Objections to the shutdown of ShotSpotter gunfire-listening technology faded Monday on the part of two Cambridge city councillors.
Though his policy order June 8 called for a total redo of the council’s vote to turn off the tech and take down its microphones, Tim Flaherty said upon the order’s return that he was now merely communicating that “in my view, this vote was invalid.”
“I have no doubt that if this were reviewed by an appellate court, it would be overturned, but that’s that’s not going to be my goal in this. I’m certainly not going to sue myself as a member of the City Council,” Flaherty said, repeating his opinion that the council vote was unlawful because it didn’t follow the language of the city’s Surveillance Technology Ordinance ordinance.
Councillors voted May 18 for the city manager to turn off the system and remove its microphones citywide within 90 days. The necessary five-member majority out of nine said they saw no evidence that the system keeps anyone safe, and members and residents worried that it might be turned by the federal government into a tool for surveillance. Flaherty believed police officials who saw it as “a law enforcement tool that serves a real basis, has a real function which is not hypothetical.”
Whether the council had obeyed or ignored the ordinance seemed to be a matter of interpretation, other members said.
The council had a “deliberative process” in committee to discuss the tech’s benefits and people’s concerns, then voted to disapprove its use, Patty Nolan said. And the policy order to shut ShotSpotter down was reviewed by the city’s Law Department.
“I appreciate my colleague’s desire to make sure that we take legal votes, that’s good. We should always take legal votes. And I know in the law there can be disagreements – but I don’t want anyone thinking that the council did not ask for a legal opinion before taking this vote. We did, and the city solicitor said the vote was legal,” councillor Marc McGovern said.
Another ShotSpotter-related order returned Monday for quick disposal: Councillor E. Denise Simmons’ comprehensive call for the city manager and at least six city departments to “develop a Neighborhood Safety Additions Plan” within 60 days for the areas previously listened to by ShotSpotter, including ways to evaluate whether the replacements for the tech made neighborhoods safer – something ShotSpotter was never claimed to do in any measurable sense.
Ayah Al-Zubi and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, the councillors who led the push to end ShotSpotter’s use in Cambridge, had amendments June 8 to delete most of Simmons’ specifics and the language that implied a ShotSpotter-replacement plan was to be implemented automatically rather than presented for discussion.
The changes were accepted Monday by Simmons with little comment. “In the spirit of collaboration, I’m prepared to move it forward,” Simmons said.
About The Author
