Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Monongalia County Commission to end Flock Safety camera program
Summary
Multiple residents urged the commission to stop funding Flock Safety plate‑reader cameras, questioned contract transparency and use of opioid settlement funds, and accused officials of hiding operating procedures; commissioners defended the program as ALPR‑only and invited constituents to meet directly with the sheriff.
Several residents urged the Monongalia County Commission on Aug. 5 to halt the county’s Flock Safety camera program and demanded clearer documentation about contracts and funding.
Logan Wheatcraft, who gave public comment, said the county had squandered public goodwill by funding the surveillance system and warned that prosecutions of people who damaged cameras had become a test of public consent. “You and Sheriff Forbes were elected to represent the people, and on this issue, you are failing the people who put you in those seats,” Wheatcraft said. He asked the commission to “do better.”
Paige Rearing told the commission she appreciated the transparency portal but said the document posted as the contract appeared to be an unsigned Exhibit 1 or purchase order, not a full service contract, and questioned the economics of the subscription model and replacement costs the county has cited. “When I clicked it, I was expecting a contract…Instead, what I found was exhibit 1 of an unsigned contract and what was basically a purchase order,” Rearing said, adding she had concerns about use of opioid settlement funds to pay for the systems.
Nicholas Turner said he had copies of leaked operating procedures and alleged police guidance that would hide ALPR use from constituents; he offered copies of contracts and SOPs to attendees.
Commissioners responded at length, saying the cameras are limited to automated license‑plate reading tied to criminal complaints and cannot perform facial recognition or listen to conversations. One commissioner noted only about 4% of the opioid settlement funds appropriated for cameras have been spent to date. Commissioners encouraged residents with detailed questions to meet with the sheriff’s office for specific operational or contractual clarifications.
The exchange underscored sustained public skepticism about surveillance technology and the need for clearer published contracts and accounting of funding sources, even as the commission defended its legal authority and operational limits.
