Council continues surveillance-technology ordinance; schedules Placer AI and police presentations
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The committee continued its review of a police-surveillance-technology ordinance, scheduled a Placer AI presentation for Jan. 19 and a police presentation for late January, and asked council members to send Darius items from a technology list for department-level detail by Jan. 12.
The Committee of the Whole on Jan. 5 continued its multiweek review of a proposed police-surveillance-technology ordinance and set a schedule for staff presentations to inform further ordinance drafting.
Council member Grace, a sponsor and frequent speaker on the item, said she expected staff presentations and noted the city attorney was not present. Staff representative Darius said he anticipates a Placer AI presentation on Jan. 19 and a police-department presentation toward the end of January (Darius cited Jan. 26; the transcript also contains an earlier reference to Jan. 25 in a clarification exchange). Darius asked whether the ordinance should be citywide or limited to police use; he requested guidance to help determine which departments should provide presentations.
Council members discussed a straw poll on scope: Darius reported that, of the council responses received so far, three favored citywide coverage and one favored police-only (the clerk characterized the tally as "4 votes at the moment"). Grace said department-level information would be useful before a final decision and recommended gathering input from all departments and from commissions. Several members said they did not want departmental presentations to unduly delay review of the ordinance itself.
Darius asked council members to review a staff-provided technology list and to send him any technologies for which they want additional detail by Jan. 9; the council then agreed staff could accept feedback through Jan. 12 to avoid scheduling delays. Grace noted that both the Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB) and the Human Rights Commission (HRC) have discussed participating in the review process and that the city attorney (Matt) would draft language, including revisions to a referenced "section 8," for further discussion.
The committee agreed to collect targeted questions and to have staff report back with presentations from relevant departments as needed; no ordinance vote was taken at the Jan. 5 meeting.