SurveillanceOversight-SummaryofChanges-in-V7-BEC — File 208815

Somerville Surveillance Oversight Ordinance – Summary of Substantive Changes in v7 City Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen Sept 8, 2019 The first draft Surveillance Oversight Ordinance (Agenda Item207364, submitted Jan 24, 2019), followed very closely from a similar ordinance recently adopted by Cambridge, MA (Cambridge Chapter 2.128). Over the course of three meetings between Councilor Ewen-Campen, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Administration (including SomerStat, the Police Department, the Solicitor’s Office, and the Mayor’s Office), a number of changes were made to address concerns raised by the Administration: 1) Body-worn cameras excluded from Ordinance. This change was made in response to Administration concerns regarding ongoing collective bargaining. The administration committed that, should body-worn cameras be used in Somerville, this will be widely publicized, and a use policy will be made public. Gunshot detection (e.g. “ShotSpotter”) was also considered, but was left in the Ordinance as a technology requiring City Council approval. Section 1.2(F), 1.3(B)(iv) 2) 60-day deadline for City Council approval of new technologies (excluding summer recess) – otherwise temporary approval by default This change – instead of no deadline for action – was added to ensure that the City Council acts within a reasonable timeframe on their responsibility to oversee new surveillance technology usage. Any technologies approved “by default” in this way must be affirmatively approved by the City Council at the start of the next year. Section 1.5(A)iii-iv 3) Enforcement language to match Facial Recognition Ban. Language was added to closely match what recently passed in Somerville’s Facial Recognition Ban. Section 1.7 (A) – (D) 4) Compromise language around applying for funding for surveillance technologies (as opposed to actually accepting funding and/or purchasing.) Original draft required City Council approval in order to apply for funding for a surveillance technology. In this draft, language was added to allow the Administration to submit an application for funding to without an approval vote by the City Council, but any time such an application is filed, the City Council must be notified at the time of the application, including details on the grant deadline and the nature of the technology. Section 1.5

5) Clarified intent regarding entering into agreements with other law enforcement agencies. SPD may wish to enter into agreements with other law enforcement agencies. Language added to clarify that these agreements, on the whole, do not require City Council vote, but any and all surveillance technology included in such agreements does require disclosure in Surveillance Use Policy and an affirmative vote. No new language added, as this is the intent of 1.5 6) Clarified language about process for rescinding prior approval. During annual review of Surveillance Use Policy, a vote for previously approved policies is not required in order to continue usage. However, a process is spelled out to ensure that this Ordinance does not prevent City Council from actively rescinding prior approvals via ordinance. Section 1.6(D)