
at
these
hours.
Getting
the
particular
residents
out
means
that
they
they
now
can
no
longer
it
doesn't
matter.
If
the
occupant
is
currently
there,
it's
the
home
that
they
occupy
it.
I
think
the
idea
here
is
to
stop
people
from
targeting
targeting
the
occupants
of
homes,
not
the
homes
of
themselves,
and
this
gets
rid
of
that
ambiguity.
I
think
as
well.
A
K
A
E
No,
that's
all.
I
just
want
to
extend
my
thanks
to
council,
to
adam
and
rob
and
to
superintendent
bailey
for
answering
all
of
our
very
nitty-gritty
questions
and
bearing
with
us
as
we
try
to
get
this
ordinance
right
and
to
the
chair
for
allowing
me
to
get
my
questions
before
I
had
to
leave.
I
am
going
to
head
out
now,
and
so
I
will
look
forward
to
hearing
where
we
land
in
the
future.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
thank
you
counselor,
lauren
and
now
go
into
my
questions
since
I
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
gave
council
a
lot
of
time
to
get
those
presented.
I
I
know
that
one
of
the
major
concerns
here
is
the
idea
of
the
defining
of
a
residential,
the
particular
residence,
as
opposed
to
one
or
more
occupants.
I
think,
is
very
important
for
the
thing
I'm
about
to
bring
up
next,
which
is
we
have
union
actions.
A
I
think
so
the
removal
of
particular
residents-
and
you
can
tell
me
if
you
think,
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
the
removal
of
those
two
words
actually
ensures
that
say
a
hotel
strike
action
that
is
about
the
hotel
company
and
not
about
whoever
lives
at
this
hotel
is
protected
when
you
remove
particular
residents,
unless,
of
course,
the
hotel
owner
somehow
lives
at
that
hotel.
I
think
this.
This
actually
deals
with
that
is
that
does
that
sound
right,
and
I
can
clarify
that
more
if
that
was
unclear,.
K
A
Yes,
correct,
yeah,
correct,
so
basically,
if
somebody
wanted
to
go
and
pick
it
the
neighborhood
pizza
shop,
even
though
it's
surrounded
by
a
bunch
of
homes,
this
doesn't
apply
to
that
because
it's
a
business
same
thing
with
other
businesses,
same
thing
with
schools.
It
applies
specifically
to
residential
homes,
is.
G
L
A
When
that
occurred,
they
made
a
decision
to
continue
to
protest
my
mother's
home
and
essentially
demand
my
address
and
where
I
was
and
have
me
come,
but
they
continue
to
protest.
My
mother
directly,
I
think
once
they
make
that
change
once
they
are
informed
of
the
error
right
and
they
decide
to
continue
to
protest,
say
my
mother
as
they
did
here
or
anybody.
A
I
think
you've
now
shifted
it
from
being
a
target
where
you're
targeting
me,
but
once
you've
been
informed
or
whatever
a
person,
whatever
occupant
of
the
home,
once
you've
been
informed,
that
person
is
not
an
occupant
and
you
continue
to
go
after
that
home.
I
do
think
that
that
changes
the
circumstances
and
now
this
would
apply.
Even
if
they've
made
a
mistake,
do
we
do
we
agree
with
that
once
somebody
says
the
person
you're
targeting
isn't
here
and
this
isn't
their
home
and
they
continue
to
target
that
home.
A
Wouldn't
it
make
this:
wouldn't
it
still
apply
because
now
they're
targeting
the
people
who
actually
live
there,
who've
informed
them
that
the
person
that
they're,
allegedly
going
after
doesn't
live
there
legally.
That's
how
I
would
read
it,
but
I'm
happy
to
hear
whether
or
not
you
guys
see
it
differently.
A
And
so,
which,
I
think
part
of
the
reason
I
will
just
say
as
well.
This
is
part
of
the
reason
why
I
think
this
is
necessary.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
people
will
target
tom
holmes.
People
will
make
these
kinds
of
mistakes
or
they'll.
Do
it
on
purpose,
but
either
way
the
reality
is
it's
something
that
is
happening.
You
know
I
I
will
just
say
for
superintendent
bailey,
this
question
have
you
ever
and
I
don't
know
how
long
you've
been
with
bpd,
but
I
assume
it's
it's
been
a
while.
A
M
Council
arroyo
I've
been
a
police
officer
for
33
years
and
we've
had
you
know
periodically
demonstrations
at
residences,
but
for
a
sustained
period
of
time,
particularly,
I
know
your
house
and
your
mother's
house
was
affected
as
well.
Council
royal,
but
as
far
as
the
mayor's
house
goes,
I
have
not.
I
have
not
seen
that
for
the
for
that
amount.
Duration
of
time,
so.
A
I
think
it
speaks
to
where
we
are
in
a
polarization
of
of
political
opinion
standpoint
and
I
do
think,
there's
a
risk
here
to
normalizing
the
going
to
residential
homes,
because
I
think
it's
dangerous.
I
just
got
to
be
honest
with
that.
I
think
it's
it's
a
real
problem.
I
think
there's
neighbors,
who
at
targets
I'll
say,
say
this.
A
My
mother
was
very
concerned
about
an
elderly
woman
who
lives
in
our
cul-de-sac,
who
was
home
and
is
in
ill
health
and
the
impact
that
it
had
on
them,
and
I
think
part
of
part
of
the
issue
here
that
I
have
seen
consistently.
It's
certainly
true
for
my
home.
I
don't
think
there's
so
much
concern
personally
for
the
individual
as
much
as
it's
the
way
that
it
impacts.
So
many
other
people,
and
I
think,
that's
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
get
to
with
this
ordinance.
A
A
If
you
take
out
particular
residents-
and
I
I
think
it
does
because
the
idea
is-
we
can
say
one
or
more
occupants
and
just
remove
of
the
residents
if
you
take
out
so,
for
instance,
if
you
just
did
just
off
of
that
and
I'll,
let
you
take
it
back
to
the
legal
team
and
find
out
whether
or
not
that
works.
But
if
you
take
it
back
and
just
say,
and
I'm
gonna
strike
particular
resonance
for
this
example
and
read
it
the
way
it
would
read.
A
If
I
wrote
it
right
now,
it
would
be
that
is
specifically
directed
towards
one
or
more
occupants
and
which
takes
place
before
or
about
the
targeted
residence
right.
Because
that's
one
way
you
could
do
it
or
you
know
I
just
think,
there's
a
way.
Well,
actually
it's
still
there.
If
you
take
out
directed
towards
a
particular
residence
and
say,
or
one
or
more
occupants
of
the
residence,
I
think
anything
happening
outside
the
house.
Even
if
they're
not
yelling
about
the
individual
in
the
house,
is
targeting
that
individual.
A
I
mean
unless
they're
looking
the
other
way.
I
mean
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
you
could
make
the
argument
legally,
that
a
demonstration
in
front
of
somebody's
home
isn't
targeting
the
occupants
of
that
home,
even
if
they're
yelling
about
the
president
or
you
know
the
park
three
miles
away
or
whatever
it
may
be
anything
happening
outside
of
a
residence
that
somebody
lives
in
that
is
directed
in
the
form
of
shouting
or
yelling,
or
signs
pointed
at
that
residence
on
purpose
or
blocking
of
of
the
sidewalk
of
that
residence.
A
I
just
don't
see
how
you'd
have
to
be
a
very
good
lawyer.
I
think,
to
explain
why
this
doesn't
apply
to
the
occupants
of
that
home,
even
if
that's
not
who
they're
targeting
but
I'll.
Let
you
take
that
back
to
the
legal
team
and
make
sure
that
that
that's
that
that
holds
up,
I
don't
have
any
other
questions.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
some
of
the
things
that
counselor
lyra
brought
up
are
are
important
to
me
as
well.
A
I
want
to
make
sure
folks
that
are
trying
to
fight
to
make
sure
that
they're
not
being
addicted.
Aren't
the
targets
of
these.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
making
it
difficult
for
our
unions
to
to
picket
their
hotel
spaces,
which
I
think
this
doesn't
do.
I
think
this
is
very
clear,
but
if
you
can
define
the
language
in
a
way
that
makes
it
very
definitive.
So
there's
no
ambiguity.
A
A
Where
are
we
talking
about
consecutive,
subsequent
offenses,
subsequent
offenses
in
this
in
the
term
of
someone's
life?
So
you've
done
this
once
in
1998,
now
you're
doing
it
in
2008?
There's
your
second
offense
or
are
we
doing
it
in
the
term
of
a
specific
amount
of
time?
How
are
we
defining
when
a
subsequent
offense
takes
place.
A
If
you
get
what
I'm
saying
and
so
just
is
it,
is
it
consequential,
is
it
sequential?
Is
it
by
years?
Is
it
ever
like?
How
are
we
determining
that,
and
I
don't
think
there's
any
clarity
to
that?
I'm
not
sure
you
have
an
answer
for
that
right
now,
but
I
think
defining
that
might
be
better
unless
there's
some
general
common
law
understanding
of
what
that
means.
K
A
A
I'm
going
to
end
it
there
because
I
think
that's
everything
that
I
have
myself.
I
see
two
hands
up.
I
will
ask
my
other
council
colleagues.
If
you
have
questions
or
things,
you
would
like
to
add
to
raise
your
zoom
hands
so
that
we
can
take
it
to
you
and
I'm
going
to
go
in
order
that
I
saw
the
zoom
hands
come
up.
A
B
Yeah
superintendent,
bailey
and
also
general
counsel.
Thank
you
so
much
for
just
your
patience
and
just
answering
these
questions.
You
really
do
appreciate
it.
I
mean
for
holding
this
down
because
you
are
the
ultimate
translator.
So
thank
you
for
for
helping
me
articulate
some
of
the
things
that
I'm
trying
to
get
out
here.
B
B
K
K
So
I
suspect
the
answer
here
is
going
to
be:
if
you've
got
a
ticket,
you'd
either
have
to
pay
it
or
you'd
have
to
go
to
the
local
district
court
to
sort
of
tell
the
assistant
clerk.
Here's
why
this
is
wrong,
but
I
don't
that's.
That's
just
my
sort
of
quick
preview
of
what
I
think
the
answer
is.
We
will
certainly
get
back
to
the
committee
with
that.
A
Thank
you
thank
you,
councilman,
and
I
just
think
just
to
be
clear
sort
of
in
common
parlance.
Corporation
council.
Is
that,
because
this
ticket
would
be
administered
by
bpd,
as
opposed
to
say,
isd
or
any
of
our
other
sort
of
city
divisions,
if
it
weren't
bpd
in
charge
of
enforcement,
would
that
change
that
process?
I.
K
G
K
A
C
C
She
lives
at
the
bay
towers
and
we
went
to
her
home
and
we
were
picketing
to
deliver
a
letter
and
we
did
enter
the
lobby
and
asked
if
we
could
talk
with
her
and
there
was
a
group
of
us
and
we
were
targeting
because
she
lived
there.
She
lives
in
an
apartment
building
and
I
know
there's
been
conversation
about
well.
If
you
live
in
a
three
family,
then
you're
bothering
your
neighbors
more
than
if
you
lived
in
a
single
family,
she
did
does.
C
K
C
Just
say
right,
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
concrete
for
me
I'm
trying
to
picture
myself
in
places
I've
been.
I
know,
council
lara
had
kind
of
done
that
too
giving
specifics.
So
I'm
that
specific
example
was
not
within
the
time
limit,
but
I'm
thinking
we
did
target
her
like
we
weren't
just
trying
to
form.
C
A
C
So
I
guess
the
answer
is
answered
right.
So
if
I
go
at
8
a.m,
specifically
with
union
members
to
pick
it
someone's
home,
who
is
the
chair
of
the
board
or
I've
done
it
before
with
unions
where
we're
picketing
the
owner
of
you,
know
a
job
site
and
we're
not
at
the
job
site,
we
might
be
apt,
you
know,
so
I
know
that
this
happens
in
the
union
world
too,
when
they're,
picketing
and
oftentimes
it
does
happen,
7
a.m,
because
then
they
go
to
work
right,
they're
off
to
work.
G
C
I'm
very
empathetic,
my
own
80
year
old
aunt
lives
only
houses
away
from
there.
She
lives
on
poplar
street,
so
she
does.
You
know
when
it
was
loud.
She
could
hear
it
for
at
her
home,
but
it
makes
me
think
that
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
hearings
in
our
future
addressing
violations
of
quality
of
life
issues
for
neighbors
who
live
in
different
neighborhoods
across
the
city,
because
what
we
were
talking
about
earlier
made
me
think
about.
C
C
You
know
things
that
are
happening
down
there
and
it's
caused
a
lot
of
pain
in
their
lives
and
their
quality
of
life,
and
they
feel
like
their
neighborhood,
the
schools.
The
businesses
have
suffered
right.
So
I
just
want
to
kind
of
put
that
out
there
that
it's
making
me
think
that
we
will
have
to
address
quality
of
life
issues
in
a
lot
of
other
neighborhoods.
C
That
neighbors
have
been
saying
and
we
have
been
pushing
back
because
we
do
want
to
take
a
different
approach
and
we
do
want
to
be
empathetic
to
those
struggling
down
there
and
we
do
want
to.
You
know
not
just
arrest
our
way
out
of
a
social
and
mental
and
recovery
issue,
but
it's
just
making
me
think
of
that.
C
So
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there
and
lastly,
so
I
just
want
to
clarify-
because
I
know
it
was
said
a
while
ago,
because
I
do
care
about-
and
I
am
concerned
about,
the
mayor
and
her
family,
and
I
just
want
to
clarify
for
the
record
once
again.
So
this,
I
guess,
would
be
for
you
officer
bailey.
Am
I
correct
to
say
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it's
true
that
the
vpd
has
put
additional
coverage
at
the
mayor's
house
that
you're
going
to
continue
to
protect
her
and
her
children.
C
That
you
did
say
here
at
this
hearing.
That
chief
long
is
in
communication.
Often
is
it
even
daily
with
the
mayor
to
make
sure
that
she
feels
safe
and
that
we,
as
a
city,
are
doing
everything
we
can
to
make
sure
that
not
just
her,
because
we
know
her
husband
and
her
children
live
with
her
and
her
mother's
downstairs
that
her
whole
family
in
that
house
feel
safe.
M
To
answer
your
question:
councilman
murphy,
without
without
question
100,
the
role
of
the
boston
police
department
is
to
protect
the
mayor,
her
family,
her
neighbors
and
all
the
residents
to
the
city
of
boston
and
we've
put
additional
resources
out
there.
Councilor
murphy
will
continue
to
do
that
and
we'll
do
whatever
is
necessary
to
protect
the
mayor.
That
is
our
number
one
priority.
C
A
M
A
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
you
know
I
I
just
want
to
reiterate
my
point
again
that
you
know
it's
important
for
us
to
distinguish
the
parameters
between
picketing
and
drawing
the
lines
where
it
overlaps
harassment,
and
you
know
I
heard
my
colleagues
points
again
like
I.
I
applaud
my
counselor,
my
colleague
lara
consolar,
for
her
points
about
you
know.
F
And
I
just
you
know-
and
I
think,
mr
cheer-
you
made
this
point
as
well
like
if,
if
we,
if
we
I'm
just
gonna,
say
well,
if
our
mayor
was
white
on
a
white
man,
would
this
be
the
situation
like
the
fact
that
I
think
we
already
have
the
law
that
addresses
this
like
it's
not
like?
We
need
a
new
law,
it's
you
know
what
I
mean
like.
F
We
already
have
the
laws
that
we
need
in
place,
but
the
fact
that
this
mayor
has
to
or
not
necessarily
that
it's
just
about
her
but
overall
has
to
go
the
additional
and
stipulate
and
figure
out
how
we
can
amend
and
all
of
this
just
so
that
people
are
not
feeling
harassed
or
safe.
I
mean
the
constitution,
clearly
states
that
it's
about
peacefully
protesting
expressing
not
in
this
manner.
Again,
we
are
not
talking
about
the
first
amendment.
This
is
something
totally
different
and
I
believe
that
has
she
been
of
other
demographic.
F
She
would
not
be
having
to
face
this
issue,
and
that
is
that
is
the
point:
isn't
it?
Why
have
we
seen
this
before
no
to
this
magnitude?
No
to
this
point
no
to
this
harassment
level.
No,
so
what's
the
difference,
what
is
different
about
this
mayor
than
the
other
ones,
who
have
taken
other
positions
of
opposition
of
strong
opposition
on
other
issues
and
have
not
faced
these
repercussions?
F
So
I
think
that
we
should
be
honest
if
we're
to
leave
with
democracy-
and
you
know,
justice
and-
and
I
really
appreciate
the
harm,
reducing
approach
to
address
the
possible
mental
health
issue
of
I
mean,
let's
think
about
that.
It's
not
just
the
people
at
home
that
are
impacted
right
and
the
aftermath
of
what
the
traumas
that
or
the
visceral
trauma
that
our
neighbors
can
face.
But
also
I
mean:
are
these
people
on
the
clock?
F
Are
they
getting
paid
think
about
it
like
day
after
day
after
day
after
day
for
10
weeks,
like
really
who's
paying
these
people?
And
if
not,
then
what
are
we
talking
about?
Are
there
some
levels
of
instability,
because
who
does
this
so
I
I
just
have
to
express
that
overall,
like
I
feel
like
with
laws
that
we
already
have
in
place,
we
should
we
should
make
sure
that
people
feel
protected
already,
and
this
is
not
picketing.
This
is
something
totally
different.
Thank
you
for
indulging
me
and
thank
you
to.
F
A
A
She
did
not
feel
safe
in
that
moment,
and
I
think
that
whether
or
not
we
are
able
to
create
something,
some
sort
of
ordinance
that
offers
protection
to
folks
in
that
situation,
whether
than
my
mother,
her
neighbors
someone
else's
mother,
whether
we're
doing
that
in
that
way,
I
think,
is
incredibly
important
because
again
we
want
folks
to
feel
safe
in
their
homes.
I
think
that's
the
whole
purpose
here.
I
think
everybody
feels
like
they
deserve
the
right
to
feel
safe
in
their
homes.
A
I
think
some
folks
can
make
an
argument
if
they
want
about
why
you
forfeit
or
why
your
family
forfeits
the
right
to
feel
safe
in
their
home.
If
somebody
seeks
public
office,
but
regardless
of
whether
or
not
you
hold
those
feelings,
I
think
everybody
overall
would
agree
that
people
should
feel
safe
in
their
homes,
and
so
the
idea
here
is
to
create
this.
I
do
want
to
just
say
for
folks
who
have
stuck
stuck
it
out
through
all
of
this.
A
A
If
you
wanted
to
go
to
mayor
wu's
house,
and
you
wanted
to
do
it
from
9
00
a.m,
to
9
9pm
and
just
do
all
of
the
stuff
that
we're
seeing
every
day
this
ordinance
wouldn't
change
that
this
literally
just
says
from
9pm
to
9am.
We
are
asking
you
to
be
civil
in
residential
neighborhoods.
That's
legitimately
it.
If
you
wanted
to
go,
do
the
exact
same
thing
you
get
to
go!
A
Do
that
from
9am
to
9pm
there
are
24
hours
in
a
day
you
have
been
left
with
50
of
those
hours
12
hours
to
go.
Do
that?
If
that's
what
you
are
seeking
to
do,
and
so
I
think
this
is
narrowly
tailored
as
it's
written.
I
think,
frankly,
I
have
concerns
about
our
inability
to
protect
neighbors
and
protect
folks,
like
my
mom
and
people
who
are
gonna.
A
But
this
isn't
just
about
her.
There
are
other
folks
being
involved.
I
have
seen
the
videos
of
ed
flynn,
with
his
son,
being
harassed
all
the
way
down
to
a
car
two
or
three
blocks.
We
are
talking
about
folks
who
did
not
sign
up
for
this.
I
am
very
aware
that
for
folks
who
have
a
grievance
with
government
for
some
of
them,
all
things
on
the
table
are
acceptable.
I
remember
answering
phone
calls
at
my
parents,
home
back
when
landlines
existed,
that
included
death
threats
from
my
father.
A
I
remember
those
things,
and
so
when
we
were
talking
about
civility
and
where
we
are,
I
worry
often
about
michelle
wu's
children.
I
worry
about
her
mother.
I
worry
about
neighbors.
I
worry
about
my
mother.
I
worry
about
my
neighbors,
and
so
I
just
want
to
refocus
the
ordinances
issue
here,
isn't
just
protecting
the
mayor.
A
It's
trying
to
create
something
that
allows
us
to
protect
neighborhoods
in
general,
from
the
hours
of
9pm
to
9am
from
this
kind
of
targeted,
emotional
harassment,
because,
ultimately,
you
can
physically
harm
someone,
but
we
are
now
in
the
year
2022
and
we
know
you
can
emotionally
and
inflict
distress.
There
are
ways
to
do
that,
and
so
you
know
whether
or
not
you
know
bpd
is
able
to
protect
michelle
who's.
A
Physical
being
doesn't
mean
that
they're
able
to
protect
whether
or
not
her
children
are
being
exposed
to
people
calling
her
a
literal,
nazi
or
evil,
or
that
she
is
going
to
die
or
go
to
jail
or
to
do
any
of
those
things,
which
is
what
have
happened
on
video,
and
so
when
we
talk
about
seven
and
eight
nine
year
old
children
hearing
that
about
their
parents,
and
we
can
create
something
that
says
you
cannot
do
that
at
least
before
they
go
to
school.
I
really
don't.
I
have
a
hard
time.
A
A
I
think
the
fact
that
we
still
allow
you
to
do
it
at
9am
is
is
probably
too
much
frankly,
but
that
is
what
this
will
allow
you
to
still
do,
and
so
you
know
just
know,
that's
where
I
am
on
it.
I
think
if
we
can
make
some
tightening
language
on
the
ambiguity
of
it,
that's
important
to
me
just
making
it
more
tight
in
that
way,
but
I
do
not
think
in
any
way
shape
or
form
giving
people
12
hours
to
continue
to
practice.
A
Incivility
is
is
somehow
restrictive,
but
counselor
louis
jan,
I
see
your
hands
been
up.
I
appreciate
you
giving
me
his
chair
this
indulgence
to
sort
of
state
it
plainly
counselor
louisiana.
Whatever
questions
you
would
like
to
do,
and
then
I
will
go
to
you,
superintendent,
bailey
guy
and
then
to
anybody
else
on
the
panel
who
would
like
to
give
last
remarks.
H
H
The
time
of
the
protest
was
some
in
the
afternoon,
but
you
know,
based
on
on
the
black
letter
of
the
ordinance,
had
it
been
a
letter
that
we
were
trying
to
deliver
on
mass
at
8
a.m.
It
would
have
fallen
under
this
ordinance,
and
so
I
believe
that
you
know
there
are
some
legitimate
questions
being
asked
about
the
breadth
of
that
without
it
sort
of
you
know
with
with,
even
though
it's
still,
I
think
we
would
withstand
any
constitutional
challenge.
H
So
I'm
looking
forward
to
see
how
looking
forward
to
see
how
we
implement
some
changes
to
the
ordinance,
but
I
I'm
actually
even
more
curious
to
see
the
data
from
superintendent
bailey
if
we
could
get
it
about
my
previous
questions,
around
enforcement
and
unreasonable
noise,
disturbing
the
peace
and
blocking
roads
to
see.
I
think
what
you
know,
what
counselor
fernandez
anderson
was
saying.
It
was
correct,
like
this
is
different
and
you
know,
is
there
a
way
to
enforce
what
we
currently
have
to
to
prevent?
H
What's
been
really
troubling
and
harmful
to
our
mayor
and
to
her
neighbors?
So
I
thank
you
all
for
being
here
to
office
the
office
of
corporate
council
and
also
to
bpd
for
being
here,
as
we
try
to
make
sure
that
folks
can
still
exercise
the
their
first
amendment
rights
and
that
folks
feel
safe
in
their
homes.
So
thank
you.
A
M
National
council
arroyo
and
thank
you
for
having
us
it's
very
important,
obviously,
and
to
go
back
to
the
you
know.
One
of
the
first
things
said
on
this
call
was,
I
think
it
was
councillor
flynn
talking
about
lack
of
civility,
and
that
is
you
know
to
its
elected
officials,
to
its
our
neighbors
towards
the
police
throughout
society
is
appalling
and
and
we're.
I
think,
we're
all
in
agreement
on
this
call
about
that.
As
far
as
what
you
raised
council
arroyo,
I've
never
seen
this.
M
M
M
Our
officers
use
discretion,
de-escalation,
hundreds
of
times
a
day,
okay
and
we
we
use
the
de-escalation
and
diversion
negotiation
skills
to
achieve
the
best
outcomes
and
difficult
situations.
Every
day
throughout
our
city
and
all
our
neighborhoods
and
just
one
thing
I
want
to
add,
you
know
I
talk
a
lot
about
de-escalation.
M
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that
the
de-escalation
tactics
that
I'm
referring
to
have
been
paramount
throughout
the
whole
police
reform
bill,
the
legislation
that
just
got
signed
last
year,
but
you
know
again,
the
boston
police
department
is
committed
to
working
together
with
the
city
council
with
all
our
residents
and
support
one.
Another
is
more
important
for
the
benefit
now
more
than
ever,
for
all
the
residents
of
the
city,
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
all
of
you.
M
A
K
I
I'm
happy
personally
happy
with
in
german.
I
just
want
to
say
you
know,
thanks
to
superintendent
bailey,
thank
you
to
you,
chair,
thanks
to
all
the
counselors,
for
you
know
really
digging
into
the
language
here
and
this
very
thoughtful
sort
of
discussion
and
set
of
questions,
and
I
appreciate
sort
of
the
the
policy
and
the
legislation
that
you
guys
are
are
wrestling
with,
and
I
just
sort
of
want
to
underscore
that
from
the
law
department's
perspective.
K
I
just
will
underscore
that
you
know
this
ordinance
looks
very
much
like
the
ordinance
that
the
supreme
court
upheld
in
frisbee
versus
schultz,
with
one
giant
difference
and
and
chair
royal
you
you
focused
on
this
a
minute
ago.
The
giant
difference
is
that
the
targeted
residential
picketing
is
permissible
for
half
of
the
day
right.
It's
only
not
permissible
sort
of.
K
When
you
are
trying
to
sleep
when
you're
trying
to
get
your
kids
ready
for
school,
I
mean
the
the
real
sort
of
times
when
protecting
the
tranquility
and
privacy
of
the
home
is
even
more
important
than
than
perhaps
at
noon.
It's
a
important
governmental
interest
at
any
time.
During
the
day,
the
supreme
court
has
recognized
that
repeatedly,
but
this
ordinance
is
really
only
about
when
it's
you
know
targeted.
It's
focused
on
when
it's
when
that
value
is
arguably
even
more
heightened.
K
A
Thank
you
and
just
to
be
clear
to
any
counselors
who
are
watching
this
or
have
staff
watching
this
all
language
edits.
If
you
have
language
edits
that
we
did
not
go
over
today,
please
email
them
to
me,
the
chair
or
to
the
committee
itself.
So
we
can
then
forward
that
over
to
corporation
council,
the
edits
that
I
saw
today
for
the
city
legal
department
to
explore
frankly
seem
to
be
just
on
that
one
sentence
about
residential
picketing
and
then,
from
my
perspective,
there
was
a
second
section
of
that.
K
A
Fantastic
that
I
think
that
would
be
very
helpful,
so
some
very
I
consider
them.
You
know.
Obviously,
in
the
case
of
law
they
could
be
minor
could
be
major,
but
I
think
we've
we've
narrowed
it
down
to
sort
of
one
paragraph
that
we
might
be
able
to
rework
and
then
the
penalties
and
what
we
may
be
able
to
do
there
and
just
making
sure
that
everybody
sees
that
section
that
you
just
said.
A
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
adjourn,
I
want
to
thank
all
of
my
council
colleagues
for
their
time
and
their
efforts
today
and
their
dedication
to
this.
I
want
to
thank
superintendent
bailey,
especially
for
what
was
difficult.
I
believe
you
won't
call
for
most
of
this,
and
I
want
to
thank
corporation
council
and
mr
arkansas
arkansas
right.
That
did
I
get
right,
yeah,
perfect.
Thank
you
fantastic.
I
I
hate
getting
people's
last
names
wrong.
So
thank
you
all
for
your
commitment
and
what
you
have
done
today.