On the message and ordinance, referred on March 2, 2022, Docket #0312, for your approval regarding targeted residential picketing, to protect the quality of residential life in our city, the committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass in a new draft. Councilor Arroyo moved for substitution. Motion prevailed.
Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The docket has passed. I just want to say, on behalf of our colleagues, thank you to Councilor Baker. Thank you to the BP team for working on this important matter. Mr. Carr, please read DAWKINS 0312. Lucky Number 0312 The Canadian government operations to which was referred on March 2nd, 2022 Docket numbers 0312 message in order for your approval, an ordinance regarding targeted residential picketing to protect the quality of residential life in our city submits a report recommending that the legislation to pass in a new draft. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Look. At this time. The chair recognizes Council Arroyo, Chair of the Committee on Government Operations. Counsel Arroyo, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion to. Seeing and hearing no objection. Thank you. The language of the committee report has been substituted. Thank you, Mr. President. Everyone should have this substituted copy on their desk. It's the one dated March 30th. 2022. This docket was sponsored by the mayor and referred to the Committee on Government Operations on March 2nd, 2022. The committee held a hearing on March 14, 2022 where public comment was taken in a working session on March 25 , 2022. This matter must be acted upon before May 2nd of 2022. The proposed legislation would prohibit targeted residential picketing between the hours of 9 p.m. and 9 a.m.. The term targeted residential picketing is defined as picketing, protesting or demonstrating with or without signs that is specifically directed towards a particular residence or one or more occupants of the residence, and which takes place before or about the targeted residents. All other ordinances and statutes would apply, including laws regarding excessive noise, disturbing the peace and blocking streets and sidewalks. The provisions of this ordinance would be enforced by the Boston Police Department, and violators would be subject to fines of increasing amounts based on the number of offenses . 100 for the first offense, 200 for the second offense, and 300 for the third or subsequent offense. That's the version that was submitted. I'd like to thank my council colleagues for joining the working session. Councilor Murphy, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor Lara. Councilor Fernandez Anderson Council were real councilor me here, Councilor Louie Jan and Councilor Flynn and Councilor Edwards. I'd also like to thank the members of the administration for their participation. During the working session, the committee discussed why this ordinance is needed when a city noise ordinance already exists and how that noise ordinance was being enforced. The committee also discussed concerns with the fines and appeals process of this particular matter. The law department was able to provide clarity on the legal analysis and discussed the significant government interest in protecting individuals privacy rights within their homes. BPD discussed the need for balance and freedom of expression and enforcement of the noise ordinance, stating that the objective of the department is to de-escalate, divert and negotiate. Arrests are a last resort. BPD also stated that there have been no citations issued for violations of the current noise ordinance for the protected protests, but that the departments have been coordinating with the West Roxbury District Court. During the working session, councilors offered several language suggestions, including defining harm as a standard in order to provide context for the ordinance. For example, regulating activity that rises above a noise level and blocks public ways, removing the word towards and replacing it with, against or in opposition to and removing a particular residents. The committee also asked for clarification around the term subsequent offense and whether offenses would be tracked over a period of time. The law department reiterated that targeted residential picketing is permissible for 12 hours of the day. The amendments that have been made to the ordinance include the following the removal of the words a particular residence after the term torts to eliminate ambiguity so that it now reads for the purpose of this section. Targeted residential picketing means picketing, protesting or demonstrating with or without signs that is specifically directed towards one or more occupants of a particular residence, and which takes place before or about the particular targeted residents amending the fine structure so that they're not lower. So $50 for the first offense and 50 for the second offense and 300 for the third and subsequent offenses. And then defining the period for which subsequent offenses happen to within a 12 month period. In other words, after the first 12 months, if there's another offense, you would start out one again, referencing the specific state laws that give the city authority to issue fines and starting the word state before statutes and starting the word harassment in the third paragraph. And finally, inclusion of severability language, which is standard practice for the city to ensure that if challenged, only the challenge provisions would be impacted. The substitute committee report also includes one additional amendment in the fifth paragraph that would prevent information collected by the Boston Police Department through enforcement of this ordinance from being included in any database maintained by the Boston Regional Intelligence Center. Passage of this docket in a new draft will ensure that the expectation of privacy that individuals have in their homes is protected while maintaining freedom of speech and assembly rights. The stock it regulates targeted residential picketing between certain hours and imposes reasonable limitations on the time, place and manner of speech and is content neutral. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the quality of life of our residents and prevent them from becoming captive audiences in the privacy of their own home. In particular, this ordinance seeks to do this during the night and day, a night in early morning when such intentional intrusion into privacy is especially invasive and burdensome. The proposal in its amended draft provides clarity and is narrowly tailored, while leaving ample alternative channels of communication. As the chair of the committee, I seek acceptance of the Committee report as substituted and recommend that this docket on Odds Pass in a new draft. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel room. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter at this time? The chair recognizes. Counselor Baker. Counsel Baker. You have the floor at. I wish this party came around me when this was happening to me. There were people out in front of my house, but they were crawling all around my house all hours of the evening. They were calling my phone and calling me a scumbag landlord scumbag. They were harassing my wife on her phone. Fireworks being shot at my house. Post being posted on my house. And this was happening. March, April, May, June, July, August of 2020. Because I took an action that was about transparency. And now because this is happening to one person, we're going to change all the rules. And I think we're I think we're we're edging in on First Amendment here. I think we're edging in on the right of free speech. Do I think that people should be out in front of the mayor's house at this point screaming at seven in the morning? No, but it's their right to be able to do it. And because it's happening to one person. Now. We're going to change the rules. I just think it's totally wrong. And again, I wish I knew the severity of what happened at my house. The last time, the same guy that drove by my house all summer long and threw firecrackers at my house all summer long, I came running out of the house and all my neighbors came out. The women with it, with their babies and everything, and they told me they were watching it happen. I didn't see it. I'm a little bit on the second and third floor. Don't see necessarily what's happened on the on the first floor. People were creeping all around my house. This party didn't really give. That much of a care about me and my family then my family and I proper English. Correct. But now because it's happening to one person and she happens to be sitting over there now, she could do certain things like maybe have the police back up into her driveway and get out the back door and drive through them. She could do things like that, but I don't think she's she's doing that. But this is a back and forth here. We're looking to just get people more divided, more and more divided. So I today will be voting no on this, not because I think that people should be out in front of anybody's house. They were at my house. They called my house. I lived with them for six months. I just got rid of all the text messages. Calling me a scumbag just got rid of them because I don't need it in my life. But I think that this is a problem here. So when it doesn't work for us, we're going to change all the rules. At what point does it end First Amendment? I think we're talking about it here today. So I will be voting no. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Baker. Any of our colleagues also wish to speak on this matter. Thank. I'm sorry. Now, the chair recognizes that large city council resolution council resigned. You have the floor. A great working session on this as but I know that a lot of the counselors had questions from the Boston Police Department regarding some of the language that currently exists, saying laws would continue to be enforced. I'm just wondering if the chair's office ever received any data from the Boston Police Department regarding requests from counselors on enforcement over the last ten weeks, in the last year on this on the laws that are included in the ordinance that will continue to be enforced that. Thank you. Counsel and Counsel Arroyo, are you able to respond to that question? So we're still so as far as we know, I know that the question specifically, and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this case of Louisiana, was they had made clear that there were no NOI citations that they had put up and to their knowledge, within the last ten week period. And I think we asked for a time of a year so that we can have a better analysis of when and how they've actually held up the noise ordinance. We are still waiting on Boston Police Department to send us those numbers. They have not sent us those, but we will continue to ask and wait to receive and if required, do a 17 have to get the information specifically on the noise ordinances and how they've in the past enforce or not enforce them and where they're doing that and whether or not I believe that that was the outstanding request , correct? Yeah. So those those violations, those sort of civil violations, we're putting a request for that. We're still waiting for DPD to give us that that data. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Counsel Rail. The chair recognizes. Counsel Bork. Counsel Bork. View of the floor. Thank you. Counselor Flynn. I was going to speak on this matter, but I just wanted to say, in response to what Councilor Baker was saying, you know, I think that a lot of the the outreach in 2020, both both as Councilor Baker saying that spring and then, you know, for many councilors that summer after the budget vote , I think that that that was a data point that the recent action has been another data point. And that's more about a pattern of the question of sort of like what we what we think counts as civil discourse in the city and and what are the appropriate places for people to make their message heard. I think that, as the chair has repeatedly said, nine and 9 p.m. still leaves 12 hours for picketing. And I don't actually think that the media coverage in the city has left anybody unable to express their message on any number of points recently. And so I guess what I would say to Councilor Baker's point is that it it seems to me that rather than being a reaction, like just for one person, you're saying for the mayor, it's more like we've got a consistent pattern here in which folks are crossing this threshold. And it's a real problem for a lot of our neighbors. Right. And we're trying to deal with how do you think about the fact that elected officials we answer to you, we absolutely need to hear what people are saying. But at the same time, we've got neighbors who, you know, have a right to their sleep at seven in the morning. And so for me, I guess as a councilor who's only been in for a couple of years, it feels as though that this that this last couple of years has been characterized by a lot of activity of this type. And so I don't think about the ordinance that we're voting on as being just about the mayor. I do think about it as also about what you were discussing happening at your dwelling. And I think that, of course, that's always the way that we should be thinking about legislation, is that as is general impact . And yeah, we might have a specific instance that makes us focus on the issue by work. We should always be legislating for a general impact. And I think for me the reason I'm going to vote yesterday is that I feel comfortable that the legislation is narrowly tailored enough to be well within the Supreme Court precedent when it comes to the First Amendment, a reasonable time, place and manner restriction that it's going to be evenly applied, that if we're talking about civil fines here, that it's not moving into criminalization. And for me as a councilor, I feel comfortable that that that is going to be a uniform impact and that it isn't about a particular act of speech. So I just wanted to stress that for me, there's actually a continuity rather than a discontinuity here. As somebody who was really troubled by what happened to Councilor Baker, what happened to many of our houses in the summer of 2020, and and also what's been happening to the mayor and other other folks. So I just wanted to say that from my perspective, it's more of a reaction to a pattern. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel. BLOCK The chair recognizes counsel, royal counsel. Royal, do you have the floor? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to note as well that obviously targeted harassment of any kind, including and especially what Councilor Baker offered up, is wrong. It shouldn't be happening. And frankly, you know, last year with the budget votes, we saw folks as homes targeted in sort of an isolated incident this year. And I think it's mostly this year to get started this year. In 2022, we started to see targeted residential picketing in a way that we've never seen before. We had Superintendent Bailey on our working session, who's been an officer for over 30 years and said he's never seen this in the entirety of his time on the force . My mother's home was targeted and whether or not they were attempting to find my home when they were informed that it was my mother's home, they remained and they continue to harass my mother at her home. And I think one of the major issues with this is when we allow folks to to come to a conclusion that going to our homes or the homes of our family members is acceptable, those kinds of mistakes will happen. They will end up outside of people's homes that aren't the people that they're actually trying to get to. They are going to be putting people in distress who frankly aren't even necessarily the targets of who they're trying to put in distress. And so this doesn't and I just want to be clear, this doesn't even stop them from doing that. From 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., if they wanted to, they could still go to any home in the city and do what they've been doing. It doesn't actually stop that. It just gives folks some grace. From 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. to allow them to get ready, start their day, put kids on school busses, do the things that they have to do in the city regardless of where their political leanings are. It allows them to do this. This doesn't even stop the behaviors that we're talking about. It doesn't actually say you can't go to somebody's home, period. It says from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. for 12 hours of the day. We got 24 hours in a day for 50% of this day. If you want to go stand outside of somebody's grandmother's house or mother's house, and fortunately, you can still do that. There's nothing here that stops that. And so this is very narrowly tailored, very contained. I think the idea here is. To provide some grace to residents to allow them some peace in the early morning hours, because, frankly, they deserve that. They did not sign up for that kind of picketing in their neighborhoods. And so that's addressing a new issue that I think we see escalating. We've never seen this kind of escalation. We've never had to deal with this to this degree. I think it's awful that it's happened in the past. And my hope is that, you know, I had someone say it's it's awful that we're legislating civility, but we are. And so my my goal is ultimately peace in our neighborhoods for folks to come to the appropriate sections. I have actually spoken with protesters. I've taken the time out of the day to do that. I have been at city hall, and yet they still find their way to our homes. And so what I am saying, period, is when we're doing these things, there's a time and place to do them. And this is just saying from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m., the place is not in front of people's homes. So that's that's what this is doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Excuse me. Excuse me, please. Please. No comment in the city council. Officer, can you please ask for her out of the room, please? We're in a brief recess for 15 seconds. In the working session. Earlier this morning, she was just about. We're back and we're back in session. The chair recognizes. Counselor. Murphy, counsel. Murphy, you have the floor. So to follow up on the question. My colleague, counsel Louisiana had if you could clarify, Counselor Arroyo, why if there were some questions, I was at that working session and I know we had many questions and some of them were answered in this new wording. But if we have until May 2nd, if you could just make it clear for me why we're voting today and we're not waiting for some of those more of the answers to come back. Thank you. The chair recognizes Counselor Arroyo, Counsel Arroyo, you have the floor. Because none of the questions that we're waiting to come back deal with the legality of the ordinance itself. There are questions about enforcement of other existing ordinances that, frankly, I think are important in our data. We're going to get and we can follow up on how and how we expect the city and DPD to enforce or deal with sort of these civil infractions and whether or not there's discrepancies in how they're being used and where they're being used. But all of the questions that had to do with legality and whether or not this ordinance would be legally or constitutionally upheld have been answered at this time. There are no outstanding questions on that that were posed at the working session. And so that is why we're moving forward with the vote today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Thank you. Counsel Murphy The Chair recognizes counsel Fernandez. Andersen COUNSEL Fernandez A.nd you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding the hearings and working sessions. I just have a point to make because and it's really unfortunate to my brother, Greg Baker, that you had to go through that and wrong. Two one is wrong is no matter no matter what is wrong. Well, so I and in James Baldwin I think and I'm not. Don't quote me word for word but in the letter to Angela Davis talked about if they come for you in the night, they'll come for us in the morning. And I think that the tone is about, you know, BROWN done to one humankind is it's like you were doing it to all and I'm just a little bit disturbed that wanted to happen to you. But to that, the point is if if it let's say hypothetically that that was the case, you should I believe you. I'm saying in your case, you should have been protected and supported. And I'm sure our colleagues, many of them supported you. But let's say hypothetically that it was only about one person in this instance, then it's wrong. Wrong is wrong. Right is right. And when someone is harassed or hurt and if that has to go to an extreme for us to change a thing in order for someone to feel safe that it's wrong, then she is not safe. Let's say it was only about one person. Remove the man from it. Then we have to do what is right to ensure that now we had the work in session and the police department was very clear that no one was arrested. There was there were no actions taken. And so and I also I'm to believe that I've seen it with my own eyes, because I know some of us have driven to our home to to to witness it, to understand what's going on. And I've seen it where officers stand by and things happen and she's harassed and she has to walk through people to go somewhere. As a woman or as a man, as a child senior, it doesn't matter. She doesn't feel safe. Even if it was only about one person removed her position or her job title. And tell me what you think that is. That's wrong. So we have to address it either way. And I don't believe that we need a new law, a new ordinance and new anything. I think we're talking about something totally different. This is not protesting. This is harassment. This is abuse and verbal assault. It's totally different. I don't think we need it. But if we have to go to extremes because there was a group of people not doing their job, not arresting, not taking action, for now, we do what we must to intervene so that someone can feel safe. But I don't think that this is just about the mayor. I think that, as my colleagues have stated, it's about her neighbors and council. Flynn is going through this council. Arroyo's mom's going through this and others have gone through this. And you just made your point. You said you wish that we did that for you when it happened to you. So do you wish for this to happen to protect someone or not? Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Fernandez. I wasn't planning to speak on this matter, but I'll speak briefly. I'm going to support. Support this proposal. And one of the reasons or several of the reasons I'm supporting it is based on the quality of life of neighbors that live near an elected official or a public official. Can you imagine a senior, 85 years old, that's that's a World War Two veteran that's struggling to try to get to sleep. And having being woken up at 9:00 at night or about 7:00 in the morning, how could you imagine a person with disabilities that's also struggling? Young, young little babies, infants or kids that are going to school that need their sleep so that they can function properly the next morning and they're being woken up at nine at night, eight at night, 7:00 in the morning. So there has to be some civility, some respect for neighbors. And I think this compromise is is fair. I do have a little problem. Problem with the 9:00 one. I, I couldn't imagine someone going to someone's house at 830 at night and trying to. Wake someone up and especially your little baby is trying to sleep or a senior or veteran is trying to sleep. I'm supporting it. But I think this is a fear a fear compromise. That's all I'll have to say on the matter. The chair recognizes counsel Baker. Counsel Baker, you have the floor. I appreciate your concern, but my colleagues warrant wrapping themselves around me. They weren't calling to make sure my family was okay when the fire was out behind my house. That was until about midnight. They were crawling all around my house three or four or five in the morning. The calls started at seven until midnight. Nobody gave two shits about me and my family. And this is very specific. The legislation comes out after this happening to her. And by the way, she's not disengaged with the public that standing outside, that she's still. Twitting around and everything else. So at what point does she show that she's above it anymore and she's not going to be harmed that maybe maybe her ears will be harmed? The Boston police will not let her be harmed. And now, mind you, I lived through watching watching Newbury Street get totally looted. Nobody was arrested. We're looking to arrest people here now for for noise violations. We're going to go out with these things that, oh, that's above 70 decibels. We better arrest that guy. The city was on fire. We didn't arrest anybody. I think we arrested the one kid that that that burnt the the police car. That's what I saw. I saw my city that went through 2020. Championship banners and parades and everything. Not a problem. Not a problem. But yet we allowed people from outside because I was standing on the corners. I was standing on the corners. I was watching who was creeping around my neighborhood. Pennsylvania plates. Ohio plates. Florida plates. This is a national agenda playing out here. And it was the list that brought this all here. Now that it's happening to the left, we're going to change the rules. And I think it's very specific towards one person. And I disagree with you. That's what we're having this this this discussion about, because we should be able to to disagree without everybody in this room hate me. Quite frankly, I don't care if you hate me or not. I'm here to represent my people from District three. And I'm going to say what I have on my mind. I think it's very specific towards her. Yeah, 9 to 9. Not a big not a big deal. But I think it's wrong. I think we're encroaching on on our rights, our right to protest. I mean, the people that what that were that were. Looting the stores on on on Newbury Street. Not a single person got arrested. Not a single person got arrested. What about that business person that lost all of their all of their inventory? Did you see the video for the guy on Newbury Street with the bikes? That's in your district. What happened there? So, yeah, I think it's wrong. I think we're doing this specifically because someone's in. Someone's in the office over the head. Great. You won. Awesome. But we're looking to change the rules here now because the left is in charge. So they go to the left and now it doesn't work for them. So let's change the rules. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel, make up the last comment I'm going to have is counsel, our counsel, our view of the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. I just wanted to correct for the record that during the George Floyd protests, 53 people were arrested. The person who was not arrested was the Boston Police Department officer who was caught on video talking about mowing over protesters with his vehicle. But 53 people were arrested. Two of them who were still going into court and being supported by the ACLU up until just a few weeks ago. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. I'm sorry. I'm not going to take any more. Just young. Counselor Flynn. Sorry. He specifically referenced me and my district. I just want to make. All right. Can you counsel Bob, can you respond very briefly? And let me let me just be clear. This will be the last testimony before we go on to a vote. Yeah, I just I just want to say. From my perspective. I. 20 and situation. We actually had like a major operational failure where there were no police in the area of Newbury Street because they were all centered around the Commons. We had out-of-state folks coming in with vans. It was very orchestrated and planned. It was pretty clearly a separate action from the folks who were on the college protesting. And so I just want to stress that I think the whole history of that is quite distinct from what we're talking about here. And it was, of course, something that I was deeply concerned about in my district and the ramifications going to be something we struggle with in the district. But it was not, I think, connected to the to the conversation that we're having today. So thank you. Thank you. Counsel walk. Counsel. Excuse me, sir. Please, please refrain from talking. Officer, could you please us? What? A lot of this. Council Royal the chair on the Committee of Government Operations. Seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of the docket zero three, one, two and a new draft. Mr. Clarke, if you can do a roll call vote. Roll call on docket 031 to Consular. Royal Consular. Royal Yes. Council a Baker Council a. Baker no. Council a but yes. Council a Bach. Yes. Council of Reading Council of Region yes. Council Edwards. Council of Woods yes. Councilor Fernando Sanderson. Council Fernando Sanderson. Yes. Council Clarity. Council Clarity. Yes. Council Flynn. Yes. Council Flynn. Yes. Council. Borough Council. Ah no. Council Louisiana. Council of Louisiana yes. Council. Let me hear. Council a me here. No. Council a murphy council a murphy. No. In Council world. Yes. Council overall? Yes. Thank you. And the docket has passed in a new draft. We're going on to matters recently heard for possible action. Mr. Couric please reach 0239.