Residents, nurses and commenters urge council not to renew Flock Safety surveillance contract

Council members heard a string of public comments opposing a proposed contract with Flock Safety, an automated license‑plate reader and analytics vendor, as the ordinance authorizing the agreement (Ordinance 683‑2026) was read for first hearing.

"Flock surveillance is not a tool of ensuring community well‑being or justice. It is an extension and overstep of the police state that already targets the most vulnerable of populations in Cleveland," said Tishi Gangoda, a trauma nurse at MetroHealth. Gangoda told the council she worries the system will disproportionately affect working‑class people of color, queer and trans people, and immigrants; she also alleged potential privacy risks and said she had concerns about data access and prior conflict‑of‑interest questions raised about a former council member.

Another commenter, identified as Matthew (Ward 5), described the cameras as an "after‑the‑fact record" that does not prevent crime. "Even if Flock is secure and ICE searches are a quote data fluke, as the city has claimed, the cameras don't do anything to prevent crime," he said, citing past incidents in which camera feeds were exposed online and saying the city should ask how much it will lose on 'unsafe surveillance.'

The ordinance listed in the clerk's materials authorizes the director of public safety to enter into one or more contracts with Flock DBA Flock Safety for acquisition or renewal of an annual license and professional maintenance services for the division of police's automated license plate reader solution. At the meeting the proposal was read as a first‑reading emergency ordinance and referred for administrative review; no final vote on Ordinance 683‑2026 was recorded in the transcript excerpts where the committee considered public comment.

Speakers who opposed the Flock contract urged council to reallocate funds to community priorities: housing, affordable groceries, community gardens, local health care providers, job training, and youth programming. Gangoda told the council she sees a tradeoff between costly surveillance systems and investments in services she says would address root causes of violence and poor health.

Council members did place a large batch of ordinances on final passage later in the meeting and held multiple roll calls; the clerk's reading and recorded votes show the council advancing many departmental requests after motions to suspend the rules. However, the transcript does not show a final passage vote specifically resolving Ordinance 683‑2026 within the public‑comment passage of the meeting.