Boston City Council meeting starting. Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the archbishop of Boston, is attending virtually to say an opening prayer.

This is the last council meeting of the year. They’re going to be moving several things for a vote, most notably a raft of police-reform measures: creation of a civilian review board, heavy limitations on chemical/ballistic crowd-control measures & hiring priority for locals

Background on that. Police Commish William Gross sent a three-page letter to all of the councilors opposing the crowd-control ordinance yesterday. https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/12/15/boston-city-council-set-to-vote-on-combined-civilian-review-board-legislation/

City council passing several ordinances. Approves a change that would forbid some employers from asking about prospective employees' credit scores, and another that creates gender-neutral options on city forms.

And now we're onto the police civilian review board — or, more accurately, the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency, and the separate CRB and internal affairs board that it would hold.

City Councilor Lydia Edwards, the govt ops chair, is going through the nuts and bolts of what this is and how it came about through negotiations between mayor & Andrea Campbell, the lead sponsor of the council's version of the CRB. Edwards says it's a "good-faith effort" by all.

CRB, to be appointed by mayor and including a youth delegate, would oversee external complaints. The Internal Affairs Oversight Panel — IAOP — appointed jointly by mayor and council, would oversee internal complaints. Both boards would have subpoena power.

The unified ordinance has the two boards separate, as the mayor wanted, but creating them by ordinance, as the council did. In the end, only the commish can mete out discipline, recommended by the boards. But if the commish varies from recommendation, he must explain why.

That debate over who ultimately can discipline officers was one of the main outstanding sticking points, Edwards says.

Edwards urges passage, saying, "It protects city residents and city police officers."

City Councilor Andrea Campbell, the public safety chair and lead sponsor of one version of the board introduced in June, says, "Passing this ordinance would be a win for the city, a major step toward eliminating racial disparities in police while creating greater transparency."

City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo, another original sponsor, also embraces the unified version, saying, "It's good for the police department, in that it creates trust." He says it's important to give this office the monetary resources it needs.

City councilor Julia Mejia, the final original sponsor, says creating a CRB is an "incredibly low bar" but one "we keep tripping on over and over again." She says the youth seat — someone 18-21 — on the CRB is an important addition.

Council talking over a phrase City Councilor Michael Flaherty says appears contradictory and possibly would be against the law. Campbell says she's ok with dropping it (it wouldn't change the operation of the order). They'd have to make an amendment, which they haven't yet

City Councilor Frank Baker says in brief comments that he'll be voting no on the bill in general. Says he suspects it might be in violation of city charter & state law.

City Councilor Michelle Wu says there's a "constant refrain" that the council might be overstepping its role, but she's happy the council continues to exert what authority it has. She will support the bill.

Flaherty is mollified by the likely removal of the phrase he took issue with, says he'll vote in favor.

Edwards says it's not clear how much the OPAT — the office that contains the boards — would cost. Edwards says admin says it's hard to know until the budget process starts.

The amendment to the language passes. It takes out a few words that made it sound like OPAT has final disciplinary authority, though the rest of the ordinance says it would not. (It legally cannot)

So the whole ordinance up for a vote now — and passes, 12-1, with Baker the sole vote against. If the mayor signs off, Boston will have a civilian review board and an internal affairs oversight panel. A couple of people clap.

Onto the next one. City council moves onto a home-rule petition that would — with the sign-off of the mayor (who proposed it) and the Legislature — give hiring preference to local school grads for police and fire departments.

There's some discussion of whether this should include private schools, as the proposal currently does. It then passes unanimously.

Andddd now onto the ordinance around chemical and ballistic crowd-control measures. The proposal from Arroyo and Campbell want to heavily limit the use of pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets.

The councilors introduced this after the May 31 clashes between police & protestors. The police department says these restrictions would seriously limit the ability of police to deal with unruly crowds and would endanger police, bystanders and protestors.

Edwards, the chair of the committee this proposal was in, says she asked police to bring language that they'd want instead, or what they currently use, and says they did not. She stresses that this is a compromise from a complete ban, as some want.

She also says these restrictions only apply to protests — not other situations, like individuals committing crimes.

Arroyo, the lead sponsor, says, "This is a way to protect our residents who have demonstrated or are demonstrating." Says the requirement of warnings give people the opportunity to get out of there.

Campbell says this is another opportunity to attain "greater accountability" for the police department.

City Councilor Matt O'Malley said he supports the general thrust of the ordinance, but says Gross' letter contains "legitimate concerns" around safety and implementation. He asks for this to not be voted on today, and instead voted on in the new year

Arroyo doesn't like that idea — "there is no appetite" for waiting, he says. "We asked repeatedly for something ... it never arrived," he says. "I don't think there's a real good faith effort on that end" from the police," he says.

O'Malley had agreed that the BPD brass should have shown up and participated more, but says that doesn't mean they should just pass it when there are legitimate arguments with it — says it's worth it to give it one more chance to come together

Campbell agrees with Arroyo, says it seems like the police just don't want this ordinance, so there's no point in waiting.

Baker says "this seems like a council that's more hell bent in protecting Chad and Brad coming up from Pennsylvania that want to come up and tear up my streets." Says this would put police at a disadvantage.

City Councilors Annissa Essaibi-George says she'll oppose the ordinance — says it creates "significant safety concerns"

Flaherty says this ordinance seems "inflexible" — he says he wants to bring back the mounted unit for crowd control. Says it seems like the statewide proposed laws focus on deescalation in crowd control, which he says is good.