City Council - Rules & Government Relations Committee

CITY OF EASTHAMPTON OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Easthampton Municipal Building 50 Payson Ave., Ste. 100 Easthampton, Massachusetts 01027-2260 Telephone #: (413) 529-1400, ext. 460 Fax #: (413) 529-1417 MINUTES RULES AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Meeting 08/17/22 Attendees: R&GR Members: Councilor Dan Rist, Chair Councilor Koni Denham, Clerk President Homar Gomez Remote Attendance: Councilor James Kwiecinski, Mayor LaChapelle, Chief Alberti, Julie Busa Other Attendees: Councilor Owen Zaret, Officer Kyle Gribi Meeting Called to Order at 5 pm. The meeting was video recorded Minutes approved Kwiecinski moved, Denham 2nd. Vote unanimous (3-0) 1. New Business A. Gun Violence Resolution – a. Rist apologized for delay in presenting the resolution. Expressed support for gun resolutions. Confirmed that Commonwealth has one of the toughest gun laws in the country. Gun resolution do help. The City has passed similar resolutions. Is this gun resolution redundant? Gun violence is dealt with by our police department and any new ideas should be supported by the police. Any new resolutions should have the support of the police department. If it doesn’t have that support, it can raise 2nd Amendment questions and become divisive, which is not what we want. Discussed process of moving forward. 1. Discuss amendments to Councilor Zaret’s resolution. 2. Meet to discuss compromises between Councilor Zaret’s resolutions and Councilor Denham’s suggestions for amendments, which offers a new direction to think about gun resolution. Chair Rist believes that this is a new document, which should be reviewed by the Council since they haven’t viewed it. He believes that there is enough differences between the two to suggest they are separate documents. 3. Councilor Denham submit her suggestion for Amendments as a separate new resolution. Chair Rist doesn’t feel comfortable presenting Councilor Denham’s resolution since the  public didn’t have a chance to see it. Feels we should be talking about Councilor Zaret’s resolution. b. Councilor Zaret – This is not a new resolution but a reaffirmation of a resolution that has already been passed. The resolution was first presented in 2019 after Tree of Life mass shooting, as well as other incidents of gun violence. Consulted with Chief of Police in terms of what would local law enforcement like to see around enforcement and educational outreach. Also, outreached to other community organizations. Reaffirmed in 2020. Wanted to reaffirm. Worked with police to explore their role in gun violence. Wanted to reaffirm again after Uvalde, Texas shooting. Updated statistics and examined what action points might be outdated. c. Chair Rist – in regards to legislative actions? Councilor Zaret confirmed actions and statistics. d. Councilor Zaret – Was unaware of concerns about inclusion of law enforcement in the resolution presented in June. Took new statistics from Every Town for Gun Safety organization to update current presented resolution. Involvement of police in discussion to offer solutions around decrease, not response process or decisions about how to respond to active shooters. Instead it is more about what can we do to educate our citizens about gun safety or decrease images around guns, and how can we be responsible gun owners. e. Chair Rist – What are the resolved parts? What’s new because it seems like we’ve already done most of these. The Charleston Loophole is new. f. Councilor Zaret – Charleston Loophole, background checks. Would have to review to confirm others. g. Chair Rist – to Chief Alberti – In regards to legislative action, how many of these resolved sections are already in place in Massachusetts? h. Chief Alberti – Massachusetts has the strongest background checks in the country (local, state, and federal). Chiefs have the right to deny suitability alone. Supreme Court concealed weapon case didn’t affect current Massachusetts laws. Massachusetts can’t restrict licensing. Extensive background checks in commonwealth. State verifies Easthampton licensing process at the state level. In Regards to storage of firearms – improper storage of a firearm is a criminal offense. Easthampton has a program where they provide trigger locks when they come in for licensing and storage boxes. i. Mayor LaChapelle – This is a resolution that the Council has signed off, as well as supported similar resolutions. Given the increase in gun violence over the last year, takes exception to language for reducing gun violence that the police are included in this resolution. As the Chief Alberti said they are involved in gun checks, community education process, and trigger locks. Our department steps up and fulfills state protocol. If the police didn’t do this the City would be in violation of the law. Agrees with Councilor Denham’s around mental health, which plays a part in gun violence. Gun violence is happening as a result of ghost guns. Councilor Denham’s resolution is realistic to what is happening in our City. j. Chair Rist clarification – points in Councilor Zaret’s gun resolution are already covered by law? k. Mayor LaChapelle - The police already have protocols to meet the threat. To Councilor Denham’s point about the AR-15 – this is a resolution that is aspirational – that level of weaponry have not brought down suspects. A policy that already exists in a law and they are already doing it seems redundant and confusing. l. Chair Rist – To the first four points of the resolution – does it imply that the policy are not doing these things already? Do we need it in a resolution that they are already doing it? m. Councilor Zaret – Defer to police to address what they do in their work. These were the points that the police chief provided. Removing the police from the resolution removes an important piece. Highlighting opportunities for the police to engage in gun violence prevention that should the community could know about. n. Councilor Kwiecinski – Clarify the that the Chief and Sargent Gribi can see the correct version of resolution. o. Chief Alberti – has Councilor Zaret’s resolution. Chief says that they are already doing them and will continue to do. p. Chair Rist – Does having them in the resolution suggest that you are not doing them? Does it reaffirm them? q. Chief Alberti – It just reiterates that the police are doing them and will continue to do them. Up to councilors to have points in resolution. r. Officer Gribi – It is not something that is actively put out to the community, so it is important to have in the resolution, puts on paper what they are doing. s. Chair Rist – If it’s not their it’s not negative, since it is something that the police department is doing. t. Councilor Kwiecinski – Leaning toward changing some of the language. Implies that local and state officials provide resources. If they are providing it then it isn’t necessary to be in it. If they need to provide additional resources then we should add that in. Seems confusing if the resources are there or not there and need to be added. Are there additional resources needed for the police department to accomplish their mission of educating the public on gun safety. u. Chair Rist – are there resources that need to being provided for? v. Chief Alberti – To Councilor Denham’s point – more resources could go toward mental health and gun violence, and community outreach. The police department is working toward that with their community social worker. More resources could be put toward that category. w. Chair Rist – We seem stuck on whether or not we need the four points about the police department in the resolution. We can go either way. x. Councilor Zaret - Add language that continues to reaffirm the ongoing resources. It is implied but not spelled out the role of mental health resources. Creating a framework. What’s being done here. y. Chari Rist – Language that takes away from the ambiguity or we take it out. Simplify it by stating that, we want the police to continue their efforts without too much specificity. I don’t know Wants more mental health. Would prefer similar language. z. Councilor Denham – We need to be aware of the language that suggests people around the world are violent. Why people act violently in these areas of the world is very different than the U.S. context and out of the scope of the city and therefore unnecessary to this resolution. The police do an amazing job for the city with regard to being first responders, however they are not the only population within a community that experience trauma. The police are doing these things to encourage gun safety, and we need to be thinking beyond the police. We need other measures to curb gun violence and the police cannot be the only solution. In the amendments attempts were made to add to the thinking of some of the pieces in the initial resolution. Additionally, I don’t think the police should have AR-15s  given they are weapons of war. I don’t think we should be thinking of our streets as war zones and promoting a culture of fear. The police have available resources and training to respond to a crisis without an AR 15. It is aspirational and what is needed is leadership in our communities to remove those weapons from our streets. Suggestions were offered at the level of the federal government. We need to be more creative and organized in how we respond to gun violence in our community, and I don’t believe that that responsibility falls solely on the police. This is what was highlighted in the amendments. aa. Chair Rist – Understands points of concern. Doesn’t agree with AR 15 language, unless it is presented as aspirational goals. bb. Councilor Zaret – vetted by national organization. Trauma is experienced by more than the police. Regarding the geographic regions – wanted to use Europe but couldn’t find anything – these are just geographic regions of the world with no attention to implicit racism. Agrees with language around prior legislation around access to high-capacity magazines. Expand who in the community could work on addressing gun violence. cc. Chair Rist – Would like to see Councilor Zaret and Councilor Denham come together to work on a resolution with compromised language. I would agree that there is too much police department language in the resolution and should include other departments to collaborate on the issue. It is important to reaffirm, but not enough legislative demand for immediate action. We should continue the discussion at the next meeting. dd. Councilor Zaret – If it has already been reaffirmed twice. ee. Chair Rist – There are new people on the Council who can offer ideas for how to make it better. We just need to compromise on some language. Wants to be transparent with the public if there is new resolution. ff. Councilor Kwiecinski – expressed concern about open meeting violation if Councilors work on a new resolution. Chair Rist confirmed no conflict. Zaret – vetted by national organization, geographic locations couldn’t find Europe. Language reaffirms language of 2004. Have to expand who play role in the community who can provide support. Rist – suggested more language around mental health support. Suggest more conversation. Maybe compromise the two resolution. Schedule new meeting. Can we come up with a new resolution, next Thursday is the deadline. B. Conflict of Interest Exemption request – Conservation Commission chair – Desire to have a scientist on the committee. Conflict of Interest Exemption interest. Dual roles in terms of professional and volunteer membership on the committee. Julie Busa wanted to be transparent. a. Councilor Kwiecinski would like a brief summary by applicant to understand how projects may overlap and what you would do in these situations to handle any conflicts. For example, when and why you would recuse yourself and how this situation would be handled. b. Chair Rist – transparency is important. Identify where Julie Busa’s company and the city might be in conflict and how you would recuse yourself. Identify how any conflicts as she might see it. c. Julie Busa - a senior resilient scientist with Fuss and O’Neill. In that capacity can manage city projects. Obtained grants for the city for the Cherry Street project, which a portion of it needed conservation committee commission approval. Perfect example of her recusing herself. Anytime project comes up in front of the  Conservation Commission, she would recuse herself by leaving the room during discussions and during votes. She stays out of commission side that involves the city. She would handle herself in the same manner with any other projects and city contracts with Fuss & O’Neill that came before the commission. d. Councilor Rist - Chair of commission has nothing to do with hiring of the organization that Ms. Busa belongs to. This is left to the Mayor and/or Planning Department. Councilor Kwiecinski agreed that this is an important point. e. Julie Busa confirmed that when the Conservation Commission needs to call in a peer reviewer, they do solicit bids from the consulting firms that employ any of the commissioners. f. Councilor Kwiecinski - How many members are on the Conversation Commission has 7 members. If there is a need for recusal, there would still be 6. g. Councilor Denham – What would happen in the case of a tie vote if there is need for recusal? Ms. Busa – There has never been a tie vote that she is aware of. Culture of the commission is to discuss to the point of consensus and everyone is in agreement. The commission wants everyone to feel comfortable with the decision. h. Councilor Kwiecinski and Chair Rist – Consensus is great, but if there was a tie, then Robert’s Rules would prevail, and the motion wouldn’t pass. i. Ms. Busa – WPA has guidelines for if you don’t have enough votes. j. ChairRist is grateful that you are the commission. Motion to pass approval of exemption for Julie Busa - Kwiecinski moved, Denham 2nd. Vote unanimous (3-0). 6 pm - Motion to adjourn – Councilor Denham, Councilor Kwiecinski – 2nd. Vote unanimous (3- 0)