Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 10/12/2022
HOLYOKE – City Council accepted $64,850 grant to incorporate ShotSpotter technology in the city to respond to an uptick in gun violence this year following tense final discussions between councilors during its Oct. 4 meeting.
ShotSpotter is a company that uses acoustic sensors strategically placed in an array of approximately 20 sensors per square mile to detect gun shots and alert police of shots to respond faster to emergencies. The technology has been used in major cities across the country as well as locally in Springfield and Pittsfield.
The grant came from the Attorney General’s Office and was earmarked as funding for only the ShotSpotter program. Mayor Joshua Garcia had made it clear to councilors in previous discussions that he would be brining the tool to combat gun violence into the city no matter if the council accepted this grant or not. Garcia would have gone into the cities American Rescue Act (ARPA) account to fund the ShotSpotter program if the council had denied the grant.
“Mayor Garcia has proposed and has stated publicly more than once that he is going forward with ShotSpotter, and he will use ARPA monies for the two square miles if the grant is not accepted,” said At-Large Councilor Joseph McGiverin. “By accepting the grant, we will be saving some ARPA monies that can be used in other areas.”
McGiverin explained that as chair of the Finance Committee he and the committee met with representatives from ShotSpotter to learn more about the company and its effectiveness in other cities. Some councilors came away with thinking the tool was effective enough to bring to the city while others felt there was enough evidence from other communities suggesting a lack of effectiveness in the technologies use of responding to gun shots and making arrests.
He reiterated that whether councilors did not believe in the technology or not, the mayor was bringing in the tool and this vote was about accepting funding for it.
“Tonight, there’s nothing new to be said unless someone is thinking of changing their vote,” McGiverin said.
That did not stop most councilors from discussing the technology further one final time in open meeting setting as councilors grappled with the decision.
Ward 6 Councilor Juan Anderson-Burgos shared his thought process through discussions on ShotSpotter was to research the pros and cons of the technology to determine its effectiveness. Anderson-Burgos said while he had spoken against the technology publicly in previous meetings after looking into research and information from other cities that have tried it.
Anderson-Burgos shared that since these previous meetings he has received multiple emails from residents directing racist and hateful comments about the councilor and his Puerto Rican heritage.
“I’ve been called a racist, that I hate cops and love criminals. In an email I was told to, ‘go ‘F’ myself, Rican.’ There’s more,” Anderson-Burgos said.
He read aloud a few more emails received with similar sentiments towards the councilor. Ward 1 Councilor Jenny Rivera later noted she had been receiving similar emails since the last discussion on ShotSpotter.
Anderson-Burgos added that based on his voting record, he supports police and noted he has family and friends who were police officers.
“To be told these things just because I did my research as an elected official – I got that for doing what I thought was best for the City of Holyoke,” Anderson-Burgos said.
He and other councilors cited Chicago, Springfield and Pittsfield as examples they found in researching the technologies effectiveness where a city had issues and the program was not working as ideally as promoted. During public comment, residents expressed similar points against ShotSpotter.
One resident explained that in Chicago the office of inspector general concluded that response to ShotSpotter alerts rarely led to crime being connected with it. She added that additionally the introduction of ShotSpotter in Chicago has changed the way some officers perceived and interacted with neighborhoods.
Another resident who said she represented a group in Pittsfield described the city’s experience with ShotSpotter which was incorporated in 2016. She said it began similarly to what Holyoke is currently facing with a grant funded opportunity that later turned into a mainstay for the city’s police budget.
“The data shows ShotSpotter has a 70 percent false positive rate and the bulk of time it is not accurate,” she said. “Your city is about to waste a tremendous amount of money on this technology, and I urge you to stop it any way you can.”
The Council was encouraged to find a new approach to public safety issues in drugs and violence from one resident who was also against ShotSpotter.
“The DOJ should be investigating Holyoke after Springfield. Stop telling my kids you’re making us safer because that’s bullshit,” he said.
Order was called by Council President Todd McGee who reminded the public and the council to not use profane language in the chambers.
Two public commenters shared support for the program and felt it was worth bringing in to attempt to combat the uptick in gun violence. There were five murders in Holyoke this summer, all by gunfire. One of the residents said she felt the technology was a positive in aiding victims following a shooting and would be helpful in that perspective.
At-Large Councilor Tessa Murphy-Romboletti shared discontent for the “unproductive and hateful things” said to her fellow councilors. She added that while she was against bringing ShotSpotter into the city, she would be voting yes to approve the grant funding to not take away from the ARPA fund.
Disgust with the emails sent to some councilors was also shared by At-Large Councilor Kevin Jourdain who called for more civility in politics. He said there needed to be more decorum within the council and for discussions on divisive issues and that it started with the councilors in the chamber.
“People need to take it down a notch because we’re all here to help the city and move this forward. We may come to different conclusions, but we’re all here to help the city and move this forward,” Jourdain said. “We’re all here with the purest of intentions, in my opinion, because you’d basically be crazy to come down and do this job in the first place if you weren’t civically minded.”
Jourdain said he was strongly in favor of the program but told councilors on the fence about it to vote no if that’s what they felt and they weren’t required to vote yes on anything they don’t want to. As previously mentioned, the council did approve the grant with some yes votes coming as a means to save ARPA funding.
He continued by adding that ShotSpotter was a “good technology” and was better than the alternative of not having a tool to use to react to gunfire in the city more efficiently. Jourdain also claimed that a lot of shootings and gun fire in Holyoke are not reported by communities, and this would be help address responses to these incidents as the technology is supposed to pick up signals within 25 feet of where a gun was fired.
“It’s gotta be [a] superior [alternative] just from common sense to just sticking your ear out the window and hoping somebody calls it in. I mean good God, it’s the year 2022. Why are we afraid of science and why are we afraid of technology?” Jourdain said. “That is not to say we want the public surveilled and all this, but I know I can certainly say I do want people shooting guns illegally in Holyoke surveilled, and ShotSpotter is an attempt to do that.”
Jourdain added he was under the impression the entire council could agree they want to catch shooters and help support victims of gun violence and felt ShotSpotter was an ideal attempt at doing so. He also noted an example of a gunshot victim being saved in thanks to a police response to the technology when there was no 911 call made of the incident.
According to Jourdain, he has heard overwhelming support from constituents for incorporating ShotSpotter into Holyoke and that it was an easy decision to take the grant funding as opposed to losing ARPA funds.
“I feel compelled to speak on my behalf of my constituents who were crystal clear to me that they overwhelmingly want this,” Jourdain said.
At-Large Councilor Israel Rivera said those in favor of the technology were ignoring contradicting evidence of its faults and that fellow councilors should not be taking the company’s pitch as gospel. He noted ShotSpotter is a publicly traded company with a bottom line that could influence their pitch and honesty around the technology’s effectiveness in order to secure deals for their service.
“We couldn’t use the money to improve our technology systems that we already have in place, the camera system. Only specifically for ShotSpotter. I wonder who’s winning on that?” Rivera said. “It’s crazy to me how we pick and choose who we want to question and who we don’t question…for ShotSpotter, a company that is publicly traded and selling a product to us we do not question, and we take everything as gospel, even though there’s research [suggesting ineffectiveness] …”
Rivera continued on the discussion and noted that when speaking with an officer from Springfield on his experience with the technology, it was noted by that officer that he did not “wholeheartedly believe” in the technology being concrete in effectiveness.
When speaking of his character and how he approaches voting in his role on City Council, Rivera expressed his frustration with the city ignoring the people on issues like this.
“It’s not about ideology. It’s about that the people are tired of the same shit, man,” Rivera said.
McGee gave Rivera a sharp reminder to watch his language due to chamber rules. Rivera responded and brought up how rules such as this can be used to oppress speakers and honest expression.
“Again, we’re going back to civility. Who it oppresses and who it doesn’t oppress. That does oppress me, feel how you want to feel,” he said.
Jourdain began speaking about the issue of using profane language in the chamber and said to McGee, “This isn’t supposed to be the Dr. Phil show or some bar room.”
Rivera quickly responded, “You just talked for like 45 minutes, bro.”
The two councilors then began shouting over one another while McGee tried to regain order in the chamber. This lasted for a few seconds before Jourdain interjected and said, “Maybe that’s OK up at jail but it’s not OK here.”
The comment received a collective groan from the residents in the chamber as well as councilors Anderson-Burgos and Murphy-Romboletti who made a comment off mic in the direction of Jourdain before excusing themselves from the chambers for a few moments.
Jourdain did not comment further the rest of the discussion.
Rivera said he would refrain from using “vulgar language” and expressed again that his language was not directed toward anyone and was being used as a way to better express his point.
“I am 110 percent a Holyoker from the beginning to the end. When it comes down to it for me, it’s about the best for my people,” said Rivera.
Jenny Rivera spoke against the technology and said she is not afraid of walking through the neighborhoods where the uptick in gun violence has been. She added that while it was good intentioned, her perspective after researching the technology was that it would not be effective in solving the problem.
At-Large Councilor Jose Maldonado Velez referred to a comment from a public commenter about language before saying, “It is not in our city council rules that those words cannot be said.”
McGee quickly interjected again and following Maldonado Velez’s comments read the city charter rule regarding profane language in the chamber.
“If those words are not being used against somebody, an individual should be allowed to speak their language,” Maldonado Velez said. “Sometimes those words are the only way someone can use it to express emotions.”
Maldonado Velez eventually spoke against ShotSpotter as he felt there was enough evidence from other communities to support its ineffectiveness and that money would be better spent going into resources for new public safety approaches. Maldonado Velez was criticized last month by the Holyoke Police Department and District Attorney Anthony Gulluni for referring to the department as a “gang” based on his experience growing up in Holyoke.
“What we don’t have is time. Time is the most precious resource and I believe this will be a waste of time,” Maldonado Velez said.
Anderson-Burgos spoke again and said he would be voting yes to save ARPA funding even though he did not believe in the program. McGiverin added that he did not want things twisted and that the Finance Committee and fellow councilors did their due diligence in researching both sides and listening to arguments against ShotSpotter.
“The reason I’m voting for it is two things. It’s a tool, it doesn’t end violence. It’s going to give the police officers a way to respond to gunshots and I haven’t heard one person this evening say they’re in favor of guns being shot in city limits,” McGiverin said. “That’s the worst crime we have, there is no need to shoot a gun in city limits.”
McGee reigned in the discussion saying the vote was strictly on funding of a tool, whether a councilor was in favor of it or not. He added when a discussion goes off the rails like it did at times during the meeting it brings negativity to the city that has been working so hard to create positivity and growth.
The council voted to accept the grant funding for ShotSpotter through a 9-3 vote with Maldonado Velez and both councilor Rivera’s voting no.