Medford committee approves newsletter, begins work on open data policy and sends questions to mayor and departments

The Medford City Council Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee on Jan. 29 approved distribution of its monthly newsletter and began formal work to develop an open data policy, voting to send a set of questions to the mayor and city department heads to gauge data holdings, legal concerns and staff capacity.

The vote to distribute the newsletter passed on a roll call with four in favor and one member absent. Committee members then discussed sample open-data language from the cities of Cambridge (sample ordinance) and Boston (executive order) and agreed to request information from several departments before drafting a local policy.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve and distribute the current draft of the committee newsletter, including edits by Councilor Callahan (mover) and seconded by Councilor Singh. Roll call: Callahan — yes; Lazaro — yes; Scarpelli — absent; Singh — yes; Chair Lemming — yes. Outcome: approved (4 yes, 1 absent).

- Motion to send the committee's list of questions about data holdings, legal/ethical concerns and staff capacity to the mayor and relevant department heads (mover: Councilor Singh; second: Councilor Lazaro). Committee amended procedure to deliver the request to the mayor/chief of staff first. Roll call: Callahan — yes; Lazaro — yes; Scarpelli — absent; Singh — yes; Chair Lemming — yes. Outcome: approved (4 yes, 1 absent).

Discussion and next steps

Councilor Singh described an open data policy as “modernizing practice that a lot of municipalities have adopted to let residents access data and information from the city quicker, and to let them help us with policy development.” Singh and Chair Lemming had distributed two examples — a Cambridge sample ordinance and a Boston executive order — to give the committee text models and to prompt questions for department heads.

Singh proposed a set of targeted questions for the mayor and specific departments to determine what data exist, how far back digital records go, whether staff can publish bulk data in analyzable formats and whether there are legal or ethical constraints. Examples discussed included:

- Elections Office: how far back election data exist in digital and paper formats and whether the office has capacity to digitize records before February 2005. - Finance Office: how far back digitized budgetary data go and whether there are legal/ethical concerns with publishing bulk budget data in machine-readable form. - Assessor's Office: the historical reach of assessor data, legal/ethical implications of publishing bulk assessment data, and staff capacity to publish spreadsheets for public analysis. - Department of Public Works: whether DPW maintains internal spreadsheets on road repairs, the historical depth of those records and any constraints on publishing them. - Building Department: availability of bulk inspection and permit records, historical depth, legal or procedural limits, and staff capacity.

Councilor Callahan recommended adding a question that asks departments for a rough cost estimate to publish and maintain data, noting that capacity answers can vary and that a cost estimate would help compare responses. Callahan said, “I think adding a question of a rough cost estimate would be more helpful because that would, some people might say, yeah, that'll, you know, it would take me 2 hours to do everything. And another person might be like, yeah, that's going to be like 5 hours a week for the next 6 months.”

Committee members repeatedly raised staff-capacity concerns. Councilor Lazaro suggested focusing first on “low-hanging fruit” — datasets likely to require minimal staff time to publish — and noted that some offices, such as the assessor's office, already maintain spreadsheet-format data that could be posted with little additional effort. Lazaro characterized the approach as phased, with simpler publications first and the possibility of establishing an open-data review board or other governance structure later if needed.

Committee procedure and delivery

Members agreed the request should go to the mayor (via the chief of staff) before distribution to department heads so that the administration receives a heads-up. The clerk confirmed the committee chair or a designated staff member would forward the questions to the chief of staff and copy the mayor as appropriate. The motion to send the questions, with that procedural amendment, passed on a voice/roll call vote as listed above.

What the committee did not decide

The committee did not adopt an ordinance or executive order at this meeting. Members emphasized that no final decisions on the scope or legal form (ordinance versus executive action) have been made; the vote only authorized sending questions to the mayor and department heads and continuing the policy development work.

What comes next

The committee will await written responses from the mayor and departments on data holdings, historical coverage, legal/ethical concerns, capacity and (where possible) cost estimates. Members discussed using those responses to identify easily publishable datasets first and to scope a phased policy and potential governance body for longer-term work.

Ending

The committee adjourned after the two motions passed. The open data policy discussion will return to a future committee meeting after staff and departmental responses are received and reviewed.