Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Flock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Springfield to pause or cancel Flock camera contract; council asks staff for memo
Summary
Dozens of residents testified against planned Flock automated-license-plate-reader cameras, raising privacy, civil‑rights and security concerns. Councilors and the city manager agreed to have staff prepare further research and an informational memo before proceeding.
Multiple residents and community organizers addressed the council during business from the audience to oppose installation of Flock automated license-plate reader (ALPR) cameras in Springfield and to urge the city to pause or cancel its contract.
Speakers raised multiple concerns about the system’s privacy, data-sharing and security practices. Rob Sheldon (resident) said Flock’s commercial valuation shows the company’s business model centers on data and told the council, “They are gathering movements and associations of millions of Americans, and they have ensured that they can broker that data.” Kai Fireside (resident) said planned camera locations put some residents on camera leaving or entering their homes: “I live on Hayden Bridge. I cannot go home or leave home without being on camera.” Cameron Stringfield (organizer, Party for Socialism and Liberation) said the system “scares me” as an organizer and transgender woman who works across Eugene and Springfield. Several other speakers cited national reporting and legal challenges, out-of-state agency access and potential impacts on immigrants and people seeking medical care.
Speakers described specific operational concerns in the contract language. One commenter cited the master services agreement and warned it allows data sharing beyond the local police department. Others noted audits and litigation in other jurisdictions, and the transcript records references to recent federal pilot programs and a pause or reexamination of similar data-sharing agreements elsewhere.
Multiple speakers asked the council to either terminate or suspend the contract and to redirect funding to social services, firefighters or community resources. Several speakers noted that initial grants funded the system’s rollout in neighboring Eugene but that ongoing maintenance costs would fall to the city when grants expire.
Council response: Mayor Van Gordon and several councilors thanked speakers for their testimony. The city manager and councilors said the testimony was compelling and asked staff to prepare a fuller memorandum that outlines: the city’s contract terms with the vendor; data ownership and access provisions in the master services agreement; what agencies have access to camera data; retention/deletion policies; cybersecurity protections; any state or federal restrictions; and cost and budget implications when outside grant dollars expire. The council did not take any immediate action to cancel the contract; instead, members requested additional staff research and a public memo to inform a future policy discussion.
Ending: Staff will prepare an informational memo and research paper for the council that addresses the contract terms, privacy and security questions, and budgeting for ongoing costs; councilors asked for a pause in additional installations until that information is provided.
