August 7 Council Recap: Oversight, Guardrails, and What Comes Next
Your feedback is making a difference. Council discussed new guardrails for the Flock cameras and what comes next.
Hi neighbors,
Thursday’s City Council meeting picked up a conversation many in our community have been asking for since the June 5 vote to approve a contract with Flock Safety. The cameras aren’t installed yet, but Council agreed it was worth revisiting the topic, this time focusing on potential guardrails, oversight, and how we might keep the system aligned with our community’s values.
The discussion followed a staff report from City Manager Jeff Niten outlining three main action areas for Council:
Oversight Structure: Options include reactivating the Community Policing Advisory Board (CPAB) or forming a subcommittee under the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission (DEI).
Statement of Values: Could be adopted as a policy guide for Flock’s implementation.
Policy Feedback: Council can review and suggest changes to MLTPD Policy 617.
The report emphasized that the Flock contract is already signed and cannot be altered during the first year. Changes would have to come through policy, oversight mechanisms, or future contract decisions.
A Note on MOUs
Early in the discussion, City Manager Jeff Niten drew a clear line between the City Council’s policy role and the administrative role of staff when it comes to MOUs (Memorandums of Understanding) for data sharing with other jurisdictions. Because these agreements are operational—agency-to-agency rather than legislative—he said they fall under the City Manager’s authority, not Council’s.
“Typically [MOUs] are the providence of the city manager and it is not a policy question. My ethical rules as part of the ICMA require me to protect our areas of responsibility and make sure that policy is the area of the council and administration is my responsibility. I would welcome suggestions, without stepping across the line of what my ethical responsibilities require, to what you’d like to see in the MOU. However, that is typically an administration piece. We can thread that needle, I think.”
This distinction matters because it shapes where public oversight can happen and where we’ll need to find other avenues for transparency.
Councilmember Highlights: A Closer Look
Several council members shared their views on how to move forward, with a strong focus on community trust and concrete actions.
Erin Murray noted that the city’s CPAB still exists in the municipal code and was never formally dissolved by ordinance. She thanked residents for continuing to show up and share their views, calling the August 7 discussion “a direct result of all of your voices and your care.” Murray said she has grown more supportive of reinvigorating the advisory board after reviewing its original structure, which she felt was consistent with current council goals. She also called for a public audit process for Flock data, community input on data-sharing MOUs, and a formal council resolution stating community values.
Mayor Pro Tem Wahl also thanked residents for their concerns, noting that the primary fear centers on “what other agencies, particularly ICE and the federal government, may do” with Flock data. He framed his priorities around four main areas: creating an oversight body, strengthening the city’s values statement, tightening Police Policy 617, and reviewing the MOUs with data-sharing partners. He acknowledged that while MOUs are an administrative function, their importance is paramount in addressing community fears.
Steve Woodard thanked Councilmember Murray for voting against the contract in June and clarified that he, too, has opposed the system from the start. He noted that while the cameras are happening, there are ways to mitigate the decision and demonstrate that the city is listening. One idea he suggested was for the city to highlight and share resources residents have brought forward to address concerns about ICE and surveillance. He also posed an important question for future discussions: “Who’s going to watch the oversight committee?”
William Paige began by asking staff to explain the parameters of the former CPAB. He stressed that if a new advisory body is reactivated, members need to be well-trained to ensure effectiveness and avoid misunderstandings, stating, "I don't think that anything goes forward until training happens." Acknowledging that trust had been broken for some, he said he was “genuinely sorry” and reiterated his belief that the system could achieve its intended safety outcomes. Paige suggested the values statement should affirm the city’s broader commitment to safety and diversity, not just focus on Flock.
Rick Ryan voiced his support for an oversight committee, whether through the DEI or a reactivated CPAB. He recommended that the council revisit the Mountlake Terrace Police Department’s Policy 617 and analyze each paragraph for specifics to bring to the city manager or council. He also highlighted the importance of transparency, accountability, and public awareness. As an example of a successful approach, he cited the city of Everett's public Flock safety camera report, which includes a monthly decrease in stolen vehicles and is available on an open portal.
Laura Sonmore was absent, and Mayor Kyoko Matsumoto Wright did not offer comments.
Public Comments
The public comment period was again filled with strong, thoughtful testimony from residents.
Laura spoke about broken trust: “When the council voted, five people voted yes and only two voted no—despite what the people of Mountlake Terrace wanted. So, it was clear that the people were ignored.”
Sam said the Council’s relationship with the community had been damaged: “I think amends need to be offered before solutions, and they have not been. I urge the council to show accountability publicly by acknowledging how, as a body, you failed to listen to us.”
Ben made an emotional appeal to the council, urging them to cancel the contract out of love for the community. He asked them to consider that many voices are not heard, including those who are afraid to speak due to the current political climate or language barriers.
James expressed concerns about the system's potential for misuse, data breaches, and a "slippery slope" toward more invasive surveillance. He questioned if an MOU was enough to protect residents' data from being accessed by federal agencies for purposes the city opposes.
Susan stated her concern that the system is a "pervasive system of surveillance" and a "present danger" without sufficient data protections. She agreed with others that the council should create a commission, such as a reconstituted CPAB, for oversight.
Lee raised concerns about the council not listening to citizens and connected the issue of surveillance to historical events like the Patriot Act and Real ID Act, arguing that privacy is not safeguarded and advocating for a trained oversight committee.
Sarah, a 35-year resident, expressed that she and many other residents feel unheard and ignored by the council. She made a direct plea for the council to "please listen" to the community.
Victor challenged the vague concept of "safety" and urged the council not to purposely contribute to surveillance. He connected the discussion to fears of being targeted for "driving while black" or "walking while brown."
Ariel expressed her belief that the council does not understand or care about the technology's capabilities. She stated that "once you have that data, it's gone" and said she does not trust an oversight committee to help.
Adam called the system a "Fascist band-aid" that ignores the root causes of crime like income inequality. He suggested the money could be better spent on public transportation, food banks, or public health measures like distributing N95 masks.
Aaron, a tech industry professional, argued that the industry cannot be trusted with privacy. He provided a detailed list of recommendations for a statement of values, MOUs, and audits, including legal consequences for misuse, to be implemented if the contract is not canceled.
Dale raised concerns about ICE’s access to vehicle registration data from the Department of Licensing and how that could intersect with Flock cameras: “ICE could obtain DOL license registration for everyone with a Hispanic surname. ICE could then use Flock cameras to track all of their movements.”
Audrey described her firsthand experience responding to ICE activity in the region and called for explicit limits on data-sharing with federal immigration agencies.
George warned about potential surveillance creep, pointing to Flock’s Nova product, which can perform facial recognition: “Will we adopt it with the same lack of justification?”
What’s Next
The council didn’t set a date for the next discussion. The City Manager said staff will need time to prepare materials and will announce the date once it’s scheduled. That next meeting will likely bring back draft language for an oversight body, a statement or resolution of values, and possible updates to Police Policy 617 and MOUs. This will be the point where we see how much of Thursday's conversation turns into concrete action, and where the public can weigh in again before anything is finalized.
I’ll keep you posted once the date is announced. Until then, what do you think is the most important policy change the city can make right now to build back trust?
Until next time, Dustin