From the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association and Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association
We write to express strong opposition to policy orders that seek to restrict municipal investments and business relationships with certain publicly traded companies.
Cambridge cannot demand the highest standards of transparency, accountability and professionalism from its police officers while simultaneously pursuing policies that could restrict access to the very equipment and technology necessary to meet those standards.
In pursuing divestment and purchasing restrictions against certain major corporations, the city risks creating unnecessary obstacles to obtaining essential public safety equipment while potentially compromising investment strategies that support the retirement security of police officers and thousands of other municipal employees.
The proposed restrictions on municipal contracting could affect companies that manufacture, supply and support equipment and technology essential to modern law enforcement. These include body-worn cameras, police communications systems, protective equipment and other tools Cambridge police officers rely upon to perform their duties safely, effectively and accountably.
These are not incidental purchases or discretionary conveniences. Reliable communications equipment, protective gear and modern policing technology are fundamental to the ability of officers to respond to emergencies, protect the public and protect themselves.
Body-worn cameras have become an important component of police transparency and accountability. Cambridge has made substantial commitments to improving police training, oversight and professionalism. It makes little sense for the city to invest time and resources in establishing increasingly rigorous standards for its police officers, only to consider procurement restrictions that could interfere with their ability to obtain, maintain or replace the equipment needed to fulfill those expectations.
Although the proposed ordinance provides exceptions for essential purchases, those provisions do not eliminate our concerns. Additional certifications, procurement reviews and administrative requirements could create delays, reduce competition, increase costs or limit access to equipment that best meets the department’s operational needs.
No Cambridge police officer should have to wonder whether essential safety equipment will be available, properly maintained or replaced on time because of purchasing restrictions imposed for reasons unrelated to public safety.
Our second major concern involves the financial security of Cambridge police officers, firefighters and other municipal employees who depend upon responsibly managed retirement investments.
One of the policy orders seeks divestment from certain publicly traded companies, including major corporations that may be held within diversified institutional investment portfolios. Such decisions must be evaluated according to their financial implications, their effect on diversification, and their consistency with the fiduciary responsibilities owed to retirement system beneficiaries.
The proposed order suggests that the targeted holdings represent only a small percentage of the overall pension portfolio and therefore would not materially affect its investment strategy. That assertion deserves independent financial analysis, not acceptance as a foregone conclusion.
The retirement savings and financial security of public employees should not become instruments of municipal political policy. Police officers and other city employees have devoted their careers to serving Cambridge, with the reasonable expectation that their pension assets will be managed prudently and in accordance with the fiduciary obligations established to protect their interests.
Cambridge police officers are expected to meet the highest standards of professionalism and accountability. They have every right to expect the city will not undermine their ability to fulfill those responsibilities by restricting access to essential equipment or introducing unnecessary risks to the retirement security they have earned through years of service.
Whatever the intentions behind these policy orders, Cambridge must not pursue them at the expense of the equipment that protects its public safety personnel or the retirement investments that support its municipal workforce.
We urge the City Council to reject these measures and refrain from advancing procurement or investment restrictions of any kind.
