Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to reverse Flock surveillance contract; thanks three councilmembers who voted against it
Summary
A public commenter criticized a proposed or approved contract with Flock for license-plate surveillance, urged the city to reject surveillance given the company's immigration-enforcement links and thanked the councilmembers who voted against the contract; the comment was recorded during public comment and did not prompt action
During the Sept. 11 public-comment period, an online speaker identified as Jillian urged the council to rescind or reject a contract with Flock, a license-plate surveillance vendor, and criticized surveillance partnerships that she said create fear and division. The commenter thanked three council members — identified in her remarks as Erin Murray, Steve Woodard and William Page — for voting against the contract. Jillian said a surveillance contract does not build community and urged the rest of the council to follow the vote the three council members had taken.
Why it matters: Surveillance contracts with private vendors often generate public debate about privacy, community trust and local law enforcement practices. This speaker framed the issue as one of community values and immigrant protections; she referenced reporting about Flock’s reported links to immigration-enforcement uses by other jurisdictions.
What the commenter said: The speaker described Mountlake Terrace as a low-crime city and said a surveillance program would create division, fear and paranoia rather than community-building. She thanked the three council members she named for opposing the contract and urged other council members to follow their example.
Council response: The comment was a public comment; staff or council did not take action during the meeting. The comment and any written submissions were forwarded to councilers, staff said.
Context: The comment referenced a contract the council had previously considered; the meeting transcript records public comment and the names cited by the speaker. Any formal contract decisions are recorded separately in council minutes or consent agendas; this comment did not change the status of the contract during the Sept. 11 meeting.
