►
Description
Docket #0397 - Ordinance on surveillance oversight and information sharing
A
A
Good
morning,
everyone,
I
am
excited
to
welcome
you
all
to
a
working
session
on
docket
number
0397,
an
ordinance
on
surveillance
oversight
and
information
sharing
in
the
committee
on
government
operations.
My
name
is
michelle
wu
and,
although
I
am
a
sponsor
of
this
ordinance,
I
am
not
technically
the
chair
or
vice
chair
of
this
committee,
so
I'm
just
holding
their
place
until
they
will
be
able
to
arrive
shortly.
A
It
is
a
refile
from
last
year's
docket
number
0684,
on
which
this
committee
held
a
hearing
and
working
session
in
2020
as
well,
and
then
a
further
working
session
in
april
of
this
year,
in
accordance
with
chapter
20
of
the
acts
of
2021,
modifying
certain
requirements
of
the
open
meeting
law
and
relieving
public
bodies
of
certain
requirements,
including
the
requirement
that
public
bodies
conduct
our
meetings
in
a
public
place
that
is
open
and
physically
accessible
to
the
public.
The
city
council
will
be
conducting
this
hearing
virtually
via
zoom.
A
This
enables
the
council
to
carry
out
our
responsibilities
while
adhering
to
public
health,
accommodations
and
ensuring
public
access
to
deliberations
through
adequate
alternative
needs.
The
public
may
watch
this
working
session
via
live
stream
at
boston.gov
city
hyphen,
council
hyphen
tv
and
on
xfinity
8,
rcn,
82
and
verizon
964.
A
A
Okay,
so
before
we
begin
again,
I'm
just
doing
this
on
behalf
of
the
chairs,
who
have
very
kindly
provided
this
before
we
begin
I'll,
provide
a
brief
overview
of
what
this
legislation
seeks
to
do.
This
legislation
establishes
standards
for
surveillance,
oversight
and
information.
Sharing.
The
daca
requires
community
involvement
when
surveillance
is
used
and
when
the
city
acquires
surveillance
technology,
the
legislation
limits,
information
sharing
between
boston,
public
schools
and
the
boston
police
department.
A
There
are
proposed
language
changes
to
the
docket,
which
would
change
the
scope
of
the
surveillance
oversight,
provisions
to
apply
to
six
city
departments
or
entities
as
follows:
the
boston
police
department,
boston,
public
schools,
boston,
public
health,
commission,
boston,
housing
authority,
boston,
municipal
protection
services
and
the
office
of
emergency
management
changes
to
the
definition,
section
and
applicability
clauses
to
the
surveillance
oversight.
Portions
clarifying,
which
departments
would
be
affected,
have
been
added
also
in
order
to
have
gender
inclusive
language.
His
slash
her
in
section
16-63.3,
subsection
b4,
has
been
changed
to
there
participating
today
on.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
First,
I
want
to
thank,
I
mean
you're,
the
chair
right
now,
but
you're
also
a
co-sponsor
on
this.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
work
on
helping
move
this
along,
and
I
want
to
thank
the
advocates
who
are
here
and
the
folks
in
the
administration
who
are
here
to
engage
today.
My
hope
is
that
we
can
complete
this
and
move
this
out
of
here
today.
That
is
my
goal
and
because
that
is
my
goal.
That
is
the
extent
of
my
opening
statement.
So
we'll
jump
right
into
this.
D
Thank
you,
counselor
wu.
I
don't
necessarily
have
an
opening
statement
just
want
to
thank
the
advocates
for
being
here
and
also
the
administration
team
for
being
here
and
and
also
to
superintendent,
paul
donovan,
who
I've
worked
with
in
the
past
who's,
an
outstanding
boston,
police
officer.
So
thank
you,
councilwoman,
I'm
here
to
listen.
A
Thank
you
and
counselor
braden
is
in
the
attendee
room,
but
try
as
I
might,
I
can't
seem
to
be
able
to
technologically
move
her
into
this
room,
so
counselor,
braden
or
team.
If
you
are
able,
let
me
know
if
there's
something
happening
on
the
technical
side,
but
we
know
that
you
are
here
and
present
as
well.
A
F
A
Wait
sorry,
chris,
I'm
so
sorry,
I
see
that
council,
braden
and
counselor
bach
are
now
here
as
well
and
wanted
just
to.
If,
if
you
don't
mind
chris
give
them
both
a
chance
to
offer
an
opening
statement.
Counselor
braden.
Are
you
able
to
to
speak
okay?
I
think
she
may
have
maybe
stepped
away
so
counselor.
G
Thanks
counselor
wu
just
happy
to
be
here,
and
you
know
as
before
and
as
I
think
I
said
in
prior
hearings
and
working
sessions
very
interested
in
seeing
us.
You
know
get
to
yes
on
this
and
and
really
exercise
that
civilian
oversight
over
surveillance,
also
enough
of
a
former
bureaucratic
administrative
person
that
very
interested
in
making
sure
that
we
also
do
make
it
work
kind
of
for
our
departments
in
ways
that
that
that
they
can
handle.
So
I'm
glad
to
have
them
on
the
call
with
us
here
today.
F
Thank
you
counselor,
and
to
follow
up
with
counselor
box
sort
of
comment
there.
The
the
substantive
changes
that
we
were
suggesting,
at
least
from
neuromechanics,
was
to
include
a
sort
of
provision
that
sort
of
has
this
applied
to
law
enforcement
entities,
which
I
think
counselor
wu
you
brought
up
in
the
start
of
this
call,
so
that
sort
of
shows
up
in
in
the
beginning
portion
of
this
and
again
that
was
to
think
about.
F
Is,
is
transparent
but
is
also
about
building
trust
with
them,
as
well
as
thinking
about
city
operation,
city
staff,
how
we
think
about
training
for
them,
as
well
as
seeing
about
procurement,
so
the
establishment
of
a
working
group
that
would
sort
of
make
those
recommendations
in
a
time-bound
way,
and
we
really
look
forward
to
sort
of
that
collaboration
going
forward.
So
those
are
the
two
sort
of
substantive
things
that
that
we
put
forth
in
here.
F
H
Counselor
superintendent
donovan
here
the
police
department,
also
is
advocating
for
a
working
group
to
be
established.
We
would
support
that.
We
feel
there's
a
need
to
you,
know,
work
and
everyone
to
understand.
You
know
the
issues
there.
You
know
from
the
police
department's
perspective,
the
impact
that
you
know
as
far
as
public
safety
is
concerned,
there's
just
things
things
that
are
going
to
inhibit
our
ability.
H
If
they're
not
completely
understood-
and
you
know-
sometimes
you
know-
maybe
we
need
to
understand
some
things
too,
but
we
just
everyone,
needs
to
see
the
the
big
picture
and
you
know
for
every
action
is
there's
a
there's,
a
reaction
and
a
consequence.
So
that
needs
to
be
understood
and
hopefully
through
that
working
group.
Everyone
can
understand
that
we
can,
you
know,
do
what's
best
for
the
city
on
their
recommendations.
C
C
I
certainly
have
a
lot
to
say,
but
I
think
on
the
other
stuff,
I
just
have
questions
right
now
about
what
they
envision
this
working
group
to
be
and
whether
or
not
they're
expecting
that
to
be
sort
of
a
safety
valve
where
they
can
get
rejected
by
the
council,
but
then
get
approved
by
this
working
group.
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
exactly
what
the
limits
of
that
working
group
or
what
the
goal
of
that
working
group
actually
is.
A
C
A
G
B
B
I
think
it
was,
and
we
discussed
the
possibility
of
the
advocacy
groups
and
folks
in
the
administration
working
after
we
get
this
ordinance
passed
to
think
about
what
what
a,
what
a
different
kind
of
oversight
and
transparency
framework
might
look
like
for
city
agencies
that
are
not
engaged
in
the
kinds
of
surveillance
that
departments
that
have
policing
functions
engage
in,
and
so
you
know
we're
comfortable
with
that.
On.
B
On
the
other
question,
I
have
similar
questions
to
to
those
that
it
sounds
like
counselor
arroyo
has
about
the
working
group,
the
function
of
it.
It's
really
not
clear
in
the
in
the
red
line
that
we
received,
whether
or
not
the
working
group
is
supposed
to
provide
merely
an
advisory
role
or
has
the
power
to
provide
advice
to
the
mayor.
Who
would
then
have
the
power
to
override
a
decision
made
by
the
council.
F
F
A
Okay,
so
I
think
at
this
point
it
might
make
sense
to
dive
into
the
language
and
there's
already
you
know,
as
I'm
scanning
through
some
pieces,
that
get
to
this
this
question
of
what
exactly
the
role
and
authority
and
limitations
are
michelle
goldberg.
Is
it
possible
if
you
might
potentially
screen,
share
with
the
redline
version
and
help
us
scroll
down
no
problem,
one
sec?
Thank
you
so
much.
C
So
the
there's
our
version
that
has
amendments
to
it.
So,
for
instance,
we
change
the
scope,
there's
also
the
one
that
was
submitted
to
us
by
the
city
and
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
go
through
them
side
by
side.
So
we
can
see
the
actual
changes,
because
in
some
cases
I
saw
deletions
that
weren't
actually
marked,
and
so
it's
tricky
to
try
and
measure
that,
when
the
one
that
they
redlined
has
things
that
are
missing,
but
not
they
don't.
Some
of
them
have
crossbrews
some
of
them.
Don't
basically
strike
throughs.
A
A
H
H
You
know
two
appointed
by
the
mayor,
one
appointed
by
the
city
council,
one
appointed
by
the
aclu
and
then
one
appointed
by
the
boston
police
command,
commissioner
and
then
they'd
review
the
issues
and
then
make
recommendations
to
the
mayor.
Now
you
know
where
it
goes
from
there.
You
know
who
has
the
authority?
H
I
mean
that's
for
someone
else
other
than
you
know
the
police
department
to
make
the
decision
but
would
make
the
working
group
would
make
the
recommendations
for
them
to
the
mayor,
and
then
the
mayor
and
the
city
council
would
would
go
from
there
as
far
as
that,
the
group
would
not
have
you
know
authority
to
you
know,
override
anything.
Just
make
recommendations
to
the
mayor.
A
H
It
could
happen
in
that
fashion
or,
if
you
know,
if
the
annual,
if
the
surveillance
report
you
know
we
submit,
if
we
follow
the
ordinance
and
we
submit
the
surveillance
report
and
that
has
that
meets
the
approval
of
the
council,
then
it's
it's
approved.
If
it's
not
approved
by
the
council,
then
it
could
go
to
the
working
group
to
kind
of
hash
out.
You
know
the
details
of
you
know:
what
is
the
issue?
What
does
the
council
want
changed?
What
can
be
changed?
A
Okay,
that's
helpful
for
my
understanding.
You
know,
and
I
had
seen
in
the
administration's
red
line
version.
There
was
one
major
strike
through
around
surveillance
use
policy
taking
out
the
approved
by
the
city
council
line,
which
seemed
to
me
so
there's
still
questions
of
okay.
Well,
once
this
group
has
proposed
something
to
the
mayor
and
the
mayor
then
has
it,
does
the
council
get
a
final
vote
on
that
or
if
the
council
does
not
want
to
approve
it?
What
happens
at
that
point?
A
C
Yeah
so
start
with
the
change
go
so
1663
won.
The
purpose
is
the
first
major
change
difference.
You
can
see
it
here.
They've
added
some
language,
they've
added
the
park
rangers,
but
they
took
out
the
boston
public
health
commission.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
the
reason
for
taking
out
the
boss,
public
health
commission
was.
F
G
When
we've
done
this
before
it's
been
very
confusing
to
do
definitions
before
doing
the
actual
provisions,
because
they're
referencing
the
definition,
so
you
end
up
having
to
explain
what's
coming
later
for
it
to
make
sense.
So
I
was
just
gonna
make
the
friendly
suggestion
that
maybe
after
purpose,
we
jump
to
the
next
substantive
section
and
kind
of
deal
with
definitions
as
they're
relevant
and
then,
if
there's
and
then
come
back
to
them.
That's
just
from
past
experience.
A
Sure
why
don't
we?
I
would
suggest,
because
there,
the
one
thing
that
jumped
out
to
me
most
was
something
within
definition.
So
I
think
we
should
scan
quickly
through
not
talk
too
much
about
it,
and
then
we
can
go
to
that
and
then
understand
how
the
changes
in
those
definitions
would
actually
impact
below.
H
A
So
the
version
on
the
left
is
the
one
that
we
received
from
chantal
on
behalf
of
the
administration
with
your
red
lines
and
then
the
version
on
the
right
includes
the
changes
that
had
been
incorporated
over
various
working
sessions
that
the
council
was
working
off
of,
and
so
I
would
consider
the
version
on
the
right
as
the
sort
of
sort
of
standard
of
where
the
committee
has
in
this
moment
and
then
we'll
work
off.
You
know
make
sure
we're
comparing
it
and
pulling
things
back.
H
Okay,
well
in
our
first
working
group,
I
suggested
for
the
purpose
at
the
end
of
the
purpose
there,
adding,
while
allowing
for
appropriate
use
to
assist
in
the
charge
of
improving
delivery
of
services
and
public
safety.
I
recall
I
thought
that
the
working
group
was
in
agreement
with
that.
So
I
would
like
to
have
that
added
into
the
final
document.
A
Great
yes,
I
remember
that
as
well
and
I
believe
everyone
was
in
agreement.
So
wonderful.
I
know
michelle
goldberg
is
our
whiz
at
this,
so
we'll
make
sure
that
we
have
that
in
there?
Okay,
so
that's
fine
for
purpose
and
then
so
both
that
both
everything
on
the
left
will
be
pulled
into
what's
on
the
right,
including
additionally,
the
public
health
department,
public
health
commission
and
the
boston
municipal
protective
services?
A
F
Yeah
a
clarifying
question-
I
guess
so
in
reading
that,
where
it's
just
now
in
definitions,
it
looks
like
maybe
that
paragraph
only
applies
to
the
annual
surveillance
report
as
opposed
to
applying
to
the
ordinance
as
a
whole.
If
it
sits
in
that
lower
sections
of
definitions,
but
would
like
someone
else's
interpretation
of
that.
A
A
Although
I
guess
the
the
downside
of
doing
it,
that
way
is
that
if
we
do
end
up,
you
know
the
version
on
the
left
then
restricts
the
entire
ordinance
to
those
departments,
and
if
there
are
additional
provisions
that
are
generated
related
to
the
other
departments
or
supplementing
it
in
some
way,
then
we
would
have
to
specifically
specify
that
other
provisions
and
the
ordinance
also
apply
to
those
departments
rather
than
saying
broadly
the
supplies
to
everywhere
in
the
city.
But
the
only
departments
that
need
to
produce
a
report
are
the
ones
that
are
listed
out
there.
F
Does
but
I
think,
there's
multiple
parts
of
the
ordinance
right
there.
It's
not
just
an
annual
surveillance
report,
there's
surveillance
use
policies
and
other
things.
So
the
question
is
whether
there
should
apply
to
all
departments
or,
if
you're,
going
to
carve
out
on
each
of
those
who
they
apply
to
okay,
yeah.
A
Thank
you,
emiliano,
okay,
so
applicability.
Okay,
I'm
going
to
put
that
on
our
parking
lot
too,
as
a
potential
way
to
we
have
a
couple
options
either.
It
goes
in
definite
either
goes
on
purpose
or
it
goes
under
definitions
with
each
provision.
We
want
to
apply
it
to
or
there's
a
separate
section
for
applicability,
but
I
think
this
is
just
a
matter
of
legal
language.
So,
let's
keep
going
down
through
and
then
we
can
come
back
to
this
point.
Okay,
could
michelle?
Could
you
scroll
down
through
just
so?
A
C
I
think
we
got
to
go
up
on
the
two,
so
michelle
just
to
give
you
a
heads
up,
the
the
one
with
all
they're,
not
gonna,
sync
up
perfectly,
because
the
ones
longer
than
the
other,
with
all
the
new
additions,
so
you're
gonna
have
to
just
sort
of
look
at
and
some
things
are
out
of
place
there.
You
go
perfect.
A
Okay,
these,
oh,
I
see
without
their
consent
versus
with
consent.
Okay,
again,
I
don't
want
to
just
as
councillor
box
said:
let's
not
discuss
right
now,
but
the
red
line
version
from
the
administration
wants
to
specify
that
surveillance
only
applies
without
consent
and
that
okay,
any
electronic
data
captured
recorded
retained
process
interpreted
or
analyzed.
A
At
the
direction
of
the
city,
okay
versus
just
data
that
is
retained
in
a
way
that
can
be
linked
back
to
the
data
subject
that
feels
significant
as
well,
and
then
the
surveillance
technology
part
has
been
slimmed
down.
Any
hardware
used
to
moderate
led
to
intent,
individuals,
okay,
all
right
so
again,
hold
on
that.
Let's
keep
going
down.
H
Yeah,
I'm
sorry!
So
I'm
just
if
you
scroll
back
up
to
the
definition,
the
description
of
data
there
I
mean
that's
if
it
can
be
traced
back.
So
that's
yeah
surveillance
data
linked
back
to
the
data
subject.
That
is
basically
every
piece
of
information
that
we
take
in
I
mean
data
data
is
information
for
us.
You
know
information,
we
use
data,
we
use
information
to
develop
our
deployment
plans
and
our
investigative
strategies
on
on
incidents
and
crimes.
Without
that
you
know
we're
operating
in
the
dark.
H
You
know
we're
going
to
be
taking
a
big
step
back
here
from
a
deployment
and
investigative.
You
know
perspective
just
on
on
how
we
do
things.
You
know
right
now:
the
police
department,
the
city
of
boston,
you
know
we're
ahead
of
the
curve.
As
far
as
you
know,
the
the
surging
crime,
you
know-
and
I
think
in
in
part-
that's
that's
largely
due
to
you
know
in
certain
sections
of
the
city,
anyways,
it's
it's
it's
the
cameras.
A
Okay,
I
don't
I
want
to
make
sure
we
are
quickly
scanning
through.
I
can
see
that
these
are
very
significant
changes
to
the
definitions
which
will
be
have
a
big
impact
on
the
scope
of
the
ordinance
as
written.
But
let's
hold
on
this
because
this
is
this
is
going
to
be
a
big
discussion.
So,
let's
keep
going
down
through
and
we
will
make
sure
to
return
to
the
definitions,
because
that
at
the
end
will
be
a
very
foundational
piece.
A
H
So
I
think
that
was
probably
that
was
from
the
police
department.
It
just
you
know.
Historically,
you
know,
we've
run
everything
through
the
mayor's
office,
and
you
know
the
police
department
would
would
like
to
continue
that
to
run
things
through
the
mayor's
office,
and
then
you
know
the
mayor
and
the
city
council
can
can
work
things
out
as
they
have
in
the
past.
A
I
see
well,
I
think
the
point
of
the
city
council
working
things
out
is,
I
mean
the
the
crux
of
the
ordinance
really
is
that
there
will
be
city
council
approval
on
the
policies,
and
this
is
what
then
chief
gross
came
to
the
council
several
years
ago
and
agreed
to
so
I
think
this
is
really
the
foundation
of
the
entire
ordinance
here.
Councillor.
G
Bach
yeah
councillor
wu.
I
think
that,
because
I
did,
I
ran
a
search,
I
think,
if
you
get
down
to
so
there's
a
the
later
section
community
control
over
surveillance,
1663.3
and
you
go
down
all
the
way
to
sorry
these
stocks,
everybody
docs
could
use
page
numbers
and
then
b
under
surveillance
use
policy.
Basically
the
point
is
they
are.
G
There
is
the
reference
to
the
surveillance
surveillance
use
policy
further
down
in
the
document?
Is
that
both
okay?
No?
But
it's?
But
it's
that
it
says
that
it's
going
to
be
submitted.
The
mayor
shall
submit
to
the
council
for
its
review
and
approval
as
her
proposed
surveillance
use
policy.
So
it
sounds
like
what's
basically
happening
is
it's
like?
G
I
think
what
the
administration
did
here
was
say:
the
use
policy
kind
of
like
flows
up
from
the
departments
to
the
mayor
and
then
comes
to
us
for
our
approval,
so
the
approval
piece
isn't
gone.
I
think
there
is
still
that
that
question
about
the
working
group,
but
we'll
get
to
that
in
a
bit
because
then
but
anyways.
My
point
is,
I
think,
probably
I
hear
what
you're
saying
so.
G
A
K
I
think
when
my
school
seems
to
be
off,
I've
been
I've
been
listening,
but
I
feel,
like
I
see
myself
as
sideways,
am
I
sideways
on
camera?
You
are
sideways,
I
don't
know.
What's
going
on,
everyone
else
looks
normal,
so
I'm
I'm
going
to
turn
my
camera
off,
but
I've
been
listening
and
I've
been
following
along.
So
I
guess
I
can
do
it
off
camera
because
it's
distracting
or
if
you
want
to
continue
it's
up
to
you.
No.
A
E
A
About
the
purpose
we
scanned
quickly
through
the
definitions
just
to
understand
that
there
were
proposed
changes
to
some
of
them.
There
are
some
big
proposed
changes
to
some
of
the
ways
that
we
define
surveillance
and
surveillance
data
and
now
we're
at
the
actual
beginning
of
the
the
ordinance.
So
I
will
hand
it
over
to
you
all
right.
K
K
K
G
G
But
I
also
think
just
based
on
our
prior
conversation
that
this
applicability,
a
is
basically
it's
basically
redundant
with
a
section
that
the
administration
has
up
in
purpose
that
we
discussed
before,
and
so
it's
really
just
a
question
of
where
it's
sitting
in
the
document,
and
then
there
was
some
back
and
forth
about
municipal
protection
services
and
bphc
having
been
removed.
But
I
think
we've
sort
of
already
done
that
piece.
A
And
I
would
just
chime
in
that-
I
I
like
it
here
under
applicability
because
it
feel
under
purpose
it
just.
We
want
this
to
apply
citywide,
as
the
purpose
and
applicability
here
is
just
feels
more
specific
to
what
what
the
starting
point
is
but
open
to
emiliano,
who
had
originally
suggested
this
as
well
or
others.
K
Okay,
all
right
so
into
exceptions
and
exemptions.
The
following
situations
are
exemption
exemptions.
I
believe
b
one
and
a
one
are
the
same.
I
think
then,
b
we
have
this
a
capital
letter,
a
under
one
stays
the
same
capital
letter
b,
I'm
just
making
sure
it
stays
the
same,
then
there's
a
c
and
d
in
the
administration
version
the
for
the
exemptions,
the
exemptions.
K
The
administration
adds
surveillance,
that
acquired
from
third
parties
for
the
exclusive
use
of
planning
and
operation
of
city
mobility
systems
and
the
surveillance
data
acquired
by
and
for
the
exclusive
use
of
operating,
maintaining
and
optimizing
utilities
operated
by
the
boston,
water
and
sewer
commission.
You
can
have
the
administration
speak
to
those
two
situations,
and
then
we
can
have
the
co-sponsors
advocates
respond
to
c
and
d
as
editions.
F
I
I
can
speak
to
some
of
that
counselor.
This
was
put
in
an
earlier
edit,
where
we
were
trying
to
think
about
how
to
sort
of
maintain
city
operations.
I
think
if
the
applicability
section
stands
here,
this
might
become
a
moot
point
and
it
will
be
something
that
we
address
sort
of
in
that
that
end
working
group,
along
with
community
partners
and
council.
K
K
All
right,
moving
on
to
surveillance
number,
two,
I'm
seeing
just
in
the
spot
response.
Thanks
to
michelle,
I
see
the
the
language
is
pretty
much
the
same
for
two
to
a
to
b,
then
we
get
to
2c
manually,
operated
the
words
non-wearable
is
taken
out
handheld
and
handheld
digital
cameras.
This
is
this.
Excuse
me,
for
those
who
are
watching
this
is
referring
to
surveillance.
Technology
does
not
include
the
following
devices,
software
or
hardware,
and
then
listed
under
c
is
manually.
K
F
F
Non-Wearable
means
where
putting
on
a
gopro
or
something
to
sort
of
do
some
of
that
work
might
be
problematic
and
also
a
lot
of
those
sort
of
video
camera.
Small
video
cameras
like
a
gopro
or
an
action
cam
that
they
would
do
that
filming
with
would
also
sort
of
link
that
probably
not
manually
downloaded,
but
also
to
sort
of
a
cloud
system
which
then
you
pull
that
footage
off
of.
F
Again,
a
number
of
those
systems
again
gopro
or
dji
or
or
the
like,
often
sort
of
upload
that
footage
to
a
cloud
system
which
then
you
download
for
the
edit
so
manually
downloading.
It
would
require
that
whatever
camera
they
use
is
required
not
to
be
able
to
do
that
which
might
be
problematic,
because
a
lot
of
those
systems
have
that
sort
of
embedded
nature
in
them.
B
Madam
chair,
the
problem
that
we
would
have
with
striking
these
particular
words
from
c
is
that
it
would.
It
would
exclude
body-worn
cameras
from
the
provisions
of
the
ordinance,
which
is
obviously
very
problematic,
given
the
significance
of
that
technology
and
the
degree
to
which
police
warn
body-worn
cameras
monitor
people.
B
Yeah,
so
the
manual
download,
essentially,
what
this
exception
is
trying
to
accomplish,
is
excluding
from
the
provisions
of
the
ordinance,
the
use
of
a
camcorder
right
or
a
digital
camera
to
take
pictures
of
a
city
event
or
something
like
that
to
put
on
you,
know
the
boston
police
department's
website
or
the
boston
public
schools.
You
know
using
video
technology
to
shoot,
you
know
promotional
materials
or
educational
materials
or
something
so
that's
what
we
were
aiming
for.
We
were
not
aiming
to
exclude
body
cameras
from
the
ordnance.
G
Okay,
madam
chair
yeah,
okay,
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
think
we
should
find
a
better
way
of
of
targeting
that
distinction,
because
mine
is
just
if
the
same
piece
of
equipment.
If
the
question
is
whether
it's
got
a
clip
on
it
or
not,
and
frankly,
the
question
of
whether
things
get
manually,
downloaded
or
uploaded
to
the
cloud
is
going
to
be
a
technology
change
like
we
that
you
know
it
just
isn't
going
to
be
a
meaningful
distinction,
necessarily
for
the
long
term.
G
So
I
I
I
take
kate's
point
and
agree
that
those
things
are
importantly
different,
but
I
think
we
probably
need
to
find
some
way
other
than
the
distinction
of
wearability
to
make
that
to
make
that
distinction,
and
I
say
that
not
knowing
what
it,
how
exactly
how
to
do
it.
But
that's
just
my
instinct
on
this.
A
A
So
if
we
keep,
if
we
change
the
non-wearable
to
law
enforcement
or
sorry,
non-law
enforcement
operated,
slash,
maybe
wearable
or
you
know,
yeah.
I
think
we're
just
trying
to
take
gopros
out
of
here.
Basically,
so
is
there
a
situation
where
body
worn
cameras
are
not
in
the
police
department
that
that
we
are
worried
about
and
if
not,
then
I
think
we
could
just
specifically
say
law
enforcement
operated
our
non-law
enforcement
operated
here
to
specify.
A
I
think
I
mean
what
if,
for
example,
the
possum
public
health
commission
in
their
outreach
team
at
mass
and
cass
or
somewhere,
is
now
thinking
about
wearing
body
cameras.
Or
some
I
mean
I
guess,
there's
a.
I
would
defer
to
the
advocates
if
there
are
ways
to
be
more
specific
about
that
or
to
say
that
the
or
just
put
in
the
other
direction
and
to
say
we're
specifically
going
to
exclude
manually,
operated,
handheld
digital
cameras
being
used
for
the
purpose
of
educational
videos
or
something
like
that.
G
Right
is
there
like
an
educational,
promotional
event,
type
description
that
would
write
like
to
make
the
mistake,
because
what
we're
really
thinking
about
are
body
cameras
that
are
just
running
to
michelle's
point,
regardless
of
who's
wearing
them
that
are
just
sort
of
running
and
collecting,
like
you
know,
sort
of
ongoing
data
of
potentially
identifiable
individuals.
I
think
the
council
is
trying
to
have
some
say
over.
B
K
F
Again
this
this
language,
we're
thinking
about
some
of
the
things
like
construction
on
city
hall,
plaza
right
now,
which
they're
doing
a
time
lapse
of
from
time
to
time
sort
of
to
show
construction
progress.
Would
this
exclude
that
use
or
require
a
surveillance
use
policy
for
that
type
of
use
that
camera's
not
installed
for
security
purposes?
It
is
purely
installed
for
sort
of
either
construction
monitoring
or
you
know,
promotion
or
awareness
or
transparency
of
like
a
project.
That's
happening
on
city
property.
F
C
Just
okay
just
a
question
for
the
administration
because
it
wasn't
in
the
version
they
were
looking
at,
but
wouldn't
the
applicability
at
the
very
beginning.
This
the
a
applicability
deal
with
some
of
some
of
those
issues
in
terms
of
like
the
construction
company
has
a
time
lapse,
video
or
something
it's
not.
That's,
not
the
boston,
public
health
commission.
C
In
fact,
I
guess
my
question
is
we're
over
here,
putting
ourselves
in
knots
for
c,
but
we
also
just
had
an
applicability
section.
Wouldn't
that
also
deal
with
the
fact
that
the
boston
transportation
department
is
is
there?
Are
they
on
here?
Not
no
they're?
Not
so,
even
with
that
they're,
not
you
know.
The
bike.
Lane
thing
is
a
non-issue.
F
I
think
council
you're
right
on
the
solely
piece,
probably
on
the
bike
lane
piece.
I
know
police
department
actually
has
their
staff
film,
those
training
videos,
so
they
can
inform
officers
how
to
handle
situations
in
those
lanes
as
well.
So
I
would
leave
it
to
the
department
to
sort
of
talk
about
that
work,
but
it
isn't
always
a
transportation
department.
I
know
they
do
it
for
the
cadet
program
and
other
things
and
they
have
a
media
production
team
there.
F
I
don't
know
if
those
people
that
do
that
production
are
sworn
officers
or
not
or
how
that
applies
to
civilian
members
of
the
police
department,
probably
some
language
there
as
kade
was
sort
of
recommending.
I
think
we
can
come
to
find
some
good
language
that
would
sort
of
meet
those
needs
there.
On
on
this
line,
around
sort
of
the
this
component,
I
think
you're,
probably
right
that
applicability,
maybe
does
sort
of
make
that
not
a
non-issue
assuming
it's
not
municipal
protective
services
that
are,
I
guess,
installing
the
camera.
L
K
K
Okay,
all
right,
let's,
let's
I
don't
okay!
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
for
the
the
thank
you
councillor,
mejia
for
attending
apologies.
My
camera
is
off
because
for
some
reason
I'm
sideways
looking.
So
I
didn't
see
a
lot
of
other
folks
who
joined
so
my
apologies,
but
on
k
I
I
actually
agree
with
council
arroyo
the
fact
that
there's
been
some
exemptions
and
some
very
clear
definitions
of
where
this
will
apply.
K
If
the
applicability
languages
is
what
we
adopt,
I
think
we're
going
to
be
okay
with
any
overlap
or
concerning
issues
that
the
administration
is
bringing
up
several
times.
Unintended
consequences
I
think,
was
used
in
some
of
the
other
other
language,
so
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
go
on
to.
If
you
can
scroll
up.
I
think
to
the
next
red
line
is
o.
K
So
the
there
were
several
exemptions
with
the
administration.
Excuse
me
that
the
that
we
had
the
administration
has
now
added
o
p
and
q,
o
being
technology
used
only
only
pursuant
to
lawfully
issued
search
warrant
or
other
court
order,
or
technology
which
is
typically
used
only
pursuant
to
a
lawfully
issued
search
warrant
or
court
order,
which
is
used
without
a
warrant
only
during
exigent
circumstances,
as
an
exemption
to
this
surveillance
and
then
also
record
systems
which
do
not
automatically
collect
that
data
and
then
finally,
devices
exclusively
used
for
the
purposes
of
detecting
radiation.
K
H
Council,
so
just
I
mean
any
time
we,
you
know,
technology
is
being
used
in
a
search
warrant
situation.
You
know
the
court,
a
judge
is
reviewing
that
and
the
judge
is
authorizing
that.
So
as
far
as
oversight
there's,
you
know
there's
strict
accountability
and
oversight
through
the
court
system
for
the
use
of
that
technology.
H
So
it's
it's
kind
of.
If
so,
if
I
don't
know
if
the
council
is,
is
looking
to
restrict
it
beyond
what
the
courts
of
of
you
know
found
to
be
permissible,
but
you
know
we're
just
we're
following
we're
following
the
law
we're
following
you
know,
case
law,
court
decisions,
it's
approved,
you
know
we're
going
working
with
the
district
attorney's
office.
The
district
attorney's
office
is
reviewing
these
search
warrant
applications
and
then
we're
going
to
the
court
and
getting
you
know
judicial
review
and
approval
before
taking
any
action.
H
Would
be
so
there's
a
question
to
just
you
know
so
again:
data
and
information.
You
know
you
could
be
talking
about
virtually
everything
we
do
so
our
mach
43
our
record
keeping
system
that
does
not
automatically
collect
data.
Really
it's
it's
all
input,
so
is
that
subject
you
know,
mark
43
system.
Is
that,
subject
to
this
ordinance,
our
booking
system?
Again,
that's
not!
H
You
know
it
doesn't
automatically
collect
data.
It's
you
know,
that's
persons
who
are
arrested
by
the
boston
police
department,
and
then
you
know
at
the
the
booking
process,
their
personal
information
and
information
related
to
the
crime
that
occurred
is
then
inputted
into
the
system.
Does
this
you
know,
pertain
to
that
and
then
just
the
the
radiation,
I'm
not
really
up
to
speed
on
that
that
system.
But
that's
for
you
know,
you
know
you
know
terrorist
related
incidents.
H
H
K
Okay,
do
you
and
you
don't
think
the
app
first
of
all,
I
mean
I'll,
ask
the
the
the
advocates
about
the
whether,
if
there's
already
an
issued
search
warrant
or
a
court
order
which
would
lend
me
to
believe
that
there
has
been
some
sort
of
vetting
and
some
sort
of
permission
asking
in
terms
of
the
violation
of
someone's
privacy,
because
they've
been
checked
by
a
court?
Does
that
feel
comfortable
or
does
that
make
sense
or
is?
Am
I
incorrect
in
that
process.
B
B
They
are
devices
that
allow
the
police
or
the
fbi
or
other
members
of
law
to
trick
cell
phones
into
thinking.
A
cell
phone
is
communicating
with
the
cell
phone
network
with
a
cell
phone
tower
when
actually
they're
communicating
with
the
police
and
these
devices
enable
the
real-time
tracking
physical
location,
tracking
of
cell
phones,
as
well
as
some
models
even
allow
for
interceptions
of
communications
from
those
cell
phones.
So
this
is
this
technology
started
to
be
used
by
police.
B
B
So
you
know
that's
just
one
reason
why
we
would
strongly
object
the
inclusion
of
oh
another.
Is
you
know
the
council
and
its
wisdom
elected
last
summer
to
ban
the
use
of
facial
recognition
technology
in
the
city
of
boston
courts?
As
you
know,
and
all
the
attorneys
on
this
call
know
tend
to
have
a
binary
response
to
fourth
amendment
issues:
either
something
is
constitutional
or
it's
not.
B
They
don't
make
policy
decisions
about
what
technologies
are
appropriate
for
for
specific
communities,
and
so
you
know,
for
those
are
the
two
big
reasons
why
we
would
object
to
this.
The
other
is
that
this
would
essentially
shield
you
know
a
large
portion
of
the
technology.
That
is
in
use
by
the
boston
police
department,
from
city,
council
oversight
and
public
scrutiny,
and
I
think
you
know
for
the
reasons
that
I've
described
him
for
others.
B
K
H
H
K
I
think
that
the
the
goal
of
this
is
is
to
really
get
to
how
to
make
sure
that
we
trust
and
move
and
are
protected
by
public
safety
workers
who
work
for
the
city
of
boston,
obviously
as
police
officers
and
work
for
for
all
of
us
and
and
while
the
word
spy
may
not
be
something
that
you
appreciate.
I
think,
for
there
are
trust
issues.
K
There
are
many
people
who
do
not
feel
protected
by
and
they
feel
watched,
and
they
feel
that
they
are
not
that
they
are
suspected
by
the
police,
and
so
I
actually
think
this
is
a
very
important
work
to
make
sure
that
we
rectify
that
relationship
and,
hopefully
put
us
in
the
best
position
possible
again.
This
is
not
telling
you
not
to
do
your
job.
This
is
making
sure
that
we're
very
clear
about
how
the
job
will
be
done.
K
K
B
As
I
said
before,
the
law
moves
much
much
slower
than
technology
does
so,
for
example,
in
the
state
of
massachusetts,
we
didn't
have
any
law,
either
through
court
tourist
prudence
or
through
statute
telling
police
that
they're
required
to
get
a
warrant
to
use
that
device
that
I
just
talked
about
the
stingray
until
very
very
recently,
and
it
actually
only
appears
in
a
footnote
in
an
sjc
case.
So
it's
still
maybe
not
necessarily
as
clear
as
we
would
want
it
to
be.
B
C
C
K
Thank
you
and
I
really
appreciate
the
background
as
a
public
service
attorney
for
folks
to
understand
how
search
warrants
are
issued
at
the
end
of
the
day.
It
would
still
allow
for
someone
to
be
watched
surveyed
or
observed,
and
the
question
is
whether
that
information
is
allowed
in
court
as
to
prove
their
guilt
or
innocence,
but
ultimately
the
action
isn't
really
checked
and
the
process
isn't
really
checked
in
how
they
access
that
information.
K
K
Notwithstanding,
provisions
of
this
ordinance,
bpd
wait:
yeah,
notwithstanding
positions
of
this
ordinance,
bpd
may
temporarily
acquire
or
temporarily
use
surveillance
technology
in
exigent
circumstances
for
a
period
not
to
exceed
30
days,
so
this
is
allowing
for
some
flexibility
without
following
the
provisions
of
this
chapter
before
the
acquisition
one.
Second,
oh
sorry,
and
now
I'm
having
technical
difficulties.
Can
you
still
hear
me?
K
Yes,
sorry,
oh
my
goodness,
one
second
sorry
notwithstanding
following
the
provisions
of
this
chapter
before
the
acquisitions
are
used.
However,
bpd
acquires
or
uses
surveillance
technology
in
exes
and
circumstances
under
this
section,
the
bpd
commissioner
must
so.
In
summary,
this
is
allowing
for
exigent
use
allowing
for
emergency
use,
but
then
follow
up
for
the
commissioner.
They
must
do
several
things,
so
we
have
under
a
report
that
acquisition
b
submit
a
surveillance
technology
impact
report,
and
in
that
we
have
some
redline.
K
So
under
b,
it
states
submit
a
surveillance
technology
impact
report
and,
if
necessary,
a
technology.
Specific
surveillance
use
policy
to
the
city
council
regarding
that
surveillance
technology
within
30
days
following,
and
this
is
where
the
red
lines
come
in
either,
which
is
red
line,
the
end
of
those
exigent
circumstances
or
30
days,
following
the
conclusion
of
any
investigation
into
criminal
conduct
related
to
the
events
given
rise
to
the
exiting
circumstances.
K
My
first
question,
I
think
to
the
police
is
criminal
investigations
can
last
years.
If
I
understand
that-
and
so
it's
30
days
or
until
a
criminal
conduct
is,
is
over
the
investigation
into
it,
and
criminal
conduct
isn't
necessarily
defined
as
that
one
individual.
It
could
be
several
people
in
the
room,
so
it
could.
You
can
hop
from
one
person
to
another
person
saying
we're
still
investigating
criminal
conduct
as
an
umbrella.
So
I
really
wonder
if
that
is,
could
perpetually
delay
the
impact
report,
thoughts
from
the
administration
and
any
advocates.
H
Well,
thank
you,
so
I
would
think
this
would
you
know
as
far
as
the
technology,
so
this
would
be
that,
like
emerging
emerging
technology
and
I
think
going
back
to
the
previous
under
o,
you
know
the
concern
for
the
department
is.
Is
you
know
kind
of
the
you
know
the
the
tried
and
true,
when
I
say
tried
and
true
I
mean
you
know
the
things
that
work
for
us
from
a
technology
perspective
and
that
the
courts
have
been
upheld.
H
You
know
the
ordinance
here
seems
to
be
that
despite
it
working
for
us
and
despite
the
courts
saying
given
their
their
approval,
that
the
council
then
has
the
ability
to
go
back
and
still
say
well,
despite
all
of
that,
if
we
don't
like
it
we're
going
to
restrict
you
from
using
it
the
emerging
tech
technology.
If
you
want
to
put
something
into
oh
saying,
you
know
any
new
emergent
technology
has
to
be
brought
before
the
council.
H
H
You
know
until
that
exigent
circumstance
is
over.
I
think
we
need
a
little
a
little
bit
of
leeway.
It's
going
to
have
to
be,
and
that
could
be.
You
know
the
working
group
is
going
to
have
to
figure
that
out.
I
think
there's
just
you
can't.
You
can't
cover
every
single
scenario
of
what
might
be
happening
by
virtue
of
technology
and
incident.
K
Well,
I
think
that
this
is
actually
allowing
for
exact
oxygen
circumstances
for
you
to
move
and
for
you
to
get
things
done.
This
is
about
the
report
after
the
fact
that
the
commissioner
would
have
to
define
what
happened
essentially
and
it's
allowing
for
30
days
following
the
end
of
the
exodus
circumstances
in
the
original
version.
This
is
a
report
back
to
the
community.
K
Plus
you're,
saying
or
or
after
the
investigation
into
criminal
conduct
has
ended
and,
and
that's
not
really
defined,
and
I
this
is,
you
know,
based
off
of
my
limited
practice
in
criminal
law
and
I'm
sure
counselor
arroyo
and
others
can
get
in
there.
But
I
understand
criminal
investigations
can
last
can
last
for
years,
if
you're
looking
at
organized
crime,
if
you're
looking
at
different
things
and
criminal
conduct,
not
defined
could
be,
for
it
could
be
for
a
lot
of
things.
K
So
so
that's
why
that
I
think
I
could
say,
I'm
I'm
genuinely
concerned
about
that
that
really
waters
down
the
the
due
date
for
the
report.
That's
where
that's
coming
from,
but
again
this.
This
is
about
you
being
able
to
go
ahead
and
do
what
you
need
to
do
in
exigent
circumstances,
just
reporting
back.
B
But
an
emergency
does
not
last
very
long,
typically,
there's,
typically
a
very
defined
beginning
and
end
to
exigent
circumstances.
That's
what
makes
them
exigent.
You
know,
I
think
a
great
example
to
use
superintendent
donovan's
is
the
boston
marathon
bombing.
This
ordinance
would
authorize
the
boston
police
department
to,
for
example,
borrow
surveillance
technology
from
the
fbi
that
has
not
been
approved
by
the
council
in
in
immediate
response
to
an
emergency
like
a
terrorist
attack.
B
What
it
would
not
authorize
the
boston
police
department
to
do
is
to
then
shield
from
council
disclosure,
public
disclosure
and
oversight
that
technology
and
the
use
of
that
technology,
for,
as
you
mentioned
matter,
the
duration
of
a
criminal
investigation
which,
frankly,
could
last
forever
I
mean
you
know.
We
frequently
hear
from
law
enforcement
that
they
can't
disclose
records
pursuant
to
the
public
records
act,
for
example,
because
of
an
ongoing
investigation.
Obviously,
a
determination-
that's
made
entirely
internal
in
the
department
with
no
outside
scrutiny,
oversight,
accountability
or
transparency.
So
so
that's
our
concern.
L
K
C
Yeah,
so
I
had
two
issues
here:
one
is
already
been
well
well
touched,
which
is
that
investigations
can
literally
last
years.
In
fact,
in
some
cases,
I've
had
folks
under
continuing
investigation,
even
as
we're
winding
through
the
legal
process.
Right
so
like
that's,
not
a
that's
a
that's,
a
very
opaque
sort
of
like
that
could
be
ten
years
from
now,
three
years
from
now
a
year
from
now
or
six
months
from
now,
who
knows,
when
you're
going
to
conclude
an
investigation?
It's
also
a
determination
completely
made
by
bpd.
C
Nobody
else
gets
to
decide
when
they
quote
unquote
concluded
an
investigation
except
for
them.
The
other
issue
I
have
is
in
the
language
specifically
that
says,
conduct
related
to
the
events,
giving
rise
to
the
existing
circumstances,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
with
afghanistan
sort
of
in
the
news
every
day.
K
Right,
okay,
I
I
have,
I
think,
we've.
I
think
the
goal
again
is
to
make
sure
that
there
is
an
avenue
to
act
immediately
with
technology.
That's
not
approved
that
goal
is
still
met
this
language,
I
think
ultimately
waters
down
the
ability
for
bpd
or
for
folks
to
hold
law
enforcement
to
come
back
to
us
with
with
information
within
a
timely
manner.
30
days.
Is
there
any
movement
or
concern
about
the
30
days?
Is
there
you
know
if
you
felt
you
needed
more
time?
H
K
H
C
K
K
Okay,
next
I'm
going
down
into
looking
for
the
next
red
line,
so
we're
d,
e,
f,
so
d.
I'm
sorry
is
again
about
exemptions
for
emergency
situations.
If
the
commissioner
of
police
is
unable
to
meet
the
30-day
timeline
to
submit
surveillance
technology
impact
report
a
and,
if
necessary,
technology-specific
surveillance
use
policy
to
the
city
council.
The
commissioner
police
must
notify
the
city
council
in
writing
requesting
to
extend
this
period
so
there's
an
extension
option.
K
The
city
council
may
ground
extensions
beyond
the
original
30-day
timeline
to
submit
a
surveillance
technology
impact
report
and,
if
necessary,
technology-specific
surveillance
use
policy.
The
administration
added,
if
the
council
declines
to
grant
this
extension,
the
request
for
extension,
will
be
forwarded
to
the
surveillance,
working
oversight
working
group.
Who
will
make
a
recommendation
to
the
mayor?
K
H
Yes,
basically,
yes,
that
we
would
well
we'd
go
to
the
the
working
group
where
the
working
group
could,
you
know,
hopefully
come
to
understand
the
situation
from
a
public
safety
standpoint,
and
then
the
working
group
of
whom
only
you
know,
one's
going
to
be
from
the
police
department,
would
then
make
a
recommendation
to
the
mayor.
So
it
wouldn't
be
the
police
department
making
a
recommendation.
It
would
be
the
working
group
you
know
whatever
that
group
is
comprised
of.
We
would
ask
that
there's.
H
K
I
you
know
what
I
think
what
would
be
helpful,
because
I
could
see
how
this
would
be
frustrating
if
the
city
council
refused
to
act.
Counselor
royal,
if
counselors
were
concerned
with
that.
So
maybe,
if
there
was
a
deadline
like
you
know,
the
city
council
must
make
after
an
extension
request
has
been
put
through.
We
got
to
take
and
take
a
stand,
because
I
can
see
also
that
that
never
ending
midline
of
certain
people
might
be
concerned
about
taking
a
stance
if
there's
exiting
circumstances
another
marathon
bond
there.
C
Yeah,
okay-
and
I
think
we
actually
have
later
in
this
in
this
actual
ordinance
that
we
have
to.
We
can't
just
hold
this
in
committee
when
they
bring
something
to
us.
If
we
hold
it
past,
I
think
it's
60
days,
then
it
just
automatically
happens.
So
there's
a
there
is
already
something
like
that
here,
but
I
I
my
one
issue-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
were
here
earlier,
where
they
described,
because
it's
a
little
confusing,
because
I
think
they
have
like
the
same
name.
They
they
have.
C
C
K
We'll
put
that
time
limit
for
time
limit
for
d
for
city
action,
see
how
in
the
in
the
parking
lot,
if
you
will
or
whatever
I
don't
know,
what
we're
calling
it-
and
I
again,
I
think
we're
still
from
from
my
coming
in.
There
are
still
discussions
about
the
working
groups.
The
advisory
one
seemed
to
be
a
different
discussion
versus
one
that
was
kind
of
either
a
check
or
the
appeal
process
to
the
city
council.
K
So
I
I
think
we
until
that's
actually
worked
out
about
the
role.
I
think
it's
gonna
be
very
hard
for
for
my
colleagues
to
want
to
have
that
a
check
on
them,
but
I'm
happy
to
make
sure
that
we
have
to
respond
and
submit
the
request
so
e
as
red
lines.
It
states
currently
any
surveillance
technology
impact
report
and,
if
necessary,
any
technology.
Specific
surveillance
use
policy
submitted
to
the
city
council
under
this
subsection
shall
be
made
publicly
available
on
the
city's
website
upon
submission
to
the
city
council.
K
We
have
certainly
done
our
best,
for
example,
when
it
came
to
retirement
or
the
homework
petitions
for
a
hundred
percent
disability.
We've
certainly
done
our
best
to
keep
the
medical
records
of
the
officers
private,
but
we
were
very
clear
because
they're
submitted
to
us
for
public
discourse
discourse.
K
H
H
H
K
K
I
also
think
that
there's,
I'm
sure,
there's
a
way
in
which
certain
names
of
people
can
be
redacted,
we're
not
interested
in
actually
again,
not
speaking
for
the
lead
sponsors,
but
I
I
know
I'm
not
interested
in
the
people
involved,
I'm
interested
in
the
technology
that
you
use,
and
I
think
that
that
is
what
is
most
important
for
me.
So
how
much
of
a
privacy
interested
interest
do
you
have
in
the
technology
used?
Not
in
the
individuals?
K
B
So
I
think
you
know
again.
Our
problem
with
this
language
would
would
is
that
it
would
essentially
exempt
the
police
department
from
the
ordinance,
because,
obviously
the
the
police
department
would
would,
at
its
sole
discretion,
determine
what
kinds
of
information
which
types
of
technologies
you
know.
Transparency
about,
would
jeopardize
public
safety
or
impair
an
ongoing
investigation,
and
just
to
touch
on
the
example
I
gave
before
of
the
stingray
device.
B
One
of
the
reasons
that
the
fbi
gave
for
its
secrecy
surrounding
the
use
of
stingrays
is,
is
you
know
they
claimed
james
comey?
Actually,
the
former
director
of
the
fbi
publicly
claimed
that,
if
the
reason
that
the
fbi
didn't
want
police
talking
about
this
technology
is
because,
if
bad
guys,
that's
the
phrase
that
he
used
knew
that
the
police
could
track
their
cell
phones.
B
You
know
that
I
don't
know
they
wouldn't
do
crime
or
something
I
mean
that
was.
The
argument
is
like
that:
maybe
they
wouldn't
carry
their
cell
phones
with
them
when
they
were
doing
crimes.
So
you
know
it's
that
kind
of
transparently
false
idea.
I
think
that
that
leads
to
you
know
a
lot
of
concern
on
our
part
about
the
inclusion
of
language.
Like
this.
You
know
people
have
watched
tv.
They
know
that
the
cops
can
track
cell
phones.
C
K
C
I
wouldn't
say
that
an
example
that
is
actually
relevant
here
about
when
I
actually
made
it.
I
made
a
17f
request
specifically
for
minimum
staffing
levels
at
vpd,
which
was
very
simple
minimum
staffing
levels.
What
do
you?
What
are
the
minimums?
Not?
What
are
you
staffing,
but
what
are
the
minimum
levels
that
you
can
stop?
C
If
you
just
allowed
that
kind
of
language
in
here,
because
I
think
the
same
way
that
superintendent
donovan
has
explained
that
he's
worried
about
vagueness,
even
though
I
think
this
is
much
clearer
than
that,
because
there
is
no
interest
in
individual
or
independent
investigations.
I
don't
even
know
that
mr
a
and
mr
b
and
mr
c
were
being
monitored
on
march
5th.
This
way,
what
I
need
to
know
is
this
technology
is
something
we
use
to
monitor.
This
is
what
it
does.
C
This
is
how
we
use
it,
and
this
is
the
additional
ways
it
is
capable
of
being
used
at
point
blank
period.
I
don't
even
know
the
dates
times
the
people
any
of
that,
and
this
doesn't
actually
ask
for
any
of
that,
but
the
vagueness
that
comes
with
language,
like
jeopardizing
public
safety,
is
way
bigger
and
way
more
wide
of
a
problem
to
me.
L
Something
really
quick
before
you
move
on
sure.
Is
that
okay?
Yes,
okay,
so
it
it's
in
regards
to
the
way,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
the
section
that
we
can
address
it,
but
I'm
hearing
and
since
we're
talking
about
consent
and
folks,
knowing
I'm
just
curious,
can
we
add
a
definition
for
knowing
and
voluntary
consent.
It
comes
up.
K
No,
no,
I
think
that
that's
it's
a
we.
We
discussed
a
little
bit
on
some
of
the
voluntary
involuntary
language
a
little
earlier
and
we
I'm.
We
have
a
parking
lot
of
issues,
but
I
do
agree
with
you
that
there's
a
there's
a
certain
question
still
that
we're
working
out
on
that
particular
language
and
that
particular
like
what
does
it
mean
to
volunteer?
K
Obviously,
you
can't
always
check
a
box
every
single
time.
You
know
you
walk
around,
so
what
does
it
mean
to
put
yourself
in
that
position?
So
we
have
we.
I
appreciate
that
you
did
bring
it
up
before
too
too
for
everyone
to
know.
Counselor
me
has
been
on
this
on
this
particular
issue.
What
does
it
mean
to
volunteer
and
to
be
consent
to
be
observed?
So
this
is
not
inconsistent,
you're
bringing
it
up
again,
and
we
will.
K
We
will
have
we're
we're
in
the
middle
of
the
back
and
forth
on
that
throughout
and
also
just
again
give
councilmember
here
a
shout
out.
We
will
make
sure
all
of
this
and
the
notices
and
the
understanding
will
be
in
more
than
one
language,
because
if
we're
going
to
be
asking
people
to
be
giving
up
or
conceding
or
saying
that
the
government
can
absorb
it
in
any
way,
they
better
be
doing
it
in
a
language
that
they
can
understand
and
make
sure
it's
plain
language
again,
a
shout
out
for
your
efforts.
K
Councillor
mejia
we're
going
to
go
on
to
section
continue
on
to
the
red
lines
where
we're
in
f,
which
I
believe
has
stayed
realistic.
Now
we're
in
part
four.
This
is
again
still
part
of
the
exemptions.
Emergency
exemptions,
part
a
city
department
may
head
may
apply
a
technical
patch
or
upgrade
that
is
necessary
to
mitigate
threats
to
the
city's
environment.
K
K
If
the
city
council
does
not
approve
the
use
of
this
proposed
new
surveillance
capabilities,
the
requests
shall
be
sent
to
the
surveillance
oversight
working
group
who
will
make
recommendations.
I
think
this
is
still
part
of
the
conversation
about
the
appeal
process
and
yeah.
I
think
that
we
don't
need
to
hash
rehash
that
back
and
forth.
K
K
C
K
Well,
thank
you
very
much.
Counselor
royal
surveillance
use
policy.
The
mayor
shall
submit
to
the
city
for
its
review
and
approval
of
proposed
surveillance,
use
policy
applicable
to
each
city
department
that
possesses
or
uses
surveillance
technology
before
the
effective
date
of
this
ordinance,
the
edits
or
the
administration
say
that
is
covered
by
this
ordinance.
K
I
think
that
that
we're
working
on
that
exactly
exactly
okay
but
again,
there's
the
kind
of
appeal
process
that
the
city
council
does
not
approve.
The
policy
shall
be
sent
to
the
surveillance
oversight.
Group
again,
I
think
it's
the
appeal
process
that
we've
gone
back
and
forth
on,
so
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
set
of
red
lines.
K
K
C
So
this
gets
back
to
the
idea
of
timeliness.
I
really
don't
have
an
issue
with
being
timely.
I
think
the
the
I
can't
think
of
a
period
where
the
city
council
would
have
60
days
between
meetings,
for
instance,
that's
two
months,
so
I
think
you
could
have
something
brought
in
and
then
on
for
a
vote
within
60
days.
I
guess
it's
a
question
of
where
these
things
would
go.
Would
they
go
to
government
ops?
Would
they
go
to.
C
C
If
somebody
gets
something
in
their
committee
and
we
create
a
mechanism
where,
when
we
don't
vote
on
something,
it
gets
immediately
passed
or
it
immediately
goes
to
some
appeal
unit.
We
are
giving
somebody
essentially
the
single-handed
power
to
say
I
know
my
council
colleagues
may
not
pass
this,
so
I'm
going
to
hold
this
past
the
deadline
so
that
these
other
things
get
triggered,
and
I
do
worry
a
little
bit
about
that.
K
B
B
B
One
is
that
we
have
to
figure
out
what
we
think
about
this
working
group
and
its
authority,
and
then
the
other
is
whether
any
sort
of
automatic
thing
ought
to
be
triggered,
and
I
I
agree
with
councillor
arroyo
that
you
know
if
there's
someone
in
a
position
of
power
on
a
committee
who
who
supports
the
passage
of
a
surveillance,
use
policy
but
but
thinks
that
maybe
their
colleagues
will
not
support
it,
that
they
could
just
sit
on
it
for
a
couple
months
and
then
you
know
it
would
automatically
be
approved.
So
that's
a
that's.
B
B
Well,
I
think,
as
councillor
royal
pointed
out,
the
danger
there
is
that
somebody
who
who
has
a
view
that
the
surveillance
use
policy
falls
short
of
what
the
majority
of
the
council
thinks
is
necessary,
could
just
sit
on
it
for
60
days,
avoid
a
vote
and
then
you
know,
would
automatically
be
approved
by
the
council.
So
I
I
actually
don't
object
to
the
language
that
the
administration
has
has
suggested
here,
because
it
doesn't
explicitly,
you
know,
include
any
trigger
like
that.
B
C
I
will
say
the
one
question
that
I
have
is
because
there's
two
working
groups
on
the
table,
one
that
sort
of
is
supposed
to
make
recommendations
and
work
towards.
How
do
we
make?
Is
this
something
that
can
get
passed
or
something
that
should
get
passed
and
then
they
make
different
recommendations
to
try
and
shepherd
this
through.
Another
working
group
is
one:
that's
sort.
C
By
bpd,
which
is
more
of
an
appeal
process
that
they
can
override
a
decision
we
make
or
get
around
or
whatever
that
is,
if
this
is
simply
sending
it
to
a
working
group
that
is
going
to
try
and
look
at
this
and
try
to
figure
out.
Is
this?
Does
how
do
we
shepherd
this
through
or
how
do
we
get
this
done
or
what
is
this
thing?
That's
a
totally
different
deal
than
if
we
don't
vote
it
at
all.
It
just
gets
authorized
right.
H
Yes,
thank
you.
So
I
mean
the
bpd
would
not
be
overriding.
Anything
would
have
one
person
on
the
working
group
who
would
be
making
the
case
for
the
police
department
to
the
working
group
to
go
back
to
the
mayor
to
work
with
the
council
to
get
this
passed
in
some
form
and
and
that's
all
we
wouldn't
you
know
we're
not
going
to
get
anything
approved,
we're
just
trying
to
work
through
the
process.
C
So,
just
to
be
clear,
I
don't
mean
bpd
itself
can
somehow
override
the
council.
What
I'm
saying
is
the
working
group
that
you're
proposing
in
your
in
your
vision
for
this?
Is
it
something
that
can
approve
a
request
that
the
city
council
denies,
or
is
it
something
that
just
sort
of
is
similar
to
the
city's
version,
which
is
a
working
group?
That's
supposed
to
make
recommendations
on
why
they
think
it
didn't
get
through
or
how
we
could
get
it
through.
H
B
If
this
working
group
is
merely
providing
an
advisory
role
to
the
mayor
about
how
to
address
city
council
concerns
with
the
materials
that
the
administration
have
forwarded
to
the
council
and
has
no
overriding
authority
in
terms
of
overruling
any
decisions
that
the
council
makes
we're.
Fine
with
that.
Okay.
M
K
F
So
the
the
secondary
working
group,
the
establishment
of
a
surveillance
data
and
privacy
working
group
that
sort
of
falls
at
the
very
end
of
this
ordinance.
The
intent
of
that
is
to
think
about
the
implication
of
those
things:
surveillance,
data
and
privacy
for
all
the
other
departments
that
are
not
considered
in
the
ordinance
at
hand
and
to
make
recommendations
to
the
mayor
and
council
on
processes
that
we
put
in
place.
F
We
have
lots
of
thoughts
on
what
that
would
be,
but
want
to
do
that
collaboratively
with
community
partners
with
the
council
with
departments
inside
city
hall.
So
that's
the
intent
of
that
working
group
is
to
chart
a
course
on
you
know,
maybe
the
year
ahead
of
all
that
work.
That
needs
to
be
done
with
those
other
departments.
K
This
isn't
surveillance
technology
impact
report,
news
policy
mayor's
office
must
seek
and
obtain.
Approval
from
the
city
council
is
set
forth
in
this
section
prior
to
the
city
acquiring
using
or
entering
into
an
agreement
to
acquire,
share,
otherwise
use
unapproved
surveillance
technology
or
surveillance
data,
as
defined
in
this
ordinance
section.
K
A
then
goes
on
to
say
the
city
may
seek,
but
not
accept
funds
for
surveillance
technology
without
approval
from
the
city
council
again
may
but
may
seek,
but
not
accept,
provided
that
the
city
shall
notify
the
city
council
the
funding
application
of
the
time
it
is
submitted
and
include
in
its
notification
the
deadline
for
the
funding,
opportunity
and
details,
if
specified
as
a
suggested
edit
regarding
the
nature
of
the
surveillance
technology
for
which
funding
is
sought.
The
next
suggested
edit.
K
C
No,
I
don't
have
any
disagreement
with
that.
I
think
that's
fine,
if
it's
an
advisory
capacity.
Absolutely,
I
think
the
override
capacity,
so
this
loophole
or
this
appeal
process
is
a
totally
different
conversation,
but
just
having
a
bunch
of
heads
in
a
room
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
get
something
done.
I
mean
that's
what
we're
doing
right
now,
so
I
don't.
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
that.
K
B
C
C
Can
you
can
put
it
in
your
credit
when
you
say
you
can
seek
it
but
not
accept
it
with
without
the
council,
I
mean
we
are
the
first
strings
on
whether
or
not
you
can
accept
or
change
money
right
like
as
far
as
I
understand
it
in
terms
of
the
council,
we
have
oversight
over
every
dollar
released
to
the
city.
So
if
you're
is
this
one
of
those
situations
like,
for
instance,
when
we
have
grants
where
we
pay
for
that,
and
then
we
reimburse
it
on
the
back
end?
B
So,
council,
I
can
address
that
this
came
up
in
in
work.
We've
done
in
other
cities
on
this
matter.
You
know
we
wanted
to
make
sure
two
things,
one,
that
the
police,
for
example,
can't
kind
of
work
around
the
requirements
of
the
ordinance
by
using
federal
money
or
private
money,
even
from
like
a
private
foundation
or
something
or
a
donation,
to
the
boston
police
department
to
get
around
the
requirements
of
the
ordinance
right.
So.
B
K
Okay,
moving
on
to
two,
it
looks
like
the
if
you
could.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
the
language
edits
seemed
to
be
simply
clarifying
just
putting
it
where,
where
the
the
administration
puts
in
section
16
63.1,
which
is
the
applicability
or
the
definition
of
what
it
applies
to
the
advocates
put
in
the
word
applicable.
So
this
is
just
this
is
just
a
writing
style
difference.
So
we'll
we'll
figure
out
what
makes
more
sense
whether
we're
going
to
do
section,
referrals
or
just
applicable.
C
K
K
Acquisition
of
surveillance
technology
by
city
department
exempted,
or
did
you
scroll
back
up
again
michelle
michelle
sorry?
Thank
you.
Acquisition
of
surveillance
technology
by
city
departments
listed
in
section
16.3
are
applicable
unless
exempted
or
accepted
from
the
requirements
of
this
ordinance.
K
Any
city
department,
the
applicable
city
department
intending
to
acquire
new
surveillance
technology
or
surveillance
data,
including,
but
not
limited,
to
procuring
the
surveillance
technology
without
the
exchange
of
money
or
other
consideration,
or
use
cert
surveillance
technology
or
surveillance
data
for
a
purpose
or
in
a
manner
not
previously
approved,
shall
prior
to
acquisition
or
use
obtains
city
or
council
approval
for
this
acquisition
use.
The
process
for
obtaining
approval
shall
be
as
follows,
and
then
they
go
through
three
three
steps.
Well,
actually,
there's
there's
yet
many
steps,
but
the
first
a
is.
K
B
Thanks
here
I
would
defer
to
the
sponsors
on
this
one
I
mean
you
all
and
the
council
have
a
better
sense
of
your
workflow
and
if
you
think
60
days
is
sufficient,
you
know
I
it's
sort
of
a
similar
comment
to
the
one
I
made
earlier.
There
doesn't
appear
to
be
any
automatic
trigger
that
says
that,
after
60
days,
you
know
it's
automatically
approved,
so
it
just
seems
to
be
like
a
recommendation
to
the
council
to
do
this
within
two
months,
and
so
I
wouldn't
personally
object
to
that.
C
Yeah
again,
I
I
don't
as
long
as
there's
no
automatic
trigger.
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
saying.
Please
get
this
done
in
60
days
and
I
think
frankly,
if
there's
no
automatic
trigger,
there's
no
incentive
for
somebody
to
sort
of
play
politic
with
it
and
hide
it
or
do
anything
with
that
because
it
doesn't
gain
them
anything.
So
I
I
think
that's
fine.
C
It
looks
like
that
it
looks
like
the
implication
here
is
that
they
want
it
sent
to
an
oversight
group
that
will
have
an
ability
to
make
recommendations
to
the
mayor
as
to
how
to
maybe
get
it
passed
or
done.
I'm
assuming.
If
we
don't
get
it
done
in
60
days,
there
will
be
a
solid
reason
right
so,
for
instance,
most
recently
with
brick,
we
had
questions,
they
would
not
answer.
We
had
things,
they
would
not
do
with
that.
C
Grant
I'm
assuming
if
we
hold
on
to
something
for
that
deadline,
it's
because
there's
some
stated
reason
or
purpose
that
we
could
very
easily
have
a
working
group
hash
out,
so
the
city
council
doesn't
have
to,
and
then
they
come
back
to
us
with
whatever
we're
seeking
or
whatever
the
issue
is.
I
would
assume
that's
that's
how
I
read
this
and
if
that's
what
it
is,
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
that.
K
K
B
H
That
gets
back
to
the
specificity
and
the
details
of
what
the
council
is
looking
for
and
then
the
ramifications
of
that.
As
far
as
you
know,
public
information
and
that's
what
we're
concerned
about.
So
I
I
wrote
in
you
know
earlier
we
weren't
looking
we
it
was
described
as
kind
of
we're
just
looking
for
the
general
of
how
this
stuff
works.
But
now,
when
we
insert
the
word
generally,
it's
not
acceptable.
So
again,
how
do
we?
C
Sorry,
I
I
just
want
specifically
what
the
product
does.
I
don't
want
to
know
generally
what
it
does.
I
want
to
know
specifically
what
the
surveillance
technology
does
not
a
general
understanding
of
what
the
technology
does.
I
don't
need
any
specifics
about.
You
know
I
we
used
it
on
march
3rd
one
this
case.
It
was
a
drug
bust
and
we,
you
know,
mr
you
know
doe
was
in
his
house,
and
this
is
how
we
did
it,
and
this
is
what
we
did.
I
don't
need
any
of
that.
C
What
I
need
to
know
is
what
the
technology
does
specifically
not
generally,
and
what
its
specific
uses
can
be,
not
what
its
general
uses
are.
We
generally
use
it
this
way.
I
want
to
know
specifically
how
it's
used
not
who
it's
used
on
or
when
it's
necessarily
been
used.
I
just
need
to
know
the
information
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
surveillance
and
what
it
does.
That's
so
that's
specific,
and
so
when
we
say
general,
you
know
I
think
there's
this
worry
that
somehow
we
want
to
get
into
your
ongoing
investigations
and
figure
out.
C
You
know:
are
you
using
this
on
a
wednesday
at
5
00
p.m?
On
mr
doe,
I
don't
care
about
that.
What
I
ca
in
the
sense
that
I
don't
need
that
level
of
specificity.
What
I
care
about
is
is
this
technology,
something
that
is
capable
of
doing
x.
Does
the
city
use
it
to
do
x?
That's
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
very
specifically.
H
That
might
maybe
that's
something
where
we
can.
You
know
send
this
out
to
this
working
group
and
they
can.
Hopefully
you
know
hash
things
out
and
then
come
back
with
the
information.
That's
gonna
make
everybody
happy
without
just
you
know,
getting
it
approved
or
disapproved,
and
you
know
people
aren't
happy.
B
C
Yeah,
I
think
that's
I
for
me
where
I'm
at
in
terms
of
because
I
think
we've
established
now
that
this
working
group
is
not
an
appeal
process
or
some
kind
of
overriding
loophole,
but
rather
an
advisory
thing
to
make
something
meet
our
standard
of
what
we're.
Looking
for,
at
least
to
answer
the
questions
that
we
may
have
on
it
with
a
group
of
folks
in
a
room.
C
K
I
I
don't
either,
and
I
think
just
the
working
group
will
will
very
likely
have
to
be
a
living
breathing
group
that
grows
as
this
ordinance
will
be
doing
that
as
well.
There's
nothing,
there's,
there's
gonna
be
some
there's
gonna
have
to
be
changes,
but
we're
trying
to
get
ahead
of
technology
that
doesn't
even
exist
yet.
So
I
think
that
the
working
group
as
an
advisory
makes
sense.
We're
going
to
work
with
the
60
days
is
what
I've
heard
is
fine
council,
royale.
C
Group,
because
I
just
assume,
if
we
don't
get
something
done
in
60
days-
there's
a
reason
that
we
can
give
that
working
group-
it
won't
just
be.
We
were
so
swamped.
We
couldn't
do
this
the
only
time
I
can
see.
That
being
honest,
is
we
have
a
budget
season
and
it
was.
We
have
that
sort
of
booking
something
during
that
budget
season
can
be
a
little
bit
difficult
and
that
budget
season
is
longer
than
60
days.
But
even
then
we
get
things
in
when
we
have
to.
K
All
right,
this
is
referring
any
surveillance
technology
impact,
proportionate
of
necessary
technology.
Specific
surveillance
used
policy
submitted
to
the
city
council
under
section
16
point
1663,
b,
3b
and
1663
bc
shall
be
publicly
available
on
the
city's
website
upon
submission
to
the
council
unless
disclosing
it.
This
is
the
suggested
edit
unless
this
disclosing
of
a
jeopardized
public
safety
or
apparent
ongoing
investigation.
K
Does
council
rest
same
objections?
I
just
it
sounds
like
in
court,
so
next
to
1663
for
boston
public,
so
now
we're
in
the
boston,
public
schools
policies,
and
I
know
that
there's
some
ex
some
advocates
specifically
on
school
policy.
We
didn't
get
deep
into
this
the
last
time,
so
I'm
really
excited
to
get
into
some
of
these
suggested
edits
is
anyone
from
bps.
Here
I
didn't
check.
N
K
Just
want
to
make
sure
who
I
turn
to
for
the
explanation
of
the
red
lines.
That's
all
all
right,
so
school
police
officers
shall
not
collect,
store
or
share
information
pertaining
to
students,
except
by
creating
and
sharing
student
reports.
In
accordance
with
this
chapter,
student
reports
shall
only
be
created
when
serious
bodily
harm
to
an
individual
has
occurred
as
a
result
of
willful
conduct
that
stays
the
same.
The
next
section,
a
true
incredible
threat
to
the
safety
of
the
school,
arises
that
language
was
stricken.
K
Instead,
it
says
a
threat
to
the
safety
of
the
school
rises.
That's
when
we're
going
to
discuss
true
and
credible
being
excluded
and
then
c
a
sec.
It
says
a
student
is
in
possession
of
firearms,
the
suggested
edit
is
firearms
ammunition
or
other
dangerous
weapon
being
added
and
then
d,
a
student
lawfully
possesses
or
uses
controlled
substances,
provided
those
substances
are
not
marijuana,
nicotine
or
alcohol.
H
Counselor,
just
so
we
have
to
determine,
I
mean
many
threats
are
determined
not
to
be
true
and
in
some
cases
they're
not
credible.
So
the
only
way
to
determine
that
is
through
an
investigation,
and
if
you
know
a
report's
not
being
generated
about
that
threat,
then
how
do
we
investigate
it
to
determine
if
it
is
true
and
credible
and
then
take
the
appropriate
action.
K
E
Another
example
she
had-
and
this
is
actually
something
that
has
happened
to
me-
is
saying
you
know
this
class
is
boring,
but
it
would
be
more
interesting
if,
if
I
shot
someone
which
is
clearly
concerning,
but
also
situational,
that
no
one
thought
that
they
were
actually
going
to
shoot
someone,
but
someone
overhearing,
it
could
and
say
that's
a
threat.
It
needs.
You
know
in
criminalizing
someone
for
trying
to
get
a
laugh
and
so
just
seeing
a
threat.
We
think
is
too
broad
and
allows
a
lot
of
teenage
behavior
that
we
wish.
K
C
A
credible
threat
to
the
safety
of
school
is
fine.
I
think
we
don't
have
to
have
truly
incredible
because,
like
that
ocean
thing
would
not
be
something
I
would
consider
a
credible
threat
right
and
so
that
would
that
would
sort
of
be
dealt
with
appropriately.
The
true
might
be
too
high
a
standard.
That's,
but
I
think
credible
has
to
remain
right.
It
has
to
be
a
credible
threat.
C
It
can't
just
be
a
threat,
can't
be
I'm
gonna
hit
the
school
with
a
meteor
tomorrow,
like
it
has
to
be
a
credible
threat,
and
I
I
think
that's
fine
for
me,
I
true
might
be
too
high
a
standard
but
credible.
I
think
it's
where
we
need
to
be.
It
can't
be
a
non-credible
threat
and
it
can't
be
something
where
we
look
at
it
and
we
say
really.
We
somebody
said
they're
gonna
flood
the
school
at
the
ocean,
and
you
sent
that
over
to
you,
know,
ice
or
whatever,
like
that.
C
N
If,
if
I
can
just
add
madam
chair
on
our
end
as
we
investigate
all
threats,
depending
on
the
outcome
of
that
investigation,
it
would
forward
it
would
move
forward
in
any
proceedings
or
not
right.
So
as
we
investigate
threats,
for
example,
in
the
case
of
the
ocean,
it
would
be
deemed
a
code
of
conduct
issue
and
refer
to
the
code
of
conduct
and
move
forward.
If
and
only
if
the
threat
investigation
yields
that
there
was
a
crime
involved,
then
in
that
situation
it
would
tend
to
move
forward.
K
Thank
you
we're
going
to
go
on
to
see
it's.
It
stops
now.
If
a
student
is
possession
of
firearms,
the
administration's
asking
for
ammunition
or
dangerous
weapons,
what
are
the
concerns
with
adding
that
ammunition?
I
don't
know
that
that's
a
big
deal,
the
dangerous
weapons
being
not
defined
is
is
a
little
harder
for
me,
but
I
understand
the
reason
why
it's
there
so
thoughts
counselor,
lead
sponsor.
C
I'll,
let
the
advocates
discuss
the
ammunition
part,
but
for
me
just
bringing
like
practical
experience
into
this,
I
have
had
some
ridiculous
dangerous
weapons.
I
had
two
wit
dangerous
weapon
played
of
chinese
food.
That
is
a
real
case.
I
had
two
wit
dangerous
weapon.
Q-Tip
swab,
like
I've,
had
wild
dangerous
weapons
because
the
interpretation
of
that
legally
is
so
wide,
and
so
the
problem
with
dangerous
weapon
is
that
it's
too
vague,
even
though
it
sounds
very
specific,
a
dangerous
weapon,
but
it's
actually
not
very
specific.
It's
actually
very
vague
in
legal
practice.
C
I
I
If
a
student
comes
to
school
with
a
bullet,
that's
not
going
to
hurt
anybody
without
the
actual
firearm,
and
our
concern
is
about
the
safety
of
the
students
and
in
terms
of
dangerous
weapon.
Again
would
be
in
complete
agreement
with
councilor
arroyo,
but
that
is
actually
non-specific
and
not
actually
going
to
be
helpful
in
keeping
students
safe.
C
The
definition
my
pen
could
be
very
deadly
right,
like
so
there's
there's
a
problem
with
that.
My
pen
right,
I
have
a
very
sharp
pen
so
like
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
if
I
use
that
as
a
knife
that
could
be
called
a
dangerous
weapon
or
the
plated
chinese
food
was
because
this
person
threw
chinese
food
on
a
person
right.
So
like
there's,
it's
just.
I
don't
know
how
we
would
specify
that
in
a
way
that
makes
sense.
I
do
know.
Obviously
we
don't
want
firearms
in
school.
So
that's
why
that's?
There
excuse.
M
Me,
yes,
this
is
chief
coakley,
I'm
sorry
about
our
video
today,
not
feeling
too
well
today,
but
I
thought
this
was
very
very
important,
so
I
just
wanted
to
really
be
a
part
of
the
discussion
for
our
lawyers
in
the
room.
We
know
that
dangerous
weapon
is
very
specific
in
mass
general
law.
I
have
not
been
in
a
circumstance
in
which
a
q-tip
was
denoted
as
a
dangerous
weapon
or
even
a
plate
of
chinese
food.
M
They
can
be
used
dangerously
in
that
description,
any
case
in
which
we've
had
for
students
that
were
in
possession
of
ammunition
just
to
counteract
the
notion
that
if
an
ammunition
is
present
on
a
student,
there's
automatic
assumption
that
there's
not
a
weapon.
I
don't
think
that
we
could.
We
could
legally
think
that
and
safely
think
that,
if
a
student's
in
possession
of
ammunition
in
which
we
know
would
you
have
an
ammunition
for
probably
possession
of
some
type
of
firearm,
so
we'd
have
to
conduct
an
investigation
where
that
investigation
goes.
M
I
don't
think
that's
conclusive,
but
I
think
that
still
denotes
an
investigation
for
dangerous
weapon,
there's
a
very
distinct
list
in
mass
general
law
of
dangerous
weapons.
I
think
we
go
through
that
category
and
if
that,
if
that
and
if
the
weapon
is
not
listed
on
that
and
if
it's
used
dangerously,
we
can
categorize
it
as
that.
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear
with
that.
I
don't
want
it
to
be
this
general
conversation.
M
C
K
Yes
and
two
I'll
just
be
totally
transparent,
I
don't
know
what
would
the
ammunition
is,
what
I'm
having
like
ex,
not
excluding.
It
is
what
I'm
having
to
struggle
with.
I
think
what
she,
what
I
think
it
was,
is
it
chief
coakley
I'm
so
sorry,
yes,
ma'am,
it's
chief,
it's
neva,
t
chief,
your
comments
on
you
know
if
you
find
a
bullet
that
is
part.
Why
that
wouldn't
prompt
an
investigation
to
find
out
what
it's
do
or
where
it
could
be.
K
K
I'm
happy
to
do
that,
but
I,
the
ammunition
part,
I
I
think
I'm
kind
of
pushing
back
a
little
bit
on
the
advocates.
If,
if
we
see
bullets,
you
are
correct
about
it
of
itself,
can't
do
much,
but
neither
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
things,
but
I
think
it
would
why.
Why
me,
as
a
person,
a
parent
or
or
another
student,
wouldn't
want
to
know,
like
you
saw
the
bullets,
why
didn't
you
ask?
Why
didn't
you
follow
up?
Why
didn't
you
start
something
with
that
information.
E
I
N
Sorry,
man,
if
I
can
real
quickly,
just
in
the
light
of
the
definitions
around
dangerous
weapon
in
our
code
of
conduct,
we
do
have
a
list
of
specific
dangerous
weapons
that
we
refer
to
and
I
know
legally,
there
is
a
list
of
dangerous
weapons.
So
maybe
a
compromise
here
can
be
to
look
at
that
list
and
you
know
we
just
generate
a
list
based
on
those
two
lists
and
see
what
we
can
agree
to.
But
we
have,
it
clearly
spelled
out
in
our
code
of
conduct.
K
C
H
Yes,
just
so
yeah,
I
think
we
can
work
on
that
dangerous
weapon
list.
It's
certainly
you
know
it's
it's
in
the
statute.
The
state
statute
there's
a
list
of
it.
You
know.
City
ordinance
is
a
knife
two,
you
know
two
and
a
half
inches
or
greater,
and
then
you
know
it's
it's
again:
it's
possession
of
a
dangerous
weapon,
so
a
q-tip
or
a
plate
of
chinese
food
in
and
of
itself
is
not
dangerous.
H
But
yet,
if
you
commit
a
crime,
if
you
stab
somebody
in
the
eye
with
a
q-tip
now
it
becomes
a
dangerous
weapon.
If
you
throw
a
plate
of
hot
chinese
food
on
someone's
face
that
then
can
be
a
dangerous
weapon.
So
it's
possession
of
what
is
in
it
of
itself
a
dangerous
weapon,
not
any
any
item
that
could
be
used
as
a
dangerous
weapon.
H
Okay,
as
far
as
the
ammunition,
I
think
you
really
need
to
include
ammunition.
You
know
it's
ammunition
in
and
of
itself,
especially
in
a
school
setting
is
inherently
dangerous.
It
can
be.
You
don't
need
a
gun
to
set
off
a
bullet,
it
can
be,
it
can
be
discharged
without
a
firearm.
If
you
hit
the
primer
in
the
correct
fashion,
it
is
going
to
go
off.
You
could
have
another
kid
in
the
school.
You
could
have
someone
else,
they
have
the
firearm,
but
they
don't
have
ammunition.
H
K
I
appreciate
that
and
I
think
that
that's
going
to
get
to
we're
going
to
get
to,
I
think,
a
good
compromise
on
this
that
particular
language
appreciate
the
back
and
forth
and
again
reminding
us
again
we're
not
stopping
looking
we're
just
the
reporting
aspect
to
the
police,
though
I
do
think
some
people
would
still
want
to
know
that
that
was
reported
to
the
police.
The
bullets
were
found
or
something
like
that.
So
well,.
C
M
K
Anyway,
anyway,
is
that
the
law
anyway?
Yes,
yes,
okay,
so
d,
there
is
a
that
the
student
unlawfully
a
student
unlawfully
possesses
or
uses
controlled
substances
provided
those
substances
are
not
marijuana,
nicotine
or
alcohol,
so
you're
not
going
to
collect
information
unless
a
martha
student
unlawfully
possesses
certain
controlled
substances.
K
E
I
I
think
that
there
needs
to
be
some
sort
of
minimum
amount
in
this,
because,
while
I
don't
want
kids
dealing
and
I
think
there
might
be
law
about
school
zones,
that
could
help
inform
that
what
I
worry
about
is
you
know,
someone
buys
a
small
amount
of
pot
and
someone
chips
in
for
it
and
they
divide
it
up
in
class
and
then
well,
there's
lots
of
counseling
that
bps
has
around
that.
I
don't
think
that
warrants
a
police
report.
K
H
Technically,
it
is
so,
if,
if
you
technically,
yes,
it
is
now,
I
would
think
that
you
know
some
discretion
in
common
sense
in
the
in
the
school
on
how
to
handle.
That
would
be
so
this
again.
This
is
about
the
ability
to
it's
not
saying
that
it
shall
be
reported
to
the
police.
It
says
it
may
be
reported.
I
believe
right
so
again,
I
think
the
police.
H
Certainly
in
that
scenario,
we
would
hope
that
the
I
think
the
school
would
handle
that
situation
and
not
really
even
involve
the
police
and
that
it
would
have
to
be
you
know.
Maybe
it
was
an
ongoing
thing
where
it
kept
happening,
maybe
would
be
involved
or
if
it
was,
you
know
a
much
larger
amount
than
you
involve
the
police,
we're
gonna.
I
think
we'll
leave
how
to
handle
that
initially
up
to
the
school,
but
just
that
it
can
be
documented.
H
K
C
C
C
That
means
that
you
don't
believe
that
you
have
what
you
need
to
go
beyond
quote,
unquote,
suspecting,
and
I
don't
think
we
should
be
sending
suspecting
reports
to
bpd
on
on
unless
we
put
a
number
on
this
marijuana
that,
like
that
makes
sense,
but
for
alcohol
for
instance,
I
mean
what
is
that.
Is
that,
like
it
starts
as
a
charge,
I
don't
even
know
if
that's
fine
like
I
know
what
that
is
so
like
in
terms
of
suspecting
these
things.
C
I
I
don't
think
that
should
be
going
over
into
a
police
file,
because
we've
seen
how
that
can
get
used
in
an
immigration
proceeding
against
somebody.
Even
though
it's
not
it's
not
verified
something,
that's
verified
at
a
certain
amount.
I
don't
think
we
would
have
an
issue
with
in
terms
of
having
discretion,
because
it's
a
may
not
shall.
But
I
I
do
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
stands
out
to
me
is
that
it
says
suspected
rather
than
verified
or
any
other
sort
of
official
language
on
that.
H
Go
right
I
mean
it's
true.
I
look
at
so
there's
the
creation
of
the
report
and
then
the
sharing
of
the
report
so
one
I
would
like
to
like
see
that
the
report
is
first
created
and
then
it's
up
to.
I
guess
the
school
department,
whether
or
not
they
then
share
that
report
with
us
depending
upon
the
you
know
the
the
level
of
severity
of
of
the
the
incident.
It's.
I
don't
think
it's
mandating
that
they
share
it.
It's
it's
gonna.
H
H
C
So,
just
to
be
clear,
superintendent,
I
think
for
disagreeing
what
I'm
saying
is
by
that
standard.
You
wouldn't
suspect
them
anymore,
because
they
have
a
certain
amount
that,
after
that
amount
which,
by
the
law,
this
is
how
it
works.
After
that
amount,
it's
presumed
that
it's
for
distribution
or
the
way
that
it's
packaged.
It's
not
it's
not
suspected
as
much
as
it's
just
like
you
have
to
now
rebut
it
right
like
it's
a
it's
a
rebuttable
presumption,
but
it's
it's
it's
it's
different
between
saying.
I
think
this
person
sells
marijuana.
I
don't
know
it.
C
I
don't
have
any
sort
of
information
I
think
they
are
distributing.
Marijuana
is
different
to
me
and
that's
what
suspected
means
to
me.
Then.
I
have
documentation
and
proof
and
sort
of
a
case
here
that
a
witness
or
somebody
has
told
me-
and
I've
verified
this
in
some
way,
shape
or
form.
That's
different
to
me
than
saying
I
it
gets
right
back
to.
I
think
this
person
might
be
a
gang
member
nobody's
verified
it.
N
If
I
can,
if
I
can
add
this
context,
to
just
help
the
conversation
and
help
get
us
a
place
where
we
can
kind
of
compromise
in
boston,
public
schools,
we
prohibit
marijuana
and
alcohol
use
in
general
right.
We
don't
want
our
students
in
or
staff
members
possessing
or
using
alcohol,
while
on
school
campus.
So
as
such,
and
with
that
context
in
mind,
we
want
to
make
sure
we
fully
investigate
cases
where
appropriate
and
where
cases
that
distribution
is
involved,
we
would
like
to
minimize
that
as
much
as
possible.
N
So
we
do
have
safeguards
in
place
of
how
we
can
determine
through
our
nurses,
when
students
are
under
the
influence
and
are
suspected
to
be
under
narcotics,
and
we
have
those
procedures
in
place
whether
or
not
it
rises
to
the
level
of
a
police
report.
Again,
we
want
to
make
sure
we're
documenting
cases
where
alcohol
and
or
drugs
are
involved,
because
we
we
want
to
make
sure
we
track
and
monitor
and
provide
intervention
supports
to
students
who
may
be
suspected
of
use
or
distributing.
So
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
document
it.
N
C
I
thought
that
was
just
assumed
okay,
so
I
I
see
what
you're
saying,
but
yes,
what
I'm
saying
is,
I
think,
there's
a
difference
between
being
able
to
have
the
school
police
investigate
or
do
what
they
have
to
do
or
make
a
report
on
by
the
standards
of
bps
and
then
sharing
that
report
with
another
agency.
I
think
there's
a
real
big
difference
on
what
we
think
surprised
the
level
of
what
they
shared.
I
don't
think
under
any
situation.
C
The
alcohol
drinking
alcohol,
for
which
I
mean
chances,
are
they're
likely
a
minor
right,
18
under,
but
maybe
they're
not.
I
don't
think
that
rises
to
the
level
of
something
we
would
want
to
send
over
to
bpd
right.
So
I
think,
there's
I
think,
there's
room
here
for
us
to
find
compromises
and
before.
D
K
C
K
C
C
H
C
N
K
N
I
mean
for
for
us,
we
go
back
to
you,
know
the
policy
and
the
bill
reform
or
the
police
reform
bill
right.
So
our
our
school
police
officer,
staff
or
office
of
state
service
staff
were
referring
to
them
now,
they're
unable
to
write
police
reports
anymore,
any
further
right,
so
any
documents
that
we
create
relating
to
these
are
just
conduct
issues
and
matters.
C
C
N
And
the
only
other
piece
I
would
add
here
is
superintendent
or
designee
only
because
like
it
may
not
be
the
superintendent
all
the
time,
for
example,
it
could
be
me
or
could
be
because,
right
now
the
current
policy
reads:
chief,
the
chief
of
safety
services
is
the
only
person.
That's
authorized
to
transfer
any
data
to
the
boston
police,
so
we
can
play
with
the
language
a
little
further,
but
I
agree
we
definitely
should
put
measures
in
place
to
track
what
occurs
beyond
this
scope.
I
agree.
I
I
That
would
we
would
really
be
in
staunch
opposition
to
that,
because
that
allows
further
further
rubber,
stamping
and
diffusing
of
responsibility,
for
the
precise
reason
that
mr
depina
mentioned
before.
There
seems
to
be
no
reason
why
the
school
police
officers
at
the
school
safety
services
employees
would
have
to
create
a
student
report
that
just
doesn't
seem
to
me
like
it
would
fall
under
any
of
these
categories
that
we
have
already
listed.
So.
N
And
we're
happy
to
strike
it
we're
just
we're
trying
to
reach
a
compromise
and
put
on
the
table.
I
mean
I
mean
it
really
doesn't:
need
our
safety
service
officers
no
longer
required
or
able
to
write
police
reports
in
general.
So
like
we
don't
we
can't
do
it
anymore,
based
on
the
change
in
law,
so
the
only
incidents
that
will
be
reported
through
the
school
administration
on
code
iconic
matters
so
happy
to
strike
this
sentence.
K
Okay,
moving
on
to
just
moving
on
to
the
next
set
of
edits
or
red
lines.
Okay,
all
right!
So
this
is
student
reports
shall
not
contain
information
pertaining
to
it
lists
several
things,
including
immigration
status,
citizenship.
It
goes
on
to
suspected
alleged
or
confirmed
gang
involvement,
affiliation,
association
or
membership.
K
That
was
in
g.
That's
where
it
stops
in
the
original
version,
in
addition
includes,
unless
gang
membership
is
related
to
a
specific
criminal
act
or
is
related
to
a
threat
to
school
safety,
I
can
guess
where
the
advocate
and
council
royale
will
be
with
that
and
for
that
clause.
So
why
don't
we
just
go
ahead
and
go
to
the?
Why
don't
we
go
ahead
and
have
the
the
administration
explain
why
that
clause
is
necessary.
H
Thank
you.
So
do
you
just
think
there
could
be
an
incident
where
the
gang
membership
is
an
integral?
You
know
component
of
of
the
incident.
If
it's
you
know,
say
the
kids,
the
kids
getting
recruited
into
a
gang
you
know
whatever
gang
ex-gang
is,
is,
is
trying
to
recruit
this
this
kid
in
or
you
know,
there's
two
warring
warren
gangs.
That's
a
gang
versus
b
gang.
How
do
we?
H
How
do
we,
having
that
information
in
the
report
and
then
convey
to
the
police,
is
critical
to
responding
to
that
in
a
timely
fashion?
If
it's
just
you
know,
johnny
and
jimmy,
you
know
johnny's,
threatening
jimmy
and
there's
no
mention
to
the
gang
involvement
of
it,
we're
not
getting
the
the
whole
picture
and
it
won't
be
handled
appropriately
in
a
timely
fashion.
Potentially,
so
I
just
would
ask
that
for
a
specific
criminal
act
or
threat
to
the
school
environment
that
that
be
included.
H
If
it's
just
in
general
terms,
you
know
that
the
kid
gets
he
gets
into
some
incident
in
school
and
he's
a
known
gang
member.
Okay,
it
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
really
with
gang
activity,
then
leave
it
out.
If
it's
not
pertinent
to
that
incident,
just
leave
it
out,
don't
include
it,
because
it's
not
really
relevant
to
the
investigation.
N
And
if
I
can
add,
we
have
had
many
instances
over
the
years
where
we
do
have
rival
gangs
come
up
to
schools
come
up
to
school
grounds
after
school
before
school,
and
sometimes
it's
named
that
this
gang
is
coming
up
to
the
school
or
this
crew
is
coming
up
to
the
school.
So
for
some
level
of
you
know,
prevention
support
it's
necessary
to
be
identifying
some
of
those
gang
affiliations
to
help
mitigate
the
threat
to
the
school
and
the
rest
of
the
community.
O
Well,
I
can
take
a
stab
here.
This
is
elizabeth.
I
mean
just
to
go
back
to
superintendent's
examples.
I
mean,
unfortunately,
the
many
examples
that
we've
seen
of
police
report
of
any
kind
of
reports
coming
out
of
schools
when
you're
in
your
example,
jimmy
and
johnny
are
just
like
having
an
argument.
O
O
H
Okay,
I
I
understand
that,
and
I
guess
what
I'm
the
police
department
is
asking
for
is
the
the
school.
You
know
the
school
offices,
the
school
staff,
to
assess
that
incident
and
best
they
can
if
they
determine
you
know.
This
is
just
this.
A
fight
between
two
kids,
two
students
and
one
may
belong
to
one
gang
and
one
may
belong
to
the
other
gang,
but
they
just
got
into
a
fight,
and
it
doesn't
have
really
any
gang
involvement.
H
H
O
E
I
think
there's
also
the
question
of
how
do
we
know
that
they
are
gang
members
and
not
you
know,
do
the
school
police
officers
have
access
to
the
gang
database
to
verify
they
are
getting
members,
never
mind.
You
know
the
problems
with
the
10-point
system,
I
mean
we
won't
go
into
that,
but
you
know
students
say
things
to
posture.
N
I
would
just
respond
by
just
saying
many
of
our
officers.
Don't
know
unless
a
lot
of
this
is
self-disclosed
during
gang-related
activity
right,
so
most
of
our
officers
have
the
first-hand
knowledge
of
an
incident
that
occurred
where
gang
affiliation
was
disclosed
by
students
themselves,
and
I
think,
in
that
regard,
we
have
to
be
able
to
discern
and
or
mitigate
the
the
the
threat
to
the
school
or
community.
N
K
But
when
it's
passed
on
to
other
agencies,
which
we
still
are
waiting
for
that
data,
I
believe
counselor
arroyo
how
we,
how
that
person
is
forever
in
that
track
of
life,
and
that's
what
I
think
we're
trying
to
prevent,
because
there's
a
certain
stigma
after
that
school
report.
That
was,
I
mean,
being
affiliated
with
one
of
my
brothers
in
it,
and
I'm
not.
L
K
You're
like
who
you
choose
to
start
sorry
counselor
who
you
choose
to
do,
I
don't
know
who
you
go
to
church
with,
I
mean
there's
so
many
different
ways
in
which
affiliation
can
be
part
of
it
and
and
to
be
a
confirmed
gang
member
unless
you're
part
of
the
membership
committee
of
said
gang,
it's
very
hard
to
to
know
who's
truly
confirmed.
I
mean
I
know,
there's
some
people
who
are
out
and
out
with
it,
but
I
mean,
let's,
let's
be
very
clear,
we're
talking
about
this.
C
C
We
know
that
this
isn't
worth
much
to
us
as
compared
to
these
other
things,
and
so
I
know
that
the
gang
database
has
a
place
where
they
give
points
for
whether
or
not
you're
a
self-proclaimed
gang
member,
and
it's
not
the
highest
one
there.
It's
actually
not.
I
don't
even
think
it's
in
the
middle
pack,
it's
not
that
high,
they
don't,
they
don't
give
it
full
credence,
and
so
even
in
this
case,
I
I
just
I
I
fall
on
what
miss
badger
said
and,
and
you
yourself
count
miss
miss.
Thank
you.
N
M
Well
tied
to
a
victim
that
that
that
gives
that,
as
far
as
part
of
a
statement
so
now
we're
going
to
eliminate
that
if
the
victim
says
hey,
I
was
assaulted.
What
say,
god
forbid
I
was
shot
because
I
am
associated
with
this
particular
gang
or
group.
Do
we
eliminate
that
from
that
report
now?
Is
that
what.
C
That's
a
fair
point,
and
so
what
I
would,
what
I
would
just
say
is
the
one
thing
that
I'm
conscious
of
highly
conscious
of
is
the
issue
that
sort
of
got
us
here
is
a
cafeteria
fight
with
somebody
who
was
allegedly
a
gang
member.
That
was
a
fight
that
was
possibly
gang-related
and
that's
what
got
us
to
the
place
where
we
ended
up
with
a
person
deported
from
bps
on
the
basis
of
those
two
things:
school
fight,
possibly
he's
a
gang
member,
and
possibly
this
is
gang
related.
C
C
We
didn't
mean
that,
but
you
can't
stop
that
train
from
from
going
once
it
leaves
the
station
and
them
having
that
document
and
being
able
to
receive
that
document
is,
is
a
real
problem,
and
so
I
I
think,
that's
really.
For
me
the
whole
gist
of
what
we're
trying
to
prevent
is,
I
think,
there's
real
places
where,
in
good
faith
and
with
good
reason,
bpd
or
the
school
police
do
something
or
want
to
document
something.
C
I
also
understand,
as
an
attorney
as
somebody
who's
seen
how
this
works,
that
those
documents
can
get
places
that
we
don't
intend
them
to
get
and
they
can
get
used
in
ways.
We
don't
intend
them
to
get
used
and
it's
very
harmful
when
that
occurs,
and
so
we
have
to
create
some
site,
rail
or
guardrail
to
to
ensure
that
that
doesn't
happen
from
other
places.
C
N
And
I
would
just
add,
the
data
we
don't
collect
is
all
the
interventions
and
issues
and
threats
and
criminal
activity
that
we
curb
or
prevent
based
tornado
warning.
So
fortunately
we
don't
collect
that
data,
so
it's
hard
for
us
to
say
that
it
works,
but
that's
our
position,
but
thanks
for
the
the
dialogue,
good
dialogue.
H
H
M
No,
I
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
just
I.
I
totally
respect
your
opinion
and
in
your
logic,
counselor
o'hara
and
our
policy.
Our
new
policy
is
really
strictly
adhered
to,
and
it
speaks
specifically
to
this
in
the
reporting
of
this,
and
so
we're
going
to
be
definitely
paying
closer
attention
to
our
in
our
annual
training
on
this
just
wanted.
At
that
point,.
M
N
K
N
K
N
C
K
However,
the
performance
required
on
this
report
may
be
held
withheld
of
disclosure
deficit
on
jeopardize.
Ongoing
investigation
reports,
which
involve
allegations
of
parental
household
abuse
may
also
be
held
from
students
families.
If
disclosure
of
the
report
is
not
in
the
best
interest
of
the
student,
so
that
the
change
of
course
is
the
of
course
jeopardizing
ongoing
investigation.
K
C
Married
yeah,
I
separated
that
too.
So
it's
funny,
you
see
the
same
thing.
I
did
that's
a
separate
sentence.
I
had
no
issue
with
that
sentence,
but
I
also
think
it's
covered
by
mandate.
Reporters
right.
Obviously
we
don't
want
a
child
who's,
saying
I'm
being
abused
at
home
to
then
have
their
parent
notified
that
they
made
that
that
statement
at
school
right
like
this
is
to
me
I
thought
that
was
just
covered
by
mandated
reporting.
C
It
didn't
have
to
be
said,
but
I
don't
have
any
issue
with
reports
which
involve
allegations
of
rental
household,
because
I'm
assuming
that
can
only
come
from
the
victim
themselves,
I.e
the
students
in
that
school
setting,
there's
no
there's
no
way
that
a
parent
is
coming
in
and
reporting
it
or
you're,
seeing
some
form
of
abuse
from
a
parent
literally
right
in
front
of
you.
I
separate
that
from
from
with
the
rest
of
what
we're
talking
about,
and
I
just
thought
that
would
fall
into
mandated
reporting.
K
N
The
only
flag
I
would
take
is
that
or
just
no
agree
with
the
language
just
want
to
flag
that
there
sometimes
is
a
delay
in
translation
of
documents
not
delay,
but
like
it
takes
time
to
translate
the
documents.
So
I'm
just
wondering
when
we
say
provide
that
we
do.
We
do
want
to
do.
It
definitely
understand
why
it's
important
that
we
do
it
in
other
areas,
but
just
generating
that
translation
sometimes
takes
a
little
time.
K
I
believe
so
yeah
and
there
are-
there-
are
already
caveats
in
the
new
language.
Access
ordinance
that
actually
provide
for
within,
do
best
efforts
and
some
sort
of
language.
That
does
assure
that,
ultimately,
there
will
be
some
some
flexibility,
if
necessary,
for
certain
languages,
but
absolutely
they
that
there
is
a
allowance
for
some
sort
of.
If
there's
a
slight
lag
time.
H
H
You
know
one
student
comes
forward
and
says
now
you
know
jimmy's
planning
he's
talking
about
what
he's
going
to
do
to
the
to
the
school
and
he's
advised
of
this
before
you
know
the
investigation
proceeds
or
before
this
you
know,
safeguards
put
in
place.
There's
got
to
be
some
type
of
plan
and
evaluation
of
this
before
there's
an
automatic
notification
to
the
student's
parents.
There
has
to
be
some
consideration
about
the
you
know.
H
E
Could
that
be
covered
under
the
accident
if
it's
an
accident
circumstance,
I'm
sure
this
would
happen
after
that
was
over?
I
think
a
worry.
We
have
sorry
my
camera's,
not
on
I'm
in
the
basement
because
of
the
tornado
warning.
I
think
the
warning
the
worry
we
have
is
that
you
know
investigations,
as
we
talked
about
earlier
today
can
go
on
for
so
long,
and
I
know
that
you
know
elizabeth
who,
I
think
had
to
step
off,
has
talked
about
how
you
know
getting
police
reports
for
her
clients.
E
Often
that
said,
you
know,
she's
told
that
you
know
it's
under
investigation
or
it
can't
be
released,
and
so
I
think
we
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
if
it's
an
incident
that
has
us.
You
know
that
there
is
a
moment
that
you're
doing
a
thread.
That's
one
thing,
but
if
the
report
is
written,
that's
probably
somewhat
after
the
case,
and
then
the
student
should
know
that
this
has
happened,
that
the
report
was
written.
K
H
K
C
K
Again,
this
is
the
the
caveat
language
that
we've
discussed,
but
within
24
hours
after
bps
personnel,
school
police
officer,
truman
submits
a
student
report
create
a
pursuant
to
the
section
or
any
other
information
relating
to
a
student
in
the
bpd.
Pursuant
to
the
existence
of
exigent
circumstances,
the
relevant
principal
or
head
of
school
shall
notify.
In
writing
any
student
whose
information
or
student
report
was
shared
and
their
parent
or
guardian
that
the
student
information
was
shared
and
a
copy
of
the
information
transmitted.
An
explanation
of
the
incident
prompted
the
communication.
K
I
B
K
The
creation
of
the
information
community
information
sharing
oversight
board
was
in
the
original
version
and
the
original
version,
or
the
first
draft.
I
should
say
the
board
includes
several
positions:
a
student
chosen
by
the
boston
student
advisory
council,
parent
or
guardian
by
city-wide
parent
council.
K
We
have
several
different
positions
that
don't
need
to
list
a
teacher
chosen
by
btu
local
immigration
advocate
and
a
immigration
advocate
chosen
by
sim
student
immigrant
movement.
A
civil
rights
advocate
chosen
by
lawyers
committee
for
civil
rights
and
one
representative.
This
is
the
edit
suggested
one
representative
chosen
by
the
boston
police.
Commissioner.
K
K
H
E
Oh,
I
just
I
guess.
My
question
is
that
this
feels
like
a
school
matter
that
we're
talking
about
schools,
transmitting
reports
and
you
know,
there's
a
whole
other
issue.
You
know
what
bpd
does
with
it.
That's
what
the
rest
of
the
ordinance
is,
but
you
know
why
there
needs
to
be
a
bpd
officer
on
something
like
looking
at
bulls.
K
E
Yeah,
I
guess
my
question
is
like
what
need
they
feel
like
that
is
fulfilling
if
it
is
about
the
the
transmitting
from
schools
and-
and
I
know
like
there's
a
form
of
this
committee
now
that
I'm
a
part
of-
and
I
think
a
lot
of
it
is
talking
about
like
what's
going
on
in
those
schools
and
and
having
a
holistic
approach
to
that,
and
I
am
not.
I
guess
I
don't
really
see
where
there's
a
need
for
that.
H
H
H
So
you
know,
there's
there's
some
responsibility
there
to
to
be
involved
on
the
police
department
and
you
know,
offer
you
know,
advice
and
and
counsel
and
again
you
know,
or
decisions
sometimes
have
unintended
consequences
and
if
we
could
point
out
say:
okay,
that's
you
know
that
that
works
well
here
it
works.
Well,
for
that
reason,
you've
corrected
that
problem
here,
but
that
may
lead
to
other
problems.
Elsewhere,
we've
seen
this
and
again
I
mean
we're.
Not
you
know
we're
not
carrying.
You
know
we're
one
voice.
There
is
all
we
are
we're
not.
E
I
get,
I
guess,
like
two
things
and
then
I
you
know
I
will
leave
it
up
to
the
council,
but
I
think
two
things.
One
is
that
this
is
an
oversight
board.
That's
looking
after
the
fact
about
data
of
the
reports,
written
and
making
suggestions
looking
at
the
data-
and
I
think
the
second
thing
I
want
to
bring
up
is
that
you
know.
Our
hope
is
that
we
have
a
lot
of
diverse
members
of
the
group
and
secluding
a
lot
of
students
and
parents
of
color,
and
you
know,
people
with
different
immigration.
K
This
is
this,
is
this
is
an
advisory
board
about
the
implementation
right?
So
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
voting
structure
on
this
board,
if
there's
a
majority,
but
if
it's
just
one
representative
presenting
a
perspective,
then
I
don't
know,
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
what's
the
argument
of
not
having
them
at
the
table
to
at
least
provide
the
perspective.
H
H
You
know
they're
very
sensitive
to
the
needs
of
of
you
know
the
the
whole
community
and
students
kids
in
particular,
so
the
person
would
be
selected
very
carefully.
I'm
sure
and
would
be
you
know
you
know,
superintendent
bastian
is
the
perfect.
I
mean
she
runs
that
bureau.
You
know
everyone
loves
her.
She
gets
she
gets
along
with
everybody
and
that's.
H
N
As
well
and
madam
chair,
just
on
a
separate,
related
note
about
the
the
membership
of
the
group,
I
wanted
to
save
it
for
this
time
to
discuss
it.
So,
in
this
document
we
have
two
working
groups
that
are
established,
but
I
also
want
to
just
name
that
in
our
boston,
boston,
school
police,
boston,
schools,
department
policy,
around
the
information
data
sharing,
we
also
created
a
student
data
working
group.
N
Also
finding
in
that
group
there's
certain
information
we
we
do
collect
and
don't
collect
that
we've
kind
of
sorted
through
over
the
months,
so
just
wanted
to
flag
that,
for
the
group
too,
to
figure
out
how
we
like
navigate
all
those,
and
should
there
be
just
one
do
that:
does
there
need
to
be
multiple?
You
know
just
a
thought
for
the
group
to
consider.
C
N
C
Okay,
that's
that's
my
only
question
because
I
haven't
seen
that
particular
group
before
on
that
front,
I
I
think
the
the
concerns
of
advocates
specifically
around
having
undocumented
members
and
them
being
concerned
about
that.
I
think,
is
valid.
I
I
would
also
just
say
we
just
did
so.
This
is
kind
of
where
we
got
to
get
into
like
the
language
of
this
because
they're
all
there
all
these
oversight
boards,
but
community
information
sharing
oversight
board.
C
We
have
a
opat
which
we
just
did,
does
not
include
some
provision
for
the
bpd
to
put
somebody
on
there
to
have
a
conversation
about
what
we
do
when
we
do
oversight
of
bpd.
That's
that's
the
whole
purpose
and
for
me,
the
community
information
sharing
oversight
board.
The
purpose
isn't
to
figure
out.
You
know
whether
or
not
something
like
the
idea
isn't
to
have.
Somebody
make
the
case
that
we
should
be
sharing
information.
C
I
think
the
idea
is
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
we're
enforcing
this,
and
I
don't
necessarily
know
that
a
representative
from
bpd
on
a
board,
that's
goal,
is
to
ensure
that
there's
oversight
that
this
is
actually
being
conducted
necessarily
makes
sense.
Because
of
the
same
reasons,
we
didn't
include
that
in
the
op
situation
right
like.
Ultimately,
this
is
an
oversight
board
and
you're,
asking
the
people
who
are
being
overseen
to
also
participate
in
the
oversight,
and
I
don't
know
that
that
makes
sense
for
this
particular
board.
K
I
you
know,
I
think
it's
worth,
maybe
just
not
having
it
be
a
member
of
the
perspective
or
this
this
advisory
board
at
this
time
at
this
level,
but
they
are
a
member,
as
I
understand
from
the
other
two
working
groups,
a
member
in
some
way
shape
or
form
are
having
a
voice
there
is
that
correct?
Counselor
arroyo,
yes,
okay!
K
We
have
the
applicability
section
which
I
think
is
going
to
deal
with.
Some
of
the
concerns
on
the
other
side,
really
specifically
concerning
the
section
shall
only
apply
to
the
city
departments
and
agencies,
boston,
police
department,
boston,
public
schools,
boston,
health,
commission,
boston,
housing,
authority,
boston,
municipal
protection
services
and
the
office
of
emergency
management.
K
That's
added
on
the
one
side
to
narrow
the
scope,
and
then
we
have
moving
on
in
comparison
with
the
original
language
within
12
months
of
the
effective
date
and
annually
thereafter,
all
applicable
city
department
shall
submit
to
the
mayor
an
annual
surveillance
report.
The
edit
suggested
is
within
24
months
of
the
effective
date.
C
C
K
N
I
mean
in
my
perspective,
and
you
know
just
to
respond
when
we
implement
it
and
launch
it.
There
also
has
to
be
a
lot
of
conversation
around
putting
these
logistical
monitoring.
Please
place
these
monitoring
tools
in
place,
so
we
need
to
make
sure
that
they're
established
and
created,
I
know
for
for
us
anyways.
We
had
to
like
create
a
way
to
generate
our
reports,
collect
the
reports
and
it
was
timely
to
do
that.
N
There
were
also
just
this
organization
time
that
we
need
that
that
we
needed
anyway,
that
was
making
progress
on.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
that
looks
like
on
bpd
side,
but
we're
gonna
need
to
like
figure
out
how
we
implement
the
monitoring
aspect
of
it,
and
that
may
take
time.
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
reporting
regularly,
so
we
establish
quarterly
meetings
and
check-ins
along
the
way
to
provide
updates,
but
sometimes
we
may
not
fully
be
able
to
do
that
right
away.
N
I
think
I
think
the
18
month
is
a
good
compromise,
because
it
gives
us
time
to
organize
ourselves
and
make
sure
we're
able
to
provide
the
reports
and
information
we
need,
or
the
first
thing
we
report
will
be:
here's
where
we
are
with
implementing
it
and
where
we
are
so
either
way.
A
year
report
can
happen,
but
I
just
think
if
we
want
a
full
accurate
report
and
all
the
pieces
are
correct
and
in
place,
and
the
extra
time
helps
us
do
that.
H
Right,
I
think,
for
the
police
department,
I
mean,
I
agree,
you
know
we're
at
the
police
department
we're
kind
of
in
in
flux
here
a
little
bit
now.
You
know
we're
looking
at
you
know
it
could
be
another
six
months
before
we
have
another
permanent
police.
Commissioner,
it's
kind
of
you
know
the
unknown
right
now
you
know
with
the
election
coming
up.
You
know
we're
not
sure
how
that's
going
to
play
out.
We
don't
really
we're
not
sure
you
know
we
haven't
dug
into
this.
You
know
fully
in
you
know.
C
C
Know
so
that's
what
I
was
gonna
say.
I
think
we
had
language
earlier
that
gave
extension
like
you
could
ask
for.
You
could
request
an
extension
on
the
report
right.
I
think
we
had
that
all
right
earlier
and
I
think
that
that's
sure
right,
but
I
think
that
I
just
want
to
go
back.
Let
me
just
try
and
find
it.
We
might
even
okay
yeah
if
you
can
feel
it.
I
don't
want
to
hold
this
up.
C
I
know
we
have
it
we'll
look
at
it
before
we
ever
get
to
vote
on
it,
but
I
think
we
came
up
with
some
language
earlier
today
on
extending
the
annual
review
and
there's
a
process
we
created
for
that.
I
think
sure
I
don't
see
it
here,
so
we
could
do
it
here
too.
So
if
there
is
some
kind
of
issue
where
it
makes
sense
to
extend
it
you're
given
this
opportunity-
or
this
way
to
do
that.
K
B
C
K
And
then
so
number
two
are
continuing
on
with
number
one
general,
but
then
gluten
is
sound.
Images
captured
other
information
regarding
members
of
the
public
who
are
not
suspected
of
engaging
in
the
law
of
conduct
that
language
is
stricken
out.
I
I
think
we're
just
trying
to
know
what
you
captured
so
information
about
me
walking
down
the
street
when
you
were
really
observing
a
friend
of
mine.
C
C
I
think
I
think
that
that's
the
whole
purpose
really
is
to
make
sure
that
these
things
aren't
overreaching
or
or
doing
things
that
cause
harm
to
people's
protective
privacies,
because
you
might
have
a
reason
for
one
person,
but
it
also
catches
everybody
else's
situation
in
that
same
moment.
So
I
think
that's
that's
sort
of
very
specific.
B
Chair,
if
I
might
just
jump
in
here,
I
think
to
put
an
example
on
what
counselor
arroyo
just
said,
for
example,
license
plate.
Readers
are
technologies
that
track
cars
and
the
locations
of
cars
at
given
moments,
and
that's
a
type
of
technology
that
is
used
by
law
enforcement,
both
to
conduct
general
surveillance
of
the
public
so
where
everyone
has
been
driving
and
is
used
in
specific
criminal
investigations
to
locate
particular
cars.
B
C
So
I
think
the
way
that
k
described
it
as
perfect.
You
use
these
license,
plate
readers,
you
get
all
this
other
additional
information
and
then
what
do
you
do
with
that?
Additional
information
when
you
terminate
it
when
you
delete
it
when
you
it's,
like
that's
general
without
you
having
to
say
so,
played
a
play
b
played
c
play.
Six
like
we
don't
need
that.
Does
that
make
sense,
superintendent.
H
H
B
B
What
happens
to
that
data
right
is
that
information
shared
with
the
fbi?
Is
it
shared
with
ice?
If
it
is,
is
that
done
on
a
case-by-case
basis
where,
for
example,
ice
will
say
we're
looking
for
this
one
particular
car?
Do
you
have
any
records
in
your
license
plate
reader
database
of
this
particular
car,
and,
if
so,
is
that
done
simply
by
an
email
by
a
phone
call?
Is
there
some?
B
You
know
legal
standard
that
the
bpd
is
using
to
determine
whether
or
not
they'll
share
that
piece
of
data,
or
is
the
entire
database
of
all
of
those
records
accessible
to
ice
and
the
fbi?
And
you
know,
law
enforcement
from
other
departments
in
massachusetts.
So
that's
the
kind
of
information
that
we're
really
hopeful
will
be
disclosed
to
the
council
and
to
the
public,
and
so
that's
why
we
would
oppose
the
the
change
that
the
administration
has
suggested.
C
And
I
would
also
just
add
to
that
that
one
of
the
things
I
would
hope
would
also
be
there
is
what
happens
to
this
collateral
right
like
how
long
do
you
hold
the
records
of
night
travel
on
this
light?
Is
it
a
year?
Is
it
two
years?
Is
it
three
months
and
30
days?
Do
you
get
rid
of
it?
Does
it
not
save
beyond,
like,
for
instance,
cameras
obvious?
This
is
a
good
example,
because
they
have
tape
right,
so
cameras
refresh
every
seven
and
they
just
delete
everything
they
had
like.
C
H
Okay,
all
right,
that's
that's
all
good!
I
mean
it's
like
ice.
I
mean
we
wouldn't
be
providing
anything
to
ice
unless
it
was
a
criminal
investigation.
There'd
be
no,
you
know
civil
with
you
know,
but
by
the
city
ordinance.
When
we
don't
cooperate
with
them,
we
don't
turn
them
over
to
them.
Unless
it's
a
criminal
investigation.
H
You
know
with
all
this
data
and
stuff
with
the
cameras
the
license
plate
readers.
This
you
know
the
the
system
we
have
right
now
is
is
an
older
system.
You
know
we're
looking
at
you
know,
part
of
you
know
we're
always
evaluating
things
and
they're
evaluating
a
new
system
and
part
of
the
reasons
we're
looking
at
this
is
because
it
has
a
very
strong
auditing
capability
to
it.
It's
going
you're
going
to
be
able
to
look
at
it
and
say
who
accessed
it
when
they
accessed
it.
What
data
was
taken
out
of
the
system?
H
K
Number
seven:
an
estimate
of
the
total
annual
cost
of
the
surveillance
technology,
including
personnel
and
other
ongoing
costs,
and
what
sources
of
funding
will
fund
the
technology
in
the
coming
year.
If
known,
that's
to
be
included
in
the
annual
report
added
and
suggested
is
this
should
include
estimated
total
cost
with
compliance
with
the
ordinance,
I
think
that's
fine.
B
So
I
have
a
concern
about
that
chair,
which
is
just
that
you
know
a
properly
functioning.
Democracy
needs
to
build
in
the
kinds
of
accountability
and
transparency
that
we're
all
trying
to
achieve
here,
and
you
know,
for
example,
this
would
be
akin
in
my
mind,
to
the
state
public
records
law.
You
know
requiring
that
each
agency
tell
the
public
how
much
it
costs
to
comply
with
the
public
records
law
every
year
which,
in
my
view,
is
kind
of
a
a
measure
that
that
sort
of
flies
against
transparency
and
accountability.
C
And
my
concern
is,
I
don't
know
why
it
would
change
I'm
assuming
you
would
have
to
create
some
mechanism
to
compile
this
report
that's
already
in
place.
That
is
already
some,
whether
it's
human
administration
or
some
kind
of
database
that
is
already
compiling
annual
surveillance
reports
and
that
information.
C
I
don't
know
why,
for
every
instance,
of
an
additional
surveillance
system,
that
would
mean
we
would
need
to
have
some
brand
new
total
cost
for
upkeep
of
whoever's
already
on
staff
to
document
this,
I
like
it
so,
for
instance,
instead
of
documenting
three
or
four
or
five
or
six
or
a
hundred
systems.
Now
it's
101
so
now
there's
this
brand
new
estimate
and
then
it's
102
and
now
there's
a
brand
new
estimate.
C
I
don't
know
why
that
changes
that
one
person
was
already
on
staff's
job
in
a
way
that
is
tangible,
that
way
that
she
would
be
tracking
on
every
request,
a
brand
new
total
on
what
it
costs
to
be
in
compliance.
If
it's,
if
it's
somebody
on
staff
to
do
that,
then
it's
that
person's
salary.
That
already
exists
to
do
that.
So
I
don't
really
know
how
that
would
change
from
from
you
know,
surveillance
requests
to
surveillance
requests.
I
don't
know
why
that
would
be
a
moving
target
for
every
single
one.
K
I
understand
the
aclu
is
concerned
that
it
provides
a
connotation
that
it
costs
money
to
deal
with
this
and
honestly
that
the
reason
why
it
costs
money
and
oftentimes
to
deal
with
point
requests
is
because
they're
not
complying
with
them
to
be
very
frank
and
they
don't
set
up
a
system
to
be
totally
transparent.
So
maybe
that
would
be
the
delays
or
that
we
is
taking
us.
So
long
is
because
you
didn't
set
up
a
system
to
actually
respond
to
the
public's
request
for
transparency.
K
F
C
F
F
I
think
that
would
be
the
thought,
and
I
I'm
thinking
back
to
maybe
a
previous
working
session,
where
our
colleagues
and
do
it
had
some
concerns
about
what
it
would
mean
for
their
staffing
levels
that
they
need
to
sort
of
comply
with
this.
I
don't
know
if
that
exists
in
the
other
departments
as
well,
but
yes
across
the
spectrum.
What
would
it
cost?
C
What
exactly
is
the
difference
between
having
a
total
told
to
us
on
a
compliance
with
this
as
to
what
we
just
had
a
whole
thing
about
foia's
having
our
our
information
director
do
what
they
do
for
every
single
department
in
the
city
like
we
don't
have
a.
I
don't
get
a
bill
for
that.
Every
year,
I'm
gonna
estimate
I've
never
adjusted
in
all
fairness.
We've
just
done.
I've
done
two
budgets
now.
I
don't
even
think
I've
asked
like
what
does
this
person
need?
What
are
their
staffing
like?
C
I
don't
even
know
that
that's
ever
come
up.
It's
it's
a
weird
wrinkle
because
I
don't
know
how
that
would
be
any
different
as
a
transparency,
sort
of
ployable
public,
good
public
transparency
thing
than
what
he
does
currently
or
what
anybody
in
the
future
does.
In
that
role
we
don't
get.
I
don't
get
one
that
says,
like
the
boston
globe
made
50
requests
this
year
and
and
wgbh
made
28,
and
you
know
ricardo
made
seven,
and
so
that
cost
this
much
more
today
than
it
did
yesterday.
C
K
K
This
council
may
recommend
modifications
of
the
surveillance
use
policy
that
are
designed
to
address
the
city
council's
concerns
to
the
mayor
for
their
consideration,
withdraw
authorization
for
continued
use
of
surveillance
technology
by
a
majority
vote
in
the
city
council
and
or
request
a
report
back
from
the
mayor.
Regarding
the
steps
taken
to
address
the
city
council's
concerns,
the
language
or
the
suggested
edit
is
to
strike
withdrawal
authorization
or
continued
use
of
the
surveillance
technology
by
a
majority
vote
of
the
city
council.
H
C
I
like
that
use
of
words
that
you
say,
because
you
said
the
word
hopefully
and
the
problem
is
when
what
this
allows
is
for
me
to
hope,
a
lot,
but
have
nothing,
nothing
to
make
sure
that
they
do
it.
And
so
that's
the
problem
with
this.
As
far
as
I
see
it
is
that
I'm
hoping
that
the
task
force
addresses
my
concerns
and
then
I'm
hoping
that
the
mayor
cares
and
then
I'm
hoping
that
it
gets
put
in
place,
but
there's
no
mechanism
for
me
to
say.
H
That's
you
know
so
take
out
that
withdrawal
eliminate
that
and
just
put
in
the
language
about
send
it
to
the
to
the
working
group
which
don't
withdraw
it
you're
not
going
to
withdraw
it,
just
send
it
to
the
working
group
and
then
wait
see
what
they
come
up
with
and
then
evaluate
it
and
move
on
one
way.
The
other.
B
Essentially,
for
example,
if
the
council
authorizes
the
use
of
technology
x
for
purpose
y
and
then
you
know
somebody
reports
back
to
the
council,
well,
we
actually
haven't
been
using
it
for
purpose
why
it
hasn't
actually
helped
us
solve
any
serious
crimes.
But
you
know
advocates
have
found
through
public
records
that
the
technology
was
used
to
monitor.
You
know
peaceful
dissenters,
for
example.
H
Great
yeah,
I
think
I
would
like
to
if
we
before
you
revoke,
there's
an
opportunity
to
correct
and
then,
if
corrective
action
isn't
taken,
then
revoke,
maybe
you,
maybe
you
suspend
you
know,
there's
a
stead,
there's
an
interim,
an
interim
step
of
suspension.
If
you
find
it's
that
egregious
you,
you
suspend
it
and
give
us
an
opportunity
to
correct
it
before
revoking
it.
You
know,
maybe
that
maybe
that's
that's
an
option.
B
So
respectfully,
that's
in
the
ordinance,
so
the
two
other
options
are
for
the
council
to
recommend
modifications
to
the
policy
to
address
the
concerns
and
two
to
request
a
report
back
from
the
mayor
regarding
steps
that
have
been
taken
to
address
the
council's
concern.
So
you
know
we're
confident
that
those
options
are
already
in
there.
D
K
I
think
we're
gonna
continue
on.
I
don't
think
the
language
is
going
to
be
at
least
that
part
will
be
removed.
I
think
it'll
be
taken
as
serious
as
serious
as
it
is
written
intended
to
be
written,
which
is
it's
a
big
deal
to
take
away,
something
that
the
police
have
been
used,
and
it
should
be
seen
that
way.
C
Yeah,
I
don't
think
that's
a
star.
I
like
that.
There's
three
things
there.
I
don't
think
it's
the
starting
point.
I
don't
think
you
jumped
unless
it's
that
egregious,
I
don't
think
we
jump
to
revocation,
I
think,
there's
even
an
option
there
just
to
have
them,
explain
it
right
and
then
possibly
do
nothing
else.
L
K
C
You're
doing
I've
only
13
times
hit
the
scroll
button
on
my
mouse
to
scroll
these
only
to
realize
that
I
did
not
control
them.
So
thank
you
michelle
for
scrolling
this,
because
I've
literally
at
least
three
times
like
I
just
scrolled,
see
there.
I
go
I've
already,
I'm
over
here,
doing
it
and
you're
doing
it
too.
Thank
you.
K
C
B
Right
and
I
would
if
I
might
chair,
I
would
just
note
that
you
actually
have
to
add
up
these
months
together,
because
the
ordinance
won't
take
effect
at
all
until
the
way
that
it's
been
written
in
the
initial
draft
is
nine
months
right,
so
that
would
actually
be
nine
months
plus
12
months
for
the
initial
surveillance
impact
reports.
Unless
I'm
misreading
it,
that's
that's
my
read
of
it
so.
C
C
K
C
F
C
So
the
one
thing
I
would
say
just
from
jump
street
is
one
I
I
don't
really
think
I
would
have
any
real
issues
with
this
and
I'd
ask
basically
if
they
have
any
issues,
but
I
think
this
is
a
good
thing.
I
I
think
this
is
what
should
be
appropriately
called
the
working
group.
I
think
the
what
has
been
called
the
sort
of
surveillance
oversight
working
group
that's
been
streamed
through
here,
as
surveillance
oversight
working.
We
should
just
come
up
with
a
name
for
that,
because
it's
not
really
a
working
group.
C
Committee
or
yeah,
or
whatever
the
the
you
know,
whatever
the
legal
language
is
that
that's
defining
final
commission.
I
don't
know
what
the
thing
is,
but
whatever
it
is,
has
to
be
more
permanent
in
terms
of
its
language,
so
we
can
clean
it
up
so
that
there's
no
confusion
between
this
working
group
does
this
stuff.
What
this
one
says
it
does,
and
this
other
thing
is
its
own
sort
of
created
thing,
and
then
it
just
has
to
be
clear
that
it's
it's
a
recommendation,
advisory
board
group,
but
I
think
that's
that's
good
right.
B
C
Yeah-
and
so
am
I,
I
think
it's
a
great
call,
because
this
is
this-
is
sort
of
getting
to
the
root
of
it,
which
is
really
trying
to
deal
with
ensuring
that,
even
if
we're
not
dictating
that
they
have
to
come
to
us
that
the
city
is
taking
those
concerns
seriously
and
saying
these
are
the
things
that
we
think
we
should
be
doing
for
best
practices,
and
I
really
appreciate
that
they're
taking
that
next
step.
So
thank
you
on
behalf
of
the
administration
and
then
I
think
the
we've.
C
I
think
we've
reached
consensus
on
most
of
this.
I
don't
I
don't
know
that
there's
anything
here
where
there's
I
appreciate
frankly,
thank
you,
superintendent,
donovan,
for
for
your
time
and
your
effort,
we
don't
I'm
gonna.
Just
be
honest,
we
don't
usually
get
red
lines
from
bpd
and
it
is
a
refreshing
change,
of
course,
to
have
a
conversation
that
is
based
on
these.
Are
why
and
what
we
think
the
language
should
be
rather
than
sort
of.
C
Let
me
try
to
scare
you
with
this
could
happen,
or
that
could
happen,
but
rather
like
a
very
reasoned
well
done
conversation.
So
I
really
do
appreciate
that
superintendent
dawn
of
the
night.
I
know
that
this
took
effort
and
work,
and
so
thank
you
to
you
and
bpd
for
for
your
engagement
in
this,
and
I
want
to
thank
the
administration
too,
because
the
working
group
was
your
idea,
so
I
think
the
the
going
that
extra
step
is.
It's
very
appreciated.
C
C
K
K
You
thank
you
all
for
your
questions.
I
was
late.
I
want
to
thank
councillor
wu
and
council
arroyo
for
handling
this
and
and
getting
it
done.
I'm
proud
of
the
work
we
did,
there's
22
pages
of
work
and
edits
twice
through
I'm,
going
to
try
and
implement
a
lot
of
the
compromises
and
change
in
language.
We
did
we
committed
to
that.
We
get
that
work
done.
So
that
means
additional
meetings
with
the
advocates
additional
meetings
with
the
superintendent
and
with
bps
make
sure
that
the
language
is
getting
to
a
certain
point.
K
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you
as
well.
Is
it
chief
depena?
Where
are
you
call
me
sam
all
right?
Well,
thank
you
because
I
I
think
it
was
good
for
us
to
have
a
conversation.
I
know
that
you
guys
have
good
intentions.
My
my
issue
is
sometimes
the
intentions
of
what
like
this
is
what
we
run
into
all
the
time.
There's
good
reasons,
there's
good
intentions
behind.
Why
I
want
to
document
this,
but
then
somebody
else
some
other
organization
says
great.