Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges cancellation of Flock surveillance contract; council honors departing members and adjourns for year
Summary
During public comment, a Mount Vernon resident called for immediate cancellation of the city's Flock surveillance contract and for levy funds to be redirected to community-based public-safety programs; the council also recognized three outgoing members and voted to adjourn through the end of 2025.
An online public commenter told the Mount Vernon City Council Dec. 17 she wants the city to cancel its Flock contract and remove surveillance cameras, and urged council to invest levy-lid-lift resources in community-based public-safety programs rather than increased police staffing.
Kelly Lowenstein, identifying herself as a Mount Vernon parent, said she appreciated the police chief’s stance on noncooperation with ICE but raised concerns that Flock data can be used for surveillance in ways that violate privacy and "are not aligned to our Mount Vernon values." She asked the council to "call for the immediate cancellation of that contract and the removal of those cameras and technology from our systems," and suggested the city consider models such as Eugene, Oregon’s CAHOOTS and similar community-based crisis-response teams. Lowenstein also urged investments in protected bike infrastructure to improve day-to-day safety for parents who bike with children.
Later in the meeting the mayor and fellow council members offered extended recognition to three outgoing members: Richard Brocksmith, Iris Correas and Gary Molnar, each noted for years of community service and leadership on affordable housing, constituent engagement and city projects. The council voted to cancel the Dec. 24 regular meeting and adjourn for the remainder of 2025; the mayor invited departing members forward for photographs and gifts.
The Flock contract and council’s approach to public-safety spending were not decided at the meeting; the resident’s remarks were taken as public comment and staff or council follow-up was not specified on the record.
