Northampton City Council overrides mayor’s veto, upholds camera ordinance

NORTHAMPON — By a vote of 7-2 Wednesday, the City Council overrode Mayor David Narkewicz’s veto of its ordinance that will greatly restrict fixed surveillance technology on land owned or controlled by the city downtown.

This was done despite revisions that the mayor proposed to the ordinance in his veto that he said would allow him to support it.

A mayor’s veto is formally known as a disapproval under Northampton’s charter. By overriding the mayor’s veto, the City Council has put the legislation in effect.

The ordinance prohibits fixed surveillance technology in the Central Business District that is in place for more than a day. Exceptions are given for the police station on Center Street, technology that monitors parking areas, technology used in ongoing, time-limited criminal investigations, and technology used in emergency situations.

The mayor’s revisions would have changed the language in the ordinance from prohibition to restriction. It also would have expanded the restrictions citywide, put into place a formal hearing process for approving future cameras, and carved out exceptions for cameras that monitor all municipal buildings.

However, as City Council President Ryan O’Donnell said, the council had to consider the ordinance in its original form when deciding whether or not it would override the veto.

Because of scheduling reasons and its previous scheduled meeting Jan. 4 being snowed out, the City Council held a special 5 p.m. meeting to address the veto. Prior to councilors’ discussion, a public comment period was held, in which a large number of people voiced their thoughts on the matter, the vast majority of whom spoke in favor of the council overriding the mayor’s veto. Indeed, when Sarah Field asked for a show of hands of those who supported overriding the veto, a forest of arms sprouted up.

A petition with more than 200 signatures calling on the council to override the veto and criticizing a number of the mayor’s proposed revisions was also presented to the council. Four people involved with the petition then used their allotted public comment time to read a joint statement to this effect.

The three chief criticisms of the petition are with the mayor’s proposed process for approving new cameras, with the exemption for municipal buildings, and that it has no sunset provision for approved surveillance cameras.

One of the people who called on the council to not override the veto and support the mayor’s changes was Sally Griggs, whose husband Al Griggs also addressed the meeting.

“I think he took a very careful look at it and his common-ground revisions are worth thinking about,” said Griggs, who said there are a lot of people in Northampton who are in favor of cameras.

She also said that a number of people are afraid to go into downtown Northampton.

“I urge all the councilors to remember all the citizens of Northampton,” she said.

The argument that Northampton has become dangerous appeared to motivate Douglas Ross, a former Northampton resident, now of Easthampton, to address the meeting.

“I think it’s BS,” he said, of such an assertion.

He contrasted Northampton with Springfield, where he grew up, which he said was dangerous and continues to be dangerous, and he said that if Northampton was anything like Springfield, he would support cameras.

Ross also criticized the notion that criticizing the police means one is opposed to them.

“I come from a law enforcement family,” he said. “I am not anti-police.”

Ward 2 Councilor Dennis Bidwell and Ward 5 Councilor David Murphy, the same two councilors who voted against the ordinance on its second reading, again voted against the ordinance.

Ward 3 Councilor James Nash said that he was undecided about how he would vote when making his comments, a state of indecision that caused visible consternation from some pro-override audience members.

“Had the mayor simply vetoed ... the ordinance, my vote for tonight would be simple,” said Nash, saying that he felt that the mayor’s revisions improved the ordinance, while also saying that he wasn’t comfortable with letting the current version of the ordinance die.

Ultimately, however, he chose to vote with the majority. He said after the meeting that he did so because he wasn’t sure if the council would be able to come to an agreement on this issue again.

“It would be great if we could take his (the mayor’s) proposals and talk about them further,” Nash said after the meeting.

In his comments, Murphy said that a number of business people in favor of cameras downtown had not made their voices heard in the process, because of the threat of their businesses being boycotted.

“They were very intimidated,” said Murphy.

He also took issue with the idea that cameras discriminate against certain classes of people.

“Cameras see everybody,” he said. “They don’t profile. They don’t discriminate.”

O’Donnell, one of the ordinance’s co-sponsors, said he and other co-sponsors had discussed with the mayor his proposed revisions, but there had been no agreement on language.

Narkewicz attended the meeting in order to be available to answer questions, but was not asked any and did not speak.

In the debate, some of the mayor’s revisions were spoken of favorably by ordinance supporters, particularly the proposal to expand the ordinance’s restrictions citywide. Speaking after the meeting, O’Donnell said he would be interested in adding some of them onto the ordinance at a later date.

“Let’s take a break first,” he said.