Flock Oversight Takes Shape, But Gaps Remain
Councilmember outreach, DEIC concerns, and why this still isn’t enough.
Hi neighbors,
I just got back from a week off the grid—camping in the San Juan Islands with limited power and no internet.
Now I’m back, and there’s a lot happening. Since Mountlake Terrace approved its contract with Flock Safety in early June, the city is moving ahead with implementation. But at the same time, several pieces of public oversight are finally being discussed—and shaped.
The City is developing two pieces of that oversight framework:
- A community advisory committee or subcommittee (possibly under the DEIC)
- A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for how Flock data can be shared with other jurisdictions
👏 A Note of Thanks to Councilmember Bryan Wahl
In my previous newsletters, I called out Councilmember Bryan Wahl for staying silent during the June 5 vote to approve the Flock camera contract, especially given the volume and clarity of public concern.
Since then, I want to be equally transparent in recognizing how actively he’s engaged on this issue. Bryan has been working hard behind the scenes to ensure meaningful oversight moves forward, and I’ve been privy to some of those efforts.
He’s been proactively reaching out to community members who spoke out against the Flock cameras, including myself, to seek input and ideas. That matters. It signals that he’s not only listening, but also validating the concerns people have raised and taking steps to address them.
This kind of responsive leadership is exactly what we need more of, and I deeply appreciate it.
🛠️ The MOU Is Taking Shape — But Gaps Remain
Preliminary drafts of the MOU are circulating, and they include some positive language around enforcement limits and audits. That’s good.
I won’t share the full draft here, given the preliminary nature of the document. I want to respect the representative democratic process—every bit of sausage-making doesn’t necessarily need to happen in public. That said, I would hope (and expect) that more finalized drafts will be intentionally and publicly available before anything is signed.
But from what I’ve seen so far, here are a few ways I think the MOU and related policy still need to improve:
🔁 1. Control over where our data goes
Unless explicitly restricted, a partner could share MLT’s data with other agencies—including federal—that we’ve never approved. MLT should reserve the right to approve any third-party data sharing in writing, except where required by law.
👁️ 2. Full transparency, not fragmented audits
It’s not enough to audit internally. The MOU should require each partner agency to submit quarterly access logs for MLT Flock data—including who accessed it, when, and why. Our policy should then ensure MLT aggregates and publishes these logs alongside internal access in one publicly accessible report.
🧾 3. Tighter definitions for acceptable use
Terms like “community safety” or “criminal investigation” are too broad. We need clear standards tied to documented case numbers and supervisory approval to prevent overreach.
These aren’t extreme demands—they’re the baseline safeguards for any surveillance system in a democratic community.
🗳️ Candidate Forum: Who Spoke Up on Flock?
At the July 21 League of Women Voters forum for City Council Position 3, only one candidate—Othman Riad—explicitly mentioned the Flock camera system in his opening remarks:
“Public safety is evolving, and we need to build trust between police officers and our community while ensuring transparency around tools like Flock.”
— Othman Riad
The other two participating candidates, Danny Luoma and incumbent William Paige, did not mention Flock or any surveillance-related policy at all during the 40-minute forum—even when responding to questions about transparency, public engagement, or public safety.
This silence is notable, especially given:
- The level of community concern expressed in recent public comments
- The national debate over license plate data sharing with federal agencies
- And the active implementation of Flock in Mountlake Terrace
If oversight and privacy matter to you, I encourage you to ask all three candidates directly:
“Do you support Council-approved data-sharing agreements, full public access to audit logs, and strong protections against federal use of our license plate data?”
🧊 ICE Is Already Here — and LA Shows Where This Could Go
There’s been growing national attention on ICE’s expanding enforcement operations—especially in sanctuary jurisdictions like Seattle and Portland. Just last week, Trump’s “Border Czar” Tom Homan confirmed that he plans to visit both cities soon, saying:
“I'm going to Portland and I'm going to Seattle... I will be in Portland. I will be in Seattle. You can count on it. Matter of fact, we're going to double down, triple down.”
But let’s be clear: ICE is already operating in Washington. The question isn’t when they’ll show up—it’s how much access we’re allowing them to local data.
At the July 10 City Council meeting, Mountlake Terrace resident Audrey Meyer gave a powerful public comment after returning from Los Angeles, where she witnessed the chilling consequences of increased enforcement firsthand:
“ICE agents were seen outside my nephew’s high school... the next day, ICE was chasing someone down my mom’s street.”
And in LA, it wasn’t just visible presence. A recent audit revealed that ICE and DHS accessed Flock license plate data hundreds of times in a single year—despite the city’s public claims to the contrary.
Audrey brought that concern home:
“Let’s not make it easy for ICE in Mountlake Terrace. Please don’t give them a reason to use resources here.”
She also reminded the Council that while the Keep Washington Working Act restricts local police from directly helping ICE, it doesn’t stop Flock from sharing data—or another city from doing so on our behalf.
Without strong local restrictions, publicly accessible audits, and clear data-sharing rules, we risk being part of the same silent pipeline that’s enabled federal surveillance in other cities—whether we mean to or not.
🧭 DEIC Meeting Recap: July 18
At the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission’s July 18 meeting, commissioners dove into the Flock camera oversight conversation following a meeting between Chair Matsuda and the Police Department.
One idea floating out there is forming a community advisory committee under the DEIC. The conversation made clear that many commissioners have serious reservations about that structure being assumed without public Council discussion.
Commissioner Matsuda was blunt:
“This has to come from Council—some direction about whether this becomes a subcommittee or an independent body or something else. Otherwise, it’ll look like this was decided behind closed doors.”
Commissioners emphasized that any oversight structure must be preventative, not reactive—not just reviewing access logs after misuse has already occurred. They expressed strong interest in:
- Reviewing data-sharing agreements (MOUs) before they’re signed
- Public reporting of audit logs
- Clear definitions of what constitutes acceptable use
Commissioner Francisco warned:
“All that we’re talking about now is how to handle consequences of potential abuse… It’s coming at a time when a lot of people are struggling with their faith in the governmental systems.”
Commissioner Onat personally reviewed Flock transparency portals from Olympia, Everett, Lynnwood, and Edmonds. Only Olympia’s included a downloadable audit log—and even then, the usage reasons were often vague or questionable:
“One of them was ‘daytime search for better results’… Are you stalking your girlfriend? We don’t know what that means.”
Other concerns raised:
- Flock users from other cities will be able to search Mountlake Terrace data once an MOU is in place—not just for a single request, but continuously
- There’s no technical safeguard to prevent misuse—only policy agreements and after-the-fact audits
- Under federal subpoena, Flock may be compelled to disclose footage directly to outside agencies, even if MLT policy says otherwise
Commissioner Apio emphasized:
“These things generally affect minority communities way more… I want to see that the equity part of it is involved somehow.”
The commission strongly supported creating a separate advisory committee to oversee audits and recommend policy improvements—and several members said DEIC should retain its own, distinct role, not be merged into that oversight body.
💬 What You Can Do
- Attend the July 24 Council meeting—even if Flock isn’t on the agenda. We need continued pressure on the City to get this right.
- Reach out to Council candidates running for all positions. Ask tough questions about data privacy and oversight.
Thanks for staying informed and speaking up. This is our community, and our oversight matters.
Until next time,
—Dustin