Decatur City Council approves EFM telematics contract after questions on transparency and privacy

The Decatur City Council approved a contract with EFM to install telematics on city vehicles after a brief public and council discussion about contract attachments, billing transparency and privacy.

The vote to approve the EFM telematics contract and its attachments was moved by Mister Pike and seconded by Mister McMasters; the motion was recorded as approved with a 3 to 0 vote on the transcript.

Council discussion and a public commenter focused on what changes — if any — had been made to attachments included with the contract, how billing and EFM credit-card charges would be visible to the city, whether telematics would track mileage and individual vehicle movements, and whether the mayor's truck would be included.

Mister Farooqi, a public commenter, said he was surprised EFM would contract without a clear policy to address “fraud, waste, and abuse,” adding that telematics could reveal improper personal use of city vehicles. He asked whether the telematics would include mileage and tracking of individual city vehicles; the council’s respondent said yes. Farooqi also asked whether the mayor’s truck would be tracked; the council’s respondent replied that the mayor’s truck would not be part of the telematics system.

Farooqi raised a transparency question about billing: “So it's as transparent as me requesting then a FOIA request,” and sought clarity on whether EFM-related charges (including an EFM credit card) would appear on billings the council can review. A council official replied that anything the city pays for will be visible. The council official also said there were “minor differences” among the contract attachments and that the overall plan had not changed from previous presentations; the speaker said the administration would provide the specific differences via Herman.

Other clarifying points raised in the discussion included whether the contract covered a specific initial set of vehicles (the transcript referenced “the first 30” in relation to reporting) and whether an AER (audit/analysis) would occur in the first 30 days; those items were discussed but no detailed timelines or deliverables were specified in the record.

After discussion, Mister Pike moved to approve the contract and attachments, Mister McMasters seconded, and the motion was recorded as approved. The meeting then adjourned.

The record does not specify the exact number of vehicles that will be equipped, the full text of the contract attachments, or which departments will manage ongoing access to telematics data.