On Flock and Trust
Concerned about the Flock camera decision? So am I—and here’s why.
Hello again, neighbors,
If you read my first newsletter, you know that I started Mountlake Terrace Musings as a personal space to reconnect with my community and reflect on what’s happening around town. In this second issue, I want to talk about something that’s been heavy on my mind: the recent city council vote to approve a surveillance camera system from a private company called Flock Safety.
You may have heard of Flock through the headlines, or you may not have heard much about it at all. So first, a bit of context:
Flock Safety is a private surveillance company that installs license plate-reading cameras in cities across the country. These cameras log every passing vehicle, capturing license plate numbers, timestamps, and location data. While that data can help solve crimes, the broader reality is more complex: data is often shared across jurisdictions, stored by a private entity, and accessible by third parties, including federal law enforcement agencies like ICE. This raises serious concerns about accountability, transparency, and local control. The technology has sparked a national debate over its implications for civil liberties. This article offers a detailed look at these broader issues.
When Mountlake Terrace City Council took up the question of whether to adopt Flock, many in our community voiced concerns. Dozens submitted written comments. Many of us showed up at meetings to speak. Our objections weren’t just technical—they were about values, transparency, community trust, and the kind of city we want to be. And yet, by a 5-2 vote, the council approved the system. This Herald article provides a basic summary of the meeting.
The vote was disappointing, not just because of the outcome but because of how the council chose to get there. Despite overwhelming public comment against the proposal, the majority of the council pressed forward without meaningfully addressing those concerns.
I want to be clear: I know each of the councilmembers, and I hold nothing against them personally. Serving on city council is a difficult, often thankless job—one that rarely gets appreciation and frequently attracts criticism. But with that responsibility comes an obligation to deeply consider how policy decisions affect all of our neighbors.
Each councilmember likely weighed multiple factors in making their decision. Local governance is rarely black and white, and I recognize the challenges of public service. Still, complexity doesn’t excuse a lack of accountability—especially for decisions with long-term consequences. Public office comes with public scrutiny, and the community deserves clarity, candor, and courage from its elected representatives. In the spirit of honest engagement, I want to share how I saw it.
- Councilmember Erin Murray: Voted no. Councilmember Erin Murray asked some of the most thoughtful and pointed questions of the night, diving into the specifics of data sharing, oversight, and contractual terms. She was consistent in her concerns from the beginning, and despite raising issues in previous meetings that warranted deeper discussion, her questions went unanswered. Her vote reflected a clear and principled stance in alignment with her earlier public comments.
- Councilmember Steve Woodard: Voted no. Woodard was clearly torn and on the fence. He brought up good points about how the system could help with silver/amber alerts. He worked through his reasoning in public, in the open, and I respect that. While seemingly leaning toward a yes vote, he listened to the community and made clear his vote reflected the significant public concern.
- Councilmember Rick Ryan: Voted yes, arguing that car theft is a significant hardship for lower-income residents and that the system could help by improving stolen vehicle recovery. While the concern for equitable impacts is valid, it must be weighed against the well-documented risks of surveillance—risks that often fall hardest on the same communities we aim to protect. Expanding surveillance in the name of equity, without fully confronting who is most likely to be harmed or how the data might be used, risks simplifying a deeply complex issue and ultimately undermines the equity argument itself.
- Councilmember Bryan Wahl: Voted yes. Did not offer any public comment or explanation at the meeting, which felt disrespectful—not just to those who showed up and engaged, but to the entire community that showed unprecedented interest in this issue. For a topic that generated more public input than any in recent memory, remaining silent on his reasons for voting yes felt like a missed opportunity to respect the community’s concern.
- Councilmember Laura Sonmore: Voted yes. Previously voiced concerns about surveillance, but at the meeting shifted to strong support. She emphasized that Mountlake Terrace residents should not feel safe and referenced a recent high-profile targeted, not random, burglary case to somehow justify the cameras—despite the fact that the case was solved without Flock’s technology. Her remarks came across as reactive rather than reflective, and missed the opportunity for measured leadership. While part of her point was about staying vigilant, using selective anecdotes to override public data—like the city’s own survey showing over 70% of residents feel safe—was disheartening. In times like these, thoughtful, data-informed leadership is crucial, and her framing missed the mark.
- Councilmember William Paige: Voted yes. Previously expressed concerns and had seemed uncertain in earlier discussions, so his vote came as a bit of a surprise. Ultimately supported the measure without directly addressing those prior concerns in the meeting.
- Mayor Kyoko Matsumoto Wright: Voted yes. Mayor Matsumoto Wright said her decision was largely based on conversations with her network and other elected officials, "100% of whom supported the cameras." This rationale stood in stark contrast to Councilmember Murray's caution that Mountlake Terrace shouldn't automatically follow other jurisdictions without critical evaluation. In choosing to rely on external endorsements rather than the overwhelming local opposition voiced by her own constituents, the mayor signaled a concerning disconnect from the people she represents. The contrast between these two approaches to leadership—one deferential to external peers, the other rooted in community feedback—was both stark and telling.
This decision didn’t happen in a vacuum. We live in politically volatile times, with federal agencies already shown to misuse surveillance tools to track immigrants, protestors, and even women seeking abortion care. As I write this, the Trump administration is actively laying the groundwork to federalize the National Guard to assist ICE with mass deportations and has even floated sending in the Marines to enforce immigration policy in states like California. And yet, our local leaders in Mountlake Terrace believe now is the right time to “try out” a surveillance system that we already know ICE has accessed in other jurisdictions. Once infrastructure like this is installed, it doesn’t stay contained—it grows, it spreads, and it’s nearly impossible to dismantle.
There was a lot of talk that night about who we can trust. Many agreed we trust our local police. But the real debate was whether that trust should extend to a private surveillance company, law enforcement agencies across the country, and federal actors we have no control over. That question remains unresolved. But one thing was clear: the council fractured the trust of the community it serves by rushing this vote and dismissing our voices.
If anything, this decision will diminish the very trust in our police department that many on the council spoke about.
These are different times, and they call for a different kind of leadership. Each councilmember needs to ask themselves: am I ready to step up—or is it time to step aside?
One thing I’m encouraged by is the growing interest in public service. For the first time in years, multiple seats on our city council are being challenged. We’ve gone several cycles with incumbents running unopposed. But this year, many of our neighbors have stepped up. I’m especially excited about people like Sam Doyle, who is running for Position 1 and spoke out against the Flock camera proposal at the council meeting. I believe we’re seeing the start of a new generation of leadership in Mountlake Terrace. But more on that in a future edition.
I’ll stop here for now, but I’m not done thinking or writing about this. We need to keep talking about what community safety really means—about the values we prioritize, the voices we listen to, and the systems we put our trust in. And I hope some of you will keep talking with me.
More (still) soon,
Dustin