okay hello everyone good evening I'm gonna have you quiet down please thank
you okay I'm calling to order a special meeting of the Berkeley City Council
today is Thursday May 7th 2026 it is 509 p.m. clerk can you please take the roll
Okay council member Kesserwani. Here. Taplin. Presence. Bartlett is currently absent.
Trigum. Present. O'Keeffe. Here. Blackaby. Here. Unapara. Here. Kumber. Present. And Mayor
Ishi. Here. Okay Korm is present. Okay so folks tonight we have two items on our
action calendar. One is the public safety technology, surveillance technology
ordinance and police equipment ordinance approvals, policy updates and
contract authority. And one B is the social justice implications of contracts
with the immigration data broker flock safety which came from the Peace and
Justice Commission. This is a continuation from a meeting that we had
on March 24th, 2026. A few things I want to say before we get started. One, I know
I know there are a lot of folks here
and there's a lot of energy in the room,
but I really wanna ask you all to continue
to be respectful as people are speaking
and allow them to speak.
Of course, you're welcome to cheer and clap and stuff
when someone speaks and says something you want,
but I ask you not to boo.
It's both disrespectful and against our rules of procedure.
So the other thing is that as we are going this evening,
if you have public comment and you're coming with a group,
we encourage you, you don't have to,
but we encourage you if you're speaking in a group
that you speak, maybe have one person
and then the other folks come up
if you agree already with what they're saying,
because that will allow for more people
to speak this evening.
Okay, so last meeting, one of the things that we did
was we heard from our Berkeley Police Department,
We heard from our PAB, our Police Accountability Board,
and then we heard all of the different supplementals
that were presented from the last meeting.
So we don't have any presentations tonight.
What we're going to be focused on are first the questions,
first the questions from the council,
and then we'll take public comment,
and then we will have council comments and any motions
that happen, so just so folks have a sense of what's
going to happen this evening.
That's our little road map.
And so what I do want to do is just go ahead and start
if anyone from the council has any questions.
Come on.
I know folks have questions.
OK, so I will start with a question.
And one question that I had from last time was the, oh, sorry.
My question list got adjusted.
If you could, BPD, if you could speak
to the difference between our current community registry
program and the proposed CVS.
Yeah, absolutely.
So CVS Community Video Streams, it's our proposal.
It's really an expansion and a deepening
of our current camera registry program.
So currently what we do is if a business has a set of cameras
that they want us to be aware of in the case
that we're investigating a crime that occurs nearby,
then we know that that camera is there
and we can more quickly obtain the evidence
that we need to do the investigation.
So the community video streams proposal
would build on that and would give businesses
the opportunity to opt in to a system
where we could directly access that video footage
if they allow us to.
And so our proposal for that program
would be that we go through an inspection process
of the cameras before we would connect to them
to make sure that they're not pointing anywhere
that we shouldn't be able to have access to.
We would publish on our website
the location of all those cameras
and we would require appropriate signage
near those cameras so that the public is aware
that they are connected to our system.
Can I just, I wanna add one more thing.
One of the challenges we have
with our current camera system, the way it works
is that a lot of times we'll be investigating a crime,
we'll be in the moment of investigating the crime.
And the manager is the only person that has access
to the room that has the camera.
Or there's a reader that's associated with
being able to download the file
and then view it once it's taken.
So this would allow us to both have that access
regardless of whether or not there was a manager on site,
but also not run into the challenges we have
with evidence collection.
Right now we're forced sometimes to use a phone
the and videotape the screen as it's playing obviously there's a degradation
of the evidence when we do it that way. Thanks chief and follow-up question on
that can you speak to the community video surveillance process what has been
done so far to help the community understand what this system would look
like? We've gone through the surveillance technology ordinance process as required
by 2.99 and we've submitted use policies or acquisition report and that's what
council is considering today. If you remember we talked about it both two
community meetings additionally we covered it in a presentation talking to
PAB about what that technology looks like. We've had a number of neighborhood
watch meetings where we've gone and talked about the different technologies
really and we show that in the March 24th meeting with council when we talked
about that technology. Thank you. And I'm gonna go ahead and jump to my
councilmember colleagues since they've now joined the queue and I might have
some more questions later. Let's go to councilmember Tracob. Thank you. I want
to delve into the unmanned aerial system policy 1303. Could you speak to
your perspective around if there were limitations in the policy that were
restrictive around the ability of such UAS systems, I guess this is DRFTs, to
surveil areas of mass gatherings like protests,
other than subject to exigent circumstances,
which would be something like a medical emergency
or an active shooter situation.
I'm not sure I'm completely tracking your question.
Is your question that would we use this technology
to oversee a lawful gathering
or a protest action absent there being
an exigent circumstance?
The question is, I actually trust you that you wouldn't.
However, in my reading of the policy,
however, in my reading of the policy,
in my reading of it, it does not specifically preclude
a future TD from doing that.
Could you speak to the policy and where it might be?
Sure, so 1303.3 prohibited uses.
UAS shall not be used to conduct
random or arbitrary surveillance activities.
This prohibition includes but is not limited
to First Amendment assemblies in accordance
with policy 428, First Amendment assemblies.
So there's a specific prohibited use.
That would be a prohibited use.
Okay, elsewhere in the policy, 1303, there's mention of yeah,
so there's examples to respond to active criminal activity
at mass gatherings or special events.
Is there a place for active criminal activity
of mass gathering and special events are defined?
So as you know, there's a lot of assemblies happen
and we're guided by number of people are there,
maybe the issues that they're discussing
and our officers respond to those
and have a goal of keeping the peace.
And when a critical incident occurs, right,
there's a language defining what a critical incident is,
an event that occurs that is beyond normal capacity
or normal responses.
And so those are our industry standard terms.
Some of those are embedded in different places
our use of force policy and are embedded in our 428 First Amendment
Assembly policies as well. Okay thank you. I have one question for the city
attorney in terms of the amount for violation that the counts if the
council chooses to go that route would it be a policy decision for us to say
maybe not 75 and maybe not 150 but maybe looking at Richmond's 290 or
Oakland's 200k for violation. Yes that's squarely a policy decision that you get
to make. Okay and my last question for now has to do with the, I think this
might be for the city manager but let me know. On the staff supplemental for
procurement there is mentioned there's language that says flocks full catalog
is available for purchase on the region for ESC contract how if at all does
this relate to flocks promised discount if the procurement was completed by July
which is something that I also had elsewhere in the document or in a
different document. Yeah, so the that procurement had the price in terms that
Block proposed via the procurement. They are always free to, you know, negotiate
discount however they wish with any potential vendor. Okay, and that was my
an ultimate question. This will be my last question. Can you speak to what this piggyback
contract was based at, based on, I did hear or it was my understanding that it was based on
a school district in Texas and if so how may that can you speak to the comparisons between
a USD in Texas with probably different operational needs than a medium-sized city like Berkeley?
Yes thank you for the question. Our finance director is also on the line so he may want
want to chime in here, but essentially when you're piggybacking off a contract, you're
looking at the product, in this case, that you're seeking to procure and the price.
And so, as long as it's the same product and they bid it out at a competitive price, then
there's a process that they went through, an RFP process, and put that forth, then if
our securing that product complies with their – it's the same product that we're trying
that they bid for when that satisfies it.
So, and this is a common practice in the city
where we will procure things like a earth mover
or a truck or something like that from a procurement
that is either could be from a state,
could be from a county, somewhere in the country,
excuse me, for the purposes, they do a procurement
and they say, here's all the price and terms
or here's the terms that we're looking for
the use and the product, if that entity applies to the solicitation and the product that we
want to procure is what they proposed, then we have the ability to procure it.
So just because, like, for example, an earth mover that a school, a big school district
procurement was part of doesn't mean that like the fact that they're moving earth on
on a school ground rather than a park
doesn't make a difference.
The fact that they're procuring a camera
to do security somewhere in their school district
doesn't mean that we couldn't procure
the exact same camera to do a security in the city.
Thank you, Council Member O'Keefe.
Thank you, thanks for going first,
Council Member Chagup, I wasn't quite ready.
Couple questions for the Berkeley police representatives.
I just would like to ask you a couple questions to get on the record, hopefully a greater
understanding of the nuances of the way the data is shared, of the different kinds of
data that are at stake.
So first of all, the ALPR data generates like a searchable spreadsheet of license plates
and locations and times essentially.
Is that correct?
that we're going to be able to
do that. So we're going to be
able to do that. So we're going
to be able to do that. Yes, the
data allows us to search across
exactly database of those images
that have been captured and
identify whether that plate
appears within our retention
period of 30 days. Yeah, 30
days. Thank you. And can you
briefly describe the process
say quickly like who we share with and what the rules are about that and then I'd also
love if you could walk us through what it would look like for an officer from one of
those jurisdictions to search our data.
So first we only share with agencies within the nine Bay Area counties in Sacramento County
an agency within those counties and if they've signed a letter of agreement with us agreeing
to comply with state law and our sanctuary city ordinance.
Once they've signed that letter, we will give them access to search across our network.
If they have a lawful reason to search, they will input a case number.
They'll select a statute that the investigation is associated with, and they'll define the
networks that they want to search across.
So if it includes ours, then that search will occur, and it will appear on our audit log.
So we'll be able to verify the information that they submitted.
Okay, and what are their options? Like do they just type in whatever reason they want or what?
They're required to give a case number. They're required to select a statute and then they have the option to write in additional information.
Okay, and are there I think I just want to confirm this with you. There's no immigration related
justification, right? Because that's none of the statutes are. No, that's not available on the drop-down reasons.
it it's also against state law and against our local policies. Right so all
of the given reasons they would have to stay at all in compliance with our
sanctuary laws. Correct. Thank you for clarifying that. And then can you talk a
little bit about how that differs from the data that would be recorded by the
the video cameras which you're proposing to to acquire because that's that's
different. Yeah that's completely different. We would not be sharing that
with other agencies in the same way except for in the same way that we share
There are other types of evidence.
When there's an active investigation, they come to us,
they ask us, do we have this piece of evidence?
If we did have some footage that was relevant,
then we would download that and process it
in the same way that we would with any other piece
of evidence that we'd share.
But just to be clear, it would be only
Berkeley police officers who would be actually
doing the searching and be in complete control
of the data sharing, correct?
There would be no case where another agency
was given access to search through our footage
that we have.
Yeah, and just because it's not really searchable,
you can't really type in a face, right?
So it's not exactly the same, yeah.
I think it's important to clarify
the different kinds of data that we're talking about
and how they differ in terms of exposure.
Those are my, I think I might have some more questions later,
but those are my questions for the police.
I did wanna just pivot a little bit
and say, I did actually have a supplemental
that wasn't presented last time,
and if I could just, it's not like a big one,
so it would be okay, Madam Mayor,
if I just talked about it for a minute.
I proposed, it's published in the packet,
it was published yesterday.
Some minor changes to the drone use policy.
I don't, we don't have it up or anything,
but I could, I can read it into the main changes
to the record. The idea with my supplemental was I don't I'm not
personally comfortable with the drones being sent out for every call or just
kind of for no reason like I think that that was the vision that was presented
and I think I understand it but I think drones I'm not really interested in
normalizing them as a police tool yet I think that would be a big change it's a
kind of surveillance that we don't have now and I'm open to exploring it and it
they can see that they have a value in certain situations.
But I would like, I'm proposing in my supplemental
that we restrict the times when they can be sent out to,
I'll read this, times when the suspect is believed
to be on the scene or in the immediate area of the scene
and could reasonably cause harm to those present.
So this is sort of an emergent safety situation
or a crime involving suspected physical violence
Or there's an imminent risk of physical injury due to a crime or a medical issue.
So basically, the vision here is that we do send them out, but only when it really could make the difference in a really critical safety situation.
And not as was previously described when, you know, just to sort of check out a call to see what's going on.
Which I do understand the utility of that, but I'm not personally comfortable with that.
So that's one of the big changes my supplemental is proposing.
And then just to mention it also says,
no microphone or audio sensing device
shall be activated at any time.
And I think that's already understood
as part of the expectation,
but I did want that written into the law
because I don't think that drones
should be able to listen to people.
That's another kind of surveillance
we do not have right now,
and I don't want to invite it into our city.
So that's my supplemental.
We can table that now,
but I wanted to get a chance to present that.
And yeah, I might have more questions,
but I will yield to other people.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, and I appreciate you mentioning that.
Apologies for leaving that out.
And we did resubmit our supplemental as well,
but mostly just to reorganize it
so it was more aligned structurally with the staff
so it could make more sense when we were comparing them.
So I'm curious actually, is Flock representative on?
He is on his way.
Oh, okay.
So, because I think there are some folks
that have questions for them, so folks, please.
All right, so go ahead, Council Member Bartlett.
Thank you, thank you.
And it's good to be back, good to be back.
My question's really at this point
are around the video cameras, the fixed cameras,
and particularly, so walk me through the process
of how they're used.
Just high level briefly.
Are you talking about the fixed PTZ cameras?
Right, so if you recall,
they were placed in intersections. That was pre us deploying the AOPRs into the
community and what we realized after that first deployment at Sixon
University was that they weren't able to capture from the distance they were
captured really capture pedestrian activities and things like that. We came
back to Council and explained one we had power related issues around putting them
with PG&E around the the Evigilon cameras and two we wanted to place them
pedestrian heavy areas in our business districts to provide that ability to
deter crime and solve crimes that occurred in those areas. So they would be
deployed in the locations that council approved with signage that says that the
camera is there and that it's recording and would be a tool that we would use
access pursuant to the policy for very specific uses that would then provide us
with another investigative tool and a deterrent tool. So I guess so there's an
incident robbery or have you we know it's this this time this location then
when you go you rewind you into the footage to that moment. Yeah that's
correct. If we believe that there's evidentiary value on that video, the
detectives would go and go through a process to create an audit trail that
they're looking at video at a certain certain camera, certain time for a
certain kind of crime. So at that point and this is what I'm gonna get getting
out here is the the official recognition software. Are we deploying that at all?
No we're not. Thank you. Thank you. I also wanted to make sure folks knew that
our interim director of police accountability Kathy Lee is also sitting
at the table so just so folks know who you are since you weren't here at the
last time. Thank you for thanks for joining. So if you have some some big
Cathy fans okay so if you can also if folks have if folks have any questions
then you can ask her as well okay so moving forward to Oh councilmember Luna
Parra but really quickly I have apparently someone dropped a set of keys
and a credit card outside so if you have dropped your keys or a credit card
maybe give a wave on this side of the barrier and we'll try to get back to you.
Okay, all right. So Council Member Leno Parra, go ahead. Thank you, and thank you
for being here. Can you explain why the NOVA software doesn't have a use policy
or acquisition report? Yeah, so that software just collates information that
we already have access to.
So since it's not adding a new sensor or a new collection
of data, then that doesn't qualify for the surveillance
technology ordinance.
Thank you.
As brought up by the PAB, can you
explain the scope of prohibition on First Amendment
assemblies if, for example, a crowd doesn't disperse?
Is that criminal activity that would warrant the use of drones?
Are there other instances of criminal activity
at protests that would warrant the use of drones.
So no, we would not deploy a drone
because the crowd didn't disperse.
The drone would be deployed if there's a risk of injury
or there's ongoing injury, felony violence occurring
against someone in the crowd.
Then we would absolutely, an active shooter,
people being assaulted, we would absolutely
want to have the drone up to be able to go and record,
identify who the responsible are.
Some of the things we've learned in past activities like this
is that the safest way to resolve instances like that
is to figure out who the problematic person is.
And then when there's a safe space
to be able to take that person and arrest them
without negatively affecting the lawful assembly,
then that's a goal.
And so having that recording of the criminal activity
that's happening for a prosecutable case,
as well as identifying and apprehending someone
in a safer manner with that tool.
But that's the kind of situation where I would expect
that you would see a drone flying in that.
and we would not be flying to simply be at a first amendment
protest or a mass gathering just to collect
who's there at their location.
I think it would be helpful to be more specific in the policy
to make sure that we know when they could be used
and when they couldn't.
Can you elaborate on the six officer positions
that are associated with this technology.
Are those positions currently staffed?
Yeah, it's a great question.
And it got a lot convoluted, because if you recall,
we brought this first item much earlier in the budget process.
And so if you look at just how much it would cost
for this technology in comparison to salary and benefits
of an individual officer, it's roughly two officers.
And however, in conversations with the union,
who we consult with when we're making decisions
about staffing levels and work status where we discuss like,
hey, we wanna come to the table.
We know these technologies will bring us efficiencies.
We'd like to propose that it could do the work
of six positions.
And so that's how we landed in the six,
the number six was in that kind of discussion.
So that's what we brought forward.
We've already moved to pass the space in the budget process
where the city manager has made a proposal
that identifies unnecessary cuts to our staffing.
So we instead are now looking to what would be affected
by bringing on this technology.
And what you would see is instead of officers
having to go physically to a location to gather video
or to do neighborhood canvases,
or to have more officers on staff
because you can't clear calls for service
because you have to go individually to calls.
We believe that we could recognize the savings in overtime
and reduce our overtime budget to the equivalent of,
and in addition to the costs that we would save
by the implementation.
So we're at a different space in the budget
and that's why we're talking about different numbers
of officers and different cost savings.
So to clarify, the cost savings would be in overtime,
not in positions?
Well, the proposal that's up already sees a reduction
of police officers positions.
So those are happening separate
from funding a technology process.
And so those positions are either going to be preserved
or eliminated pursuant to this council's desires
around the budgeted positions for the department.
If we are looking for ways to pay for a new technology
that's gonna cost money,
the place that I will be looking at to pay for it
is not from new funds,
which our city doesn't have right now,
but from a reduction in my existing overtime budget.
Okay, last year the police department
went over the overtime budget.
How does this, how would this play into those numbers?
Would it cut the overall budget allocation
or the actual spending?
Both.
Both, I think you would see both.
I will share that our driver of that overage
in our overtime was almost all directly related
to our severe staffing shortage
in the communication center.
And so right now the amount of money we're spending
on overtime to ensure that we have the ability
to answer calls that are coming in from the public.
It's one and a half times an off position,
a dispatcher position that you're charging in over time
in order to fill those spots.
And so we saw almost an additional $2 million this year
we're anticipating in over time
as a result of that shortage.
And so we know there's gonna be that reduction.
Then once we bring technology on board
and we have these greater efficiencies,
we're able to reduce our minimum staffing number
as we deploy and patrol with the technology.
We think we can drive that number down even farther.
Obviously, we can't control things like special events
or emergency situations that happen
that sometimes unexpectedly raise our overtime.
But looking at the numbers and the way our shift extensions
have run in overtime,
we believe we can drive that down
with minimum staffing level changes
that are only possible with technology
that supports that reduction.
Okay, thank you.
I'm curious what the training requirements are for operating
drone technology.
There are certain requirements from the FAA for drone pilots.
And then we'll have additional training
available to anybody that's going to be operating a drone,
be it a drone as first responder or a patrol trunk deployed
drone, to safely operate in those situations.
that be required? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um what protocols are in place to prevent the
misuse of drone technology such as unauthorized surveillance beyond this specific deployed use
case? Um so I mean there are several layers here. One is uh the the hardware limitations and um how
they're set to, for example, to point at the horizon
as they're flying to a scene,
and only to point down when they arrive at a scene.
Another layer is our policies,
and in another layer is the logging that occurs
of each flight, and that gets published
shortly after the flight,
so the public will be able to see where a drone went
shortly after it comes back.
and so there's a number of layers of scrutiny available to each drone
deployment so that we can investigate any complaints but also monitor as as
these drones are getting used. Okay thank you and my last question is do all of
the law enforcement agencies within the nine Bay Area counties that share our
data have written sanctuary city policies or sanctuary policies? I'm not
not aware of every single agency, I know many of them do,
but that was certainly part of our intent
by limiting the agencies that we share with
to the local region to maximize public safety value
without exposing ourselves to other agencies
whose policies we're not in control of.
And just to be clear, we are a sanctuary state.
We have laws that protect us as a state.
Every single law enforcement agency
in the state of California has policies in place
says you cannot violate state law. Folks please thank you yeah I know our local
our local sanctuary is stronger than the states so which is why I I asked thank
you those are my questions for BPD but I do have more for floc. I think just just
to clarify real quick so in order for another agency to look across our data
they have to agree to follow our sanctuary city policy not whatever
their city sanctuary policy is so yeah we hold them to that higher standard in
in order for us to share with them.
We would cut off access if they were doing something
that did not comply with our city's sanctuary city policy.
Thanks, Chief.
Okay, so we're moving on to Council Member Blackaby,
but I know there's a lot of folks standing.
If you would like to sit, there are some seats throughout.
Don't feel bad about asking someone to move their belongings.
I just wanna make sure everyone can sit if they want to.
Yeah, go ahead.
Great, thanks, Madam Mayor.
Could I ask, is the flock rep here?
Oh, awesome, okay, great, thank you.
Thank you.
From the outset, no worries.
I'll start with questions for-
Okay, folks, please, that's not appropriate.
Mayor, mayor, we need to take a five minute
audio visual break to check on some things.
Okay.
Sorry about that.
All right, we will be taking a five minute break
for audio visual reasons.
Thank you.
It was fine on the zoom, but now BCM doesn't have an idiot.
Test, test, sound check, testing, testing, sound check.
Test, test, audio test, test, test, test, test, test, test, test.
Yeah, Rose muted it after that, so Ned, are you getting audio?
Test, test, test, will you go in there and talk to me?
Rose, will you go in there where Ned is
and ask him if it's working?
Test, test, test, audio test, test, test, test,
BCM audio test.
But can you hear me, David?
Test, test, test, test, test, test, test.
OK, Rose is saying that Ned has thumbs.
Okay, all right, so I think we're okay to resume.
Stay close.
Oh, testing.
Okay, folks.
You can hear me clap once.
If you can hear me clap twice.
If you can hear me clap three times.
Woo, very good, all right.
Thank you everyone for your patience.
I'm so sorry.
It seems that we are back up and running again.
So I will call this meeting back to order.
All right, and where we left off
was that Council Member Blackaby
was just about to ask his questions, so.
Five minutes back, all right.
Go ahead, Council Member,
and we've just also introduced a new person
to our table, too, so perhaps you wanna introduce yourself.
Yes, Mayor and Council, my name is Trevor Chandler.
I'm the Senior Director of Public Affairs at Flock.
Thank you.
Okay, folks, please, respect.
Go ahead.
Great, Chief, Chief Lewis W. Chief Tate, Mr. Momburg.
I just want to appreciate you being here,
bringing the path forward.
I wanted to say from the outset that I fully support
your effort to provide our officers with the tools
they need to keep us safe, but I do have questions
about who we choose to contract with
and how we build the public trust around the process.
So I want to start with a couple of questions
for the department and then I have some questions
for Mr. Chandler.
I wanted to focus on the community video streams piece of it
Because I think that's the part we've talked about,
I think not as much as some of the others.
And just from my understanding, what
are the circumstances under which you
will activate those cameras?
Are there protocols around when you use them, when you don't?
Are they always on?
Are they not always on?
How does that part work?
Yeah, only in response to a specific incident
or active investigation.
So we won't just be monitoring them.
It'll only be in response to something specific.
Okay, so in the RTIC, so the idea is not,
here's all the community video stream cameras
and running all, it's basically,
hey, there's an event happening at the Apple Store,
we need to activate the cameras to monitor what's going on.
Correct.
Okay, so it's some particular event that activates, okay.
How does this kind of video access,
how does it compare with how we're monitoring
the other fixed cameras, is it a similar,
how do you think about that, is it a similar approach
in terms of when they're activated?
trying to kind of square the cameras that the city would be operating versus the ones that we'd be
asking partners about. Yeah, they're very similar use policies that we proposed. Okay, so that they
would be under the same permitted uses and prohibited uses. Okay, and the retention time,
is it the same retention period for both? So with the community video streams, we wouldn't be
retaining any footage. This would just be whatever that, since these cameras already exist, right,
The organization's already paying for them.
So whatever their retention policy is,
is how long they would retain that video footage for,
and then they would decide whether to give us access
to only the live footage or to any period of the
contained video.
So if there was some evidentiary value from something,
you might take that and hold on to that
for the purpose of doing an investigation.
But otherwise, go ahead.
Yeah, think about this way.
So if we learned there was a robbery at a business
and they had video, we would capture that video,
we would log in, capture that video,
it would get uploaded into our evidence collection system
and held pursuant to the retention period
for that kind of crime.
Right.
If for some reason we learned that a crime happened
at that particular business a month ago, two months ago,
six months ago, we would contact them and say,
you know, do you have video going back that far?
And if the answer's yes, then we would be able to collect it
and get that information.
Okay, so there's some kind of real time monitoring
in the moment for an event, but it's just turned on
for a particular event and then turned off
when you don't need it.
And after the fact, you might ask for footage
and then use it for evidence.
But again, so you're only retaining the footage
of stuff that has evidentiary value, is that right?
Okay.
And are there any circumstances under which
you'd be sharing any of that video
with other jurisdictions or not?
Same situation with our fixed scammers that we own.
We would never allow access to another agency
to get in and do some searching,
but if we got contacted and said,
hey, we're working this series of robberies,
we believe somebody was in that store
that fits the description of such and such,
then we would access and understand
whether that evidence was there
and would only turn that evidence over to them
if it fit within the parameters related to an investigation.
And similarly, it's like, so you have rules
in terms of who you do or don't share with,
and again, never shared with
for immigration enforcement purposes and all that?
Absolutely.
OK.
And if another jurisdiction needed access to information
at like, oh, again, maybe they have
a suspect from their jurisdiction who
is involved in something at the Apple store in Berkeley.
Do they come through us?
So how do they get that foot?
Again, does it come through you guys making that request
and then you decide whether or not to share it
or do they go directly to that business?
I would say either. I mean there's nothing that precludes them from going to the Apple
store and saying hey we're investigating this case can we have it and a private business
would share in whatever manner they wanted to but if we were approached and asked for
evidence from someone in our city it has to go through a review process. The captain of
the investigations would approve the collection of that and the release of that to another
jurisdiction.
Great, thank you. A couple questions for Mr. Chandler and again thank you for being here
in the hot seat.
From that outset, I just want to say,
because I think this is something I've felt a while
and I think a lot of us feel this,
that I've just been really disappointed and frustrated
to watch how FLOC has sort of handled
this sort of drip, drip, drip of complaints and reports
about problems with unauthorized data sharing
with sort of the mistakenly checked check boxes,
with pilot programs, with CBP,
and sort of other agencies that give them access
to these broad lookup features without the permission
of the local agencies.
And I'll just say, as someone who, before I had this job,
I've spent a lot of years in public affairs and politics.
It's really been a case study in crisis communications done
poorly, just to be perfectly frank with you.
Anyway, so again, my frustration is
that rather than getting out ahead of it
and taking responsibility, it's been
kind of put on the local jurisdictions
to sort of defend what's happened,
which I don't think has really been fair
to a lot of these local jurisdictions.
And in a lot of cases, I thought the first response
seemed to be, you know, blaming these agencies
for faulty configuration without acknowledging
that, you know, one error is a user error,
but multiple errors is a product flaw.
You know, that's a floc, that's a floc issue.
So, again, I'm not doing, I'm just doing this
because I feel like we need to get this on the table
because, you know, that's a frustration.
I think we all are feeling as policy makers
who are being asked to make this sort of decision.
So my question, I know we've talked about this in the past,
but are you willing and can you acknowledge today
that Flock has made these mistakes?
These have been mistakes.
These aren't just jurisdictions kind of making a mistake.
This has been a Flock piece too,
and I just wanted you to kind of talk about that
and help us understand how you view that.
Absolutely, and I genuinely appreciate
those remarks, Councillor, so thank you for bringing it up.
We have made, and our CEO has made public,
that we could have and should have done many things better.
When we started addressing these issues
a little over a year ago, up to that point,
we had been providing the tools to be compliant,
rather than simply mandating compliance like we could have,
and making it just easier for all of our customers,
especially here in California, in other states,
that have laws that would have just been easier for us to do that.
We have since shifted in our entire business model to start to mandate compliance.
Now it is not possible for a single California agency to share outside the state.
In addition, to make sure that is not allowed, we've also put in place
immigration search filters, we've put in place reproductive health search filters.
And we've removed all and any sharing with any federal, whether it's any federal,
whether it's a national park, whether it's a post office.
And so these are things that we acknowledged.
One, we could have communicated the compliance features better,
and that's on us.
We take full responsibility for that.
And we could have done compliance as a default,
rather than simply providing the tools
and letting agencies go on a case-by-case basis.
So we're extremely proud of what we've done last year.
Now we have probably, I will say definitely,
of all the LPR providers, we are the only major LPR
provider without a contract with ICE. I think that's very important to note.
There is no relationship there that distinguishes us from Axon, Motorola,
everyone else. There is no contract with ICE. We're the only one without a
contract with ICE. And we have put in place groundbreaking and industry
leading transparency and accountability features including additional audit
transparency that proactively provides potential misuse, potential
irregularities so people don't have to wait until they run their audit next. I'm
happy to go through more of that. Yes, I appreciate your comments. There is much we could have
done better and we are working to earn that trust by doing even more than that.
I appreciate that. One of the things we talked about in the past was I think in March, March
2026, there was a blog post that outlined a lot of those new safeguards. So this is
the California agencies can't share out of state or with the feds that the federal government
is not part of the California state lookup network that you require the offense type
in sort of the dropdown to do a search,
and that the cities, again, this is the,
a confirmation this is the city's data,
and not Flock's data.
When did those safeguards actually go into effect?
Like when did those come online?
I believe those, most of that,
they came online in various iterations.
I believe most of them came online in August.
And I can get the,
yeah, I can get the specific dates for you.
So it was like August of 25, plus or minus,
and then sort of, there was some communication about that,
I know in March that kind of just late, okay.
Since those safeguards, a lot of, my questions
are around like the timeline of this process,
because if you look at sort of news reports about Flock
and what's going on, a lot of what happens
is we're also talking about things
that may have happened a year ago, right?
Because it's an audit that cuts, so my question
sort of is, since those safeguards went into effect,
you know, have you, have any customers reported issues
that those, you know, so safeguards went into effect,
you lock down this sort of piece,
what's happened since the safeguards
and what can you look at in terms of the track record
since that time?
We've been notified of no instances
where the previous examples have happened again.
So I know that's the case.
I was just on a call with the other day
with another California city with 100% clean audit.
There are no issues and I have not been made aware
of any additional issues
since these fixes have been put in place.
Let me pivot a little bit to some of these
kind of operational questions.
Part of these are in the draft contract.
Part of it is in, and I'll try
and be judicious with my time.
Question about, you know, if the FBI comes to you
with a judicial warrant asking you for access
to some of Berkeley's data,
what's Flock's operating procedure now?
Council Member, you can have some of my time.
Okay, I'll be just I think a minute or two more.
Okay, sorry.
We are contractually obligated to notify
the city of Berkeley of that request
and internally our process is to let
that subpoena and authority know
that we do not own the data,
because contractually we do not own the data,
and direct them to the city of Berkeley.
Okay, and then back to the chief,
so if that comes to you,
then what's kind of the city's response?
So, you know, if flop comes to us
and said we've got this subpoena,
just again to kind of confirm
how the process would work from there.
Right, so the minute that we got that subpoena,
we'd be in consultation with the city manager
and the city attorney's office about the proper ways
for us to fight that subpoena.
Okay.
And then similarly, if instead of the FBI
with a judicial warrant, if it was ICE
with an administrative warrant that came to ICE
and asked for access to Berkeley's data,
what would, how would that play out?
Is that any different?
How does that play out if it's a ICE administrative warrant
versus like an FBI judicial warrant?
For us, there's no difference.
We would still direct them to you
and we would alert you to that request.
Okay, and then it would be a similar process for us.
That's right.
Okay, great.
Okay, good, well thank you.
Look, I appreciate your being here
and willing to sort of answer those questions.
And I appreciate this discussion.
I think, you know, as we move forward,
and I'm interested in hearing from colleagues,
interested in hearing from the public,
you know, I do want to make sure that,
you know, we're really thinking about who and, you know,
what we're contracting with whom for what
as we move forward, so that will be something I think I want to come back to later, just
to make sure that we're making the best choice because again, I have full confidence in what
the department's doing. I think we need to make sure that our tools meet those expectations
as well. So anyway, thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember. So there are follow-up questions, I think, from Councilmembers Tragob
and O'Keeffe for you, for the FOC representative. So Councilmember Tragob, do you want to go
first?
Thank you so much.
First, I actually did want to, Director Lee,
thank you for being here.
My first question is for you.
I know it's been some time since March.
Could you recapitulate the four principal concerns from the PAB?
And has anything changed on that front
since the last time this was discussed?
Thank you.
So from March the concerns broadly were about the MSA with...
The concerns broadly were about the MSA with FLOC,
the policies governing drones, the community...
The policies concerning drones,
community video streams and fixed cameras
and the drone acquisition report, oh, sorry,
and the integrated platform of surveillance services
in one vendor.
Those were the four concerns from March.
Since then, there's been additional research done
about the procurement process,
and that's what the PABs letter to you of May 4th,
which is in the supplemental two packet, outlines.
So I don't know if you want me to go into that right now,
or?
Yeah, maybe a little later,
but I do want to make sure I have time to ask
Trevor some questions and thank you for being here.
So my first question is,
and this might also be for staff,
there's been a lot of discussion about this lookup tool
And are you willing at this point to make a commitment
that if Berkeley was to enter into a contract with Flock,
it would be disabled entirely?
National lookup or?
Yes.
Yes, absolutely.
It's already done.
It is impossible for any agency in California
to enter into the national search feature.
And we are willing, if you would like
to put that in the contract, absolutely 100%,
we would be comfortable with that.
As of what date did that change on your end?
Approximately around August.
So I can double check on this specific date,
but that change has already been made.
OK.
What is the highest poor violation term
if there is a breach of contract that you're
willing to accept, which means it's 290k?
Oakland's is 200k.
We have on file the response from floc
that you're willing to accept 150k.
I'm wondering if just your thoughts around,
there's actually no monetary value
that can be placed on a human life being impacted on this.
So I just wanted to ask.
Was that a question?
What is the highest poor violation term
that you're willing to accept?
I can't speak to the highest.
As you said, we have the examples of Oakland and Richmond,
and I imagine we could be amenable to
a similar per violation standard here.
Thank you. Folks.
I believe it's important to note since implementing those,
we have never been subject to any of
those fines for any potential miss-sharing.
Thank you. I think this, okay. Do you currently, I appreciate what you said
about not working with ICE. That counts for a lot in my book. Do you currently
have any contracts, E.B.O.U.S., or other agreements with other federal agencies
such as CBP? We have federal contracts, but not with CBP. Can you elucidate on
other federal contracts that you do have? Absolutely. We have national park
contracts, United States Postal Inspection Service, those sorts, yes. But
we do not have a contract with ISN. We do not currently have any contracts with
entities under the Department of Homeland Security.
Okay, what was the date at which any of those contracts
were discontinued?
We never had a contract with CBP.
We had a pilot agreement.
That lasted for approximately four months
and was focused on human and fentanyl narco trafficking
and that was suspended around September of 2025.
I can get a specific date on that and that's an estimation.
Okay, thank you.
This might be a question for actually both the chief
and Mr. Chandler.
There has been discussion around, well,
we've put it, my-
Council Member, how many,
just curious how many more questions you have
since I think you've actually,
this is your second time, your second period of question.
This will be my last question.
OK, thank you.
Yeah.
I understand that Flock is currently testing out
the utilization of machine learning as part of its system.
Can you speak to how that would be prescribed?
Are there, would you be agreeable to terms
in a contract or MOU that might preclude
the use of machine learning specific to Berkeley, yeah.
Yes, thank you, Councillor.
So we do use machine learning to increase accuracy.
So as new vehicles come onto the market,
a new Camry, any number of things,
we take accuracy very seriously
because we don't want, we want to minimize
misidentifications of vehicles and license plates
as much as possible as new license plates
come on the market.
We use machine learning to improve that accuracy.
We have, such as in Oakland,
some cities have decided they want to opt out
of participating in that, out of it,
an extra abundance of caution,
and we would absolutely be amenable
if Berkeley would wanna opt out
of the machine learning process.
Obviously, we wanna continue to hopefully improve,
but if that's something that Berkeley
doesn't wanna be a part of,
then we would absolutely opt the city out of it.
Thank you so much.
Thank you council member O'Keeffe.
Thanks for giving me another bite of the apple here.
First of all, I want to say Ms. Lee,
I'm just so happy you're here, and I'm just,
thank you so much, it's really important,
you're an important voice, and just welcome to this,
welcome to this world, back to this world.
And I guess there's not going to be a presentation
from the PAB, is that right?
Are you prepared to?
No, I'm not aware that we will have any other presentations.
Okay, I guess I don't have specific questions,
but I am curious to hear more about your perspective
on the issues that were raised by the PAB letter.
So I think that's what Matriga also asked about that,
but you're gonna ask more later.
You're asking about the recent PAB letter.
Yeah.
So, yes, if that director,
if you could speak to that recent PAB letter.
Yeah, I'd love to hear your current thoughts.
My take on it.
I would agree with it pretty much substantively.
There was a lot of research done, a very deep dive
into the series of contracts that the department had entered
into and how it seems that we ended up sort of piece
mealing the various components.
And a concern that is noted is having an integrated
architecture without a real sense of really analyzing
whether that's needed, whether it needs to be provided
by one vendor.
And the research that the PAB members did
revealed that there are other jurisdictions
that do use different surveillance technologies
from different vendors and use some other type
of platform to integrate it all.
And I think there is a concern to me
about having everything rely on one vendor.
And I want to emphasize that this is really
separate and apart from FLOC as a vendor, all the procurement
issues.
And having a single vendor provide all of your systems
as the memo outlines could be a great danger
if something fails, that that means everything
could be failing without any sort of backup.
And so that is a major concern.
Sorry, just to clarify, you're talking about
the technology itself failing, like not working anymore?
Right.
Or a breach of security, what do you mean by failing?
Actually, it could be either.
Okay, right.
Yeah.
and yes, I hope you're involved in the continuing discussion, but I really appreciate you being
here once again. Two more questions. Actually, this one is for I actually want to thank Councilmember
Blackaby for asking the great questions of our flock representative. I think that was really
helpful and I think after hearing about that, I would like to hear a little more from our police
about our auditing process. How often is it done? What do you check for? If you could just help us
understand how that looks a little bit more yeah so our policy requires that
we audit our LPR system twice a year and so that entails going into those logs
of when other network other agencies have searched across our network in
evaluating the the reasons and the information that they provided as well
as looking at the searches that we've done internally in making sure that they
comply with all of our policies. Yeah I just want to share that's that's our
formal auditing process but we have three administrators that have access to
change any features in in the flock system the LPR system those users are in
the system on a regular basis whether it's every day or every other day
certainly during the business week that's how we caught that one issue that
we have that we located where we had a term that we weren't sure about and then
we were able to chase down so it's not like we're waiting till the end of a
six month period, and then looking back.
We're in that system regularly doing that informal auditing,
looking for irregularities, looking for connectivity issues
and things like that.
Thanks so much for clarifying that.
And the last question, I'm sorry,
I think somebody may have already asked about this,
but I wanted to get it clear,
and actually maybe our FOC representative
can comment on this as well.
It has to do with facial recognition for the video cameras,
which is, I understand there's machine learning
for recognizing the images of cars,
but I think there's a lot of concern
about facial recognition.
So can you clarify if we use facial recognition,
if what it says in the contract,
and then I'd also be interested in sort of the technical ways
of managing whether that's on or off.
Sure, by policy we do not allow facial recognition technologies.
Okay, and then Flock, can you explain
how that's achieved technically?
Flock does not have facial recognition.
Don't have it or off.
So it can't even be turned on or off.
It does have individual recognition
because some of these cameras.
What does that mean?
So if a goose were to fly in front of a camera,
we wouldn't want your law enforcement
to constantly be getting alerts about a goose flying
in front of a camera.
So some of our Pantilt Zoom cameras,
they do identify that there is a person there,
or they can look for, you can look for a yellow shirt,
but there is no facial recognition.
Okay, that's helpful.
Can you say a little more, when you say yellow shirt,
that does sound like it's describing
some aspects of the person.
Can you say a little more about where is that line cut off?
Yeah, so I mean, put it, frankly,
there is no facial recognition, there is none.
There is the ability to recognize
that there is a person in front of a camera.
So if you are looking for a suspect with a yellow shirt,
these searches do not base on gender or race.
They are on characteristics such as,
Is there someone wearing a hat?
Is there someone wearing a yellow shirt?
So that is what is able to be detected,
but there is no facial recognition.
Okay, so it's folks.
Just to make it, I'm trying to make sure I understand you.
So would it be fair to say,
you can ask for descriptions of color and items of clothing.
Yes.
But nothing more specific than that.
Correct.
You cannot ask for gender or race
or protected characteristics.
Okay.
Or, well,
What I that's different than what I said what I said is is the limit of the search terms is it limited to things like color and clothing item? Yes.
That's it. Yes. Okay. All right. And that's just to confirm that's we are version of the system has that capability or will, I guess we don't have this yet. But is that right? Or do we have this turned off also?
We don't have that feature on the current cameras that we run nor do we turn that feature
on.
So the question comes up about let's say a new camera exists next week or next year and
it has that capability, but we don't turn those features on, right?
So that's how we, we're guided by our use policy.
And so if technology moves past what we originally acquired and a capability exists on a technology
now we don't we will either turn that function off right or if there was no
way to turn it off and it was going to become part of what would be a routine
thing we would see then we would come back to council and say hey this thing
that we have now has this extra feature do you want us to stay using this
technology and expand it or do we need to look for a new vendor okay but so
we're talking we're talking with these policy for the Pantel zoom cameras we
have now and of course right now we're discussing whether we're going to be
be acquiring these flock cameras.
So I guess my question is,
if we were to get these flock cameras
that have this ability to search for, you know,
basic descriptions of people,
would that not be allowed under the use policy
if we acquired these cameras?
Is that what I'm understanding?
No, we would be able to use a feature
that allowed us to say, in this footage right here,
can you find us a suspect that was wearing a yellow shirt?
Okay.
they don't have and we would not use even if it was available any kind of
facial recognition or yeah got it okay yeah thank you and I appreciate that
clarity those are my questions thanks again thank you moving back to
councilmember Linapara thank you I have a some more questions I have some
questions for Flock representative can you speak to Flock safety's obligation
to their investors I'm specifically interested in Flock's biggest investor
and the firms and founders.
Let me finish long, she let her get her question out.
And it's founders anti-immigrant, anti-DEI,
and pro-Trump views in support of surveillance deregulation,
how that may influence flocks, practices, and obligations.
Is there a specific investor that you're referring to?
It's a, we have a number of investors.
I'm more curious about how flock safety engages with its
investors and to what extent the views of the investors
this is going to affect how the company operates?
The company operates within the law.
And that's the most important aspect.
Just like folks, just as here in California,
where we have SB 34, we have fully shut off any sharing
or disabled any sharing outside of the state
or with federal agencies.
We are guided by the laws of the country, of the state,
and of the localities that we work in.
those are the people we answer to are the legislators.
You?
Oh, no, I was just gonna say,
I don't think that she was asking
whether an off-lock operates within the law.
She's asking you about how you interact
with your investors.
So could you speak to that, please?
Yeah, I mean, we interact with our investors similarly
to any company.
We have board meetings where we provide earnings reports.
So that is how we engage with our investors,
same as any other company.
Okay. There are federal and state and local laws that don't necessarily align and that have conflicting perspectives on the law, so how does law take that into consideration?
Exactly. Thank you so much for asking that question, because I think California is the precise example of that, where California has a very explicit law with SB 34 that this state prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data outside of the state.
so we have prevented that from happening. We are additionally providing
groundbreaking industry-leading. Again, I want to say industry-leading because no
other license plate reader provider has implemented the additional changes above
and beyond what we have, which allows cities and states to be able to choose
who they share with and how they share with, including, again, if there is a
sanctuary state law, if there are limits on data sharing regarding reproductive
health information we have put in a groundbreaking in many cases not even
required by a law guardrails to make sure that community values do not have
to come at the expense of community safety and what's happened here in
California is exactly that we have completely shut it off so that no state
no city in California is able to share with the federal authorities or with any
state or entity outside the state of California.
Okay well I'm that that I'm honestly not satisfied by that given that flock
already has violated or allowed cities to violate state law.
So my next question is similar to council member
Tragob's question around violations
and fines for violations.
How sure are you that the city of Berkeley data privacy
will not be violated and how much money do you think
the city should be awarded if it is violated?
Similar to council member Tragob's question,
I think that we have a couple of numbers that are out there.
As was mentioned, we have an agreement
with the city of Oakland, that's $200,000.
So again, I would just provide to you all,
you are the legislators, you are the city council
to have that conversation about what is,
what you view as necessary.
would you define an individual violation so those are outlined in the contract as
well as under state law so that would be a violation of sharing that flock is
responsible for that goes against the yeah I guess I'm asking if if there is a
violation of the contract that that ends up with multiple people being
being affected. Is each individual persons being affected? Is that each individual instance
of violation? Or are they all one violation?
I will yield to your city attorney on that specifically when it comes to the legal interpretation
of the contract.
I understand. I'm curious what Flock's interpretation is.
Again, I would yield to your city attorney because I know our attorneys have been talking
with your attorneys and I feel that that would be a question that's better answered by the
attorney.
Not willing to answer I would prefer that your city your city attorney answer that question. Okay
Thank you. Those are my questions
Okay, councilmember Barley. Did you have follow-up questions? Oh, yeah. Thank you. Yes. Thank you madam. Aaron. Thank you
Mr. Footscher mr. Flock. Sorry. It's your name again. Sorry
Mr. Apple, thank you. Mr. Apple meet the flockers
So I now that you're here, I was going to ask you quickly
As I go, so this comes up a lot in conversation the the foreign intelligence service
Surveillance act in the visa. Yes warrants or other other sort of secret federal directives. Yep. What's that process like for in our situation?
So the Pfizer warrants are the same for any company everywhere. These are typically
confidential warrants that if I I personally do not have any knowledge of
What I can say and what many experts in the field have said is if someone if there was something of importance of a FISA
Warrant is an exceptional warrant
if it goes to significant process if someone is going through if someone in the government is going through the process to acquire a
FISA warrant for something a point-in-time
image of a vehicle that is potentially 30 days old is not likely the most effective use of
situation like that. Obviously, I can't speak to every situation, but it's more
likely that it would be used on a phone, on a laptop, on something that someone
carries with them all the time, not a 30-day old picture of a point in time of
a particular vehicle. Okay, all right, and then so regarding the the third-party
platforms involved in the Flock ecosystem, you know, what are the steps you
can you can describe for us to take take care of our data so there's no data
leakage from one of your partners. What do you say partners? Well they're talking about the
Amazon web servers and the servers the camera companies the transport companies
the you know that there's a whole host of application providers that make up
you know any product flow including yours mm-hmm some curious just you know
how do you maintain operational security with these players absolutely so we
make all our own cameras. We don't buy from a Nokia factory or a camera factory. We make
all of our cameras in-house. In addition to our software, all of it is in-house. We do
use Amazon web servers. We have a robust data security mechanism, including our new chief
of information security officers. We have a new partnership that does penetrative testing
on our servers. We have SOC 2, Type 2, ISO 2701. We go above and beyond to make sure
that the data that we are protecting stays protected. And that includes regular audits,
independent audits, which we make available on our trust website for all of our customers
to download and we update regularly. Most of them are annual. Some of them are more
than annual, but it's something we take extremely seriously.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So at this time, if there are no more questions,
I'd like to move us on to public comment.
There are a significant number of people in this room,
and there are some folks online as well.
But we will be limiting public comment to three hours.
That will be two hours in person and one hour online.
So I would ask that if you have public comment on this item,
if you could please come forward.
And a reminder to folks, if you didn't hear me say earlier,
if there's someone that's speaking on behalf of your group,
you're welcome to have that person speak
and stand behind them.
And as usual, you can also give your minute of time
to folks, could you please be quiet
while I'm giving the overview so that folks can hear?
Thank you.
So as usual, you can give a minute of your time
to another individual, only one time,
And one person can speak for up to four minutes,
so that means three people would be giving them
a minute of their time.
I ask that you please try and organize that ahead of time
so that we're not trying to figure out
who's giving you the minute in the time
because it eats away from the comment period.
So, yes, did you?
Sorry, yes, so I would like to make a motion
to suspend the rules and limit the comment period
to three hours, and a second from Council Member Trago.
Okay, correct.
Can I ask one question?
Yes.
Is there a mechanism, do you wanna,
is it all in person, first and then online, or?
It will be, yeah, I was saying,
so two hours in person, one hour online.
Is there any interest in doing any alternating?
That's the only other thing.
Is anyone interested in alternating?
If not, I don't.
No, I was just gonna say.
I...
Okay, I'm willing to go with the motion.
I think it's your discretion within, yeah.
Yeah, I'm willing to go, yeah, I'll accept, yeah, sorry.
Okay, go ahead.
Can we take the roll, please?
Okay, on the motion.
Shorter.
Any public comment procedures?
Councilmember Kesser-Wani?
Yes.
Kaplan?
Aye.
Bartlett?
Yes.
Trigga?
Aye.
Councilmember O'Keeffe is currently absent.
Blackaby?
Yes.
Lunapara?
Yes.
Yes.
Humbert?
Yes.
And Maryishi?
Yes.
Okay.
Motion carries.
Okay.
Thank you.
Please come up.
Okay.
So 640.
Good evening to everyone.
My name is Brenda Grisham.
to make one statement. This is my second time here, and I have never heard anybody ask how many lives have flocks saved?
How many girls have they stopped from being trafficked? How many businesses they have recovered their property?
I haven't heard any of that. We all care about the immigrants, but
there are residents here that want safety, and we want you guys to take that account.
My daughter and my grandchildren live here, and I want to be sure that their lives and the things that go on with them is important.
my son was murdered in Oakland. His case is unsolved and I guarantee you I'm
fighting for flock cameras in any city. I can't thank you. Thank you. Come on
up. My name is better. Nika fucks in. I want to thank all of you for the
questions you've asked. I think all of you mean well you care about all of us
in this community. You're committed to this community. I think however, it's
naive to be listening to what has been said to you and think that cities have
canceled because there's no good reason. Cities have
canceled El Cerrito last night. Last thing I want to say, the very last thing
I want to say is that Flock needs Berkeley, more than Berkeley needs Flock.
Flock needs Berkeley, a sanctuary city, as a poster boy for a community in which people
care about their population to do business with this company.
Flock is not the only company.
Please be thinking about this.
Thank you.
We don't want to be enough for businessmen.
Thank you.
Come on, Linda.
Come on up.
Good evening council. My name is Linda O'Livenbaum and I'm reading a statement
from Friends of Adeline which with everyone from Friends of Adeline please
stand or wave. Thank you. Friends of Adeline strongly opposes the Berkeley
Police Department's proposed expansion of its flock surveillance camera network.
This proposal represents the largest expansion of surveillance infrastructure
in the city's history and directly undermines Berkeley's long-standing
commitment to being a sanctuary city.
Approving this contract moves Berkeley
toward a more militarized model of policing
with serious and disproportionate consequences
for the people of our black, brown,
and immigrant communities.
Expanding surveillance does not make our communities safer.
It increases the risk of over-policing,
data misuse, and civil rights violations.
Flock's track record raises significant concerns
despite what we've heard tonight.
It is well documented that this company shares data
with federal law enforcement agency.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thanks Linda.
Hello, my name is Sally Nelson.
You are right to be concerned about providing safety
for all of Berkeley.
The recent announcement by the ACLU reveals that Flock
now claims that all data gathered by its surveillance
belongs to Flock and not to the city of Berkeley.
Clark may then share that data with any agency
or person of his choosing, including ICE and the CBP.
This makes all of us less safe.
Whether we are people of color or undocumented immigrants,
naturalized citizens, or citizens by birth
whose beliefs may be too progressive for Phillips opinions,
we are all at risk for being detained,
imprisoned, or subjected to violence.
We all want Berkeley to be more safe,
end the contract with flock.
The safety of your constituents depends upon your voting no
on having any contract with flock.
Thank you.
Thanks for your comment.
Thank you.
Hello.
I'm Jane Scannellberry from the...
If you could speak into the mic, please.
Jane Scannellberry from the Commission on Labor.
And in a meeting recently,
we unanimously voted to urge the city
to suspend its contract with Flock
and to halt any further expansion of the program,
because due to the company's well-documented use
of overseas sweatshop labor,
these are some examples from the letter.
In 2009, first of all,
just about the sweatshop procurement ordinance.
In 2009, the Berkeley City Council
the city of Berkeley. The city of Berkeley is a city of the city of Berkeley. The city of Berkeley is a city of the city of Berkeley. The city of Berkeley is a city of the city of Berkeley. The city of Berkeley recognizes a public interest in avoiding payments to vendors who maintain sweatshop work. This person is giving their minute too. Thank you.
including below substance wages, excessive long working hours, et cetera.
As documented in both international media and academic studies,
floc outsource as much of its work to low paid gig workers in the Philippines.
These contractors do data annotations often referred to as crowd work,
in which workers view thousands of hours of video annotating the data
to help train the AI algorithms.
This is low wage monotonous, yet high pressure work,
and the workers doing this analysis
are exposed to substandard labor conditions,
including extremely low rates of pay
and lack of labor rights and protections.
To outsource much of its data analysis
to low paid workers in the global south,
companies like Flock can maximize their own profits
by evading U.S. minimum wage,
and working condition protections.
Thank you.
My name is Martino.
I know that some of you will be voting
against this contract extension,
but that most of you will probably vote for it.
And I want to say that what that means
is you are standing in opposition
to the momentum of other cities in this area
that are voting it down and that you are standing
against the tendency in history to get rid
of this kind of social whatever it is
and that you are, well, you are standing
in the way of history and I wanna say to you
that if you are going to vote for this contract extension,
what you need to do is resign right now.
Thank you.
Thanks so much.
Thanks for your...
Hello, so my ally Ronda is actually gonna be giving me
a minute to raise your hand.
Oh, there you are.
Okay, go ahead.
All right, cool.
So, hello, my name is Manny.
I've actually been a part of taking down Flock
in six jurisdictions and I hope that you can be the seventh.
All right, so I'm gonna start off addressing the lie
that he said, their patent, their own patent
that they filed to the US Patent Office
clearly states that their technology
is capable of categorizing people based on height
and weight, race and gender, clothes and accessories worn
and animals and bicycles and cars,
which is how they advertise themselves.
Furthermore, there's 2021 DHS policy actually requires
that all AOPR vendors, including Flock,
not leave a trail of ICE in any audit logs,
except in audit logs made available only to ICE.
So when you go and do an audit
and you don't find ICE in there,
that's a false negative.
Furthermore, in section four of your contract,
there is a worldwide rights clause.
And like my ally alluded to earlier,
the reason why it's there is because
they send the data overseas
so that Filipino gig workers can analyze it
for the training of the AI system.
Also, another lie that he said was that no more California
agencies are sharing data nationally.
That is not true.
El Cajon is very much still sharing data nationally,
and they're actually countersuing the state of California
because they want to keep sharing nationally.
And if you guys want an anecdote on how Border Patrol
has used this technology, an elementary school teacher
named Marimar Martinez was tracked and hunted down
using flock cameras for over two weeks.
They shot her five times and then bragged about it
with each other over text messages saying that
they shot her five times and she had seven bullet holes.
Put that in your book, boys.
Why do we have to wait for someone in our community
to be harmed by this technology to get rid of it?
We should just get rid of it.
Please vote no on flock.
Is the city of Berkeley really gonna pass
a mega plan to create a surveillance city.
That's what we're really asking here today.
I want to read a quote from Edward Snowden.
No system of mass surveillance has existed in a society
that we know of to this point that has not been abused.
And so we can expect that kind of thing.
And when the police say this is going to save us money,
how many police officers are going to get laid off
so that we can pay for this project, you know?
None are getting laid off, so it's not saving us any money.
And those who would give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
That's Ben Franklin.
So we should think about that.
This is Big Brother here in the latest expansion
of the surveillance state.
This is an investor-driven plan,
much like the expansion of the prison state in the 90s.
So let's be clear.
Flock is the hardware that shuts down free speech.
So when you guys vote for this,
you're shutting down free speech
because this is gonna be a surveillance system on all of us.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Johnny Coacher
and I'm a member of Bay Area Research Justice
and I'm here today to reject the proposal,
to urge you to reject the proposal
to use flocks surveillance technology.
In April, 2025, the California Highway Patrol
conducted a search on behalf of ICE
that simultaneously reached 845 separate
California agency databases through flocks sharing network.
Because of how flocks architecture works,
It connected to all connected agencies
and functioned as a dragnet,
touching the camera data
of nearly every California law enforcement and flock customer,
including communities throughout Contra Costa County.
This is a centralized,
Orwellian dragnet surveillance technology
that makes our immigrants less safe.
This is a, and it's against our sanctuary city policy.
I urge you to vote no on this contract.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Corinna Jagger.
I'm a resident of,
long time resident of District Two,
nearly 30-year resident of Berkeley, it's heated.
And we live in a really polarized world right now,
and it's really easy for folks to back into their corners
and entrench and kind of plug your ears
and start, say, you know, entrenching in your position,
right, and I wanna, we're not all on the same side,
we have a real substantive difference of opinion,
but we are all here because we care about this community.
We care about each other,
and we want Berkeley residents to be safe.
And the question is, how can we best do that?
It is an absolutely false dichotomy
to set up this safety versus civil liberties.
We deserve and we can have both.
And so when Council Member O'Keefe here is saying
that she doesn't feel personally comfortable
with certain elements of the drone usage,
there's a whole lot of people that aren't comfortable
with many parts of this.
the city. Thank you. Thank you.
given. Clearly, Flock did not negotiate in good faith. Second, we live under an
authoritarian federal government. The Supreme Court could change the law at the
drop of a hat through the shadow docket to compel Flock to share data. California
law won't protect us either. The state is currently being compelled to share
information about undocumented immigrants with driver's licenses. If the
state can't protect itself, how can it protect us? In this political, is this
political environment a safe time to be using experimental mass surveillance?
Third, Flock only fixes issues after other groups call out their failures. They
do not make proactive fixes.
Fourth, Flock claims its product as the cameras,
but it's actually the mass aggregation of data.
Jane El-Sorino, cancel the contract.
Thank you.
Good evening, my name is Erin.
I am a resident of District 3.
I am angry, I am embarrassed that we even have to be here
because our council might prioritize the interests
of Flock's corporate tech and police brutality
over the constituents who voted for you.
If BPD won't even be honest about basic facts about Flock,
we have no reason to trust how and why they'll use it.
Two PAD members resign citing BPD actively
makes their job impossible by obstructing records
of BPD misconduct.
Frankly, I don't trust SLOC to be accountable
if BPD refuses to be held accountable.
BPD has made it clear that they do not represent
Berkeley lives and safety.
Council members, know that a vote for BROC
betrays the people of Berkeley in favor
of your own comfort of safety that doesn't even exist.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm just gonna be really honest here.
I don't think anyone wants to be here tonight.
We've been doing this for months and months and months.
So please just do your job
and listen to your constituents.
We have been telling you for months to not vote for this.
So if you don't do your job,
we can always not reelect you.
If you're not up for reelection, we can recall you.
So please just do your job.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Megan Mossad
and I'm a small business owner in Berkeley
and a longtime resident.
The reality is that militarized policing
and surveillance technologies only assist
to our slide into fascism.
As we know by the plight of the Palestinian people,
as in Gaza, the quick murder of educators, organizers,
and key figures in Gaza in cold blood
within the matter of a few months was only possible
through surveillance technology.
The Israeli fascist government operates
by exterminating those.
And what separates us from Gazans?
We are people just like they are.
And with the slide to fascism that is quickly descending
upon us, I don't trust any of these surveillance technologies,
and I don't trust the future of a militarized police state.
I hope you won't know against this.
Thank you.
How many people in this room are for floc?
Who's for floc?
Who's not for floc?
All right.
So we know we have a council member
that went to the 47th inauguration.
And it seems like y'all are trying to be fascist
right here in Berkeley.
And we are not accepting that.
Are we accepting fascism and surveillance?
No!
No to floc.
You know you can't trust what anybody up here said,
except for this one person on the end here, for the P-A-B.
Otherwise, I don't know if Mr. Flock is lying or what,
but he's been called out, so don't believe the hype.
No to Flock, say it with me.
No to Flock.
No to Flock.
No to Flock.
Would anyone like to give me a minute?
Yeah, one, two, I think that's all I need.
Thank you.
Oh, who raised their hand real quick?
There's one, two.
Wait, sorry, are you taking how many minutes?
Are you taking three?
I'm just taking three.
Okay, so sorry.
One, two, I missed the third person.
Three total?
Okay, go ahead.
Thank you, mayor and council members.
Thank you, former council member Cheryl Davila
for your testimony.
Thank you council members Bartlett, Trey Goob, O'Keefe,
who isn't here, and Blackaby and Luna Parra
for your testimony, I appreciate it.
This is really about whether Berkeley normalizes a future
where ordinary public life becomes permanently searchable.
We're told that these systems are narrow,
temporary, and only for serious crime,
but history shows us the same pattern again and again.
Today's exception becomes tomorrow's standard.
And meanwhile, the underlying conditions
people are actually struggling with remain unresolved.
Surveillance doesn't lower rent, it does not house people,
it does not fix inequality,
it does not rebuild trust in public institutions.
Thank you.
Technology is not a substitute for good governance.
What it does do is expand systems of monitoring
over ordinary civic life.
And when cameras are placed on telegraph,
Bancroft, and Durant, and District 7.
This is no longer some narrowly targeted security measure.
These are major public corridors, bus stops,
economic streets, and some of the most accessible
civic spaces in Berkeley.
Students, workers, immigrants, unhoused residents,
organizers, shoppers, and neighbors move through
these spaces every single day.
Privacy is part of public safety.
A democratic city should not normalize mass data collection
without strict limits, independent oversight,
public transparency, and proof that these systems actually
improve public safety instead of simply expanding
surveillance infrastructure.
And if I'm being honest, they really shouldn't be used at all.
The burden is not on the public to accept being watched.
The burden is on government to justify why it should.
Thank you for your time and your testimony.
I do want to say really quickly that I do believe
that surveillance technology should be limited.
I do believe the city of Berkeley
should be the ones that own this technology
and encrypt it end to end.
I do believe that the facial recognition should be scattered,
the data should be poisoned,
the AI should be off the table.
You all have a chance and a right
to make the right call this day.
Vote no.
This city is not ready for the artificial intelligence
that's going to come in the next round of flock data.
The city is not ready to hold guard blocks in place
if that data is hacked by a malicious actor.
And so I think this city is ready to take it seriously.
That no, we do not want flock.
No, we do not want surveillance.
We are a sanctuary city and that means we protect everyone
regardless of whether they're a criminal or not
because they have due process
and need to be seen in a court of law.
So I thank you for your time and your energy.
I thank you all for your energy and your time.
And if anyone wants to hear more,
again, my name is Aidan Hill.
I'm running for Berkeley City Council District 7.
So I really look forward to working with all of you on this, and again, our city deserves
sanctuary.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I was given an extra minute.
All right, hi everyone.
So I agree that it's a false dichotomy that we can only have civil liberty protections
or safety.
I do think we can have both.
But when it comes to police doing their jobs, I do think they deserve a lot of support.
history has shown again and again that the federal government has very little
regard for our constitutional rights so the assurances made today about
contractual obligations and processes are not persuasive to me and we can
think about COINTELPRO when the FBI surveilled infiltrated and sabotaged
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Black Panthers and the anti-war movement, the
Church Committee's revelations about the CIA and NSA spying on American citizens,
the NSA's mass warrantless wiretapping after 9-11, exposed by Edward Snowden, the NYPD's
documented surveillance of entire Muslim American communities, FBI infiltration of Occupy Wall
Street and Black Lives Matter, and the Standing Rock water protectors tracked by private contractors
working hand-in-hand with police. There's just a very long history of inevitably this data getting
into the Fed's hands. So I know the police need assistance and they deserve assistance. I know
know that all of you council members are here just trying to do your jobs and I
really appreciate your time this resistance I'm sure is inconvenient to
many but I think we need to recognize the broader context that we're in and I
think that this may be a monkey's paw I think many people here ultimately have
no confidence that a company like this actually has the technological
capability to actually keep the federal government out we heard tonight that
they have new security professionals but I don't think many respectable
information security officers would take a job with a company like this so I ask
that we find another way. Thank you. Sorry. Who's getting one minute. Okay. Two minutes.
Two extra minutes. The city attorney told you flocks seeming willingness to agree to
major overhauls the city proposes coupled with widespread media reports of other Jewish
jurisdictions canceling their floc contracts, which likely has put financial pressure on
the company suggests that floc may be willing to agree to major changes to secure a deal,
Even though its technical team will not in practice be able to implement those changes,
said your city attorney.
And from Flock Safety's own website, here's how it rewards its top salespeople, a one-week
group vacation that they call Eagles Club, and this is what they say, Eagles Club isn't
a participation trophy.
You have to outperform, outwork, and out-execute in a room full of elite sellers.
Eagles Club is not something that appears at the end of the year as a surprise.
It becomes a steady motivator throughout.
for James, that motivation extends beyond the individual.
He said, it's always in the back of my mind.
My wife's asking, where is it this year?
We're both invested in getting there.
This job brings the whole household into it.
The winds, the stress, everything.
It's a culture thing.
Everyone's thinking about it.
It's competitive, but in a motivating way.
That shared energy pushes people
to raise their level over time.
That's their salespeople.
These are the people that are telling you
how much flock cares about keeping our data secure.
They're top salespeople salivating
for a contract with Progressive Berkeley.
I once worked for a company like that
where the salespeople sold systems
promising that they could do things
that they actually couldn't do.
That company did go out of business,
but it took a long time.
Thanks, Kit.
Good evening.
I'm John Kaner, the CEO of the Downtown Berkeley Association
and a 36-year resident of Berkeley.
We went through a strategic planning process last year
And by far, by far, safety was issue number one
with all of our stakeholders in our community survey.
Copies for all of you.
You're in receipt of emails
from University Avenue merchants, visit Berkeley.
The importance of safety is paramount
for employees, customers, residents, and visitors.
Today, I had a conversation with a merchant
who's been 45 years in the downtown,
said their employees don't feel safe,
their people are being assaulted,
They're asking for help from our ambassadors and PD.
We are implementing next year in January
to cost of $250,000, $60,000 a year
a safety ambassador program
because our stakeholders don't feel safe in our downtown.
These systems have proven track record.
Look at Berkeley Scanner.
Please do the right thing.
Provide BPD the tools to provide a safe community
for all of us.
Thank you.
What's going on I'm going to
I get 4 minutes.
Good evening, my name's Abigail
less bronze I'm speaking on
behalf of the Berkeley
immigration collaborative or
BIC where 5 Berkeley based
organizations with decades of
experience serving immigrants
and asylum seekers in the Bay
Area. I am also a district 5
resident. I was also born and
raised in Berkeley my kids go
to Berkeley schools and I work
about the dangers of contracting with floc. At this time we want to make one
thing clear, if you vote yes on this contract, you're breaking your
commitment to sanctuary, that commitment you made last year in September. And you
are also doing it in the exact moment in this country's history when sanctuary
matters most. You all voted on that. This technology is harmful to immigrants, yes,
but it's also harmful to unhoused neighbors who already live under
surveillance and constant displacement. It's harmful to black and brown residents
because this technology is documented to be racially biased and the people it
misidentifies are the people who are already over policed. It's harmful to the
residents in this room who leverage their privilege to show up as observers
and as protesters. It is harmful to every person in Berkeley who might one day
stand up to an authoritarian federal government. This is not a symbolic battle.
It is a battle to protect sanctuary and democratic control of our city, our technology and our
privacy and our private data.
79 jurisdictions to date have already canceled their flock contracts.
They did it for a reason.
In some, the police chiefs themselves led the effort.
Just this week, El Cerrito chose sanctuary over flock.
You can too.
The tide is changing and the council can now choose to be on the right side of history
or to bear the responsibility for violating our rights and our safety during the time
of authoritarian overreach.
The time is now.
According to public records request, the federal government accessed Berkeley Police Department's
flock data 86,000 times in two years.
You say that the contract terms will protect us,
but our own city attorney is telling you
that no contract terms will completely protect
Berkeley's data and it will expose Berkeley
to between 30 and 60 million dollars in legal liability.
I was surprised to hear nobody asked the city attorney
any questions about that.
If you approve this contract tonight,
you are doing so against the advice of your own counsel.
This is a new attorney.
That is not good governance.
Yesterday, Sarah Hamid of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
told El Cerrito City Council how Flock's network architecture
is broad, searchable, multi-jurisdiction network
where local data is repurposed, relabeled,
and reached through side doors that will make it impossible
for cities to monitor.
What this means is that we do not and will not know
the extent to which Berkeley's data is being used
by Flock's AI modeling or federal agencies,
the Police Accountability Board found
that no other jurisdiction uses one vendor
for all of its surveillance technology
and warned you against fully integrating
all of Berkeley's data with Flock in this way
without first analyzing the vulnerabilities.
To conclude, I wanna leave you with the story
of Marimar Martinez that another gentleman referenced.
She's a US citizen who's a teaching assistant
who ice-tracked using Flock.
And they shot her five times.
Luckily, they didn't kill her.
Martinez said she would see bullet scars for her life.
But she said in her congressional hearing,
and I quote, but perhaps even worse,
the mental scars will always be there
as a reminder of the time my own government
tried to execute me.
Thank you.
Madam City attorney, Madam City attorney,
Did you wanna share your statement about that?
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.
Our office is aware that a privileged memo
from our office was leaked to the press
under established California law.
The attorney-client privilege rests with the city council,
the governing body of the city,
and unless you choose to waive it,
it's preserved because you haven't waived it.
We will not discuss this leaked memo
and urge the council members and commissioners and staff
to similarly refrain from discussing the contents.
Thank you.
Okay, go ahead.
Shh.
Hi, I'm Andrew, I'm a district two voter
who has voted for some of you up here tonight
and I'm really hoping I didn't make a foolish decision.
I needed to make sure I come here tonight
and remind you that many people fought and died
for my first, fourth, and eighth amendment rights
and I'm not here gonna be negotiating
with some tech company over them.
Many people behind me with edX can and will make great points
regarding how mass surveillance violates their First
and Fourth Amendments.
And I'll make a case for the Eighth.
If your history teacher was as good as mine,
the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
Every animal, except maybe the honey badger,
will have a natural stress response
to being followed, stalked, or if it feels a prey animal is
there.
humans have the same response.
If you set up cameras everywhere,
you're creating a giant psychological torture device.
This violates the Eighth Amendment.
I'll repeat again, I am not going to negotiate
over my first, fourth, and eighth amendment rights.
Cancel the contract.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor Ishii and council members.
My name is Musa Woodcar,
the Council on American-Islamic Relations,
and we want to express our opposition
to the proposed floc expansion and any ALPR alternatives.
To start, floc is patently unsafe.
Floc's hackable nature makes Berkeley liable
for SB34 violations.
Floc has been proven to be hacked within 30 seconds
due to 51 security vulnerabilities.
In one instance, a user was able to access
a 24-7 livestream of a children's playground
in the Bay Area that is terrifying
and that is unconscionable.
Floc and ALPRs are a threat to Berkeley residents at large.
Berkeley residents need to know that when they drive
seek legal assistance when they go to their place of worship or when they attend a protest
opposing Israel's genocide in Gaza that they need to know that they won't be surveilled,
kidnapped or killed by ICE. Berkeley residents should feel safe enough to move through their
city without a large shadow looming over them. Please meet the moment. Say no to MAGA mass
surveillance. Thank you.
Thank you.
Please stand up for public safety and for fact-driven data. What's true is over 6,000
cities and communities chose FARC because they were effective, because they helped stop
crime, because they work. Less than 1% did not back out of FARC, but so you represent
the constituents that elected you, and they were moderates. They're not the extremists
you see here that were rejected across the country and came to Berkeley because the beacon
of radical extremism.
Stand up for your constituents who could not stay here
to two in the morning, because that's how long
your meetings last last time, and they have to go to work.
So vote with a 99%, stand up for public safety.
There was a child trafficker rapist that tortured a girl
and lit her on fire and fuck put her away.
That person was in Berkeley.
Thank you.
Hold on.
Before you speak, folks, you need to be respectful
and let folks speak.
That impacts the time that everyone has to speak,
so please let them finish.
It's also disrespectful.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
So my name is Grant Thompson.
I'm a District 6 resident.
I raise my kids here.
I'm a lawyer here.
I am not an ideologue.
I'm not an extremist.
I'm your constituents.
I wanted to comment.
I saw an editorial that the pro-FLOC council members had written and I wanted to address
a couple points that they made in that tour and asked if they think about it.
So it said, as a defense to FLOC, FLOC does not directly give data to ICE or other federal
agencies.
I'd like for you to sit with that a second and think about how you're going to feel about
defending that to a woman who has seen a loved one taken away, abducted by ICE, because it
was indirectly shared.
That's an admission that these paper restrictions
that you're talking about aren't going to work.
We all know this data is going to get out.
So you can cancel it now, or you can wait until you get soon.
Thank you.
And people start getting without them.
Thanks so much.
Guys, it's going to save me one minute.
Sorry.
OK, thank you.
Thanks.
My name is Lewis.
I live in Berkeley, and I had a lot of points
I wanted to make today, but I just want to respond to some of the points that Mr. Flock
made in response to Councilmember Blackaby. He said that if Flock receives subpoenas from
the federal government, that they inform the federal government that they do not own the
data and they also immediately inform the local agency that the data is being requested
for. That ignores the fact that there are many well-established pathways for federal
subpoenas that include a gag order, and that also directly ignores the fact that federal
subpoenas are not for the owner of the data, they're for anybody who has access to the
data.
And there's a reason that Flock maintains this massive database of all of this data.
A single subpoena from the federal government to Flock can track the license plate of someone
across the entire United States, including all of California, and there can be no way
a local agency or jurisdiction being made aware of that.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
there were hundreds of thousands
of national security letters,
which are these kind of subpoenas,
sent by the FBI over the last decade.
97% of them included this kind of gag order,
which would mean that the person being subpoenaed
cannot notify anyone else.
And it's patently ridiculous to think that
they are gonna be able to just say,
oh, well, Berkeley technically owns the data,
even though I have access to all the data right here,
that's not what's happening.
Flock is not the company for us to be trusting
with this kind of thing.
There's a reason that they have this massive
dragnet of data and also there's a reason
that Flock said they have immigration
and reproductive filters.
They don't block immigration requests.
They have filters because they specifically market
their services to jurisdictions that are using this
to crack down on abortion seekers
and crack down on immigrants.
And when Berkeley gets invaded, like Minnesota did,
there's gonna be nothing we can do to stop this
because it's already happening now.
Here comes that.
Hi, I'm Jocelyn Desena, SEIU 10-to-1 CSU worker.
We're facing a budget deficit and potential layoffs.
Risking multimillion dollar lawsuits
resulting from Flock's well-established practice
of data misuse would be an irresponsible financial decision
when the jobs of essential city workers are in your hands.
Exorbitant police overtime is already eating up
millions of dollars,
while critical safety net services are under threat.
You cannot in good conscience allow, for example,
health housing and community services programs
that prevent crises, create real public safety,
and instill dignity to be placed on the chopping block
while increasing militarized policing and racial profiling
that target the already most over policed community members.
We need to balance our budget,
not gamble on a bad decision
that's extremely unpopular in Berkeley,
The 10-2-1 CSU Board, COPE delegates,
and concerned members oppose the floc contract,
prioritize Berkeleyans over billionaires,
services over surveillance,
constituents over corporate contracts,
and workers over waste, no floc.
Thanks, Jocelyn.
I have a couple of people seating time.
I have one, I have two, and I have one back there.
Okay, yeah, just ask.
So I see this person here,
and then the person with the pink,
and then, okay, got it, three.
All right, I'm not quite sure who you counted, but.
Okay, my name is Andrea Pritche,
and I'm with Berkeley Cop Watch.
And I'm also about District 2 resident,
and I just want to assure you all
that you do not care about our safety more than we do.
So we're not here saying we don't care about safety,
we're here because we care desperately about our safety.
And we perceive the threat differently than you do.
What I wanna say also is that let's be clear
that the crime rate in Berkeley is going down.
It was going down before you employed all the ALPRs
and I'm sorry, the new flock cameras.
So that's a trend that's already happening.
And I do, I would defy anybody to come up
with an independent research that says
that flock cameras are associated with crime declines.
What we have is flock representatives
and cops telling you that.
Where is the reliable research?
Where is the reliable data that's independent?
We are fully aware that we're being asked to trust FLOC.
I want to comment about national lookup.
According to CBS, the Ventura County Sheriff's Office
said it had disabled FLOC's national lookup feature
in June, 2023 to comply with California's law
borrowing local agencies from sharing
automatic license plate reader data
without a state and federal law enforcement agencies.
However, earlier this month, deputies learned
that several California law enforcement agencies reported
that the national lookup feature had somehow been
reactivated without any explanation.
My question, whether it's deception, deviousness,
or incompetence, how, if this was a job interview,
would you hire them?
Would you hire them?
I'm asking you also to consider that the people
Minneapolis who protested they were told that the authorities will be investigating everybody
who participated in in the protests that that and they've got 300 flock cameras the ceo of flock
recently referred to organizers with a group called deflock as domestic terrorists simply
because they're doing what we're doing right now if our current government we have we have this
We've given this council a clear mandate about how we want public safety to look.
We did it five years ago and we have not lost track of that vision.
We want public safety, we want to reimagine it.
And we believe that if there's a crisis with cops, and there's not enough cops, we already
told you.
We need a non-police response to calls that don't require somebody with a gun on their
hip.
That is a clear way forward that will leave the pressure on these guys and make us all
feel a lot better.
And you go back and read the city auditor's report.
This is not new to you.
Also, the issue of liability is real.
As you well know, leaks happen.
Stock had leaked data.
That would be a liability that could cost this city millions of dollars.
So you see how easy it is.
I also want to make you aware of a bill called the Surveillance Accountability Act that is
currently before Congress, and what they propose to do is to restrict warrantless government
surveillance by requiring judicial warrants based on probable cause for accessing personal
data including information from data brokers.
If that legislation goes forward, then the fundamental premise of this whole totalitarian
Flock infrastructure gets the floor taken out from under it.
Instead of a cop casually like, where's my girlfriend?
And going in there and checking Flock's database,
they would have to get a judicial warrant.
And that fundamentally alters
what is being proposed here today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I've got one minute from, yeah, of course in the back.
Good evening, Mayor, members of the city council,
our beautiful community, and Mr. Flock.
I am Solly Alpert, chair of the Berkeley Rent Stabilization
Board, speaking in my own capacity.
I'm speaking tonight in opposition
to any relationship between the city of Berkeley
and Flock Surveillance.
I think that we shouldn't do this
because it's a reckless, irresponsible thing to do
during Trump's reign.
When ICE has shown it is willing to use every tool
in its disposal, legal or otherwise,
in order to assault our immigrant community.
But even if that weren't the case,
This no bid contract is a massive boondoggle
for a city facing a multi-million dollar deficit.
The draft budget proposes to lay off city workers,
cut services, and reduce funding for affordable housing,
which, unlike block surveillance,
is actually the number one priority of Berkeley voters
in every poll that we've ever done.
Whoo!
This, this is a multi-million dollar no bid contract.
And even apart from that, the minute the city approves it,
You're going to be sued.
And that's a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
And even apart from that, the minute those cameras go up,
they're going to be targeted systematically for, you know,
for decoration, yeah.
And that's not a threat for me.
That's not I'm not urging that.
That's just a reality.
We've seen that already throughout the country
and in our neighborhood in Oakland, right?
So how is this council going to spend public money?
There are going to be multiple measures
on the ballot this November, including potentially
one from the city council proposing
unfortunately, regressive sales tax, where the people will be asked to tax
themselves to fund city services. Is this council really going to throw the
public's money into surveillance that we do not want, then get sued for multiple
millions of dollars more of the public's money, and then have those cameras all
destroyed, and then tell the public, will you give us some more money and raise
your sales taxes? I think that's a really stupid idea. Thank you.
Hi, I believe I have two minutes from a friend over here and over here.
So three minutes total.
Hi, my name is Leah Martins.
I'm a Berkeley resident of District 3.
I'm a local pastor.
I'm also an organizer with the East Bay singing resistance, and I'm here to call you in through
song again.
Last time we had comment on this, you may remember I sang to you an invitation to change
your mind if you are supporting the flop contract today I'm gonna sing for you a
new song and invite any others here who want to sing to join me and this is an
invitation to affirm that how we spend our money matters and budgets have moral
implications and we as a community are calling you to spend our money in ways
that honor our community's values which are being named here very clearly
tonight. So, you've got to put your money where your heart is. Fund the world you
long to see. It's time we put our money where our heart is toward every human.
Toward every human living healthy, living free. Let's try that together. Gotta put
your money where your heart. Fund the world you want to see. Fund the world you
too long to see. It's time we put, it's time we put our money where our heart is toward
every human living healthy, living, let's do that verse one more time. Gotta put your
money where our heart is. Fund the world, fund the world we want to see. It's time we
put our money where our heart is toward every human living healthy, living free, amazing.
And we're gonna do it a little bit more,
but now we're gonna say it isn't flock that keeps us safe.
It's you and me, right?
Yeah, so that goes like this.
♪ So you can put your money where your heart ♪
It isn't flock.
♪ It isn't flock that keeps us safe ♪
♪ It's you and me ♪
♪ It's time we put our money where our heart ♪
♪ Toward all our neighbors ♪
♪ All our neighbors living healthy, living free ♪
♪ Well, it's time to put your money where our heart is ♪
♪ It is a clock, it is a clock that keeps us safe ♪
♪ It's you and me, it's time to put our money ♪
♪ Where our heart is ♪
♪ All our neighbors, all our neighbors ♪
♪ Livin' healthy, livin' brave ♪
♪ All of Berkeley, all of Berkeley ♪
♪ Livin' healthy, livin' brave ♪
♪ Every human, every human ♪
♪ Livin' healthy, livin' brave ♪
♪ All our family, all our families ♪
♪ Living healthy, living free ♪
♪ All our neighbors ♪
♪ All our neighbors living healthy, living free ♪
♪ Every human living healthy, living free ♪
♪ Living ♪
Thank you.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
Wait and see.
I got a minute from Crocheter.
Okay.
Thank you.
Catherine, okay.
So George Lippmann, I'm a member of the.
George talking to the mic.
Member of the Peace and Justice Commission
And I'm speaking at the request of the chair,
Pastor Dwayne Phillips, who sends his regrets.
In this complex issue,
there are some things that are very clear.
We now know that the city's own attorney
raised strong concerns about the liability
of 30 to $60 million, if we go forward with this proposal.
Council, you're responsible for the fiscal health
this city. To go forward with this contract expansion would be a gross
failure of your fiduciary duty. We love Berkeley and we want to help keep it
safe physically as well as financially. Please take seriously your
responsibility as well then send this troubling contract back to the drawing
board. In a larger frame this is a time when the hard-won reimagining public
Safety Initiative, essentially finding positive solutions to social problems is on really
hard times.
The Specialized Care Unit is no more, Burke Dot never got off the ground.
I want to share at this moment a few of the findings and functions that are contained
in the Peace and Justice Commission's mandate.
H, the letter. Our best protection lies in initiating, devising, and promulgating peaceful
and just policy alternatives. Finding J, it is the responsibility of one and all to labor
hard for peace and justice within forms of appropriate scale. And two of the functions,
C, help develop proposals for the City Council and the School Board for actions in furtherance
of the goals of peace and justice and help publicize such actions in the community.
Function F, develop ways to resolve conflict which do not involve violence and which may
be applied on a local level as well as a national level.
This is now the 40th anniversary of the Peace and Justice Commission.
Please reach out to the peace and justice commission for help creating positive solutions,
strengthen the police accountability board and stop undermining it.
Reach out to the human welfare and community action commission.
We are here to help.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I have three minutes.
Right here.
One, two, sorry.
Just three total.
Got it.
Three total.
Yes.
Thank you.
council, my name is Moni Gangubatai I'm a resident in district one. I'm also a
candidate for city council in the same district. Before me are the
representatives of one of the most knowledgeable educated cities not just
in the country in the in the state or the country but the world. So it is
surprising to me that a contract with Flock would be considered, proposed
rather, and then be considered for a vote given all that we know about Flock.
The data is before us, right? All the data that we need. We've heard it from
people who came before before me and at the other meeting. I also want to
address. Two things that I didn't hear addressed. We know from the city attorney
that flock reactivated the national lookup feature after Ventura County
right here in California deactivated it to comply with state law. Flock did this
without notice or explanation. So I wonder how we can trust flock around
this feature when when asked about it earlier today. The other thing we know is that cities
and towns who have asked to deactivate flock cameras were those cameras were not deactivated
and they had to cover those cameras up. I didn't hear forgive me if I missed it but
I didn't hear anything anything to address that. So I'm just wondering how we could go
forward with an actor like flock with all these breaches of contracts with all
these civil rights violations and human constitutional rights violations that
we're seeing across the country. I'm also seeing a lot of people working
extremely hard to represent themselves before you and that's very painful to
see because we elected you to represent us and I'm not seeing that right now. I
better move because I only have 30 seconds. Since I could not find a single
reason, a single good reason to contract with flock, I came up with another list
of reasons to contract with flock. I'd like to share them with you. Can I have
another minute from someone I'm so sorry thank you I'd like to share my list
with you if we want to fall behind cities big and small we should contract
with flock if we want to bring the shame of choosing corporate rhetoric over
community safety to our city into our city we should contract with flock if
If we want to be on the wrong side of history in 2026,
at a time we are living under a fascist national regime,
we should contract with Flock.
If we want to support the goals
of that fascist national regime
and its unraveling of our civil rights,
we should contract with Flock.
If we want to dishonor and undermine the struggle
for free speech and the struggle to establish Berkeley
as a sanctuary city, we should contract with Flock.
If you city council want to turn your backs
on the proud immigrants, people of color,
queer elders, youth, and disabled residents,
and residents at large, you should contract with Flock.
Thanks.
Thanks for your time.
You have the power to save the soul of Berkeley.
Excuse me.
Tiny leaders to be on the right side of history again.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Okay, so we're gonna take, are you gonna get extra time?
Okay, I think we need to take a break,
so I don't want to interrupt your time.
So let's just take, yeah, we're gonna take,
we are just about at almost one hours of two minutes shy,
so we're gonna take a 10 minute break
that does not count for the public speaking time.
Thank you.
Oh wait, sorry folks, sorry, one more thing.
If you're standing in line
and you're trying to keep your line,
we've got cards and we're gonna give you numbers
so that you can remember which order you're in.
Thank you.
Yeah, okay.
Right, are we starting back up?
We are starting back up, folks.
Please, please come back.
We lost Nathan, I think Nathan was first in line.
Yeah, it looked like it was Nathan Meisel,
then Monee Law, Cape Crusader.
Okay, Nathan, come on up.
Okay, everyone be quiet.
It's Nathan's turn to speak.
Nathan, how many minutes do you have?
I think I got three.
One there.
No, he already yielded.
One here, two, Miss.
Sorry, wait.
The third one here.
Oh, Ida.
OK, thank you.
Who's the third?
He raised his hand for somebody else.
No, I got Ida.
No, no, you didn't raise your hand for someone else.
I haven't seen you yet.
So yeah, you're good.
Sitting over there before.
And Miss Betty.
he was sitting over there before.
I know, but I'm writing down who.
Someone else switched?
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
So that's four minutes total.
Go ahead.
Okay.
Alrighty, Madam Mayor and City Council,
my name is Nathan Meisel.
I am a Remport Commissioner speaking as an individual.
I am the former Vice Chair of the Police Accountability Board.
I was the Chair of the Remagotian Public Safety Task Force
and I served on the Ferret & Poirot Show Policing Working Group.
The facts are not much different, folks,
than they were when I spoke to you about two months ago.
All of y'all know the facts.
They've been told to you by the many public speakers here.
They've been told to you in the many memos you've written.
They've been told to you in the news reports.
They've been told to you by your own city attorney,
who I want to mention here.
I was quite critical last meeting of the city attorney's
office.
My bad, you nailed the analysis on this one completely.
Some of these paragraphs I would have written myself.
Everyone with the qualities
to understand the information,
whether they're professionals, attorneys,
activists, regular people in the public,
folks who don't usually come to these meetings right here
because this is important to them,
everyone understands there is no place,
no place for flock in our city.
And I know at least four of you up there understand that, too.
I'm hoping for five.
And I saw the op-ed, four of y'all put out.
That's y'all's opinions.
I don't think it's very well written.
I'm sorry.
I got to be honest.
But I'm hoping that for the one council member,
we don't quite know yet what they might do,
that there's some room for convincing.
Because nothing's going to change these facts, folks.
I've heard so much conversation, of course,
around the numbers and this prevents crime,
and the chief tells you prevents crime,
and the guy paid by a flock to tell you
prevents crime is here as well.
If you take the numbers from the op-ed, Lance,
I think it was 52 confirmed reports,
and again, every crime in the city,
obviously serious crimes are serious, right?
I've worked on these issues,
I've been in courtrooms with folks
who've been victims of crime.
I take that seriously as well.
If you take all of that at face value,
No analysis of that data.
It accounts for 0.52% of reported crime last year.
That is the difference we are talking about with Flock.
This is not some miracle technology.
It's not making a 20% reduction in crime, 10% reduction,
not even a 5% reduction.
It's making zero reduction.
It's not what it does.
The technology finds things after the facts.
0.52% improvement in clearance rate.
0.52%, a decimal percent improvement
is what we're willing to sell out our values for in this city.
I am not resigned to a future where fascist surveillance is
the norm.
I am not resigned to a future where our trans and immigrant
neighbors are surveilled by a technology company
and their investors who support the orange man upstairs,
or maybe downstairs.
I am not resigned to a future where
a city that once dedicated itself to reimagining public safety.
I was there. Trust me.
Now decides that the only public safety we can be afforded as a mass
surveillance network in the hands of a police chief who constantly violate
city law.
I am not resigned to a future where the voices of your constituents are
profoundly ignored and are taken for granted and our safety is devalued for a
a technology company that doesn't give a damn
about this city beyond signing a check.
Thank you.
Moni.
Y'all can make the change.
Faith, then it's Moni's turn.
Thank you.
You can make the right decisions.
Moni, it's your turn.
Thank you, Mama Ayana.
Mayor, council, staff, and community.
I speak in my personal capacity
as a resident of Berkeley, a proud graduate of UC Berkeley,
go Bears, proud mom of Matthew Law.
Oh wait, I have to stop the clock.
I forgot to get my extra minutes.
Oh, I had some people offering.
Can you please raise your hands
with all those who offered?
One, two, wait, wait, who's the second person?
That's one, oh, I'm sorry, I can't see you Grace.
I couldn't see you around.
Raisin, Bethany, okay I guess I just have two
and that's a total, oh I have another.
What's your name here?
Sorry, could you stand if I can so I can see?
Yeah, thank you.
Okay.
I don't know your name, yourself.
Thank you.
So that's a total of four minutes?
I was gonna say your honor.
I'm an attorney in practice of 25 years
and sometimes automatic.
You've used 20 seconds so far,
so you've got three minutes, 40 seconds left.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
I have a plea to each of you on the dais
to follow the wise words of Maya Angelou.
When someone shows you who they are,
believe them the first time.
I also speak as a proud employee of the city of Berkeley,
a member of SEIU 1021.
It was one of many employees who received a letter
a couple of weeks ago saying I'm on the chopping block
after 15 years with the city, which I love working for.
So I may be retired earlier than expected,
but I have bumping rights,
but I don't want to eliminate a newer employee
and have them lose their job so I can keep mine.
I ask you, is this worth it to pay for this
and to lose good city employees, to lose the wellness,
the heating warming center, that's on the chopping block.
Other things are on the chopping block
that are essential cares and needs of the city.
I ask you, and I ask you to think of this, finances.
Flocks cost is too much in litigation.
Prior trial, lawyer of 25 years
continue to go practice in Washington state.
Other cities, 50 other cities have contracted
and ended their contracts for reasons of irregularity
and illegality and exposure to federal offices
of police that should not have had our information,
but they did.
Why would we subject ourselves with financial losses
under litigation as well, as well as not being safe?
What's the safety?
I helped start the Berkeley Community Safety Coalition
with a number of community members here.
The definition of safety is that we feel no harm,
we feel no loss, we feel community connection,
we feel no danger, we feel no injury.
There are many people who have been harmed by flock
and we should not be among them.
Finally, we have Berkeley values
that I plead to you to sustain.
In Berkeley, I was proud to be part
the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa,
and Nelson Mandela thanked the people of Berkeley
for our work.
He would not be happy with you going with Flock.
Also our city, Mayor Gus Novport, bless him,
had a loss, a lack of tear gas police dogs and helicopters.
They did not bring a safety, but community did
because he hired people that were black community members.
Community members spread the groups
that were all part of the force of safety.
Again, not for harm or danger or injury or loss,
but for safety.
Finally, there are words I'd like to share in my last minute.
I lost my sister six weeks ago to cancer,
and she was a lawyer as well.
And my parents taught me to stand up for justice.
They taught me the words of Micah and the Bible 6-8,
to walk humbly, to act justly, and to love mercy.
That's the city of Berkeley that I am proud of
and hope that you will sustain by your proper vote tonight.
No on flock, please.
Dear God, please.
Thanks, Moni.
I'm getting another minute.
Oh, OK, sorry.
I have 34 seconds.
Oh, I don't.
Oh, you're on the clock.
She saw 34 seconds.
I don't think you can give your.
You were finished, right, Moni?
I guess I'm finished.
Yeah, OK, thank you.
OK, next person, please.
Thank you.
My name is Xochitl Sanchez,
and I'm a statewide organizing manager
with the California Immigrant Policy Center
here in solidarity with the people of Berkeley.
I come from Los Angeles County,
where for more than 11 months,
the federal government has on constitutionally
and illegally raided work sites,
school graduations, day labor centers,
churches, and community gatherings to target street vendors.
From LA, Long Beach, Ontario,
and the Twin Cities of Minnesota,
ICE not only separates families, they shoot to kill and have executed U.S. citizens with
impunity.
Do not use flock to expand surveillance.
As we have seen with the sharing of IRS information to target ITIN holders and now the data sharing
by the California DMV, the federal government will abuse this information and use it to
terrorize you, you directly, your neighbors, observers, protesters, people of color and
the work in poor the city council must not invest in weaponized technology to
criminalize the people of Berkeley thanks okay folks I know there's a lot
of talking going on please hi my name is Micah I live in district six and I am a
public school therapist and social worker and when I go to work and I meet
with kids and families it's obvious who I serve.
When Flock exploits Filipino workers
and meets with billionaire and MAGA stakeholders,
it's obvious who they serve.
Y'all are elected public servants,
so it should be obvious who y'all serve.
But it's not.
So once again, you have a room full of constituents,
beautiful constituents, pleading for y'all to listen
to our flock disapproval.
I can't believe I have to bite my nails wondering
if our sanctuary city of Berkeley
is going to listen to us
or to listen to MAGA fascist funders.
Who considers extremists and terrorists, too?
Right now, the deal does not make sense financially or early.
Thanks so much.
She's a lot of stress.
Thank you.
Michael Lyon.
I'm just listening to this conversation that's going on about should this contract be accepted,
and all this stuff is going on about what the compensation should be if something should
go wrong.
And this is insane.
We're talking about somebody's life, somebody's kid being sent out of the country, and for
Mr. Flock here. This is just a cost of doing business. Every person who is kidnapped is
maybe $200,000 out of their profits. It's nothing. It's a drop in the bucket. Yeah,
really. Boo. So someday we're going to be able to overthrow capitalism.
Thank you.
get ready. Thank you so much. Thank you. I have one person giving their time. Could
I get one more person to give me their time? If anybody hasn't. Someone in the back is
giving you time. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Three minutes. Council members, my
name is Derek Rodriguez. I'm a Berkeley rent board candidate and I'm here
speaking separately on behalf of the Cal Berkeley Democrats. I would first like to
recognize the community gathered here today,
and remotely, a community upon which the discussions made
today will either strengthen or fracture
the ever precarious public trust in our institutions.
By that, I mean the rapid expansion
of a surveillance state, being weaponized
in ways that threaten the very civil rights generations
have fought to protect.
When Benjamin Franklin spoke of liberty over security,
Could he have imagined that our law-abiding residents
would be the primary targets of the Patriot Act?
An act that has been in place longer than many of us
in this room we're live for?
A weapon that was used to discredit our Islamic community?
And now we are expected to sacrifice our community
once more to flock?
An organization willing to see our people removed
from a society we have poured our blood, sweat and tears
into all in the name of security and profit?
Where now do the winds blow, council members?
By advocating for floc, you have shown your distrust
for the residents and the faces you see here today.
You are forcing our immigrant community into hiding,
but the greatest humiliation of all
is the fact that you have forsaken morality for security
in the eyes of everyone present here today.
I call on you to rescind your supportive floc.
If not for the people standing here today,
then do it for the future generations
that may never get to enjoy the freedom
many of us take for granted here today.
The question before you is not what keeps us safe today,
but what kind of society will you leave behind tomorrow?
Because I didn't serve my country
as an emancipated 17-year-old for surveillance,
I did it for them.
The residents of Berkeley here today
stand for our immigrants, we stand for our vulnerable,
and we stand proud because we stand strongest together.
We'll be remembered here today
for refusing to yield to fear,
for refusing to divide our community
and refusing to sacrifice our freedom.
The question is whether you will have the backbone
to do the same.
♪ Whoo ♪
My name's Clara.
I'm a student and a resident of District 7
and I urge you all to terminate
Berkeley's contract with Flock.
We've heard a lot tonight about how Flock
doesn't have any direct contracts with ICE or CBP
as if that's supposed to reassure us,
as if the fact that you're leading the industry
is supposed to impress us.
Even without direct contracts to ICE or CBP,
these agencies still have been able
to obtain flock camera footage through backdoor methods.
Even if we are to believe the promises
that the flock representative has made tonight,
which I do not, and I don't think any of us here do,
how can flock ensure that their data
is not accessed by federal agencies
without their knowledge or their permission?
We've heard a lot about how flock
does not utilize facial recognition technology
as if that is supposed to reassure us.
Even if we believe that this technology
can only track people based on their clothing,
which I do not, and I don't think any of us do,
how are we to be certain that facial recognition technology
will not be implemented in the future,
that we won't all be back here in a few months
or a few years fighting extensions to the contract?
The only option is to terminate the contract completely.
Thanks so much.
Hi there, I think I have one more minute from the crowd.
Thank you.
I've heard some technical difficulties are happening
on Zoom, so I don't know if someone can take a look at that.
So I guess I'll go ahead and start.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Good evening, council.
My name is Jason Martins and at 3.30 today I had to take my daughter to the ER but thankfully
they're fine but I'm here anyway because that's how important this issue is.
I've been canvassing for months now in Berkeley.
I think I've easily talked to 400 Berkeley citizens
about this issue.
And what is clear from my experience,
and I think corroborated in this room,
is that this issue is massively unpopular.
Many people I talked to first expressed surprise
that we are doing this in Berkeley.
Then they are expressed shock
that a majority of the council is supporting it.
To my fellow residents, I hope we are all learning
that our city is not the liberal bastion
that I think maybe we all dreamed it was, to the council.
I would like to know why you are supporting a proposal
with overwhelming opposition.
What's in it for you?
I would also like to know what motivates you
to go against what is clearly the desire
of your constituents.
So I'm here for a third time to ask you to vote no.
And if you vote yes, I want you to know
that we will be hounding you until the contract is canceled.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hello.
I have two extra minutes.
Sorry, I saw one here.
Where was the?
Oh, I can't.
OK.
Oh, thank you.
OK, great.
My name is Joseph Alman.
I live here in Berkeley.
And I'm an animal cruelty investigator
with the Animal Rights Network nonviolent called
direct action everywhere.
I'm here tonight because I'm one of the people Flock has
already been used against, twice by law enforcement.
And this is in direct connection with my activism.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
released records documented two separate instances
of law enforcement querying the Flock network to surveil me.
Both tied to my work exposing animal cruelty,
not for a violent crime,
not for a public safety threat, for activism.
I currently face two years, I'm correction,
two felony charges in six and a half years
in prison for rescuing sick, emaciated baby goats
from a Meinberg supplier, a supplier to Whole Foods,
and they use the quote, certified humane label.
The goats that I'm charged with felonies
for rescuing were dying.
Necropsies confirmed coccidiosis, severe respiratory infection, and starvation at this facility
here in California.
Other goats from that same facility were being dumped by the dozens in a mass grave.
This is what investigators like me try to expose, and that is the kind of work that
Flock is being used to track.
The EFF's investigation this past year documented that my own organization, Direct Action Everywhere,
has been targeted across flock network,
including nine queries by the Delaware State Police
in a single month last year.
I was charged in Delaware in connection with that last year
and I was expunged from those charges in Delaware last year.
The same investigation by the EFF found agencies
running flock searches, tied to no-kings protests,
to abortion seekers, and using racial slurs
against Romani people.
This is the system Berkeley is being asked to renew.
This op-ed, the op-ed from four council members,
says Flock is just another piece
of an existing surveillance landscape.
So refusing it changes little.
With respect, that is the same exact argument
that's been used for the past 20 years
for surveillance systems.
You're being asked tonight to renew a contract
that has already been used to surveil a Berkeley resident
for exposing corporate cruelty.
I am that resident.
I'm asking you directly.
Reject Flock.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Come on up, mama Iana.
Are you taking both?
Yeah.
Okay, one here.
I'll give it up if I don't use it.
And then this person in the back.
Okay, thank you.
Greetings, Council.
My name is Iana Davis.
I am currently the Vice President of the newly formed nonprofit Equity for Black Berkeley,
former Deputy Executive Director for Healthy Black Families.
while at Healthy Black Families with the mayor,
Eter Gaines, chief of staff, Jack McCormick,
and Chris Schill, we formed and created
the Equity for Black Berkeley initiative.
And as part of that initiative over two years,
we did 12 People's Assemblies all over the city.
We had 16 weeks of advocacy training.
We did three community stakeholders convenings.
We had three focus groups.
And over 10 years I worked with Healthy Black Families.
I came in contact with thousands of Berkeley residents.
I am a mother who lost their son to violence.
They knew who killed my son.
Even when they closed his cold case, they told me they knew.
Alex Goodwin, my coworker, Kamika Patterson Smith,
her son was killed.
The whole community knew who killed her son.
None of the murderers of our sons have been prosecuted.
All right, y'all, you know?
But my point being, in the course of my experience
and in the course of our people's assembly
and the data that we have, that we share with the city,
at no point was mass surveillance a priority
for the people.
At no point do we believe mass surveillance
has lowered crime in Berkeley.
It is our work that has lowered crime.
It is our coming together with our neighbors
and our community that has lowered crime.
It is education.
It is outreach, it is shared love and understanding
that does, it is the work of the people
that creates community and a place where our children
can live and grow and thrive.
Now I've lived in the same house on the same street
for the past 45 years.
My family has been here since the late 1880s,
built historical homes that are still standing.
I'm a Berkeley person and I will tell you,
I have seen what has created crime.
And it is poverty, it is the red lining,
it is the displacement, it is the unhoused community.
If we're spending money on anything,
it should be for affordable, not just affordable,
housing people can live, afford to live in.
Y'all need to put your phones down, I just wanna say that.
Pay attention to the people.
We don't have much time for our voice.
Listen, please, respectfully.
So I say this to you.
We're coming together and creating
a workforce development coalition and a collaborative
as we build the Adeline Quarter.
We know you plan on turning San Pablo Avenue into,
what is it, what's, what did I hear?
Middle Manhattan, who's gonna do that work?
We have to get people trained and ready.
You need to be a council with vision
and create a community that has employment for the people.
Good jobs, invest in that.
Invest in workforce development.
Invest into the Black Arts and Cultural District
into a hub for our youth so they can sell their art.
Thank you.
Thanks, Mama Anna.
I love y'all.
Thank you.
Raise your head.
Mamayana.
Againstor.
Mamayana.
Thank you.
I believe a few people gave me time.
Sorry.
OK, you have a minute for him.
OK, so two minutes, three minutes.
Oh, wait.
Hold on.
I can't see that person who's sitting there.
OK, thank you.
OK, go.
Yeah, you have four total.
I would expect better from the city that
has these flags behind them.
I would expect better from a city that is this diverse,
that is this noted for their civil rights work.
Flock is a known collaborator with the Trump administration.
They are a known collaborator with DHS.
In fact, DHS has a law in place
that bars flock from actually having them show up
in any sort of audit.
People have mentioned it before.
And can you remind me, what was that county,
or what was that city that actively violates that rule?
A couple, I can't even figure out which
because it's that notable.
None of these counties,
none of these cities are paying attention.
They're gonna fly flagrantly in the face of federal law,
and the same thing is gonna happen with that guy's boss.
That man's boss does not care about you.
That man's boss does not care
that two people were murdered in Minneapolis.
That a teacher was stalked and shot five times seven holes,
like the cops said.
We do not need this needless violence
brought into the Bay Area.
I'm from San Jose.
We failed to stop our flaw contract
because Mayor Mahan is bought and paid for by them.
Don't make the same mistake as that man.
You have the chance right now to make a better world
for your community, to be an example
to the rest of the world.
Berkeley has always been an example
from a civil rights perspective, in my opinion.
Hey, put down your phone, buddy.
I'm not done talking.
This is the moment where you decide
whether or not you are complicit
in the hunt of vulnerable people.
This is the moment where you decide
whether or not you wish to allow trans folks
to be hunted, whether you allow day laborers to be stalked,
whether you allow mothers to be killed.
I hope to pray to God that you make the right decision
here today because your decision has an impact
on the rest of the Bay Area.
Your decision is not in a bubble here.
All of these individuals have been pleading you
and begging you to make the right decision,
the clear decision, which is don't even bother
with a contract with Flock.
Send that man packing with nothing.
Because he deserves nothing from you.
He deserves nothing from Berkeley.
Because they will take and take and take
until nothing is left.
You will not see a dime of that money
something goes wrong because they will fight it in litigation. You will not see
a dime of sympathy from the federal government when it happens and it will
happen. Do not be a coward and a traitor to your people who are looking to you to
be their voice. You have the chance to make the right choice here and in case it
If it wasn't clear, you keep that.
Take the right fucking choice!
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Hi again.
I'm David Allen, a Berkeley resident.
This massive surveillance expansion is far past the point
where quantitative becomes qualitative.
The hardware may already be used in Berkeley,
but it builds a network that has the ability
to track a person from their work to their appointments
to their family and their home.
That's facilitated by their patent-pending
individual recognition, their attempt
to digitally fingerprint each of us
without using the words facial recognition.
There are many factors that the individual
recognition machine learning uses that Chandler left out.
It uses race, it uses body characteristics,
it uses walking gait.
I have that patent in my hand.
It is software, not hardware.
and tonight, the Berkeley PD said that they would use
that capability if it was available.
Flock pushes every boundary.
It took 404 media doing an expose for Flock to back off.
Thank you.
I had an additional minute from Skip.
It's supposed to be in the room.
Where's Skip?
Go switch it.
Skip.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Flock's saying that they will not data share
with ICE or Border Patrol as a red hearing,
because under this current federal administration,
everything is upside down.
No federal agency at this point can be trusted
to not engage in an abuse of power.
Office of Civil Rights, created to protect civil rights
of persons, are now entrusted
with actually investigating transgender treatment
and immigration. That's what they're doing at the Office of Civil Rights. Employees are
being placed on leave if they have advancing claims that they already had open, including
for women that are in the country under the Violence Against Women Act because they're
immigrants. A $295,000 fine, it may sound overwhelming to us in the room but it's nothing
to a billionaire investor. It's a drop in the bucket. Follow the investors, you follow
the genuine interests. So you heard recently a report from the city auditor on non-competing
competitive contracts. And there seemed to be a commitment that going forward,
all contracts were going to be competitive. So what's the difference
here? Why is there no non competitive content? Why is there not
competition here? Why is everything directed towards flock, uh, at their
word? And, um, it's the same as declaring that we're sanctuary city and
that engaging with flock who has violated the rights.
And we can't be both.
It's inconsistent.
Thank you.
Thanks Carol.
Hi, I just had something I wanted to point out,
which is that earlier this meeting,
I heard Jen Lewis refer to a term we weren't sure about
when referencing the flock database.
And I assume that Jen Lewis is referring to the time
when Berkeley's flock data was searched
with the terms ICE and CBP,
because that did happen.
If this is what she's talking about,
I think that that's an appalling way
to downplay the severity of those search terms.
PPD can say that they prevented
this kind of search from happening again
by turning off the statewide lookup feature on the database
so that other agencies can access the data.
But last meeting, Jen Lewis said herself
that SFPD and OPD and other counties and police departments
would also have access to this data.
Any police officer from any of those counties
could access and share Berkeley data.
You can say that you own the data,
but who have not addressed that the other police departments
have access to it and you don't control them.
Flock's database already searched with the terms ICE and CBP.
I don't know why we're speaking about federal access
as a hypothetical, it's not hypothetical,
it's already happened.
Thank you.
Okay, go ahead.
No on Flock rejects the contracts.
I wanna speak to a spineless and absurd op-ed
that we saw come out this week
that was full of disingenuous arguments
and outright lies.
There are some lines you should still be afraid to cross,
and this is one.
Being a foot soldier of fascism is one.
And if you don't care about us, which we are seeing
from this op-ed, is your case, you
should care about the litigation that is coming your way,
because it is coming and it is going to be brutal.
When legislators fail us, it is up to litigation
represent us and that fact is so sad and it is absurd and appalling that you
could even think of bringing us to that case. Reject the contract, no on flock,
listen to everybody here tonight, listen to them, listen to them!
Thank you. Come on up.
My name is Sophia, I'm a resident of District 3. The job of any place that
calls itself a sanctuary city, is to gum up the gears of fascism and authoritarianism
however we can. Why in the world would you choose instead to serve up weapons on a silver platter
that will be used and have already been used against not only the most vulnerable and over-policed
among us, but also against anyone who dares speak out against the government. The only way Berkeley
can prevent sharing data with ICE or with the feds is to not generate and not hold that data
in the first place and certainly not to store it with flock.
Stand with your people, reject flock
and don't do the fascist job for them.
Thank you.
Two minutes.
Oh, sorry. Hold on.
I need two people to raise their hand.
OK, one and this person in the back corner.
Can you stand so I can just oh, thank you. Great.
Go. It looks as if the headlines tomorrow
may sadly read, Berkeley City Council threw away two million dollars in spite of a thirty
million dollar budget deficit. Crime is down. The police chief understandably wants the
latest bells and whistles, but the Berkeley City Council is supposed to be the adult in
the room. Other methods of fighting crime are better proven, less expensive, keep the
money in our community, and help locals. The police, again, don't need every new bell
and whistle. These cameras put the city at risk of liability up to $60 million
according to the city attorney. Federal legislation could force us to take the
cameras down because of the deficit we might lose a fire station. Crisis mental
health services might be on the block. Your constituents want fire stations
not cameras. We don't need to throw away two million dollars in risk multi
million dollar lawsuits for new bells and whistles
when crime is down.
Don't waste our money.
As the former chair of the Berkeley Police Accountability
Board stated, council members O'Keefe, Humbert, Kezzawani,
and Taplin in their published op-ed piece
seem to have knowingly misrepresented some things.
They didn't mention that the Police Accountability
Board strongly advised against this contract.
They didn't mention that the liability risks
that they're aware of.
They do acknowledge that FLOC has altered data sharing
without permission, but imply that there's something
we can do to manage that risk, which isn't the case.
They make false comparisons with our tracking devices
on our phones, which we can control.
They imply that crimes were solved,
which would not have been solved without FLOC,
even though there's no way to prove that,
and it conflicts with the University of California
under analysis. They don't mention that crime is markedly down already. They
don't mention the budget deficit that this purchase would exacerbate.
Brent Blackaby in his recent email to constituents makes similar
misrepresentations and omissions. Public officials who mislead their
constituents should consider whether this position of trust is really the
right place. The Police Accountability Board says that the contract process
broke city procedural rules, that should be enough to vote no. The police
accountability board advises in general against a flock contract, that should be
enough to vote no. The city attorney tells us that the contract puts us at
risk of a 60 million dollar lawsuit liability, that should be enough to vote
no. The city council members who plan to vote yes admit this company has already
shared data without permission, that should be enough to vote no. The majority
of citizens who have given feedback to not want this contract. That should be
enough to vote no. There is a budget deficit and other things are more
important. Thank you so much. These are not license plate readers one of them
sure that's a license plate reader. A network of them that surrounds us and
tracks our every movement puts it in a database can be queried. That's a pattern
of life logger detector. It's just wrong. And then, okay, if it's just the city of
Berkeley doing this, just for, you know, solving 50 more crimes in a year, okay, I'm
still pissed off about it, but it's way worse than that. I want you to ask Mr.
Flock over there, again, pointedly, if the federal government asks for Berkeley
citizens data with a gag order, will you give it to them? Will we know? Because the
answer is yes they will give it to them, no we will never know. That means we are
just serving ourselves up on a silver platter to fascism. Don't do this. History
will not look kindly on this moment. Anyone who votes yes will be shamed.
Please do not vote yes. Thank you. Hello my name is Jacob. I'm on the disaster and
fire safety Commission but I'm just here as an individual today. In addition
in addition to what everyone else said which I 100% agree with, one of the things
I want to talk about is the risk of data leaking to a third party. I think all of us have credit
card numbers or phone numbers that are kind of out there on the internet and we can never take
them back. But imagine if that's where you're most likely to be at 5 30 on any given day or
where your kids go to school. Once this information is made it can't be unmade and there's no amount
of monetary compensation that can take that back.
And so this is something that we,
once we take this step it's crossing a Rubicon.
We can't take it back and we will always be at risk.
No matter what safeguards we impart, no matter what we do,
we will always be at risk of this type
of incredibly sensitive data, my data, where I physically am
at any given point being open to the highest better.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm a South Berkeley district three resident and community organizer.
The only thing that makes me feel safe in the city is my neighbors,
other organizers who are working for affordable housing, who are working for
better education, who are working for safer transit for
everybody, food security. These people in this room who I've
seen show up over and over to implore you guys to not contract with Flock for
all of the many, many, many reasons listed.
I've also been a victim of a violent crime in the East Bay
and I have never once felt like surveillance technology
would keep me safe.
What's kept me safe are the other people in my community
on the streets looking out for each other.
Police don't keep us safe
and surveillance certainly doesn't keep us safe.
So thank you to everyone else speaking out
because we keep each other safe.
Thank you.
Sorry, I can't quite see who that person is.
Oh, thank you, go ahead.
I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to you.
Thank you.
Hello.
My name is Allison. I live in district four.
And I wanted to highlight one of the ways that flock data and technology has already been misused is currently being misused.
And that's in the.
The use of police.
Some of which are in our San Francisco police department.
Using license plates flock license plate readers to stock and surveil romantic partners.
anything if anyone knows anything about power and control surveillance on an interpersonal level
on a systemic level surveillance is a classic tactic of power and control and power control
is what constitutes abuse and so on both an interpersonal and structural level expanding
state and police department overreach to surveil us is enabling abuse on a systemic level
I have worked in the domestic violence field. I have lived in. I've experienced
domestic violence. My family's experienced domestic violence. Surveillance by way of
cameras and tracking has always been a factor of controlling people and not causing safety.
I do not feel safe at the thought of police departments documented.
and 48% of officers are documented
to have domestic violence crimes.
And that's what's documented,
so that's a definite under-representation.
I don't feel safe putting more tools in their hands.
That's not my vision of safety.
Meanwhile, domestic violence and IPV services
in the Bay Area specifically are so drastically underfunded,
are currently at risk of being stripped away further.
And so please, I urge you to stop doing the work of the abuser, the state
as the abuser, and actually invest in services that keep people safe and
don't traumatize survivors further.
The idea of being surveilled is traumatic for survivors.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm in D3.
Mr.
Flock could tell you that his cameras are outside my house.
Um, there's a false equivalence being asserted that surveillance of safety,
which is being strategically deployed tied the fact
that the opposite is true.
Surveillance is not public safety.
There is no actual demonstrated need
for any of this technology.
And even if there was,
the Berkeley Criminal Law and Justice Center's
independent policy review showed this technology
doesn't actually help solve crimes or even work.
It does create steep data privacy risks for the city.
People will die in ICE custody as a result
of getting flocked or getting shot in the street
by fascist federal agents with the help of this technology.
And it doesn't matter what vendor you use
for your mass surveillance dragnet.
Once that data is collected,
No matter what encryption you use,
no matter who owns the data, not you,
it exists and can be acquired with a warrant.
The only truly safe choice is not collecting it.
This is not a safety company.
It's a data broker who answers to the highest bidder
and you're selling us out and making us pay for it.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other two, anybody?
Okay.
Hold on a second.
You're gonna take those two.
Yeah, I'll take a couple of minutes.
So I'm here. I was just speaking in El Cerrito a couple nights ago where we were very successful
vanquishing
The situation from our city and I was one of the core organizers there spent a lot of time a lot of people spent quite a long
time
Organizing that and now several of the members of that organizing group are considering running for City Council because of well
frankly how they were treated by Mayor Gabe Quinto who's up for reelection in
quite a short time. I believe in August. Running uncontested as well, I might add.
And so you know there's a lot of people in this room tonight who are very
motivated and there's a lot of people up here on the City Council who might be
coming up for election. And so I would encourage everybody here if you're
serious about this you can just get the votes next time it comes up and
And everybody on this council maybe could consider that.
Furthermore, OK, I also want to cover
a little bit of technical stuff.
So I run a small consulting company
specializing in cloud infrastructure, networking,
and security.
I work for a lot of AI startups in San Francisco.
One of my primary objectives with these companies
is to help them comply with regulations around data
and how it's managed.
So network segmentation, concepts like data sovereignty,
this is basically the notion of where the data lives,
who owns it, what region of the world it's stored in,
who has access to it, under what legal frameworks
can it be shared, et cetera.
The situation with Flock is that the data
is being stored in a central location.
It's not being co-located within your city.
It's being stored, I don't know,
maybe you can explain what region it's being stored in,
what cloud provider it's being stored in, AWS, perhaps.
These are concerns, I mean,
I don't know if anybody knows the answer to this,
but that really strongly affects
the access control of the data.
And, you know, the thing is,
no matter what they tell you about the policies
and how Flock manages the data,
they're still subject to federal law.
Federal law supersedes any local law
or any company policy or any contract stipulation.
And there's a few laws on the books.
the Cloud Act of 2019, the FISA, which is from 1978,
and the FBI has the ability
to send national security letters.
Now, if the FBI sends a national security letter,
oftentimes it's attached with a gag order.
And this gag order would legally prevent Flock
from informing any of their clients
that the data was requisitioned by the government.
This means that even the lawyers at Flock
would not be informed.
There are reported cases of this.
And so, if you have time to ask him a question,
get him up here on the mic and tell you,
if the federal government asks for the data,
will they be legally allowed to inform you
that that occurred?
Can I get one more minute, anybody?
Can I get one more minute?
Actually, I wanna make sure we have everyone speak.
So, I mean, you're welcome to get another minute,
but there are still folks who haven't spoken yet.
But I have one more very important thing to say, can I?
All right, we got one more.
There's a little bit more in terms of audit logs.
So one of the only tools available for a city
or an independent set of researchers
to use to determine what Flock is doing with the data
is through an audit log.
And Flock provides audit logs on their website
to every municipality.
However, there has been recent reporting as recently as April
from a website called Footnote 4A, where they're basically
analyzing the logs that are publicly available
and finding that between three and 7% of the logs
are changing.
Now, we're talking about audit logs.
This should be an immutable piece of data.
And when this data is queried,
and then queried again a week later,
they're finding unique IDs to have changed,
timestamps to have changed,
strong circumstantial evidence
that the books are being cooked on the flock side.
I mean, the question is like,
if they're providing audit logs,
can they cryptographically sign the logs
and can a third party.
Thank you, thanks for your time.
Thank you.
Hello everybody, I have two minutes.
I have Ziggy and Paul Blake back there,
so three minutes please.
So, let's be clear, surveillance cameras
are a supremacist tool of an authoritarian society.
Okay, I'm gonna say that again.
Surveillance cameras are a supremacist tool
of an authoritarian society.
How do we know?
Some of you have lived under such regimes
where you've been surveilled.
How do you think Israel was so successful
at assassinating so many Iranian officials?
Because Iran is surveilled.
Every corner of Iran is surveilled.
Look around.
The fascist countries have surveillance.
This is not a tool that we want to use here in our community.
And who is safer?
We keep thinking, oh, this is a safety.
Who is safer?
We have been given, you have been provided data by the BPD.
But have, do you even collect the data of how many times
you wrongfully pull over people because of bad data by a flock?
OK.
These cameras, did they tell you all anything about this?
No, have you asked, how many times have they harmed people?
Tremendous harm to people that they pull over,
detain, they've impounded cars,
and caused innocent people harm.
We heard about a woman who was shot five times,
seven holes, and a man from our community here
who's an activist who has been harmed.
Okay, so there's a lot to this story.
I've taken a tally, so far we've had 97 minutes,
that's mean 97 people who oppose this,
three who have supported it.
Okay, in a democracy that would be overwhelming
that of course, you represent us, we all elected you, okay?
Or maybe you're with my former council member
before I got re-districted who doesn't happen to be
on the dais at this moment, so they'll be go unnamed.
When I had a private conversation with them in 2020
and I asked, are you getting lots of calls for,
you know, this was about the police budget,
this was in 2020 with George Floyd,
about the police budget should go up,
and this person said, no,
but I was elected to make a decision,
and I was elected to make a decision
about what I think is best,
not what the community said,
but what, this person literally said that to me.
So you all, are you gonna take that authoritarian,
Like you were elected to make,
because you're the parent and you're the big brother
that you're supposed to make the decision
for your constituents and your community,
or are we part of a democracy?
Are you representing us?
Okay, the audit, the audit was just brought up.
If you do vote for this,
who's going to ensure compliance with this complex contract?
It can't be Flock, it can't be BPD.
Who's it gonna be?
Flip the Berkeley City Council, flipbcc.org.
Check it out.
Go ahead and move the mic so we can hear you.
I'm, I'm Zan Joy, I'm a little hoarse.
Fifty fucking years ago I came to California, I came to the Bay Area.
Why did I come here?
I had a five year old child.
I was 24 years old.
I came here because Berkeley promised to be the kind of country, I'm part of that generation,
that 50s and 60s generation that believed what our teachers told us about social justice,
about civil rights, about ending war.
And Berkeley stood for that when I came here.
I've been so proud.
I've been an activist and a business owner in Berkeley for almost 50 years.
And I've been so proud to be here.
But this is not making me proud.
This is making me so ashamed.
And I already lived in seven states before I came here.
So I didn't, I came here, I knew what I was coming to.
I, I'm not going to say anything new.
Thank you.
Can I have one more minute?
Thanks so much.
Uh, okay.
I'm going to take that minute from the person in the back.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'm not saying anything new, but what I am going to say, you all know, you all know all
the information.
Those of you that are voting yes, I ask you to look inside yourself and figure out what
lack of morality, what lack of humanity is letting you vote for this, letting you accept
that we can be safe through surveillance.
When these women have said, we know how we're going to be safe, equity is the only thing
is going to get us safe, providing ending poverty,
providing caring for everyone in the city.
That's the only thing that will make us safe,
not surveillance, that's all.
Thank you.
Come on up.
I just want to check, is there two people?
There's two people?
Or three?
OK.
OK, go ahead.
Hello, I'm Roberto.
I believe I'm in district four.
I'm not actually sure.
I don't have anything novel to say.
I actually have notes here that just say I'm tired.
So that's really good.
It's been a tough past 10 months for me.
I wouldn't call myself an activist.
I'm definitely not an extremist.
I am employed.
I'm just very tired.
and I feel like if floc happens,
it's kind of over for myself and my friends
and my community.
I feel you can probably guess why
and the activism that I don't want to be doing.
Floc just dooms us.
It's over.
There's nothing else for us.
Yeah, that's it.
I'm tired.
Goodbye.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Sophia O'Brien.
Can I have a minute from someone?
There.
Okay.
Okay.
My name is Sophia O'Brien.
I was born and raised in district four.
At a time when this city is discussing cuts to critical public resources and safety net
programs while hundreds fill your inboxes and this room to demand investment in our communities,
council, well many from this council, plans to spend millions expanding
surveillance infrastructure. Two million dollars plus millions more in inevitable
lawsuits that could go towards preventing crises, supporting vulnerable
residents, and strengthening community services, which is public safety. Instead
our tax dollars are being directed toward expanding systems tied to policing,
federal abductions, racial profiling, and mass incarceration. If you really cared
about public safety you would invest more money into our schools to make sure
that our teachers can afford to live in our city you would invest more money
into affordable housing and ensure the most basic social net for the most
vulnerable in our community is met not sell those same people out as data
points so a billion dollar company can make more off of my community like many
have said you are a public servant and therefore I hope you will act in the
interest of your constituents and if not that will be a stain on this city for
years to come and something that you as an individual will never live down as
long as you are an elected official in our city. To move forward with this
expansion despite the legal warnings, the oversight concerns, the moral failures
and the erosion of public trust would be a profound mistake. The first rule of
fascism and the most important rule is do not obey in advance. Now please for
The first time in forever, stand on the right side
of history and do not sell out your constituents,
the public, in the interest of public safety,
because the public is telling you exactly
what will make us more unsafe.
So please vote no on this contract
on the expansion of more flock in our city.
The public does not want this.
Thank you.
All right, our final in-person speaker.
Go ahead.
I'm Gail Alcock from District 2.
And I think Flock is a big mistake.
And I was really proud when I was at home
to be listening to all the information that came.
And I just hope that it's not news to you, any of the things
that you have heard tonight.
It's not news.
Is that correct?
You didn't hear anything that you didn't already know.
I'm just assuming that that's the truth.
But you do have these commissions
and they do a lot of research.
And then apparently there's this very organized group
that is tremendously committed and dedicated
and has brought so much information.
But really, I think that you all knew anyway,
because I knew without knowing a lot of information
that this is creepy.
I mean you don't need to know much. Thank you. Okay we're gonna take, we've
finished with our in-person comment, if you are online for online comment we
have an hour of online comment please raise your hand so you can get in the
queue and in the meantime we are gonna take another 10 minute stretch break.
Thank you. Okay the microphones are on. Okay hello everyone we are going to take
online public comment now for item number 1A which is the Public Safety
Technology Surveillance Technology Ordinance of Police Equipment Ordinance
Approvals Policy Updates and Contract Authority. So clerk can you please go
ahead and start it. The first speaker has a phone number ending in four zero
five. Hi. I heard. I live in district one. I came to Berkeley in 1952. I just
hated them Berkeley. And I look like another ghetto person. I'm saying show
me the money. What gave us a billion dollars? The answer should be no. We will not take,
we will not be bought. And if the idea that we are paying to be bought is just outrageous.
I do think that I'm one of the board of directors of four local corporations, the best of my
knowledge, not one director, not one constituent of these corporations would vote to endorse
any candidate who endorses the surveillance.
Thank you.
Okay, next is Roddy.
Thank you for your service.
And there are two questions that I have for Mr. Flock.
I really just have these two questions
that I'm really interested in hearing.
They're just yes and no questions if that's possible.
One question is, are there any scenarios
in which Flock would have to share data
with the federal government?
And then are there any scenarios
in which Flock would have to share data
with the federal government and not be able to tell
the city of Berkeley or the local police.
Yes or no.
Sorry, we don't respond to questions
during the comment period,
but those were also asked and answered.
Okay, thank you.
Next is Beth Rossner.
Good evening, Mayor and Council.
This is Beth Rossner,
CEO of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber supports moving forward
with thoughtfully managed public safety technology
and the strong oversight framework in item 1A.
For Berkeley businesses, public safety and economic vitality
are closely connected.
Employees, customers and visitors need to feel safe
in our commercial districts and public spaces
and tools that improve emergency response
and investigations can provide real public benefit.
We're concerned about creating a gap
in public safety capabilities
if existing systems are discontinued
before replacement tools or policies are fully in place.
At the same time, we recognize the legitimate concerns
around privacy, data security, and vendor accountability.
Strong safeguards, transparency, auditing,
and local control over data must remain paramount.
We appreciate the work being done to strengthen oversight
while protecting Berkeley's values
and keeping the city safe and welcoming for all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Della Luna.
Yes, thank you.
I was going to say that this item has taken up
so much of our time and it feels like
with so much of the public being against it,
it shouldn't even be on the table.
It's now to committee multiple times.
And then I think we're up till one o'clock
in the morning talking about it and now again.
And I feel like it just reflects
that you all are not doing your jobs
because we don't elect you,
I guess what I wanna say is you all are professionals
in your own rights, and each of you has a set of expertise,
but no one as individuals or collectively
has the expertise to sign a contract
that's gonna murder, death, kill the constituents.
And we didn't elect you for you to then negotiate contracts.
So there's like a slight of hand going on
where we do elect you to be city council,
but the intention is not for you then to turn around
and murder, death, kill us.
So, yes, you all represent the people
and the people do not want this.
And the notion that flock, you can just sit there,
the Mr. Flock could be there
and you all just ask questions back and forth.
And somehow that's good enough.
Next is Laura Hill.
Oh, wait a second.
Sorry, Laura Hill.
Good evening, my name is Laura
and I'm speaking on behalf of the Bay Area Council.
We are a business association and policy advocacy
organization representing nearly 400 of the region's employers. Three years ago, 125 East Bay
employers asked us to form a coalition in response to concerns about safety in the future of the
region. This coalition strongly supports the continued use of ALPR and related technology in
Berkeley. Technology is a critical public safety tool, particularly for departments facing staffing
challenges. On the ground every day, these tools help officers recover stolen property,
prevent human trafficking, and identify suspects in violent crimes. We've also seen across the
East Bay and the broader region that this technology can be implemented with appropriate
safeguards that balance the needs of community privacy with public safety. Finally and importantly,
since many nearby cities are already applying this technology, using compatible tools strengthens
coordination and safety across jurisdictions. Thank you for your consideration and your continued
leadership in Berkeley. Next is Tracy Rosenberg. Yes, one second. Tracy Rosenberg from Oakland
Privacy. Let's be clear. While fully aware of dozens of local sanctuary ordinances, California,
SB34 and SB54, flock chose to let Customs and Border Patrol into their database and hold
absolutely no one. In my news today, Shaker Heights, Ohio, a city with a sanctuary policy,
announced that other agencies searched their flop database for the purpose of immigration
enforcement 273 times in the last three months. This year, it is happening and it is continuing
to happen every single day. You can't negotiate with companies that are lying to you. No on
the continent. Thank you. Next speaker is Wendy Alfson. Thank you. Madam Mayor and Council
speaking on behalf of the Berkeley Friends Meeting in opposition to the approval of these
eight items on your agenda.
Just like to point out that each of them merits
a separate agenda item with the opportunity for consideration.
It's been very difficult throughout this process
to have any attention on the policies
that underlie all of this.
Like to point out that in addition to all of the other things
have been raised particularly by the police accountability board. I ask you to pay special
attention to their recommendations. Their most recent one of May 6th on the purchase
hold purchase order contracting issue really requires. Thank you. Next is Audrey Kramer.
Good evening city council and mayor my name is Audrey Kramer and I am a sophomore at UC
Berkeley and a district six resident. I am currently looking at the city manager's proposed
27-28 budget and balancing plan um and so my question for you today is why are we sitting here?
Berkeley isn't a ridiculous budget deficit um on page 52 of this report the city manager outlines
the eight policemen that Berkeley is firing this year. Every department in the city is losing 10%
of its budget and Flock is clearly highly unpopular. So I would suggest that you use
this exorbitant amount of money to follow the police accountability board's recommendation
for an RFP on this matter or use this money for literally anything else. Thank you so much for
your time. Have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Eduardo. I'm Latino
And when extremist ideological experiments go wrong, people die.
Socialist extremist policies failed Cuba and Venezuela.
Millions suffered.
Here in California, DSA-driven defunding of police helped create this out of control crime wave.
And now you want us to do what?
Keep trusting your failed social experiment?
Here in Berkeley, even common sense liberals are now called fascists and bullied into silence.
Look, the city's number one job is still to protect residents and businesses
with proven tools, not gamble with public safety based on ideology and zero evidence.
What happens when cities turn off flock? Richmond stop cameras a few months, auto thefts jump by a
third. That's not theory, that's documented facts. So who's paying the highest price? It's working
class black and brown families. Most are single car households and when that one car is stolen,
it's not a small inconvenience. People lose jobs, kids miss school, families lose their homes,
Stolen cars become stolen lives
Time is up. Thank you
Next is
Devon
Devon you should
You should be able to unmute
last call for Devon
Alright
Let's go to mr
Hello, I'm a resident a data engineer and a former defense technologist
I'm embarrassed to have Shoshana O'Keefe as my representative floc is not a public safety company
They are a data broker as a data here
I'm telling you that the oversight narrative for this contract is technically infeasible
The city and the berkeley police department will absolutely not have the independent technical capacity to oversee monitor or manage berkeley data generated by floc
As a survivor myself, I completely reject the use of survivor trauma as justification for warrantless mass surveillance
commercial surveillance companies and our products do not address the causes of violence or crime
and survivors too deserve want and have rights to privacy shame on you for invoking survivor
trauma to enable mass surveillance thank you and just a reminder to folks to not refer to
specific council members you have to refer to us as a body okay one more try for uh devin
Devin, you should be able to unmute. No Devin next is Makai Freeman.
Can you give her extra time, please? Thank you.
Good afternoon City Council. I'm not representing any organization tonight but myself as a type
residents. We recently saw the reversal of voting rights in the Caledon city. We know
it happened during COVID-19. We know we have serious problems with our police department.
I thank our police officers for treating us well. I am. I can. I am. I care about folks.
But you know all of you on the diet know there's going to be abuses.
you are a public servant when a person says no. Listen, I'm a drug
result. I'm those who have been removed and killed my parents without the current
sharing members. It is a false dichotomy that if you don't want the veiled, don't care about
public safety. And for art budgets, they have an un-
Thanks, Magi.
Next is a phone number ending in 453.
I think that's Chair Kaitano.
ask for that minute. Chair Kaitano, can you hear us?
It needs to unmute first. Phone number ending in 453, you should be able to unmute, star
6 to unmute. There you go.
There you go. Hi everyone. Josh Kaitano, chair of the police accountability board.
I believe I have direction minutes from people online if they could raise their hand. So
four minutes total. Could you give us their names because a lot of people are raising
their hands. Oh, um, I don't know what their name is listed as. Um, Chip, Adrianna, and
Layla. Okay. One of them is calling on by phone. Oh, Chip, did you say Chip? I don't
see. Okay, one more time. Chip, what were the other two? Adrianna and Layla. Okay, I
see Adrianna. And Layla. I see Adrianna and Layla on there, and do you see them, Mark?
you see Adriana Laila Laila Nasrolahi yes I'm sorry yes yes I see chip more on
though so we'll get you that Josh well I'll see if I can get you that third
minute in here but just let's for now check on those other two I want to make
sure we keep moving yeah so we got three minutes it more gets on then that will
be afford. Oh, the third minute. I've got your third
minute here. Okay, so for total, right? Okay, thank you. Um, my
name is Josh Kratana. I'm chair of the police accountability
board, also a graduate of Berkeley law and I do three
residents. First, I would just like to note that nobody has
asked BPD or finance about their supplemental and why they are
no longer standing behind their first proposed resolution. I can
tell you why the PID sent a letter this week where we
explain that BPD has failed residents of Berkeley
by exclusively pursuing a contract with Flock
without a competitive procurement process,
even after the city council sent them back
to the drawing board on Flock in fall 2025.
And the city did that again this spring.
And so they had to pivot.
The city manager said during the comment section
that we do this all the time.
And that's exactly the issue.
It's one the city auditor recently faulted the city for.
40% of its contracts were not competitively bid
and the default rule is a competitive process.
He also compared this to a contract for a truck
or a pencil.
But we're not talking about trucks and pencils.
We're talking about the largest expansion
of police surveillance technology in Berkeley's history.
Now BPD is trying to claim that Flock is the best out there
that nobody else has a comparable product,
but this is what's best for Berkeley,
but they cannot back that up without a competitive process.
And that's something Berkeley and deserve.
Second, and speaking for myself now,
there's also been a lot of talk
about safety from flock supporters,
but flock does not keep our community safe.
We do.
I recently spoke with leaders in Elmwood and DM3
who are monitoring the neighborhood around Sylvia Mendez,
making sure children are safe and protected from ice.
That is safety.
I also talk every month with members
of the Mayor's Sanctuary City Task Force
with people who are tirelessly coordinating mutual aid
for our community.
That is safety.
And I spoke with members, some members of BPD
and list three who are building relationships in schools
and on the streets with people in high risk areas.
That is safety.
Flock does not make us safe.
We do.
Third, there's also been a lot of talk
from Flock supporters about accountability.
Go up to the supporters and ask them
what their track record is
on police accountability in Berkeley.
BPD buried their audit on the last pages of report
that they had identified Berkeley's own data
with search for ICE and DHS.
They didn't bring that to the council's attention.
We did.
BPD did not have the courage to say what that was
and call it what it was, of a trail of our trust,
and said they explained it away.
And still, what I hear them saying is
that they don't know exactly what that was,
but I think that sitting there today,
if they're asking for you to contract with Flock,
they should admit it.
Why should we trust what they say if they can't admit,
even with their own audit log they're showing?
The last three years, our accountability institutions
have been undermined, subverted and defunded,
and tonight this accountability can start.
Make it happen, thank you all.
Thanks, Josh.
OK, next is Kelsey Jackson.
Thank you.
Yes, my name is Dr. Kelsey Jackson.
I'm in District 1, and I'm concerned
about the similarities and surveillance
between Israel and the United States in this moment.
I'm an expert in the perceptions of intercultural empathy
peace and the other between Palestinians and Israelis.
I spent time in the Middle East.
I spent time in Palestine and Israel.
I walked around the inside of the wall of Palestine
a military checkpoint where headstones littered the brush while I stared down by four Israeli
soldiers each holding their AK-47s as they watched me.
While in Palestine 10 years ago, I saw firsthand the detriment of overt surveillance and saw
firsthand the way it impeded the lives of Palestinians.
They weren't able to self-organize.
They weren't able to gather.
They weren't able to protest without threat of being imprisoned or killed.
uses the same surveillance technology in their Red Wolf and Blue Wolf surveillance as Flock,
and it's now being embedded into our cities, our communities, to our neighbors.
We are on a dangerous path to normalizing mass surveillance and infringing on our next year
comment. Next is Tim McKenzie, Tim McKenzie. Hi, my name is Tim McKenzie. I'm a member of
the Democratic Socialists of America. I'm here to encourage you to get rid of ALPRs,
cancel the Flock contract. I actually believe Mr. Flock saying that they are an industry leader,
and honestly that's embarrassing for the industry. Flock only just introduced two-factor authentication
that was just admitted at Sunnyvale City Council last month. They haven't been,
they have had less data security than applying for a job. It is really impossible to believe
that they will be able to protect the data. And it's been illegal in California to share
data outside of the state for a decade. And they have spent years doing that, having a nationwide
lookup tool. They've already broken trust. They cannot be relied upon. You need to cancel the
contract. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Mary Lynn Morales. Hi, thank you. I'm a long-time Berkeley
resident, a homeowner, and a small business owner in Berkeley, and members of the City Council, I
beseech you in the strongest possible terms. Do not renew the FLOC contract as proposed. I am more
afraid of flock than I'm afraid of crime in Berkeley. Crime is already down. Everyone
has talked about it. We don't need to expand our invasions of privacy and further militarize
our police force. Save us from the constant fear of Big Brother. Please. Please. Thank
you. Thank you. Next is Jordan. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Cool. My name is Jordan. I live
I lived in Berkeley for about 22, 23 years,
recently moved, still very connected to this community,
I go to UC Berkeley Law.
And I am joining the overwhelming chorus
of people who are asking you to drop the flop contract.
I'd like to also expand upon that and say,
I think that as we built this grassroots power
and this grassroots movement against flop,
we've also seen people more broadly
take a stand against mass surveillance in general,
and that includes drones and that includes shot spotter
and that includes all of these technologies
that get woven together into this intricate web
of mass surveillance that we are trying to prevent
and cannot escape.
And I had other things to say,
but I think you're gonna vote how you're gonna vote.
I don't know if us saying this is gonna sway anyone,
but I wanted to add my voice to the chorus
and I hope that you listen to your constituents.
Thank you.
Just another instance of Wendy Alfson here.
Is this Wendy or somebody else?
Hi, my name is Marilyn Cleveland.
Okay.
And I'm a resident of Berkeley and a retired attorney
who spent 30 years advising public entities
concerning public contracts.
The Daily Cal recently published an article
about a leaked city attorney memo
describing the city's exposure to multimillion dollar
lawsuits if the council proceeds to renew
expand the floc contracts. The article states that the proposed contract follows floc standard
terms and conditions. Public entities including Berkeley should start with their own contracting
procedures from the city's form of contract, not from a standard form that the private entity
trying to contract with the city provides, even if that another public entity has accepted those
terms. Piggybacking on another public entity's contract is one way to comply with the California
Public Contract Code. Piggybacking does not waive the city's responsibility to comply with
applicable state and municipal requirements, including sanctuary laws and military equipment
reporting requirements. That's your time. Next is Zachary. Hi, I'm Zach, a D1 resident. I think
I think that cameras and ALPRs are a useful tool for solving crimes and gain convictions and we should stand against crime, but this is about something different. This is aggregation.
There are other ways to get these tools that don't grant automatic third party access. And this is really a conversation about civil liberties.
I was lucky enough to be born and live in a world before the Patriot Act.
year after year our rights are trimmed back and on average we saw a drop of four deaths per year
due to terrorism before and after the Patriot Act. We could have asked everyone just to wear
seat belts and it probably would have been more effective. A contract with Flock will not fix our
criminal justice system and it will not be in a step in the right direction. We need to aggregate
sorry it will aggregate our data into their cloud so that it can be served up the very
moment a whiskey soaked FISA warrant shows up with NSPM seven written on it. Next is Fabiola.
Fabiola D5, Madam Mayor and the city council members, I urge you all to heed the warning
from the city attorney regarding the potential liability Berkeley faces if it renews its contract
with Flock. Please don't waste our money. Regarding that op-ed my city council member co-wrote in the
the BS that claims flock keeps us safe? Well that's BS. The op-ed talks about
arrests made for crimes that were committed. Where is the public safety
there? Crimes were committed. They were not prevented.
Flock does not make us safe. Again, this proposal represents the largest
expansion of surveillance infrastructure in the city's history and
directly undermines Berkeley's long-standing commitment to being a
sanctuary city to those up at writers supporting the surveillance system is
totally MAGA please vote no to renew the flog contract thank you next is Keon
You're echoing.
Apologies.
Can you hear me now?
Yep.
Can you hear me now?
Um,
Yeah, just, uh,
Wanted to say that BPD and council members argue that up to, uh,
$2 million for private surveillance technology is needed to compensate
for BPD staffing challenges.
The department's running well below, but like,
because the department's running well below authorized surveillance
technology.
So it's not going to be.
It's not going to be.
It's going to be.
I don't know.
It's not going to be.
It's not going to be.
It's not going to be.
the department is running well below authorized strength,
but it's actually a false choice.
Technology and staffing have never been interchangeable.
In reality, ALPR cameras generate leads
but require officers to actually investigate them.
And BPDs reduced staffing means fewer investigators
available to follow up on ALPR hits.
And peer-reviewed research already suggests
ALPR's effectiveness depends on dedicated units.
Creating that capacity requires staffing, not cameras,
but BPD itself calls this technology a resource multiplier
even as it's ready to fund that resource multiplier
by eliminating up to six sworn officer positions.
So BPD's argument for Flock actually highlights the need
to actually invest in people
rather than the surveillance technology.
Thank you so much.
Thanks so much.
Next is Ralph.
Ralph, you should be able to unmute.
Ralph Brown, can you hear us?
Can you please unmute?
Nope.
Okay, we'll come back to you.
Next is Catherine Lewis.
Hello, I'm here tonight and can only think
about how this body has failed its residents,
its constituents over and over again.
I can only think of the infants in Gaza four days old
who were bombed in their apartment
because of surveillance.
You've all heard of the Palestine laboratory.
Well, the Berkeley city council is complicit
because they failed, failed to condemn genocide in Gaza
and continue to fail.
Don't fail the children of Berkeley as well.
Say no to flock.
We do not need this surveillance.
What a waste.
Look into your hearts and do the right thing.
Thank you.
Go back to Ralph Brown.
Ralph, are you there?
Go ahead and unmute.
Okay.
Can you hear me?
Yes, yes, there you go.
Excellent.
Just wanting to note from the supporters,
there's a lot of money that's actually invested
in the Berkeley city council members
from some of the supporters like Bay Area Council,
who is most notably a prime backer of flock
in the Bay Area.
And that comes out to amount of about $81,000.
And also with the Berkeley Police Officers Association
for existing members of city council.
I mean it comes out to even more should actually be listening.
I hope you are actually listening to what concerned constituents are actually telling
you to do as it comes to this surveillance.
It's not actually keeping you safe.
What it is is just a feel good measure for a lot of these folks and it doesn't actually
guarantee safety for most people.
Thanks your time set.
is Al Mira. Hi there, my name is Al Mira. I'm a resident of District 5 and I've known about
Flock for a little bit but it wasn't until I got an email from the Electronic Frontier Foundation
telling me that the organization that I lead, Direct Action Everywhere, I showed up in searches
that they've done looking into Flock over 50 different times and over 50 times people who have
been doing public property protests have been surveilled and their license plates have been
tracked. And this is happening to residents of Berkeley. I am your constituent. This is
happening to my friends who are your constituents. So this is not a hypothetical. This has already
been used to suppress free speech and intimidate people trying to make the world a better place.
And I strongly encourage you to vote no on this contract to protect people in Berkeley and
and everywhere who are fighting for a better world.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Mimi.
Mimi, you should be able to unmute.
There you go.
Hi there.
My name is Mimi.
I've lived for eight years on district eight,
and I thought and hoped when I moved to Berkeley
that this would be a place that reflects my values.
The hundreds of people that have spoken tonight
and the hundreds of people that have spoken
at the tear gas commission meeting,
those people reflect my values.
The people I've been working with at our BUFD school
and in my neighborhood to set up community watch
and mutual aid networks, those people reflect my values.
I feel like I really shouldn't have to worry
about the Berkeley City Council embracing,
the City of Berkeley embracing
the approaches and tools of fascism.
I'm appalled and livid that we're all here again tonight.
This dynamic where your constituents beg you and droves
to act in our best interest.
And then the council acts at the opposite,
it's awful, it's disgusting, it's gross.
And I'm begging you literally on my knees,
please, please, please do not move forward with block.
Thank you.
Next is Chelsea.
Hi, my name is Chelsea.
I grew up on military bases.
Just one second, I'm fixing the echo.
I grew up on military bases,
specifically with in-depth knowledge about military warfare
and psychological warfare.
What Flock is, is it's an arm for Nazism,
it's an arm for the military,
and it's a tool for direct psychological warfare and control.
And people know this, it's obvious, follow the money.
For example, the founders and the people that pay for Flock,
Peter Thiel, he's in charge of Palantir
and sells intelligence tools to ICE, DHS, and the Pentagon.
Another example, Maritech Capital gives floc a lot of money,
makes a lot of decisions.
That's owned by the US military, by the Air Force.
None of this is subtle.
These firms bankroll companies that surveil, detain,
or kill in the name of national security.
We don't want this.
Furthermore.
I'd like to, no it's not.
Next is J.L.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes.
Thank you.
I'm a longtime Berkeley community member.
I've seen videos where members of the public
can hack into these feeds.
That means anyone with the tools
could use these feeds to follow women home
or could access playground feed and watch kids,
which has already been reported in other cities
could follow home someone who just bought something expensive and find out where they live in order
to rob them. So from those perspectives Fox flock actually introduces the possibility for more crimes
to happen. I've also seen reports where police themselves have used surveillance tools to follow
their ex-partners around not because the partner was part of anything criminal but rather because
the officer was stuck enough for personal reasons. As someone else has said there's no special wording
that could possibly be used in a contract that could ensure the data will be safe. You can introduce
fines, but this is a slap on the wrist to a company like Flock. Many cities are realizing
that these risks, these are risks they do not want to take. The legal risk that it opens the city to
and the actual data security risk. Many have cancelled their contracts and this is what
Berkeley should do. As someone else has said, please heed the warning from the city attorney
and do not waste their money. Thanks so much for your comments. Next is Wilhelmina. Hi, this is
is Wilhelmina Condon. I'm in district seven and I've been watching these and coming to
these city council meetings and I'm completely gobsmacked at how the council has set themselves
up as sort of a paternalistic know-all completely disregarding their constituents. To me this
This issue in the city of Berkeley is outrageous.
It's a no brainer.
There's nothing that I've studied, nothing that I've heard
that makes this a good decision.
Please start representing us, not against us.
We're not your enemy.
We voted for you.
We would never have voted for you
if we imagined that you would do something like this.
No, on flock.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Todd Andrew.
Oh, hi, Council.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Hey, Todd Andrew, District 5.
I know this is a tough decision.
And we all know that crime was coming down
before the implementation of the cameras.
And we all know that the cameras helped to solve crime.
So it's a tough decision.
But we have a regime at the federal level
who has proved lawless and unaccountable
along with their immigration and customer enforcement
and customs and border patrol agencies.
And we've had capitulations on the part of media.
We've had capitulations on the part of law firms
and other organizations in this country.
Who's to say floc is not gonna do the same thing?
I would urge you, can we keep, please,
maybe the hardware in place
for when the Trump regime has been vanquished
and then turn them back on once they are the hell out of here.
Thanks a lot.
Thanks, Todd.
Next is Giggy.
Hi, I'm Giggy Geronimo.
I'm a resident of El Cerrito, where we just successfully
beat our flock contract.
And like others, I frequently come to Berkeley
to visit friends, go to restaurants,
and check out your parks.
And so while I'm relieved that I'm not
going to be surveilled at home, I
don't want to be watched when I come to your city.
And your decision today is not about cameras.
it's about flock and I want to talk about how bad and toxic of a company flock is.
Berkeley is a reputable city with a reputation of being a beacon of progressiveness.
I don't really know what you all are doing contracting with
the most disreputable company on the market.
Engaging in mass surveillance is going to tarnish your reputation.
50 cities have already canceled their contracts.
Even Ring, which is a mass surveillance company,
has canceled its contracts.
You all need to wake up and realize that you are living in 1939 Germany.
So whatever you imagine that you would do
if you were alive during Nazi Germany,
you are doing that right now.
How will you feel in six or 12 months
when one of your residents starts disappearing
because they were protesting
and you have to live with the realization
that you greenlit the technology that made that possible?
How will you sleep at home?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Jen.
Jen, you should be able to unmute.
Hi, I'm a district five resident
and I strongly oppose doing business with Flock.
And honestly, I feel a real sense of despair
that we're even having this debate.
Flock has shown itself to be untrustworthy time and again.
And it seems to me to be magical thinking
to believe that Berkeley can somehow prevent data sharing
when so many other jurisdictions couldn't.
The question before the council tonight
is not simply one of local safety.
I really, really wish it was,
but unfortunately the real question here
is whether Berkeley is going to voluntarily contribute
to a mass surveillance network
that aids inhumane political agendas
and imperils the privacy rights, well-being,
and sometimes the lives of countless people.
Dr. Maya Angelou once said,
when people show you who they are,
believe them the first time.
Flock Safety has shown us over and over who they are.
Please believe them and vote no
on continuing to do business with Flock.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is username just says iPhone.
If you continue to work with Flock,
You will be personally responsible for the arrest of women who have abortions,
like happened in Texas when police performed a nationwide search of cameras last May.
Block employees accessing videos of children's gymnastics rooms,
a playground, a school, a Jewish community center, and a swimming pool in Atlanta, Georgia.
Police drawing guns on innocent families, including children, which happened in Arkansas.
police dogs mauling innocent black drivers
like happened in West Hollywood just in March.
The detention and subsequent torture of immigrants
because according to the ACLU,
records revealed that many flock searches
were carried out by local officers on behalf of ICE.
Stalking of romantic partners by police,
which has already been documented 14 times
per the Justice Institute.
75 year old grandmas being repeatedly pulled over
due to misidentified plates,
which has happened in Boulder, Colorado
over the last few months, and countless other crimes.
Next is John Lindsay Poland.
Hi, there have been several claims this evening
that when Richmond turned off its flock cameras,
that crime went up,
and this is just a misreading of the data.
Richmond's cameras went on in April, 2023.
They turned them off in November of 2025.
During that period between 2022 and 2024,
robbery rates when the time,
when the flood cameras were on,
robbery rates went up by 29%.
Sexual assault went up by 22%.
Vehicle theft went up by 6.6%.
Arson went up by 15% from the times
when the flood cameras were off.
This is just a misstatement of the facts.
Crime responds to a lot of other things
besides whether people are being watched.
and this is just not one more reason
that you should be convinced.
Please stand with the people
and vote no on the contract.
Thank you.
Next is Amelia.
Hey guys, I'm yet another District 5 resident
ashamed of my representative.
Really, really embarrassed.
I know you're not listening.
Your own lawyer and auditor have told you not to do this
and you're pushing through anyway.
Two weeks ago, you were talking about the $30 million deficit,
but suddenly you found the money to pay for the lawsuits that
are going to come from this.
I'm really proud of you for finding the money.
Love to know where it came from.
Seems like there are better ways to spend tens of millions
of dollars that your own lawyer have told you
you're opening us up to.
PPD staffing issues have everything
to do with the erosion of community trust
and the fact that they're lying to you and us
to get to get more toys to play with to spy on us
is not helping.
It's actually hurting their own staffing issues
and the community trust that they keep claiming
they want to build.
It's not going to be built on this.
You want to spy on kids playgrounds.
You want to track down your ex-girlfriend.
Do it on somebody else's dime.
This is a bad idea.
I wish you'd listen.
We're all just standing,
your time's up right now.
Next is Avery Arbaugh, you're unmuted.
Avery, you're unmuted, can you hear us?
Avery, are you there?
Maybe we come back tonight.
We'll come back.
Next is Anne Dixon.
Hi there, my name is Anne and I live in District One.
And I just wanted to also mention that I believe Trevor
has, Trevor Chandler, Mr. Flock,
has clear conflicts of interest in this.
that he's been working with us.
He is not only a board member of that,
of the Bay Area Council,
which their public safety initiative
has come to these meetings twice.
They were in here earlier and pushed Flock.
He's also an elected member
of the San Francisco Democratic party.
And I just, this is way too close.
It's inappropriate for Berkeley.
And I think that Flock has, once again,
just wasted a bunch of people's time.
They cannot do what they say.
And I mean, this is inappropriate.
We cannot, you all can not actually like approve a contract
with what is going on right now.
Like this has to be talked about before that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Just so folks know we've got about 13 speakers left,
but only about 11 minutes.
Oh, sorry, 13 minutes.
So it's, so we might lose some folks cause of the timing.
Next is Vince.
Hi, Vince Montavong, district five, excuse me, district five.
A lot of the council questions really frustrated me earlier
because I think we got bogged down in questions
about our sanctuary policies
or what language we can put in the contract
or what about this hypothetical?
But we're basically saying at the end of the day,
we're gonna build the surveillance state,
but Berkeley City Council is gonna have control over it.
And I have an issue with that.
I'm not comfortable with that.
I don't care if you're in a left-wing person
or a right-wing person or if you're the president
or if you're the city council.
I don't want you to be spying on me no matter who you are.
So I just feel like this is the type,
we'd like to march for no kings.
This is the type of system that a king would build
to control the people.
So we have to oppose this.
Please vote no on this item.
Thank you.
Mark, can we try to get Avery back?
I think Avery's got their hand up again.
Yes.
Okay, Avery, you're unmuted.
Can you hear me this time?
Yes.
Okay, fantastic.
Good evening, mayor, nightmare, and council members.
My name is Avery.
I'm the chair of the Berkeley Tenants Union
and head of the Berkeley Tenant Organizing Task Force.
After Measure BB was passed, one of the first things,
our first building-wide tenants union
to enter bargaining with their landlord fought for
was a data privacy safety plan
to protect their undocumented neighbors from ICE.
Berkeley residents care about this issue.
I'm proud that through bargaining
and with the pressure of our union,
they got a plan in place that means
that their personal data is now more secure
than the data of the average Berkeley resident
whose license plate is scanned
by a floc automatic license plate reader.
Berkeley city government should not be doing a worse job
at keeping our data secure than slumlords.
Please vote against this contract
and keep our neighbors safe.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is, so a lot of people are talking about drones, cameras, software, keeping us safe.
As others have said, there's no independent evidence that shows that any of that's the
surveillance methods, decreased crime or improved clearance rates, right?
There's no independent studies on this, but I also want to talk about what it means for
us to do this.
Even if it did keep us safe, we would be throwing everyone else under the bus in the states
and localities that Mr. Flock said, this stuff is legal. They follow the law. That means in Texas,
they harass trans people and find women getting abortions. In Kansas, where they overnight made
trans drivers license illegal, they can track them down. So why would we give our money to
this company, help train their AI models? It's impossible to remove data from an AI model. Once
it's been trained, we don't have that capability. Why would we do that? Even if it did keep us safe,
why would we throw everyone else in the country under the bus, all of our marginalized communities?
questions. Thank you. Uh,
Devin, Devin, you should be
being able to you. Yeah Yeah,
here I am. Can you hear me?
Yes Hi. My name is Dr Devin
pastika. I've lived in Berkeley
for over 20 years and have been
really happy here. I live in
District three with then Bart
left as my council member, and,
I just can't believe like basically a system
that I don't consent to and so many of us don't consent to
will be just rolled out like this.
And I can't believe that El Cerrito
voted the FLAC proposal down
and here in this progressive left leaning city
that I really have been excited about living in,
that they're actually believing
that a private corporation will be responsible
and trustworthy with all of our surveillance data.
And that the courts, of course,
and federal agencies can, the courts can.
Thanks for your comment, your time's up.
Next is Deb.
Hi, I just wanted to point out what hasn't been discussed
that there's a potential for increasing costs over time
with Flock as a subscription service
that they can raise their fees over time
and apparently they've done that with other jurisdictions.
So that's kind of another cost that the current council
is putting us in for going forward, my understanding.
And that's it.
Thank you.
Next is Ann Parker.
Ann, are you there?
Ann Parker.
Let me start over.
When I hear mass surveillance being considered
as a way of life in Berkeley,
I just don't recognize the city I've lived in for years
as a student, mom, grandma, pediatrician.
I'm sure this is not the will of Berkeley residents.
What's the city council missing and why?
This is contrary to the reason we live in Berkeley
and in this country,
a country built on generations of people
who fled fascism and autocracy.
Please support democracy and civil liberties
and not autocracy and distrust.
Safety's associated with community, supporting communities
through funding its institutions, not mass surveillance.
Please hear us, hear the majority of those
speaking to you tonight,
and the majority of citizens in Berkeley,
vote against surveillance,
and begin by voting against this contract with floss,
for many reasons presented tonight.
Most of us,
most law rethink supporting facets.
Thank you.
Thank you.
next is MP. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. I'm a district five resident and I just wanted
to come here tonight to say that like I've listened to everybody's wonderful comments.
I've learned a lot from everybody here and whether or not you are pro or against or whatever
your political leanings are or whatever, whether you believe like we're living under fascism
and whatnot. It doesn't matter that there has been decades of research into the sorts
of things that can be done by a community and in civil infrastructures to reduce crime,
to stop crime. The surveillance infrastructure is never one of those things. I mean, somebody
brought up the Patriot Act earlier, and I just wanted to bounce off that because the
Act has been around longer than I've been alive. And my whole life, I've been hearing
about crime, crime, crime, crime. And the Patriot Act is it gives it gives intelligence
agencies and the government the ability to hear a minute is up. Thank you.
Next is Whitney Sparks. I am a black mom and tenant organizer in
District Seven demanding that you reject and cancel the contract with flock expansion of
the fascist MAGA police surveillance state flock is a fascist escalation diametrically
an irreconcilably opposed to Berkeley's sanctuary city policy, there is no way to ethically
vote to deploy Flock in a quote-unquote sanctuary city, and there is especially no way to ethically
ignore a vast majority of Berkeley's civilian constituents, legal counsel, UC Research,
and the police accountability board, all of whom overwhelmingly reject this, listen,
know on Flock, cancel the contract, reject Flock, and break democracy, if you still plan
to vote for Flock tonight, you should just resign instead before expanding the most of
various surveillance technology in the world to vote resources to essential tech-like public
Zoom meetings that don't boot constituents multiple times in between pandemics.
Do not wait for further harm to come to your constituents.
Community and neighbors like Martinez shot five times and the giant psychological toll
of knowing that we are being stalked undemocratically by local police and government.
Whitney, your time's up.
Next is Gustavo.
Gustavo Espinoza, high-performance computing
machine learning engineer.
One thing I want to bring up is that the whole, I mean,
in terms of an efficiency thing, the technology
is just not efficient.
The models are open source.
You're able to find them online.
And you're essentially just paying for two million dollars
for server costs, that doesn't really make sense.
You could just hire an engineer to do this stuff for you.
There's no fiscal reason why you would
invest $2 million in Flock.
Lastly, there's something I do want to bring up.
There's been a lot of parallel between Palestine and Israel,
and it's kind of weird that Mr. Flock used
to be associated with APAC up until like 2018, 2019.
That's kind of telling.
There's more to say about the tag differences
and if anyone's curious.
Thanks, your time's up.
Next is KC.
There's only three people left.
I'd like to let them go, so.
Well, there's more raised than that.
Well, I'm gonna take those three people
that we just said that were left.
KC.
Hi, this is Karen Chan.
I'm a resident of district four.
I've been here for the past five years
in Berkeley for six years.
I just want to encourage the council
and the mayor to vote no on this contract
because this type of surveillance technology
is very clearly counter to the aim of community safety
and obviously drain on taxpayer resources.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And, okay.
And next is Kelly Hammergren.
Kelly should be able to shows that you're unmuted.
Kelly, can you hear us?
You're unmuted.
We can come back to Kelly.
C-ROC.
Hi, hi.
Good evening, mayor and members of the city council.
My name is Sean McKeel.
I actually am right outside,
but just came back from the housing advisory commission.
we will not be safe with any version of a floc contract.
Floc, which has already shared data with ICE,
will not fight in a court order to protect the city's data.
There is nothing we can put in our contract
to prevent Floc from sharing this.
And in previous violations of the law and contract by Floc,
cities were unaware of data privacy breaches
until after they already happened.
In several cases, city officials still don't know
the extent of what happened with their constituents' data.
Violations could happen without any of us knowing.
Law enforcement have violated fault contracts
and use private data to detain immigrants,
punish people seeking abortions,
they even stalk ex-partners of police officers.
And even if we believe BPD's claim
that Flock will have resulted
hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings,
which I do not,
this contract exposed the city
to tens of millions of dollars in liability,
as documented in the city attorney's memos
provided to the Daily Cal.
Please listen to the community and stop Flock.
Thanks, Ciroc.
I see Kelly's iPad, that probably is Kelly.
Yes, and that would be our last speaker.
Okay, can you hear me this time?
Yes, we can.
You are our final speaker for this evening.
Oh, that's a big responsibility.
People have said so much tonight, it's hard to even add anything to that.
Flock is a nationwide surveillance system.
the wrong decision. It's the wrong way to go. And I plead
with you, plead with you to say no to floc. There just isn't
anything good that I have been able to find about it, except
looking at the floc website, maybe. But everything else I
pick up is about all the problems with floc and how data
is shared and misused and we just shouldn't be doing that in the city of Berkeley. So I plead
with you to please say no and if there hadn't been a line I'd be there in person. Thanks Kelly.
Okay thank you so much everyone. I appreciate hearing all of the public comments. We have now
had three hours of public comment, two hours in person, one hour online so we
will now move on to council comments starting with council member Blackby.
Great thank you Madam Mayor. So we started first I just wanted to thank
everyone who came for speaking out and singing out as the case may be tonight.
Over the past few weeks and especially the last couple of days I've heard from
many residents on all sides of this issue.
I appreciate all the thoughtful emails
and phone calls we've received
from folks in District Six,
from former colleagues on the Police Accountability Board,
from local business owners,
from members of the Berkeley Immigration Collective,
and so many others.
And today, with the benefit of that feedback and that input,
I wanna share how I'm making this decision
weighing these many factors.
The concerns that I've heard and I know many of us
have heard from constituents are real and serious.
Data privacy, the risk of federal authorities
gaining access to local data,
and the safety of vulnerable members of our community.
Given the Trump administration's aggressively
unlawful immigration enforcement actions,
those worries are not abstract.
I take them seriously and they have shaped
how I'm approaching this vote.
Berkeley's police department is among
the finest in the country.
Chief Ruiz, Deputy Chief Tate, Mr. Momburg,
and our officers serve our community every day
with professionalism, intelligence, dedication,
and compassion.
I strongly support the work of the BPD
and everything they do to keep our community safe every day.
I also strongly support the use of modern technology
with clear guardrails and frequent audits
to advance public safety.
ALPR technology has proven,
I hope I think you'll like what I have to say,
ALPR technology has proven to be an important
investigative tool.
Over the past 18 months,
FOCALPRs have assisted Berkeley police
in more than 161 cases,
contributing to 83 arrests involving serious crimes,
such as attempted homicide, hit and runs,
carjackings, assaults and kidnappings,
including six alerts in just one day last week
that led to a series of investigative follow-ups.
Behind these numbers are real people.
I heard earlier tonight,
People were trying to discount the numbers,
but these are all real people and families
who benefited from timely investigations
and in some cases, the prevention of further harm.
In District 6 alone, I reviewed the list
that I got from the department.
In District 6 alone, ALPRs have helped to solve
a series of home invasion robberies,
recover stolen vehicles,
apprehend a roofing and construction scam ring,
yes, those exist, and get justice for a sexual assault
victim.
These people matter, too.
Some critics have suggested that we hire more police officers
instead of licensing technology tools.
Unfortunately, this is a false choice.
Despite focused work on recruitment and retention,
BPD has been understaffed for years, not for a lack of effort.
But this is a hard market to recruit and retain police
officers.
And in just the past few months, Berkeley has lost six officers to San Francisco's aggressive
recruitment campaign.
We can't just hire our way out of this.
On the contrary, providing officers with effective tools is part of how we recruit and retain
them.
Walking away from modern technology would make our staffing problem worse, not better.
At the same time, the city must ensure that any public safety technology is procured from
a company that can earn and maintain the public's trust. That community trust is crucial to
me and to everyone up here. Flock has faced criticism for past data sharing practices,
rightfully so, involving outside agencies without local authorization. These concerns
have understandably created real skepticism within parts of our community. We've heard
much of it here tonight. I've heard much of it over the last couple of weeks. They warrant
careful consideration before moving forward. I know Flock has indicated that they have
taken steps to remediate but the outcome remains to be seen. As I mentioned from
the start this technology is important for Berkeley but equally important is
making sure that we get this decision right and build the public trust that we
need in our decision-making process. I have full confidence in Chief Lewis and
the professionalism of our officers in uniform and the BPD staff. We should be
equally sure that the tools that we license meet these same superior
standards of performance. I believe tonight it's more important to get it
right than to get it fast. So I propose that we do take that time. So for the
purposes of moving the process forward, and I look forward to comments from my
colleagues, I've got a multiple part motion and I'll try and lay it out for
because I know he's writing fast. So the motion would be starting with the
chief's updated proposal as the base motion as amended by the supplemental
from Mayor Ishii, Council Member Lunapara, Council Member Traga. There are sections 1
through 6, 8, and 9. Not to move forward, we will not move forward with the MSA, the
full MSA execution as proposed. Do you want to see what MSA means? Sorry, we will not move
forward with the full contract at this point.
We'll refer to the city manager, the initiation of an RFP
process and consultation with Police Accountability Board
and BPD for each of the components
and for their integration.
Through that RFP period, extend the ALPR contract,
incorporating as many contract changes as possible
from the Humbert-Blackaby supplementals plus the letter
that we received back from Flock that indicated acceptance
of some of those contract terms.
and to take no action on item 1B on tonight's agenda.
So again, I just wanna thank everyone.
Second.
That's my motion and thank you for,
thanks for listening.
Thank you.
A second was from Council Member Humbert.
So yeah, you're in the queue.
So I would also like to ask that we sever
the part of your motion that was referring to our portions,
the one through six, eight and nine from the supplemental.
And I can just request to do that.
So I'm gonna do that.
And then, yeah, does anyone else have anything
about this particular motion before we continue on?
Yes, so the sections one through six,
let me just pull it up.
Yeah, they are referring to the use,
the policies around the items themselves.
and then specifically are asking number eight
is referred to the city manager to amend ordinance 2.99
to include a violation slash termination clause
for surveillance technology vendors.
And number nine was referred to the city manager
and city attorney additional contractual language
to require a vendor to inform the city
of any requests for information,
including but not limited to subpoena's discovery requests
or requests under any federal or state law
the extent permitted by law.
It receives related to city controlled data
and safeguard it to the fullest extent allowed by the law.
And feel free to pull it up though,
if you wanna look at the details of it.
And also to clarify that the extension
through the RFP period is for a period of up to 12 months.
If we figured out sooner and end up somewhere sooner,
we could move sooner,
but the extension goes up to 12 months for the RFP period.
Okay, thank you.
All right, let's go through the comments.
Council member Trager, can I clarify quickly?
Yes.
We are severing the supplemental and not the ALPR?
The part of the motion that includes
our supplemental pieces,
because then we can just vote on that separately.
Okay, I think I'm still confused, but I'll just.
Okay, we can check in about that.
All right, Council Member Tracob or Vice Mayor Tracob.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Everyone wants to feel and be safe.
And based on lived experiences,
safety means different things to different people.
For businesses and many of our residents,
it might mean having cameras and other technologies
that help to our perpetrators of burglaries and robberies.
And to many other Berkeley residents,
particularly within our most vulnerable communities,
it might mean being free from state surveillance
and potential prosecution just for their existence
in this country.
All of these perspectives are ones
that I heard from constituents and other Berkeley neighbors.
All deserve to be held with equal humanity
as we make our decision.
From my first-hand experience as an immigrant
and as a member of a vibrant immigrant community,
I can tell you that these fears are
grounded in the current reality, especially now
in the current national climate and current administration
where data has been accessed and used in their hands
in ways that could undermine
Berkeley's sanctuary city commitments.
BPD has demonstrated that they're great community partners
and approach their work with a strong sensitivity
towards all community members.
I agree that providing our hardworking police officers
with effective tools is critically important.
At the same time, vetting these tools with careful consideration is equally as important
and makes all the difference in our community's trust in city government.
Over the last several months, the prevailing concern and theme among my District 4 constituents
has been trust.
A preponderance of them, conservatively nearly 95% of the over 150 who've contacted my office
have expressed grave concerns about flock.
and evidence have shown that however well-meaning its admissions may be tonight, the vendor
lacks accountability and therefore cannot be relied on as a trusted partner. I share
those concerns. Tonight, we're being asked to expand the system without comprehensive
documentation of procurement requirements and without a full evaluation of alternatives.
We're also being asked to do so without ever assessing the surveillance system as a whole,
just individual components like license plate readers or cameras, but the combined network
including drones and real-time monitoring and its cumulative impact on cost, data use
and civil liberties.
A competitive RFP process would allow us to define our needs clearly, compare multiple
vendors and consider different system designs.
Furthermore, diversifying our vendors would create resiliency in our public safety technologies.
Fluck has made at least four changes to its standard terms and conditions in the last
seven months, leading to their most recent February 2026 version of the contract.
All of these changes deserve careful consideration before renewing our city's contract with Fluck.
While the city technically owns the data, the company appears to control how and when
we can access it and in what format, raising real questions about what ownership means
in practice.
The company now claims a perpetual right to use our data to improve its services, although
those terms may have been adjusted and the agreement expands protections against liability
for willful misconduct across negligence, shifting responsibility away from flock and
taken together these changes would shift control from the city and towards the vendor, increasing
long-term risks.
There are also real concerns about how data might be used beyond our local control.
We have heard from residents who worry that surveillance data could be subpoenaed or accessed
by federal agencies in ways that conflict with Barclays Sanctuary City values and our
laws.
The perception alone of this happening here can hold trust and public safety depends on
people feeling protected, not monitored.
For all of these reasons, I will support any effort of this Council to pause an expansion
of this contract and conduct a formal competitive procurement process.
We should evaluate alternatives, fully understand the costs and risks, seek legal guidance on
these evolving contract terms, and ensure that any system we adopt aligns with our values
of transparency, accountability, and civil liberties.
This is not about projecting technology outright.
it is about making sure we get it right.
Tonight's decision is not just about a contract.
It is about whether we uphold the standards
of good governance, protect the rights of a resident,
and build the kind of trust
on which the community safety depends.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Council member Luna Parr was right.
I meant to sever the portion of the contract,
which was just the extension of the ALPR.
So, thank you.
So, are you changing something?
So, I'm just saying this ever,
was just the ALPR extension piece.
So, we'll vote on that piece separately, that's all.
Oh, okay, okay.
Everything else is-
Everything else will stay together.
Okay, that makes more sense.
Yeah, yeah, it does.
Okay, speaking of, it's your turn.
Okay, thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
Thank you to our Police Chief, Deputy Chief Tate,
Mr. Malberg, Ms. Lee, Mr. Chandler,
as well as all of the public commenters
and those who were in person as well as on Zoom.
And I also wanna thank those who have emailed,
have engaged with us in other ways
who aren't able to be here tonight,
as well as those who did so during our last meeting in March.
And I know this is a really contentious issue
with strong opinions.
And I just want you to know that I have heard
your public comments, and like my colleagues,
I'm concerned about the data sharing breaches
that have occurred in the past with this vendor.
I know that we will never have what some are seeking,
which is this 100% guarantee
that it won't occur in the future.
But I do feel reassured by what we heard
from Mr. Chandler tonight about the way
that flock has adapted to data security concerns
by changing the capabilities of its system.
One of the public commenters asked why some of us
are open to extending or renewing this contract.
And so I just wanna be honest about it.
When you are an elected official,
you don't have the luxury of just listening
to who has the time to come to the meeting in person
and share their opinion.
You have to consider everyone that you represent.
I happen to represent 15,000 people in my district.
Some of them have been victims of serious violent crime.
A big consideration for me are the crimes
that have been solved by the use of automated license plate
reader technology.
Some people are talking about stats.
In 2025, Berkeley police made at least 52 arrests
for burglaries, robberies, sexual assault,
and homicide, homicide, directly from ALPR data.
And they use a network to assist in 29 other cases.
You can disagree, but you cannot interrupt her.
And respectfully, I have not heard anyone
against the floc contract renewal propose
how will we solve these serious violent crimes
if we fail to at least extend this contract for 12 months
to give ourselves more time to weigh our options.
So as an elected official,
I have to think about the worst outcome.
And that is the possibility
that if we do not extend this contract
for at least 12 months,
that I will be responsible
for the serious and dangerous outcome
of violent criminals who are not caught and arrested.
That also weighs on my conscience with equal weight as the possibility of a data breach.
So that is why we have been elected to make these hard decisions to weigh difficult competing
trade-offs and that's what we are doing tonight.
And I thank you for listening.
I listened to you for three hours tonight.
I listened to you for maybe five hours last night,
last time in March.
And I thank you for listening to me.
Thank you.
Folks, come on Nathan.
Thank you.
All right.
So we're gonna go to council member Lunapara
and then we're gonna go online to council member Tapplin.
Thank you.
We made a promise to our immigrant residents.
We told them in January, 2025,
To go live a normal life, to go to school, to work, to the grocery store, and to believe
us that we would do everything in our power to keep them safe.
We ask them to place their trust in us.
And passing this contract would be a slap in the face to those who did trust us.
I feel exhausted and deeply, deeply disappointed that our promises to our residents and our
values of sanctuary are so shallow, so fragile, that we are not willing to back them up the
minute we have to give up even the smallest thing.
In this case, technology that we have no proof
does anything to deter crime.
I am so frustrated that we have made our community members
and organizations who spend their scarce time and resources
fighting endlessly on behalf of our immigrant residents.
Facing the wrath of the federal government,
argue with the city of Berkeley instead.
They are organizing legal support,
they are camping out at day laborer spots
to watch out for ICE, and we are supposed to be their allies
and instead we are working as if we were purposely
trying to waste their time.
It is easy, it is easy to say that we support immigrants and transgender people and pregnant
people and activists and all marginalized people who are targets of the federal government.
It is easy to say that we are willing to stand up to fascism and do everything we can to
protect them and it is much, much harder to actually do it, especially when it gets hard.
Yesterday, the Trump administration released its new counter national counterterrorism strategy.
It names as one of as one of its top three national security threats, what it calls violent
secular political groups, whose ideology is, quote,
anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.
It explicitly names Antifa.
It promises, in its own words, to, quote,
rapidly identify and neutralize these groups using,
again, in their words, all tools available
to map their membership and cripple them operationally.
It is truly naive to a baffling level
that any of us would think that simple contract language would
save us from a government that is openly telling us
that they think that they are above the law.
I also want to respond to this idea
that people who support Flock are somehow
in the silent majority.
In the past month, there was a pretty biased survey
that went around Berkeley trying to find that a majority of Berkeley
supports Flock.
And in campaigns, when a survey, a poll isn't released,
it usually means it's because it didn't go your way.
And we haven't seen the results of that poll.
so I think we can take that.
Okay, with that, I have two amendments, friendly amendments,
that I would like to make to the motion,
and I'm gonna share my screen quickly.
One of them is what I mentioned earlier
around First Amendment.
The UAS First Amendment authorized use to use the,
can everyone see this?
can you make it a bit bigger?
It's amending the UAS surveillance use policy
to respond to violent criminal activity
at mass gatherings or special events
only when there is probable cause of a felony
and an active threat of serious bodily injury.
And then my second amendment is to the ALPR extension
that it should include a referral to create,
to include an efficacy assessment and review for compliance
to be presented to council at least 30 days
before the end of the extension.
Thanks.
It's acceptable to me.
Council Member Humbert, do you?
I was gonna say acceptable to you.
Did you sound acceptable?
Yes, Brent does, he says.
Council Member, excuse me, Council Member Blackaby.
Yes, okay, thank you.
Thank you.
I also was wondering if the police department
could quickly explain their supplemental
and just briefly go over it
because I just wanna make sure
that everyone understands what that is changing.
The only thing it's changing is identifying
that once we are in a space to authorize
or get authority to enter into contract,
we want to point to the most current
and comprehensive procurement vehicle that exists.
So that was updating to what that vehicle would have been.
Thank you, that's helpful.
That's it, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, going to online with Councilmember Taplin.
Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor, and good evening, everyone.
I would like to thank city admin legal, the PD director Lee for your diligence and your hard work to address the concerns of the council and the community each step of this process.
I also want to thank my fellow co authors as well as council member black to be in the mirror for calling for additional restrictions and guard rails.
I completely understand the trepidation
and reaction to Washington.
The city also needs to be able to function
and provide basic tools for critical public safety services.
In my view, it would be illogical and impractical
to cause for the system to come down this July.
And therefore I will be supporting the motion, thank you.
Thank you.
Moving on to Councilmember Humbert.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Shandria.
And I want to thank everybody who appeared here and spoke
today.
I want to thank our police leadership and Mr. Chandler
for appearing here and responding to questions.
I respect the positions of all my colleagues,
and I've listened to all the concerns that
have been expressed here tonight.
I agree that some of the concerns, at least, are justified.
At the same time, I think there's
good evidence that automated license plate
readers and other technological tools
are creating crucial public safety benefits.
A great example was just last week.
There was a reference made to it.
The block system led to six apprehensions in a single day.
That's a real result. Those are six people potentially brought
to justice and potentially untold number
of additional crimes prevented.
And I'd also go further afield and mention
that Flock ALPR has helped apprehend a heavily armed ex
police officer who apparently intended
to kill black Americans at a New Orleans jazz festival
within the past couple of weeks.
So they do have the potential to save lives.
I think they probably save lives there.
I believe we can get to a place where
we have sufficient protections for our data
and the ability to get out of this agreement
such that the benefits outweigh the risks.
I understand and can respect the principal position
that any marginal risk in this regard is too much,
but in my view,
but my view remains that our residents face
public safety risks every day,
robberies, gunfire, and organized theft.
These are the real concrete everyday safety threats
against which I am weighing,
and I appreciated council member Kesserwani's comments on this. I am weighing the more marginal
impacts of things like data leaks. So I was willing, that said, I believe that the contract
provisions I proposed alongside council members Taft and Kesserwani and O'Keeffe are essential,
and I think council member Blackaby's amendments are appropriate, and of course I've just seconded
council member Blackaby's motion. So that's really about all I have to say on it. My views
have not modified since we last took this up last March. Thanks.
Thank you very much council member. Going to council member O'Keefe.
Thank you. I have a statement but first I want to ask about I guess the motion maker about my
supplemental about the drone UAS. I initially was thought, well, maybe it
doesn't matter anymore because we're not really doing anything on drones
tonight. But I think if we are going to accept, I mean, I think there is a
marginal use for it. So would be good. We're going to move the use policies. I
and I'll just say my, my, my main concern is if DFR is intended to sort of
also clear cases that don't necessarily involve, like,
imminent risk.
But so my only concern is because one
of the factors of using the DFR is
there would be able to sort of clear cases where
we don't need a Senate officer.
And so I just wanted to make sure that that was captured.
That's my concern.
So you don't support my supplemental vote.
If you want to have a separate vote on it,
I'd be able to have a vote on it.
Yeah, I would like that if we could suffer that.
So we could adopt it.
we don't see it, but sever it.
Okay. So the city attorneys let
me know that she has some
concerns about the severability
or not the severability, but I
guess the severability of the
use policy from the flock
contract specifically. Do you
want to just speak to that now
since we're discussing it?
Yeah, so it's not necessarily
to the severability, but
there's a little bit of concern.
I thought the council was going
extending the contract and then kind of do the use policies later. Some of the
use policies are very flock specific so I think we need to take a look at that
issue, how specific are the use policies. I think that that was reviewed when we
submitted our supplemental so we can take a quick recess to discuss that if
you think that's appropriate. That would be really helpful. Alright, I do kind of want to let
I think that Councilmember Bartlett speak though,
because he hasn't given his public comment.
Yeah.
I also wanted to make a statement, if that's okay.
Oh yeah.
That was my preliminary.
Yeah, go ahead.
I'll make a statement and then we'll talk
about the drone thing after.
Yeah, I think, yeah, I'll let you make your comments
and then I'm gonna have Councilmember Bartlett
make his comments then.
We'll take a quick recess.
First, I'm gonna move to extend by 15 minutes.
Second.
Okay, to extend to 11, 15 p.m.
Councilmember Castor-Wani.
Yes.
Taplin.
Aye.
Bartlett.
Yes.
Hi O'Keefe.
Yes.
Blackaby.
Yes.
Unapara.
Yes.
Humber.
Yes.
And Mary Ishii.
No.
Okay.
I said, I already said to everyone,
I said we're finishing at 11, that's it.
So go ahead, continue.
Go ahead council member.
I can speak.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, so I'm happy to support the motion
made by council member Blackaby.
I think it's fundamentally reasonable
and I really want to thank him
for bringing it so thoughtfully.
Except for the drawing part.
I was prepared to go forward tonight with the original proposal, but really my
Brightline rule is retaining the ALPRs as they exist right now and so because
that's being proposed I'm happy to support it. They've really been a
valuable tool and I would not be okay taking them away. I really believe they
taking it taking away the ALPRs at this point would make our citizens less safe
and I would actually be breaking a campaign promise if I, if I were to agree
to that. So that is actually like, that is actually how democracy works. It was
something I campaigned on was allowing police to have better and more effective
technology and I was elected always on that. So that's important to me. Rolling
out, but back to the motion that we're debating, it's fine. Rolling out the
newer technologies it can take more time. I think we have a good chance to
hopefully build more public trust in the process before making the next step and
that feels appropriate. I do have a question though about whether it's
possible to build public trust. Was she talking about my thing? Okay that's
misunderstood but I don't want to talk about that right now. That's not what
that was. Okay folks, I do wonder, I have to say and I really would appreciate it
if you all would listen and you can yell and cheer after if you like. I I wonder
about the good faith whether or not people came here in good faith willing
to consider that public trust as possible. My position on this topic has
been well stated in the op-ed that I authored along with three of my council
colleagues so I won't belabor it here except to say that you know it was
brought up several times tonight and always with criticism and while I
understand many disagreed with it that's fine I didn't expect everybody to agree
with it I didn't hear anyone really refuting its fundamental logic which is
that our surveillance state your after thank you which is our surveillance
State is really unchanged by whatever it is we do here tonight. If you walk, if you came in here with an iPhone or whatever in your pocket, I have bad news for you. Shh, stop, Nathan.
Folks, let her finish speaking. You're just, you're using up our time. Come on. We're already being
being surveilled to a level of intensity that pales in comparison to what's being proposed.
When I walked to work the other day, I counted nine cameras that I walked past.
Do I have any idea if facial recognition was used on the images that captured?
No.
Do I have any idea what happened to those images who can access them?
I do not.
I'm sorry to tell you that that is our reality.
And folks, please, hey, excuse me.
So as I said, I understand people can disagree,
but that logic is what's driving my decision here tonight.
So I want to implore those here tonight
to really think about the logical basis for your outrage.
And when we come back here in a year, hey,
let her finish speaking.
Let her finish speaking.
I hope we have a more reality based conversation about what's
really at stake.
let her finish speaking sit down sit down order or we'll take our recess right now sit down nathan
go ahead
okay i guess i guess folks okay i guess i can speak into this moment now order we're hearing
from councilmember bartlett now well this is um you know very instructive uh context really is king
I'm a Vienna Biden administration.
This council deliberated and implemented the Burke Dot,
which is a form of this.
This was a technology way to kind of remove police bias
from automotive policing.
We did put some cameras up
and there was a very little fanfare.
There's a small grouping.
And in that meeting, actually, if you recall,
it's a couple of years ago, like I said,
I fought hard for a motion that I made to air gap our data,
and air that means to separate it,
so it can't be used and can't be shared without our control.
I made that motion, I fought hard for it, and it failed,
because I knew that while we were trusting
a democratic president, things could change,
things always change.
And that the next administration,
because governments can change, governments can go bad,
it might be a different context,
and now we're in the context now.
So it's interesting.
And my district, District 3 is in the house here for sure.
I gotta tell you, my district is really amazing.
You know, these are my family.
I love all you do so much.
My district is very diverse.
It has the wealthiest person in Berkeley,
has homeless people, has my mayor,
yes, my mayor and good friend and neighbor,
It has African-Americans, seniors, college people, techies.
Who else?
It's the Center of Disability Rights in America.
It has a hospital, it has a BART station, supermarkets.
It runs the gamut.
It has the new homeowners, has the old homeowners.
And to the person, every single person
admonished me to not approve this deal.
And it's important because if you, you know, our tenure, especially the work I've done
through these years, you know, they're really, they're very patient, they let me do the wild
things I like to do, the interesting concepts, they support it, they forgive me when I mess
up, they teach me, they're a really amazing bunch of people and they let me kind of have
my way. But every now and then, every now and then, there's an issue that they care
about. And when they care about it, I care about it. Because I am them and they are me.
So that's my position tonight, the same as yours.
Thank you. Okay. We are going to take a brief recess. Thank you. Okay. All right, folks,
I need everyone to quiet down if you can hear me clap once, if you can hear me clap twice,
if you can hear me clap three times, oh okay, all right, wow amazing how much that works.
Okay so we have some clarifications around the motions that I think need to be made and
just a generally a couple of clarifications, I have some comments and then I'd like us
to take a vote.
did you want to clarify something council member? Yeah I wanted to clarify
that the the poll that I was talking about was not councilmember O'Keefe's
personal Google survey for her constituents it was a separate paid
official poll I just wanted to clarify that okay thank you go ahead council
member Blackivy clarification of the motion on the on the extension portion
for up to 12 months and 200k just to be clear there's a dollar figure attached
attached to it.
Okay, attached to it.
Okay, thank you.
Council member Tragob, did you have something?
Yeah, I wanted to, first of all,
I appreciate this motion,
and I know we're going to sever out an item.
I wanted to see if the maker and seconder
would be friendly to, since the exploration
of what was previously in the MSA,
but is going to be in a potential negotiation
of the 12 month extension if the maker and seconder
would be amenable to an exploration
of upping the poor violation penalty
to $290,000 poor violation.
Yeah, that's acceptable.
Yes.
Thank you.
Okay, any other clarifications?
Yes, Council Member O'Keefe, did you have something?
Oh yeah I wanted to ask again if I think we've gotten some clarification. I would
like to request that we suffer out the UAS use policy both as an issue and well
I guess do I also make a motion then? You don't need to you can request a
separate. I would like to request a separate and then I have I can say what I
want to be voted on for that. Substitute motion? We would just vote on it
yes separately and so should I say what I want us to vote on now or what should
I wait mark well I'll just take my intention I would like my idea is I
would like to vote on that separately and I would like I will make a motion
for that to be my supplemental and the edits that council member when the price
suggested to better both edits to the UAS policy so you would likely need to
make a motion to amend the main motion if you wanted your amendments in, but the
maker and the seconder were not acceptable to a friendly motion. Yeah, that's what I
want to do. So just and just to clarify I think council member Luna Parra's were
already part of it so okay they were accepted. If we separate out the, yeah okay
I'm beginning a substitute motion to amend it with my sub motion to amend the
main motion motion to amend the motion okay I made that and so we will vote on
that first I'll second that thank you so this is a motion to amend the main
motion to include councilmember O'Keeffe's amendments to the UAS policy
into what gets adopted okay okay so on the motion to amend councilmember
Kesser-Wany. No. Taplin? No. Councilmember Bartlett? No. Tregub? Pass. O'Keeffe? Yes.
Blackaby? No. Munepara? Yes. Humber? Yes. Mayor Yishii? No. Councilmember
Tregob? Aye. Okay motion that motion fails. Okay. Okay and so we're back to the
main motion. Thank you. I'm gonna give some comments first and then we'll vote.
Okay. So I want to thank you all so much for being here this evening. I want to
thank everyone for coming for your previous presentations and also for
sitting and listening to our public comment answering our questions and
engaging in this process. I want to make sure folks know that the police the
The police chief has been very helpful
in answering our questions and working with us
as we worked on our supplemental in good faith
and that my decision here tonight has nothing to do
with my trust for the police department.
I understand that these tools have helped
on a number of different cases.
I myself have seen so many cases
that were really heart wrenching
that would not have been solved without these tools.
So I do understand why it is the police department
interested in having them and at the end of the day I just don't trust flock. I
don't trust, I don't trust flock and I don't trust our current federal
administration. So many communities that we're hearing from our experience
heightened, our experiencing heightened justified fear. People deserve to live
without fear of deportation or detention to speak out in a protest without
feeling intimidated and to trust our city will protect its residents. Legal
safeguards are not enough to ensure that federal authorities will respect local laws
and protections. That's what we're seeing now. I want to ensure surveillance technologies
we adopt fully in line with Berkeley's sanctuary city policies and our deeply held free speech
values. And Flock needs to be proactive, not just reactive. Flock has a responsibility
to proactively safeguard data, ensure compliance with contracts and uphold the legal and ethical
standards of the communities that it serves. When there are legitimate fears
that data could be used to target immigrant communities or suppress
First Amendment rights, it becomes difficult to justify the use of flocks
products. Concern about the mass, I'm concerned about the mass aggregation of
data with interoperability across all platforms and the
risk that the Interim Director of Police Accountability, Kathy Lee and Pab site
about over dependence on one system increasing our vulnerability as a city.
I want to make sure folks understand that the procurement process was done
properly and at the same time I don't feel that it was sufficient so I will be
supporting the motion that council members Blackaby and Humbert have made.
Flock may be the best technology right now but we know that technology changes
rapidly and our chief has even said that other companies might catch up not
too long from now. It's not ready for our city yet. I don't have full confidence
in a company and I can't support something that I just really don't trust.
We've heard so much from the community I really want to thank you all for coming
out to speak. I know for some of you this is a really emotional issue and at
At the end of the day, I know I can't support
a flaw contract because if this company does not
live up to our standards and our values as a city,
we really can't support it.
So I wanna thank you all again.
Thank you to my colleagues this evening.
Thank you to the city manager and city attorney
in your office, all of our staff for being here
and for answering our questions.
There's a lot to go through on this issue.
It's quite complex and we have spent many, many, many hours
reviewing all of it, so I would like to take a vote.
We have two motions separately.
I'd like to vote on the first one,
not the ALPR part extension, but on the rest of it first.
So, can you please take the roll on that, Clerk?
Okay, so this is the severed portion of the main motion
for the use policies as amended with the supplemental
numbers one to six and eight and nine
and the supplemental materials from the mayor,
as well as council member Lunapara's amendments
to the UAS and ALPR policies.
So on that portion of the-
Does that also include in the no full MSA, right?
That's a big motion too.
Yeah, no full MSA, okay?
Thank you.
And no action on 1B.
Right.
Okay on that portion of the motion councilmember Kesser Wani. Yes
Tap one. Yes
Bartlett no
Tragob
Pass
O'Keeffe
Yes
Blackaby. Yes
Yes
Humber. Yes, and mayor ishi. Yes
Councilmember of ice. Mayor Tragob. I
Okay, so that portion is adopted and then on the other severed portion
Which is the referral to the city manager for our P process for the?
Other contract authority other
public safety technology
in the UAS the fixed surveillance and the
Investigative software and the extension of the and the extension of the a LPR contract for 12 months
Will not to exceed amount two hundred thousand dollars with amended contract term for two hundred ninety thousand dollar penalty for violation
So on that portion of the motion
Councilmember Kesser-Wani. Yes
Taplin. Yes
Bartlett
No
Trago, no
O'Keeffe. Yes. Blackaby. Yes
Unapara. No
Humber. Yes, and Mayor Ishi. No
Motion carries
Thank you
Councilmember Keefe, did you want to say something else? I'm sorry. I saw your little okay, sorry
okay, all right, thank you all very much for coming this evening and
We have completed both items on our agenda at this point
Yeah
Yeah, so there are a few different things that just happened. Oh my gosh. Okay councilmember Blackaby
I'm gonna have you repeat your motion just so folks, actually can I just ask
because we're nearing the end, well actually I think it would be helpful if
you clarified for folks what we just voted on. So adopted the use policies for
the various technologies, did not move forward with the full MSA, with WOC,
initiating an RFP, sorry, master services agreement with the contract, did not move
forward the contract, initiating an RFP process
for all the components, and then extending the ALPR
through the period of that RFP process
so that we don't go dark in that period.
And those were voted on separately,
so the second vote was on extending the ALPR contract,
whereas the first part was the rest of it.
Thank you.
Okay, all right, so in that case,
I will see if there's a motion to adjourn.
second can we take the role please okay to adjourn the meeting councilmember
kiss or wanty yes I'm are still taking all right Bartlett yes Trago hi okay yes
lack of B yes Santa Parra yes Humber yes and Mayor Ishi yes okay meeting is
meeting is adjourned thank you everyone