Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council pulls surveillance funding item for deeper review after months of public concern
Loading...
Summary
Council removed a proposed resolution tied to federal funds for a Real Time Intelligence Center from the consent agenda and referred it to the Policy & Finance committee after extensive public opposition over privacy, third‑party access and vendor practices; speakers asked council to reject Congressman Chuck Edwards’ earmarked funds.
The Asheville City Council on Tuesday removed a consent‑agenda item authorizing acceptance of community project funding related to a proposed Real Time Intelligence Center and referred the matter to the Policy & Finance committee for further public hearings and information, after residents raised privacy and transparency concerns.
Mayor Esther Manheimer announced the item would be pulled from the consent agenda and taken up at the policy committee meeting on April 28 so the public could hear more about the scope and costs. The funding had been described in agenda materials as secured through Congressman Chuck Edwards’ office and managed through the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs; council members said they wanted a fuller public conversation before any acceptance.
During the general‑comment period dozens of residents and privacy advocates urged council to reject expansion of camera networks and vendor-supplied analytics. Multiple speakers cited concerns about Flock and other third‑party vendors, alleging insufficient auditing and the potential for vendor employees and outside agencies to access footage. Patrick Conant, a resident, told council that vendor contracts provide recurring access to datasets and that sharing with other agencies can create indirect pathways to federal enforcement, including immigration authorities. “The business model for Flock… is not public safety. It’s data,” he said.
Speakers produced examples from other cities and reported audits showing vendor employees viewing cameras that monitor private spaces. Public commenters asked how retention policies, access logs, use restrictions, facial‑recognition settings and the city’s ability to refuse federal data requests would be governed; several requested a full audit of the city’s existing Flock camera fleet and records of access logs.
Council members who spoke said moving the item to Policy & Finance, where the full subcommittee can receive more technical briefings and public input, was intended to provide more time for staff to deliver answers about capabilities, operational costs after any grant ends, and access controls.
Next steps: the council will take the matter to the Policy & Finance committee on April 28 and staff will prepare additional information on ongoing operational costs, data governance and partner access.
