August 7 Council Meeting: Show Up, Speak Up
City Council will finally discuss oversight, safeguards, and values. Let’s make sure they hear us loud and clear.
Hi neighbors,
Thanks to continued pressure from the community—and thoughtful leadership from Councilmember Bryan Wahl and others—the City Council will finally be addressing the Flock camera implementation in public at an upcoming meeting.
These issues will be discussed at the August 7 Council meeting. This is our moment to show up, speak clearly, and hold the city accountable.
This newsletter outlines specific recommendations that residents—including Audrey Meyer, myself, and others—shared with Councilmember Wahl to help guide the conversation. If Council doesn’t take these seriously, they should have to say so out loud and on the record. We’ve spent a lot of time researching and going over these documents. This is long—but necessary.
Print this out. Forward it. Use it as your comment. Let’s make August 7 count.
What Councilmembers Said at the July 24 Meeting
Several councilmembers made it clear they believe more work is needed before the Flock system is implemented—and that the next meeting should be the space to do it.
Councilmember Bryan Wahl was direct: the City Manager’s newly released Statement of Values was a good first draft—but it would carry more weight if it came from the City Council itself. As Bryan put it, elected officials are the community’s voice, and they should be the ones issuing public assurances when that trust is at stake.
He also suggested the Council take a more active role in:
- Defining the makeup and mission of any oversight body (not just delegating that to the DEI Commission)
- Clarifying metrics and areas of focus for public review
- Revisiting the policy manual, data-sharing agreements, and MOUs to add guardrails and ensure clarity
Councilmember Erin Murray echoed that sentiment. She noted that while Council tends to move on after votes are taken, the level of public concern around Flock warrants a formal agenda item—not just scattered remarks during comment periods. Her ask: that “Flock Oversight” be added to the next Council agenda so the full body can deliberate, receive input, and make clear decisions about what comes next.
Councilmember William Paige agreed, adding that it’s important for the meeting to have a clear purpose: not to revisit the decision to sign the contract, but to talk about implementation, oversight, and accountability.
Councilmember Rick Ryan suggested staff bring forward examples of how other jurisdictions have structured oversight—possibly including the idea of reinstating a Community Policing Advisory Board.
There was consensus to move forward with a formal agenda item at the next meeting.
A Stronger Statement of Values
Last week, the City Manager released a Statement of Values. It acknowledged community concerns, committed to transparency, and promised steps like a new webpage and quarterly reporting.
That’s progress. But the statement didn’t name the real risks or make specific commitments.
There was no mention of ICE. No reference to the Keep Washington Working Act. No clear stance on protecting Flock data from misuse. And no detailed commitment to public oversight.
That’s why Councilmember Wahl suggested the Council adopt a stronger joint version. We agree.
Here’s what we believe the updated statement should include:
- Flock data will never be used for immigration enforcement, monitoring political activity or protest, tracking people traveling for reproductive healthcare, gathering intelligence unrelated to specific crimes or shared with federal agencies without a court order. That expectation for data-sharing partners should be written into every MOU.
- Mountlake Terrace is committed to the Keep Washington Working Act and expects staff, vendors, and data-sharing partners to uphold it.
- Oversight structure must be decided publicly by the City Council—whether under DEIC or through a separate, council-appointed commission like the former Community Policing Advisory Commission.
- Transparency is non-negotiable. Audit logs, MOUs, and usage data must be published in one place, where people can actually find and understand them.
- Everyone in Mountlake Terrace deserves to feel safe. No one in Mountlake Terrace should feel like they’re being watched just for belonging to the wrong community.
- Consider a resolution, in addition to this temporary statement, affirming compliance with the Keep Washington Working Act.
- Pass an ordinance applying these protections to all city employees, not just police.
- The city should use its outreach tools—like newsletters, community conversations, and social media—to help residents understand their rights.
What Needs to Change in the MOU and Policy 617
As it stands today, the draft MOU and Policy 617 don’t offer enough safeguards. Here’s where we’ve asked the city to strengthen them:
Data Sharing and Re-Sharing
One of the biggest risks with Flock is where the data goes once it leaves our city’s control. Right now, there is no explicit restriction that stops a partner agency from re-sharing Mountlake Terrace data with another jurisdiction, or even a federal agency.
We’re asking that:
- The MOU include a clear ban on re-sharing without a court order or prior written permission from Mountlake Terrace.
- Flock and any agency that accesses our data notify the city if they are ever compelled to share it by court order.
- Every access be tied to an active, documentable case—not just vague concerns like “community safety.”
- Every MOU should be reviewed and approved by City Council in a public meeting before data sharing begins. Residents deserve the chance to see who will access this data and under what terms.
Audits That Actually Mean Something
Currently, Policy 617 only requires one audit per year, reviewing 10 random searches. In other cities, like Puyallup, Flock logs over 500 searches in a single month. That would be more than 6,000 per year. Reviewing just 10 of those means auditing 0.17% of system use. That’s not enough.
We’re urging the city to:
- Require audits at least once per quarter, not once a year
- Increase the number of reviewed searches from 10 to 20 per audit
- Include these audit reports in the City Council packet, on the Police Department website, and in City Happenings
- Make the full list of searches available—not just the audit sample—to the oversight committee and the public. Even if only a sample is formally audited, full visibility allows patterns to be flagged and gives the public a better understanding of how the system is being used.
- Require that audit logs include not just completed searches, but also any denied, flagged, or out-of-policy access attempts.
Logging and Tracking Access
If we’re serious about oversight, we need to know who’s using the system and why. Right now, Policy 617 doesn’t guarantee the level of detail needed to monitor how Flock data is used—or misused.
We’ve recommended that every single search, whether internal or external, be fully logged with:
- A case number (if one exists)
- A clear, documented reason for the search (no vague phrases like “community safety”)
- The name of the person making the search
- For external searches, the agency and request ID if applicable
That level of detail will also make audits easier and more meaningful.
We’re also asking the city to include one more check in the quarterly audit:
- Ask Flock directly whether they have shared or accessed any Mountlake Terrace camera data.
These details should be built into both the MOU and Policy 617. Without complete logs, we can’t have meaningful oversight and the community can’t trust that the system is being used responsibly.
Misuse and Accountability
The current policy says that misuse may lead to discipline, including revocation of access. That’s not enough.
We’ve asked the city to revise the policy so that misuse can also carry:
- Legal consequences, not just internal discipline
- Automatic revocation of data access for any agency or individual that violates the terms
Clarify What the System Tracks
Small wording changes matter. Right now, Policy 617 says the system identifies “vehicles and persons.” That suggests Flock is directly identifying people, which isn’t what the system is supposed to do—and it raises unnecessary alarm.
We’ve recommended updating the language to say:
"...vehicles and vehicles associated to persons..."
This is a simple fix that avoids misinterpretation.
Oversight That Actually Works
There’s been discussion about assigning oversight to the DEI Commission. But that’s a structural decision that should be made by the City Council, in public, with input from the community.
We recommend:
- Letting the Council determine where oversight resides—whether under DEIC or through a separate, council-appointed commission like the former Community Policing Advisory Commission
- Ensuring any structure includes residents with relevant lived experience—not just current commissioners
- Making DEIC part of the process, but not the entire structure
- Giving the oversight body the ability to review, report, and recommend—not just receive updates
- Expanding oversight to cover not just Flock, but broader public safety technologies and policies
Canceling Is Still the Best Option
Even with safeguards, canceling the contract is still the right move.
Yes, it would cost $27,000. But that’s a small price to prevent a flawed system from taking root.
Canceling the contract remains the safest and clearest path forward. Once these cameras go up, the system becomes harder to unwind—and the data ecosystem they feed becomes harder to trace.
🕒 When and How to Show Up
📅 Thursday, August 7 at 7:00 p.m.
📍 Mountlake Terrace City Hall
🔗 Zoom link will be posted at cityofmlt.com
To speak:
- In person: Show up early to sign in
- On Zoom: Email cityhall@mltwa.gov by 4:00 p.m. to get the link
Can’t Attend? Submit a Written Comment
📩 Email: cityhall@mltwa.gov
📥 CC: all councilmembers
📤 BCC (optional): dustin@dekoekkoek.com
👉 Click here to email them all
🕓 Submit by 4:00 p.m. on August 7 to be included in the meeting record.
Let’s Help Each Other Be Heard
If you’ve written a comment but can’t attend, I’ll help match it with a neighbor who can read it aloud.
If you’re attending but would prefer not to write your own, I can connect you with a comment to read.
Each speaker gets up to 5 minutes (possibly 3 if turnout is high).
Thanks for reading and staying engaged. I hope that you attend the meeting and let your voice be heard in the public comments.
Let’s make August 7 count.
—Dustin