Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance And Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Privacy advocates press council to demand full accounting of ALPR cameras, budget and audit logs
Summary
A co‑founder of the Sunflower Privacy Alliance told the council that Flock Safety ALPR camera costs are being funded via an internal reallocation rather than a council vote and urged public reporting, a budget review and limits on expansion.
Drew Cranmer, a District 5 resident and co‑founder of the Sunflower Privacy Alliance, urged the Wichita City Council to require transparency and formal oversight of the city’s Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) program operated with Flock Safety.
Cranmer said the original grant that funded 50 cameras had been extended through March 2027, but that ongoing costs beyond the grant are now covered by an internal budget reallocation “that was never brought before this council for a vote.” He requested four specific actions: a full accounting of how many cameras operate in the network and their ownership status; a council review and vote on the budget reallocation used for ongoing costs; a requirement that future expansions be subject to public process and affirmative council approval; and regular public reporting of aggregate usage, query volumes and audit results in a format that preserves active investigations.
Cranmer also recounted that a public‑records request for audit logs was denied as an undue burden and said vendor Flock Safety removed officer names from audit records in December 2025 without notice. “We are being asked to trust a self audit that cannot review every search of records the public cannot see that a private vendor has already quietly altered,” he said.
The nut graf: Cranmer framed this as an oversight and transparency gap—claiming the council funds ongoing operations without an explicit vote and that available audit materials have been altered by the vendor—so he asked the council to restore public trust through specific reporting and a vote on funding.
Council discussion during the meeting did not include an immediate staff response with new data; the council did not vote on the four requested actions during this session. The clerk noted that items raised during public comment are typically referred to the city manager for follow‑up; any directive to staff or a motion would need to be made on a later agenda or by council action.
Ending: Cranmer left a petition calling for the actions; the meeting record shows no immediate policy change. The council’s next steps would be determined by whether a council member places oversight measures on a future agenda or directs the city manager to respond.
