Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Mount Vernon council to require written policy and audits for Flock cameras
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Mount Vernon City Council to demand written policies, public hearings and audit logs for the Flock license-plate camera system, citing high plate-read counts and potential data-sharing risks.
Several residents told the Mount Vernon City Council they want stricter public oversight of the city—'s Flock license-plate recognition cameras, arguing the system was implemented without sufficient public review and that assurances from police need to be codified. "According to the city's own transport transparency portal, the network records a 130,000 vehicles in 30 days," Joshua Morrison told the council, adding that multiple public-records requests had been denied.
Speakers asked for three concrete changes: a formal public hearing and council vote before adding cameras, a written use policy that requires justification for each search and closes immigration-enforcement gaps, and routine audit logs showing every outside-agency search. "A rule with no audit is an honor system," Dylan Foster said, urging the council to require audits so claims that "nobody has abused the system" can be verified on the record.
Residents and speakers cited specific contract terms and grant figures to illustrate gaps in transparency. Alexis Ansel told the council that published grant figures conflicted with the chief's statements and said the contract appears to permit disclosure to external systems, including NCIC and the FBI, and to allow the vendor to use data to train commercial products. Rebecca Abbott and others raised security and misuse concerns, warning that device-tracking add-ons and known vulnerabilities nationally mean safeguards should be explicit and auditable.
City officials responded that some audits and written policies exist and that staff would continue to examine best practices. A city representative said internal and cross-check audits take place; councilmembers and the Director of Public Safety committed to follow-up committee meetings and to provide more public-facing explanations of policy and audit procedures. Council did not vote on removing cameras; instead members agreed to further study and to continue the public conversation.
