Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge cancellation of Flock Safety contract as council says it will tighten terms
Summary
Dozens of residents pressed City Hall to cancel or further restrict the city’s contract with Flock Safety, citing audit numbers and privacy risks; the mayor said the two-year contract is executed but the administration and council will continue to negotiate limits and monitoring procedures.
Dozens of residents used the public-comment portion of the Shaker Heights City Council meeting to call for cancellation of the city’s contract with Flock Safety, the license-plate/vehicle tracking vendor the city began using for law enforcement purposes.
Lisa Beje, a resident, told the council: "The only way to ensure safety is to cancel our contract with Flock." Several other speakers cited municipal audit figures shared publicly in mid‑June — including 159,256 searches and 5,706 unique search terms — and said those numbers, plus past misuse reported elsewhere, undercut trust that the company can safeguard civil liberties. Jennifer Carter, who said she lives on Van Aken Boulevard, said the system "does not make us safer" and urged investing in community services instead of surveillance.
Council members and staff responded that the contract is a two‑year agreement and that the administration has already negotiated restrictions and blocks on certain search categories and agencies. In explaining who makes which decisions, Law Director Gruber said the city is subject to Ohio's State Public Records Act and described the difference between administrative and legislative authority. When a resident asked, "Who makes that final decision? Is it city council?" the record shows the law director and staff explained that operations tied to an awarded contract are administered by the mayor, CAO and department director, while council's role is to approve legislation and funding.
Mayor Weiss said the administration and council have "made significant progress" trying to limit ambiguous or unacceptable uses, but acknowledged many residents remain unconvinced. The mayor noted the city is bound by the executed two‑year contract while staff continues to seek guardrails and oversight measures.
The council did not vote on the contract during the meeting; speakers asked the city to release additional technical and audit details and to consider ending the contract if security and privacy risks cannot be satisfactorily mitigated.
