Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Mount Vernon council to review Flock Safety license‑plate camera contract
Summary
A Mount Vernon resident asked council to place the city’s Flock Safety license‑plate reader contract on a council agenda, hold a public hearing and tighten search and data‑sharing policies; resident said the system was installed administratively and the city spent roughly $57,000 on it, including grant funds.
A Mount Vernon resident told the City Council on July 13 that the city should publicly review and possibly revise its contract and policy for Flock Safety license‑plate readers.
Dylan Foster, a Mount Vernon resident, told the council the cameras were installed beginning in 2024 without a council vote, public hearing or formal council review. Foster said he confirmed the contract was approved administratively by the safety service director, the law director and the police chief and that about $57,000 has been spent on the system, partly from the Justice Assistance Grant program. Foster said the system’s data is exempt from public‑records requests in Ohio even for an individual checking whether their own vehicle is recorded.
Foster urged three actions: (1) place a formal agenda item to review the contract, cost and renewal date; (2) hold a public hearing or committee discussion before renewal or expansion; and (3) revise the department use policy to require documented justification for searches, restrict nationwide sharing (particularly with federal immigration authorities) and create a public audit process. Foster cited an audit in Dayton that found thousands of searches for immigration enforcement and noted Columbus disabled nationwide sharing over similar concerns.
Councilmember Jacqueline told Foster she had received emails on the topic and welcomed the public discussion; she said there was space to address policy and accountability. The council did not vote or direct immediate staff action on the contract during the July 13 meeting, but several councilmembers indicated willingness to raise the issue with the police and fire committee for further review.
What’s next: Foster requested a formal agenda item and public hearing; council members signaled receptivity and some follow‑up via the police and fire committee was mentioned.
