They Voted Yes. Now What?
Tell the council to pause before signing. Section 5.3 still raises big questions.
Hi neighbors,
If you read my previous newsletter, you know I shared deep concerns about the Mountlake Terrace City Council’s 5–2 vote to approve a contract with Flock Safety, a private surveillance camera vendor. Despite broad and thoughtful public opposition, the council moved forward with a system that many fear will put our values and civil liberties at risk.
This Thursday’s City Council Work Session (June 12) is a critical opportunity to make your voice heard. While no new vote will be taken, the city may still have the option to revisit the contract or delay signing it. I hope residents will join me in urging the council to pause and demand a second look, especially at one key section of the contract: Section 5.3.
The Problem with Section 5.3
Here’s the full text of Section 5.3 from the draft agreement:
5.3 Disclosure of Footage. Subject to and during the Retention Period, Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties, if legally required to do so or if Flock has a good faith belief that such access, use, preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with a legal process, enforce this Agreement, or detect, prevent or otherwise address security, privacy, fraud or technical issues, or emergency situations.
At first glance, this language may sound protective—“legally required” and “good faith belief” seem reasonable enough. But when we unpack the sentence structure, it becomes clear just how broad and permissive this clause really is.
Here’s how I’ve come to understand it:
Flock gives itself two distinct pathways to access and disclose footage:
If legally required — e.g., via a subpoena or court order.
Or — and this is key — if it has a “good faith belief” that disclosure is “reasonably necessary” to:
comply with legal process,
enforce the contract,
or detect/prevent/address issues like security, privacy, fraud, technical issues, or emergency situations.
That “or” before “detect” is doing a lot of work. It means everything in that list is not necessarily tied to legal process or external oversight. Flock can act on its own discretion—without a warrant, without notice, and without local consent—if it believes any of those vague triggers apply.
This clause is exactly what Councilmember Erin Murray raised concerns about during the June 5 meeting. And it’s one that neither the Flock representative, the police commander, nor the city attorney could clearly explain or justify. We can—and should—expect better answers before handing over sensitive surveillance authority.
Another Critical Safeguard: The MOU with Other Cities
One more area where we can still have influence is in shaping the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Mountlake Terrace and nearby cities that also use Flock.
At the June 5 meeting, the police commander and Flock representative explained that Mountlake Terrace would sign individual data-sharing agreements with other cities. These MOUs would outline how shared data can be accessed and used. The police commander also made clear: we absolutely do intend to share our data with nearby agencies.
Elsewhere in the country, Flock data has been shared with federal agencies like ICE. That’s why the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) Mountlake Terrace signs with other jurisdictions are so important. If we’re going to share our data with nearby agencies like Lynnwood or Olympia, we need to explicitly prohibit them from passing it along to federal authorities.
This was a key point raised by Councilmember Erin Murray: our local protections are only as strong as the agreements we enter into. Let’s make sure those MOUs are public, precise, and non-negotiable when it comes to keeping our data out of federal hands.
What You Can Do
Mountlake Terrace residents deserve a voice in how our city handles public safety and data privacy. Here’s how to make sure your concerns are heard before Thursday’s work session:
Submit a Written Comment (by 4:00 PM Thursday)
Email your comment to cityhall@mltwa.gov
BCC me if you’re willing: dustin@dekoekkoek.com
You can also address individual council members directly. Respectful disagreement is welcome—personal attacks are not.
One-click link:
Click here to email the full council
🎙️ Speak at the Meeting (In Person or Remotely)
The June 12 City Council Work Session starts at 7:00 PM.
To comment remotely: email cityhall@mltwa.gov by 4:00 PM Thursday to sign up.
To comment in person: just show up a few minutes early at City Hall and sign in.
What to Say
Urge the council to delay signing the contract until they’ve addressed Section 5.3 and allowed public review of any final revisions.
Urge them to commit to strong, public-facing MOUs that prevent data from being shared with federal agencies like ICE.
Thank Councilmember Erin Murray for her leadership and thoughtful opposition to the contract.
Thank Councilmember Steve Woodard for listening to residents and voting no, even while acknowledging potential benefits of the technology.
Express disappointment with the five yes votes and ask council members to rebuild trust by committing to greater public transparency going forward.
We may not stop this contract from being signed—but we can make it clear that Mountlake Terrace residents expect more than vague legal clauses and rushed decisions when it comes to surveillance and public trust. Let’s speak up.
More soon,
Dustin