Carlisle council tables Flock Safety proposal after sustained public opposition

Mayor Sean Schultz presiding remotely, Carlisle Borough Council voted to table consideration of a multiyear agreement with Flock Safety, citing the need for additional fact-finding and public engagement. The contract price discussed at the meeting was $45,750 through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s cooperative purchasing program.

The decision follows more than two hours of public comment dominated by privacy and security concerns. Local residents told the council they opposed mass surveillance and the potential for data sharing beyond borough control. Tina Ziegler, speaking from Zoom, warned that Flock "allows any agency, including every sheriff’s department in the country, to do nationwide searches" and cited a reported Texas search she said included 83,000 cameras and an entry logged as an "abortion" search. Liz Roderick said, "Mass surveillance has no place in Carlisle," telling councilors the system would "actively endanger my neighbors and cost the borough thousands of dollars." Owen Parker spoke to technical vulnerabilities, saying a nationwide camera ecosystem "would be immensely insecure and absolutely ripe for criminal abuse." Eric Smith urged the council to keep camera-collected, identifying data from being shared outside the borough.

The motion to table was made from the dais and carried by voice vote; Councilor Mellon seconded. Mayor Schultz noted that "whenever we're involved with electronic surveillance, we want to approach those issues very cautiously," and said any future agenda items would be publicly posted.

What the council did not do tonight was approve the contract. Tabling leaves the proposal in abeyance while staff are asked to gather more information on data sharing policies, technical vulnerabilities, legal controls, and potential procurement alternatives. Residents who spoke urged council members to require strict limits on external access to identifying data, stronger contractual audit controls, and clearer descriptions of who would have search privileges.

Next steps: The council’s tabling motion does not set a date to revisit the item. Officials said staff would undertake additional fact-finding and that any further action would be noticed on the borough’s agenda prior to consideration.