Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flock Safety Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts nonbinding resolution urging mayor to end Flock Safety contract; members split over approach
Summary
Council approved Resolution RL26-57 (version A) 4-2 urging the mayor to terminate the city's contract with Flock Safety and to adopt privacy and accountability standards; an alternative version B (a pause-and-study approach) failed in a 3-3 tie after extended debate about oversight, timing and stakeholder engagement.
The Binghamton City Council adopted a nonbinding resolution (RL26-57, version A) calling on the mayor to terminate the city's contract with Flock Safety and expressing support for privacy and accountability standards proposed in New York state legislation. The resolution passed after councilmembers debated two packet versions: version A (endorsing state-proposed standards) and version B (calling for a pause of the September contract renewal and collaborative development of local guardrails).
Council member Middleton introduced RL26-57 and moved that the council call on the mayor to end the Flock Safety contract. Middleton said the resolution is intended to "call upon the mayor to terminate the City of Binghamton's contract with flock safety" and to seek public oversight for any future automated surveillance technology. Supporters argued the resolution signals the council's stance on oversight and constituent concerns; opponents warned that adopting a specific draft of state-proposed standards could pre-empt deliberative policymaking and might reduce the mayor's willingness to engage.
During debate, proponents emphasized resident concerns and the need for guardrails. "Having these tools in place requires guidelines and best practices," one councilmember said, arguing that even a symbolic statement would make expectations clear for any future contract. Opponents countered that version B's less-prescriptive approach was more likely to prompt practical cooperation; one councilmember called B "a pause to evaluate and give us a little more time" to develop guardrails and harmonize existing contracts.
The council first voted on B after passing a procedural motion to take B up before A; B failed on a 3-3 tie. The council then voted on A and approved it 4-2. The resolution is advisory: it does not itself cancel or alter existing contractual obligations but formally records the council's preference and asks the mayor to act.
Council discussion referenced stakeholder outreach, legal and practical questions about data sharing, retention timelines and public review mechanisms as areas needing further work. The meeting record also notes constituent public comment urging data-backed evaluation of Flock Safety's investigative value.
