July 10 Council Meeting: What We Heard, and What We Still Don’t Know
Councilmembers responded to Flock concerns this week. Here's what they said — and what they didn’t.
Hi neighbors,
Over the past week, I’ve had conversations with several different Mountlake Terrace City Councilmembers — some who voted against Flock, and others who voted for it. Each of them listened and expressed openness to improving oversight around the Flock camera system.
At Thursday night’s Council meeting, we saw some public confirmation of that. Multiple Councilmembers spoke to the need for transparency, oversight, and rebuilding community trust. There was discussion of bringing back the Community Policing Advisory Board, reviewing policy manuals, coordinating with nearby cities, and issuing a statement of values.
These are all important steps. But what we didn’t hear was any concrete plan, or any acknowledgment that the contract itself may have been rushed or flawed. The system is still moving forward, and the clock is ticking.
I still believe the cleanest and most community-aligned option is to cancel the contract before installation. But I also believe that the community’s consistent and clear pushback is making a difference.
What Councilmembers Said
Here’s a snapshot of what was shared at Thursday’s meeting:
Bryan Wahl acknowledged community concern and said the Council should consider:
- Issuing a public statement of values
- Explore reviving the Community Policing Advisory Board
- Reviewing the Police Department’s policy manual to ensure responsible usage
“Nobody’s questioning our own police. It’s how others could potentially use the system. We need to make sure there’s clear transparency, and rebuild the trust that’s been lost.”
William Paige said Council needs a deeper understanding of how the system works:
“We’re counting on our policies being followed, based on how well it’s audited and monitored. We should be knowledgeable, not experts maybe, but informed enough to know what the system is doing and how it’s controlled.”
He also urged regional coordination:
“If we don’t collaborate, we are not a safe city. My vision is that Mountlake Terrace becomes a beacon, leading these conversations with other departments and holding each other accountable.”
Laura Sonmore emphasized intent:
“Our intent is not what I’m hearing reflected back from citizens. Our intent is to keep people safe and catch people doing horrendous things.”
Mayor Kyoko Matsumoto Wright responded to concerns about immigration enforcement with personal testimony:
“I just want to say that I was born in Japan as an American citizen. My mom is from Japan, and she became a naturalized citizen. You can have whatever you want to say or feel, but if you’re talking to me — I know about immigration. I know about having parents who are not from this country, and I was not born in this country. My son just got engaged to a person with a green card. So I understand.”
These comments, especially from Wahl, suggest that some Councilmembers recognize what’s at stake. But statements of intent or identity, while heartfelt, are not substitutes for structural safeguards. And no one addressed the lingering concerns about how the decision was made.
What’s Still Unanswered
Why weren’t the Council’s own concerns — particularly about contract terms like Section 5.3 — addressed before the vote?
That question came up again on the night of the decision. Watch this line of questioning from Councilmember Erin Murray.
Murray, to Kristen Macleod, Flock representative:
“You indicated that if someone were to come to Flock and wanted data from MLT, you would check in with us but I don’t see that laid out in the agreement.”
Kristen Macleod, Flock representative, not actually answering the question:
"That would only be in the event of a court order or a subpoena.”
She then punts to the city attorney.
Hillary Evans, City Attorney:
”That’s my understanding as well. And any records in our possession or in Flock’s possession would [need to] be court ordered to be turned over. But short of a legal mandate we would adhere to our policies which prohibit us from disclosing records to another agency who may or may not be using them in conjunction with ICE”
Councilmember Murray, clarifying that her question was not answered:
“Let me clarify, the question was about Flock’s usage of our data, not our city or other jurisdictions. [She references Section 5.3, covered in detail here.] If Flock has any good faith belief, Flock can access that data. Are you saying that would require a court order?”
Evans:
“Flock can use the data for 30 days and I assume Flock can and is accessing it internally.”
Mcleod clarifies:
“No, Flock will not access your data without your express permission to do so. That would only be to provide customer service, and you would be with us during that access. Flock will not access your information.”
Murray, pushing back on that statement:
“Kristen, where does the agreement say that?”
Evans, City Attorney, interjecting:
“An amendment to the contract might be useful or some sort of written acknowledgement that that’s the case.”
Councilmember Murray:
“I think a lot of things would be useful. There are concerns that I and others have brought up throughout the process. I’m surprised we’re again at a place where we’re scheduled to vote on this and some of these concerns haven’t been addressed in a any way…that just speaks to how premature this vote feels…I appreciate [city] staff trying to address, but I don’t think we have addressed any of them outside of speaking on them in a way that is consistent with Flock’s marketing and sales pitch. Trust doesn’t go far when you are in a court.”
Evans, City Attorney:
I take my marching orders from you all and that clause didn’t concern me… If that’s the direction council has for us, we can certainly go back to the drawing board and renegotiate.”
The city’s contracted attorney didn’t offer any clarity and seemed more defensive than responsive. The “express permission” Mcleod speaks of is given in the contract itself. By my read of the contract, the Flock representative was being untruthful.
So who was pushing this forward behind the scenes? Why the urgency? And why did state representative Lauren Davis spend a quarter of her “MLT State of the City” remarks publicly endorsing Flock cameras while still under debate?
I hope we’ll learn more in the coming weeks. Because while we’re now working toward stronger safeguards, we also deserve transparency about how this decision was made in the first place.
When the Lines Disappear
I heard an interview this morning with a former Department of Justice official who said, flatly, “There used to be a line.” She was talking about the long-standing separation between the White House and the DOJ, a norm that once protected justice from politics. “That line is very definitely gone,” she said.
The same theme came up in my conversations with Councilmembers. Lines we thought wouldn’t be crossed now have been. Layers of protection we assumed were in place are missing. Checks and balances, we’re told, still exist. But look closer, and they don’t.
A couple months ago, after the Supreme Court made it clear it would not place limits on the Trump regime, a friend told me, “Well, at least the military would be a check on power.” Even that now seems far less certain than we hoped.
This is the backdrop to Mountlake Terrace’s Flock decision. It is not paranoia. It is not alarmism. It is the logical response to a landscape where traditional limits on government power have been systematically stripped away, and where private companies are eager to fill the vacuum with unregulated surveillance.
Local decisions matter more than ever. If we do not draw the lines ourselves, no one will do it for us.
What’s Happening Elsewhere
In just the past few days since my last update — when I noted that Congress passed a budget bringing a new influx of federal funding for immigration enforcement — the risks tied to Mountlake Terrace’s Flock decision have only become clearer:
- In Virginia, police in at least five counties conducted dozens of immigration-related searches using Flock cameras, despite policies explicitly prohibiting such use. Read the VCIJ investigation »
- In Colorado, the state’s Immigrant Rights Coalition launched an investigation into whether ICE is accessing local law enforcement data in violation of state law. Read more »
- In Richmond, Virginia, the city’s police department cut off ATF’s access to its license plate data after learning it had been used for immigration enforcement. Read more »
- In Lewis County, WA, commissioners just approved a “non-sanctuary” resolution, openly rejecting the Keep Washington Working Act and pledging to share information with federal immigration authorities, despite state law. Read the article »
These stories reinforce exactly what many of us warned about. Once data is collected and shared, we lose control of where it goes and how it’s used. Even strong state-level protections, like the Keep Washington Working Act, are now being openly defied.
What We Heard From the Public
Two public commenters spoke during Thursday’s meeting, both opposing Flock, both urging the Council to cancel the contract, and both offering powerful, thoughtful testimony. I want to share one of them with you here, with permission and light editing for space.
Aude Puyfoulhoux:
“My name is Aude. My husband and I bought our first home here in Mountlake Terrace in 2022. I’d been living in the U.S. since 2016 on a green card and recently became a citizen, out of fear, due to the current political climate. As an immigrant, I felt threatened. In fact, I never would have spoken up at a meeting before getting my U.S. passport.
Before moving here, I lived in Germany for five years. Some of my friends and colleagues grew up in Eastern Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the surveillance that happened there, but it was severe. Expressing disagreement with the political regime could lead to imprisonment, torture, and repercussions for your family. The tools they had were rudimentary, but I can only imagine that systems like Flock would have been a dream come true for the Stasi.
The definition of a ‘crime,’ as well as ‘state safety,’ is highly dependent on who is in power. I think it would be unwise not to take history into account when approving these kinds of measures.
I’m only 36 years old. Eastern Germany is not that far away, neither geographically nor chronologically.
I recommend the film The Lives of Others for a better depiction of what I’m trying to relate.”
📽 Sidebar: A Watch Recommendation
Aude mentioned The Lives of Others, an Oscar-winning German film about state surveillance, personal risk, and quiet resistance in East Berlin before the fall of the Wall. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a powerful and timely companion to the conversations we’re having now.
Watch the trailer »
Where Things Stand
For now, it looks like the contract will stay in place. Several Councilmembers now seem open to revisiting oversight, transparency, and coordination. That’s important. But so is remembering that the best safeguard would have been to say no in the first place.
City Council is now on a two-week break. Their next meeting won’t be until later this month.
But the conversation continues.
Coming up on Wednesday, July 16, the city’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Commission will hold its regular meeting, and the Flock camera system is on the agenda.
Thanks to everyone continuing to show up — whether at the mic, in email, or in conversation with neighbors.
When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something.
John Lewis
More soon,
Dustin