[0:22] Okay. Hello everyone. Good evening. We're going to have you quiet down fees. Thank you. Okay.

[0:34] I'm calling to order a special meeting of the Berkeley City Council today's Thursday, May 7th, 2026. It is 509 p.m. Clerk, can you please take the roll? Okay. Councilmember Kisterwani.

[0:47] Here.

[0:48] Tap one.

[0:49] Presence.

[0:52] Bartlett is currently absent.

[0:55] Tragum.

[0:55] Presence.

[0:56] Okay.

[0:57] Here.

[1:00] Humver.

[1:01] Presence.

[1:02] And mayor.

[1:02] Here.

[1:03] Okay.

[1:04] Quorum is present.

[1:05] Okay.

[1:06] So folks tonight.

[1:08] We have two items on our action calendar.

[1:12] One is the public safety technology surveillance technology ordinance.

[1:15] the police equipment, ordinance approvals, policy updates, and contract authority.

[1:20] And one B is the social justice implications of contracts with immigration data broker

[1:25] Flock Safety, which came from the Peace and Justice Commission.

[1:28] This is a continuation from a meeting that we had on March 24th, 2026.

[1:34] A few things I want to say before we get started.

[1:37] Rhanna.

[1:38] I know there are a lot of folks here and there's a lot of energy in the room, but I really

[1:42] to ask you all to continue to be respectful as people are speaking and allow them to speak.

[1:48] Of course, you're welcome to cheer and clap and stuff when someone speaks and says something

[1:52] you want but I ask you not to boo. It's both disrespectful and against our rules of procedures.

[2:01] So the other thing is that as we are going this evening, if you have public comment and you're

[2:10] I mean, with a group, we encourage you, you don't have to, but we encourage you if you're speaking in a group that you speak, maybe have one person and then the other folks come up if you agree already with what they're saying, because that will allow for more people to speak this evening.

[2:26] Okay, so last meeting, one of the things that we did was we heard from our Berkeley Police Department,

[2:34] we heard from our PAB, our Police Accountability Board, and then we heard all of the different

[2:40] supplemental that were presented from the last meeting. So we don't have any presentations tonight.

[2:47] What we're going to be focused on are first the questions, first the questions from the council,

[2:52] and then we'll take public comment and then we will have council comments and any motions that happen.

[2:59] So just so folks have a sense of what's going to happen this evening.

[3:03] That's our little road map. And so what I do want to do is just go ahead and start

[3:07] if anyone from the council has any questions.

[3:27] Come on, I know folks have questions.

[3:35] Okay, so I will start with a question and one question that I had from last time was

[3:46] Sorry, my question list got adjusted.

[3:52] If you could speak to the difference between our current

[4:00] community registry program and the proposed CVS.

[4:09] Yeah, absolutely.

[4:10] So CVS community video streams, it's our proposal to

[4:14] really expansion in a deepening of our current camera registry program.

[4:18] So, currently what we do is if a business has set a cameras that they want us to be aware of in the case that we're investigating a crime that occurs nearby, then we know that that camera is there and we can more quickly obtain evidence that we need to do the investigation.

[5:00] And where we could directly access that video footage if they allow us to. And so I propose that for that program would be that we go through an inspection process of the cameras before we would connect to them to make sure that they're not pointing anywhere that we shouldn't be able to have access to.

[5:19] We would publish on our website, the location of all those cameras, and we would require appropriate

[5:26] signage near those cameras so that the public is aware that they are connected to our system.

[5:33] I just don't want to add one more thing.

[5:34] One of the challenges we have with our current camera system, the way it works, is that a lot

[5:39] of times we'll be investigating a crime, we'll be in the moment of investigating a crime.

[5:43] The manager is the only person who has access to the room that has the camera, or there's

[5:48] reader that's associated with being able to download the file and then view it once it's taken.

[5:53] So this would allow us to both have that access, regardless of whether or not there was a

[5:58] manager on site, but also not run into the challenges we have with evidence collection right now

[6:03] we're forced sometimes to use a phone and and videotape the screen as it's playing obviously

[6:07] there's a degradation of the evidence when we do it that way. Thanks, Chief. And follow up question

[6:12] on that. Can you speak to the community video surveillance process? What has been done so

[6:18] far to help the community understand what this system would look like.

[6:29] We've gone through the surveillance technology ordinance process as required by 2.99.

[6:37] And we've submitted use policies or acquisition report.

[6:42] And that's what council is considering today.

[6:44] And if you remember we talked about it about two community meetings.

[6:48] Additionally, we covered it in a presentation talking to Pav about what that technology looks like.

[6:53] We've had a number of neighborhood watch meetings where we've gone and talked about the

[6:56] different technologies and we'll share that in the March 24th meeting with council

[7:02] when we talked about that technology.

[7:04] Thank you and I'm going to go ahead and jump to my council member colleagues and say now join

[7:10] the queue and I might have some more questions later.

[7:13] Let's go to council member Tracab.

[7:14] Thank you. I want to delve into the unmanned aerial system policy 1303. Could you speak

[7:29] to your perspective around if there were limitations in the policy that were restrictive

[7:44] of the ability of such UAS systems, yes, this is DRFTs, to surveil areas of mass gatherings,

[8:01] like protests,

[8:04] other than subject to exigent circumstances, which would be something like

[8:10] a medical emergency or an act of shooter situation.

[8:18] I'm not sure I'm completely tracking your question, is your question that would we use this

[8:25] technology to oversee a lawful gathering or a protest action, absent there being an

[8:33] exigent circumstance?

[8:36] The question is I actually trust you that you wouldn't, however in my reading of the policy,

[8:46] However, in my reading of the policy, it does not, in my reading of it, it does not specifically

[8:54] preclude a future PD from doing that.

[9:00] Could you speak to, yeah, so, in there.

[9:04] So, 3.03 prohibited uses, UAS shall not be used to conduct random or arbitrary surveillance

[9:11] activities. This prohibition includes but is not limited to first amendment

[9:15] assemblies and accordance with policy 428, first amendment assemblies. So there's a

[9:20] specific prohibit use that would be a prohibit use.

[9:24] Okay. Elsewhere in the policy, Tartino 3, there's mention of, yeah, two, so there's

[9:36] examples to us want to act of criminal activity at mass gatherings or special events.

[10:03] So, as you know, there's a awful assembly's happened, and we're guided by number of people who are there, maybe the issues that they're discussing, and our officers respond to those and have a goal of keeping the peace.

[10:16] And when a critical incident occurs, there's a language defining what a critical incident is, an event that occurs that is beyond normal capacity or normal responses.

[10:25] And so those are industry standard terms, some of those are embedded in different places

[10:30] in our use of force policy and are embedded in our 428 first amendment assembly policies

[10:37] as well.

[10:40] Thank you.

[10:40] I have one question for the city of Tornead in terms of the amount for violation that the

[10:53] If the council chooses to go that route, would it be a policy decision for us to say maybe not 75 and maybe not 150, but maybe looking at Richmond's 290 or Oakland's 200.

[11:09] Okay, for violation.

[11:11] Yes, that's squarely a policy decision that you get to make.

[11:20] And I think this might be for the city manager, but let me know.

[11:28] On the staff's supplement for procurement, there is mentioned, there's language that says

[11:36] flocks for catalog is available for purchase on the region for ESC contract.

[11:43] So,

[11:47] if it all does this relate to flux promised discount, if the procurement was completed

[11:57] by July, which is something that I also had elsewhere in the document or in a different

[12:06] document.

[12:08] Yes, so the, that procurement had the price in terms that flock proposed via the procurement.

[12:18] They are always free to negotiate discount however they wish with any potential vendor.

[12:27] Okay, and if I, that was my penultimate question, this will be my last question.

[12:33] Can you speak to what this piggyback contract was based on, I did here, or it was my understanding

[12:47] that it was based on a school district in Texas, and if so, how may the, can you speak

[12:59] to the comparisons between a U.S.D. in Texas with probably different operational needs

[13:10] than a medium-sized city, like Berkeley.

[13:14] Yes, thank you for the question. Our finance director is also on the line, so he

[13:17] may want to chime in here, but essentially, when you're piggybacking off a contract, you're

[13:21] looking at the product, in this case, that you're seeking to procure and the price.

[13:27] And so as long as it's the same product and they've bitted out at a competitive price, then

[13:33] you're then in there's a process that they went through in our P process and put that

[13:39] forth, then if our securing that product complies with their, it's the same product that

[13:47] we're trying to secure the day bid for when that satisfies it.

[13:51] So, and this is a common practice in the city where we will procure things like a move

[13:58] or a truck or something like that.

[14:01] If I'm a procurement that is either, could be from a state, could be from a county, somewhere

[14:06] in the country, excuse me, for the purposes in radio per chemit and they say, here's

[14:13] all the price in terms, here's the terms that we're looking for and the use in the product,

[14:17] If that entity applies to the solicitation and the product that we want to procure is what they proposed,

[14:28] then we have the ability to procure it.

[14:31] So just because, like for example, an Earth movement that is school,

[14:35] a big school district procurement was part of.

[14:40] Doesn't mean that like the fact that they're moving Earth on a school ground,

[14:44] rather than a park, doesn't make a difference.

[14:46] the fact that the program of camera to do security somewhere in their school district doesn't mean

[14:53] that we couldn't procure the exact same camera to do a security in the city.

[15:00] A couple questions for the Berkeley Police. I just would like to ask you a couple questions to get on the record. Hopefully a greater understanding of the nuances of the way the data is shared of the different kinds of data that are at stake.

[15:17] So first of all, the ALPR data generates like a searchable spreadsheet of license plates and locations in time, essentially, is that correct?

[15:31] Yeah, so the ALPR data allows us to search across exactly the database of those images

[15:38] that have been captured and identify whether that plate appears within our retention period of 30 days.

[15:45] Yeah, 30 days.

[15:46] Thank you.

[15:47] And can you briefly describe the process that, let's say, another officer in a just

[15:56] in a jurisdiction that we share our data with.

[15:58] By the way, if you could also just

[16:00] say quickly, like who we share with and what the rules are about that.

[16:04] And then I'd also love if you could walk us through what it would look like

[16:08] for an officer from one of those jurisdictions to search our data.

[16:13] So first, we only share with agencies within the NIMBary,

[16:17] counties in Sacramento, County.

[16:19] In agency within those counties and if they've signed a letter of agreement with us

[16:24] green to comply with state law and our

[16:26] sanctuary city ordinance.

[16:30] Once they've sent that letter, we will give them access to

[16:33] search across our network.

[16:35] And if they have a lawful reason to search, they will

[16:39] input a case number, they'll select a statute that the

[16:43] investigation is associated with, and they'll

[16:46] define the networks that they want to search across.

[16:49] And so if it includes ours, then that search will occur,

[16:53] and a little peer on our audit logs, so we'll be able to verify the information that they submitted.

[16:59] And what are their options?

[17:02] Like do they just type in whatever reason they want or what?

[17:07] They're required to give a case number.

[17:09] They're required to select a statute, and then they have the option to write an additional information.

[17:16] And I think I'm trying to confirm this with you.

[17:19] There's no immigration related justification, right?

[17:22] Because that's none of the statutes are.

[17:23] No, that's not available on the drop-down reasons.

[17:26] It's also against state law and against our local policies.

[17:29] Right. So all of the given reasons that they would have to stay at all in compliance with our saying very well.

[17:33] Great.

[17:33] Thank you for clarifying that.

[17:35] And then can you talk a little bit about how that differs from the data that would be recorded by the video cameras,

[17:42] what you're proposing to acquire, because that's different.

[17:47] Yeah, that's completely different.

[17:49] We would not be sharing that with other agencies in the same way,

[17:53] except for in the same way that we share other types of evidence.

[17:57] When there's an active investigation, they come to us,

[17:59] they ask us to have this piece of evidence.

[18:01] If we did have some footage that was relevant, then we would download that

[18:06] and process it in the same way that we would have any other piece of evidence that we share.

[18:10] But just to be clear, it would be only Berkeley police officers who would be actually doing the searching and being complete control of the data sharing.

[18:21] Correct. There would be no case where another agency was given access to search through our footage that we have.

[18:29] Yeah, and just like because it's like not really searchable, you can't really type in a face, right? So it's not exactly the same.

[18:35] I think it's important to clarify the different kinds of different kinds of data that we're talking about and how they differ in terms of exposure.

[18:45] Those are my, I think I might have some more questions later, but those are my questions for the police.

[18:49] I did want to just pivot a little bit and say I did actually have a supplemental that wasn't presented last time, and if I could just, it's not like a big one.

[18:58] So it would be okay, Madam Mayor, if I just talked about it for a minute.

[19:02] I proposed, it's published in the packet, it was published yesterday, some minor changes

[19:09] to the drone use policy, I don't have it up or anything, but I could read it into the main

[19:18] changes into the record.

[19:21] The idea with my supplemental was, I'm not personally comfortable with the drones being

[19:28] being sent out for every call or just kind of for no reason.

[19:33] Like, I think that that was the vision that was presented.

[19:35] And I think I understand it.

[19:37] But I think drones, I'm not really interested in normalizing them

[19:42] as a police tool yet.

[19:43] I think that would be a big change.

[20:00] I see that they have a value in certain situations, but I would like, I'm proposing in my supplemental

[20:06] that way we restrict the times when they can be sent out to already this times when the suspect

[20:14] is believed to be on the scene or in the immediate area of the scene and could reasonably

[20:19] cause harm to those present. So this is sort of a emergency situation or a crime involving suspected

[20:26] physical violence or there's an imminent risk of physical injury due to a crime or a medical

[20:31] issue.

[20:33] So basically, the vision here is that we do send them out, but only when it really could

[20:37] make the difference in a really critical safety situation and not as was previously described

[20:45] when, you know, just to sort of check out a call to see if it's see what's going on, which

[20:49] I do understand the utility of that, but I'm not personally comfortable with that.

[20:53] So that's one of the big changes my supplemental is proposing.

[20:56] And then just to mention it also says no microphone or audio sensing device,

[21:01] he'll be activated at any time.

[21:02] And I think that's already understood as part of the expectation,

[21:06] but I did want that written into the locks.

[21:07] I don't think that drones should be able to listen to people.

[21:11] That's another kind of surveillance we do not have right now.

[21:13] And I don't want to invite it into our city.

[21:16] So that's my supplemental.

[21:18] We can table that now that I wanted to get a chance to present that.

[21:22] And yeah, I might have more questions, but I will yield to other people.

[21:27] Thank you so much.

[21:27] Thank you.

[21:28] And I appreciate you mentioning that apologies for leaving that out.

[21:31] And we did residmit our supplemental as well, but mostly just to reorganize it.

[21:34] So it was more aligned structurally with the staff.

[21:39] So it could make more sense when we are comparing them.

[21:42] So I'm curious actually, is Frog represented?

[21:45] Is there Frog representative on?

[21:48] He is on his way.

[21:50] Oh, okay.

[21:51] So, because I think there are some folks that have questions for them, so folks, please,

[21:56] all right.

[21:57] So, go ahead and Council Member Bartley.

[22:01] Thank you.

[22:04] And it's going to be back.

[22:04] Could be back.

[22:08] My question is really, at this point, around the video cameras, the fixed cameras, and particularly,

[22:16] I guess, so it's helped me to walk me through the process of how they're used, just

[22:21] high-level briefly.

[22:22] Are you talking about the fixed PTZ cameras, right?

[22:26] So, you know, if you recall originally, they were placed in intersections.

[22:30] That was pre-suppoint the ALPRs into the community, and what we realized after that first

[22:36] appointment at 6 a.m. University was that they weren't able to capture from the distance,

[22:41] they were able to really capture pedestrian activities and things like that.

[22:44] We came back to Council and explained, one we had power related issues around putting them

[22:50] the P.J., around the individual on cameras.

[22:53] And two, we wanted to place them in pedestrian heavy areas

[22:57] in our business districts to provide that ability

[23:00] to deter crime and solve crimes that occurred in those areas.

[23:04] So there would be deployed in the locations

[23:05] that Council approved with signage that says

[23:08] that the camera is there and that it's recording.

[23:10] There would be a tool that we would use access

[23:13] to pursue into the policy for various specific uses.

[23:17] But would then provide us with another investigative tool

[23:20] in a deterrent tool.

[23:22] So I guess so there's an incident robbery or to have you.

[23:26] We know it's this time, this location,

[23:28] so then when you rewind, you go into the footage

[23:31] to that moment.

[23:33] Yeah, that's correct.

[23:34] If we believe that there's ever been

[23:35] a true value on that video, the detectives would go

[23:38] and go through a process to create an audit trail,

[23:42] but they're looking at video at a certain camera,

[23:44] certain time, for a certain kind of crime.

[23:47] So at that point, and this is what I'm gonna get

[23:49] getting out here is the official recognition software.

[23:52] Are we deploying that at all?

[23:56] No, we're not.

[23:58] OK.

[23:58] Thank you.

[24:01] Thank you.

[24:02] I also wanted to make sure folks knew

[24:04] that our interim director, please

[24:06] accountability Kathy Lee, is also sitting at the table.

[24:08] So just so folks know who you are since you

[24:10] weren't here at the last time.

[24:12] Thank you for thanks for joining.

[24:16] So if you have some big Kathy fans, OK.

[24:19] If you can, also, if folks have any questions, then you can ask her as well.

[24:26] Okay, so moving forward to, oh, Council Member Linnapara, but really quickly, I have apparently

[24:32] someone dropped a set of keys and a credit card outside.

[24:38] So if you have dropped your keys or credit card,

[24:43] maybe give a wave on this side of the barrier

[24:47] and we'll try to get back to you.

[24:50] Okay, all right, so tell us what I want to know about her.

[24:53] Go ahead.

[24:55] Thank you, and thank you for being here.

[25:02] As brought up by the PAB, can you explain the scope of prohibition on First Amendment assemblies, if, for example, a crowd

[25:10] doesn't disperse, is that criminal activity that would warrant the use of drones? Are there other instances of criminal activity at protest that would warrant the use of drones?

[25:22] So, no, we would not deploy a drone because the crowd didn't disperse the drone would be deployed

[25:27] if there's a risk of injury or there's ongoing injury, felony violence occurring

[25:32] against someone in the crowd, then we'd absolutely, an active shooter, people being assaulted.

[25:38] We would absolutely want to have the drone up to be able to go and record, identify who

[25:42] the responsible are.

[25:43] Some of the things we've learned in past activities like this is that the safest way to resolve

[25:48] instances like that is to figure out who the problematic person is, and then when there's a safe space to be able to take that person and arrest them without

[25:56] Negative the effecting the lawful assembly and that's a goal and so having that recording of the criminal activity

[26:03] It's happening for a prosecutable case as well as identifying in a

[26:07] And apprehending someone in a safer manner with that tool, but that's the kind of situation where I would expect that you would see

[26:14] drone flying in that and we would not be flying to

[26:18] simply be at a first amendment approach as or a mask gathering just to collect who's there at their location.

[26:25] I think it would be helpful to add to be more specific in the policy to make sure that we know

[26:32] when they could be used and when they couldn't. Can you elaborate on the six officer

[26:41] positions that are associated with this technology that are those positions currently

[26:48] staffed?

[26:49] It's a great question and we got a lot of convoluted because if you recall we brought

[26:53] this first item, I don't remember much earlier in the budget process.

[26:57] And so if you look at just how much it would cost for this technology in comparison to salary

[27:02] and benefits of an individual officer, it's roughly two officers.

[27:06] And however, in conversations with the union, who we consult with when we're making decisions

[27:11] about staffing levels and work status, we discuss like, hey, we want to come to the table,

[27:19] we know these technologies were bring us efficiencies, we'd like to propose that it could

[27:24] do the work of six positions.

[27:27] And so that's how we landed in the six, the number six, was in that kind of discussion.

[27:30] So that's what we brought for it.

[27:31] We've already moved past the space in the budget process where the city manager has made a proposal that identifies unnecessary cuts to our staffing.

[27:41] So we instead are now looking to what would be affected by bringing on this technology.

[27:46] And what you would see is instead of officers having to go physically to a location to gather video or to do neighborhood canvases or to have more officers on staff because you can't clear calls for service because

[28:01] You have to go individually to calls.

[28:03] We believe that we can recognize the savings in over time and reduce our over time budget.

[28:09] It could be equivalent of an addition to the cost that we would save by the implementation.

[28:15] So we're at a different space in the budget.

[28:16] And that's why we're talking about different numbers of officers and different costs savings.

[28:22] So to clarify the cost savings would be in over time, not in positions.

[28:29] Well, the proposal itself already sees a reduction of police officers positions.

[28:34] So those are happening separate from funding a technology process.

[28:39] And so those positions are either going to be preserved or eliminated pursuant to

[28:44] this council's desires around the budgeted positions for the department.

[28:48] If we are looking for ways to pay for a new technology that's going to cost money, the place

[28:52] that I will be looking at to pay for is not from new funds, which our city doesn't have

[28:56] right now, but from a reduction in my existing over time budget.

[29:03] Last year, the police department went over the over time budget.

[29:09] How would this play into those numbers,

[29:13] would it cut the overall budget allocation or the actual spending?

[29:19] Both.

[29:20] Both.

[29:20] I think you two both.

[29:21] I will share that our driver of that,

[29:25] Over time was almost all directly related to our severe staffing storage in the communication center.

[29:31] And so right now the amount of money we're spending on over time to ensure that we have the ability to answer calls that are coming in from the public.

[29:39] It said, you know, you lose it's it's one and a half percent or one and a half times an off position, a dispatcher position that you're charging in over time in order to fill those spots.

[29:48] And so we saw almost an additional $2 million this year where we're anticipating in over time as a result of that shortage.

[29:55] And so we know there's going to be that reduction then once we bring technology on board.

[30:00] And we have these greater efficiencies. We're able to reduce our minimum staffing number as we deploy in patrol with the technology. We think we can drive that number down even further. Obviously, we can't control things like special events or emergency situations that happen that sometimes unexpectedly raise our over time. But looking at the numbers and the way our shift extensions have run in over time. We believe we can drive that down with minimum staffing level changes that are only possible with technology that supports those that reduction.

[30:31] Okay, thank you. I'm curious what the training requirements are for operating drone technology.

[30:44] There are certain requirements from the FAA for drone pilots, and then we'll have additional training available to anybody that's going to be operating a drone.

[30:56] Be it a drone as a first responder or a patrol trunk deployed drone.

[31:02] To be the safety operate in those situations.

[31:05] Would that be required?

[31:09] Yes, yes.

[31:10] OK.

[31:11] Thank you.

[31:13] What protocols are in place to prevent the misuse of drone technology, such as unauthorized

[31:21] surveillance beyond the specific deployed use case?

[31:28] So, I mean, there are several layers here.

[31:30] One is the hardware limitations and how they're set to, for example, to a point

[31:38] the horizon as they're flying to a scene, not only to point down when they arrive at a scene.

[31:43] Another layer is our policies and another layer is the logging that occurs of each flight

[31:54] that gets published shortly after the flight, so the public will be able to see where a drone

[32:00] and wait shortly after it comes back and so there's a number of layers of scrutiny available

[32:08] to each drone deployment so that we can investigate any complaints but also monitor

[32:16] as these drones are getting used.

[32:21] Okay thank you and my last question is do all of the law enforcement agencies within the

[32:27] in Bay Area counties that share our data have written sanctuary city policies or sanctuary policies?

[32:36] I'm not aware of every single agency, I know many of them do, but that was certainly part of our

[32:42] intent by limiting the agencies that we share with to the local region to maximize public safety

[32:50] value without exposing ourselves to other agencies whose policies were not in control of.

[32:55] And just to be clear, we are a sanctuary state.

[32:59] We have laws that protect us as a state.

[33:01] Every single law enforcement agency in the state of California has policies and places

[33:05] that says you cannot violate state law.

[33:10] Folks, please.

[33:11] Thank you.

[33:12] Yeah.

[33:12] I know our local sanctuary is stronger than the states.

[33:17] So, which is why I asked.

[33:19] Thank you.

[33:19] Those are my questions for BPD, but I do have more for Flock.

[33:25] I think just to clarify real quick.

[33:26] So in order for another agency to look across our data,

[33:30] they have to agree to follow our sanctuary city policy,

[33:33] not whatever their city sanctuary policy is.

[33:35] So yeah, we hold them to that higher standard,

[33:37] in order for us to share with them.

[33:39] We would cut off access if they were doing something

[33:41] that did not comply with our city sanctuary city policy.

[33:45] Thanks, Chief.

[33:47] Okay, so we're moving on to Councilmember BlackBee,

[33:50] but I know there's a lot of folks standing.

[33:52] If you would like to sit, there are some seats throughout,

[33:55] don't feel bad about asking someone to move their belongings. I just want to make sure everyone can

[34:00] sit if they want to. Yeah, go ahead. Great. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Could I ask, is the flock

[34:05] rep here? Oh, awesome. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. From the outset. No worries. I'll start with

[34:15] questions. Okay folks, please. That's not appropriate.

[34:27] Mayor, I'm glad we need to take a five minute

[35:00] All right, we will be taking a five minute break for audiovisual reasons. Thank you.

[36:31] I mean he's missed it, he's just gone now.

[36:43] He's got his friend so he's actually got his friend so he's got it.

[36:56] Enlightenment.

[36:59] These test test test test test test test test test test test

[37:30] I was fine

[37:46] on the zoom.

[37:47] Yeah.

[37:48] But now BCM doesn't have a good idea.

[45:43] Test, test, sound check,

[46:04] testing, testing,

[46:34] sound check.

[46:44] Test,

[48:09] test, audio, test, test, test,

[48:15] yes, rose muted after that.

[48:18] So,

[48:21] Med is there, is it, are you getting audio,

[48:34] S test test?

[48:35] We go, we go in there and talk to you, Rose, we go in there, where Med is an ask him if it's

[48:44] working,

[49:04] test test, test, audio test, test,

[49:11] test, test, BCM audio test, but can you hear me

[49:14] David?

[49:19] Okay.

[49:31] Okay.

[49:32] Okay. Test, test, test, test, test, test, test, test.

[49:40] Okay. Rose is saying that Ned has thumbs.

[49:44] Okay. All right. So I think we're okay to resume.

[49:49] All right.

[49:51] Just stay close.

[49:53] That's it.

[50:01] All right. That's, it's stay close.

[51:23] Hello, Tessing, okay folks you can hear me

[51:29] If you can hear me clap twice, if you can hear me clap three times.

[51:34] Whoo, very good.

[51:35] All right.

[51:35] Thank you everyone for your patience.

[51:37] I'm so sorry.

[51:38] It seems that we are back up and running again.

[51:41] So I will call this meeting back to order.

[51:47] All right.

[51:48] And where we left off.

[51:50] Was that Council Member Black could be?

[51:52] Was just about to ask his question.

[51:54] Sorry, I'm in the back.

[51:55] Go ahead, Council Member.

[51:56] And we've just also introduced a new person to our table too.

[51:59] So perhaps, you want to introduce yourself?

[52:03] Yes, Mayor and Council, my name is Trevor Chandler.

[52:04] I'm the Senior Director of Public Affairs of Law.

[52:07] Thank you.

[52:08] OK, folks, please respect.

[52:11] Go ahead.

[52:14] Chief Louis W. Chief Tate, Mr. Momburg.

[52:16] I just wanted to appreciate your in here bringing the path forward.

[52:21] I wanted to say from the outset that I fully support your effort to provide our officers

[52:25] with the tools I need to keep us safe.

[52:26] But I do have questions about who we choose to contract with and how we build the public

[52:33] trust around the process.

[52:36] So I want to start with a couple of questions for the department and then I have some questions

[52:40] for Mr. Chandler.

[52:42] I wanted to focus on the community video streams piece of it because I think that's the part

[52:46] we've talked about.

[52:47] I think not as much as some of the others and just from my understanding what are the circumstances

[52:53] is under which you will activate those cameras.

[52:57] So the protocols around when you use them, when you don't,

[52:59] or they always aren't, or they not always

[53:00] on, how does that part work?

[53:03] Yeah, only,

[53:06] and realize they're on.

[53:09] Only your spot to a specific incident or active investigation.

[53:12] So we won't just be monitoring them.

[53:13] It will only be in response to something specific.

[53:17] So in the RTIC, so the idea is not,

[53:21] here's all the community video stream cameras

[53:23] and running all of it.

[53:24] basically, hey, there's an event happening at the Apple Store.

[53:28] We need to activate the cameras to monitor what's going on and correct.

[53:31] Okay, so it's some particular event that activates.

[53:34] Okay, how does this kind of video access, you know,

[53:38] how does it compare with how we're monitoring the other fixed cameras?

[53:42] Is it a similar, how do you think about that?

[53:43] Is this similar approach in terms of when they're activated?

[53:46] I'm just trying to kind of square the cameras that the city would be operating

[53:50] versus the ones that we'd be asking partners about.

[53:52] Yeah, they're very similar use policies that we propose.

[53:57] So that there would be under the same permitted uses

[53:59] and prohibited uses, and so on.

[54:01] And the retention time, is it the same retention period

[54:03] for both?

[54:04] So with the community of these dreams,

[54:05] we wouldn't be retaining any footage.

[54:08] This would just be whatever that, since these cameras

[54:10] already exist, right?

[54:12] The organizations already paying for them.

[54:14] And so whatever their retention policy

[54:15] is how long they would retain that video footage for it.

[54:18] And then they would decide whether to give us access

[54:21] to only the live footage or to any period of the vaccine video.

[54:26] So if there is some evidentiary value from something,

[54:29] you might take that and hold on to that

[54:31] for the purpose of doing an investigation.

[54:33] Sorry, but otherwise, good.

[54:36] Yeah, I think about this way.

[54:37] So if we learned there was a robbery at a business

[54:40] and they had video.

[54:42] We would capture that video.

[54:43] We would log in capture that video.

[54:44] It would get uploaded into our evidence collection system

[54:46] and held pursuant to the retention period

[54:48] for that kind of crime.

[54:50] If, for some reason, we learned that a crime happened at that particular business, a month ago, two months ago, six months ago, we would contact them and say, you know, do you?

[55:00] So there's some kind of real-time monitoring in the moment for an event, but it's just turned on for a particular event and turned off when you don't need it.

[55:10] And after the fact, you might ask for footage and then use it for evidence again.

[55:15] So you're only retaining the footage of stuff that has evidentiary value.

[55:19] Is that right? Okay.

[55:20] And are there any circumstances under which you'd be sharing any of that video with other jurisdictions or not?

[55:26] This is a sense of situation with the fixed-art fixed cameras that we own.

[55:31] We would never allow access to another agency to get in and do some searching, but if we

[55:36] got contacted and said, hey, we're working this series of robberies, we believe somebody

[55:40] was in that store that the description of such and such, right?

[55:43] Then we could access and understand whether that evidence was there, and we would only turn

[55:47] that evidence over to them if it fit within the parameters of, you know, really to an investigation.

[55:53] Right.

[55:53] Similarly, it's like, so you have rules in terms of who you do or don't share with, and again, never

[55:58] shared with for immigration and enforcement purposes and all that.

[56:02] Absolutely, okay.

[56:05] And if, if another jurisdiction needed access to information at, like, again, maybe they have

[56:12] a suspect from their jurisdiction who is involved in something at the Apple Store and Berkeley,

[56:18] do they come through us?

[56:19] So how do they get that for it? Again, does it come through you guys making that request and then you decide whether or not to share it? Or do they go directly to that?

[56:32] I would say either. I mean, there's nothing that precludes them from going to the Apple store and saying, hey, we're investigating this case. Can we have it?

[56:38] And a private business would share whatever manner they wanted to.

[56:42] But if we were approached to ask for evidence from someone in our city, it has to go through a review process.

[56:47] process, I capped in the captain of the investigations would approve the collection of that

[56:52] and the release of that to another institution.

[56:54] Great, thank you.

[56:56] A couple questions from Mr. Chandler, again, thank you for being here in the hot seat.

[57:00] From that outset, I just want to say, because I think this is something I've felt a while

[57:04] and I think a lot of us feel this, that I've just been really disappointed and frustrated

[57:11] to watch how flock has sort of handled the sort of drip drip drip of complaints and reports

[57:16] about problems with an authorized data sharing with sort of the mistakenly check check boxes

[57:22] with pilot programs with CBP and sort of other agencies that give them access to these

[57:28] broad look-up features without the permission of the local agencies.

[57:32] And I'll just say, you know, as someone who before I had this job, I've spent a lot of years

[57:36] in public affairs and politics, it's, you know, it's really been a case study in like

[57:47] So my frustration is that rather than getting out ahead of it and taking responsibility,

[57:52] it's been kind of put on the local jurisdictions to sort of defend what's happened,

[57:56] which I don't think has really been fair to allow these local jurisdictions.

[58:00] And in a lot of cases, I thought the first response seemed to be blaming these agencies

[58:06] for faulty configuration without acknowledging that one error is a user error, but multiple

[58:12] errors is a product flaw, you know, that's a flock, that's a flock issue.

[58:17] So, I'm not doing, I'm just doing this because, you know, I feel like we need to get this

[58:21] on the table because, you know, that's a frustration, I think we all are feeling as policy makers

[58:26] who are being asked to make this sort of decision.

[58:29] So my question, I know we've talked about this in the past, but are you willing and can you

[58:32] acknowledge today, but you know, flock has made, you know, these mistakes, these are not just

[58:39] jurisdictions kind of make an mistake. This is, this has been a flock piece of two and I just

[58:43] want to do that kind of talk about that and help us understand how you view that.

[58:47] Absolutely. And I genuinely appreciate those remarks at the Councillor. So thank you for bringing

[58:52] it up. We have made an our our CEO has made public that we could have and should have done

[58:59] many things better. When we started addressing these issues a little over a year ago, up to that point,

[59:08] We had been providing compliance, the tools to be compliant, rather than simply mandating

[59:14] compliance like we could have and making it easier for all of our customers, especially

[59:20] here in California in other states that have laws that would have just been easier for

[59:25] us to do that.

[59:27] We have sent shifted in our entire business model to start to mandate compliance.

[59:32] Now it is not possible for a single California agency to share outside the state.

[59:37] In addition, to make sure that is not allowed, we've also put in place immigration search filters.

[59:43] We've put in place reproductive health search filters.

[59:46] And we've removed all and any sharing with any federal, whether it's a national park, whether it's the post office.

[59:54] And so these are things that we acknowledged one, we could have communicated the compliance features better, and that's on us.

[1:00:00] Take full responsibility for that. And we could have done compliance as default, rather than simply providing the tools and letting agencies go on at case by case basis. So we're extremely proud of what we've done last year. Now we have probably, I will say definitely of all the LPR providers. We are the only LPR major LPR provider without a contract with ICE. I think that's very important to note. There's no relationship there. That distinguishes us from axon, Motorola, everyone else.

[1:00:29] There is no contract with ICE where the only one without a contract with ICE, and we have put in place groundbreaking and industry leading transparency and accountability features, including additional audit transparency, that proactively provides potential misuse potential irregularities, so people don't have to wait until they run their audit next. I'm happy to go through more of that.

[1:00:51] Yeah, that's right.

[1:00:53] Yes.

[1:00:53] I'm going to take your comments.

[1:00:54] There is much we could have done better and we are working to earn that trust by doing

[1:00:58] even more than that.

[1:00:59] I appreciate that.

[1:01:01] And one of the things we talked about in the past was I think in March, March 26th, there

[1:01:06] was a blog post that outlined a lot of those new safeguards.

[1:01:09] So this is the California agencies can't share out of state or with the feds that the federal

[1:01:14] government is not part of the California state look up network that you require the

[1:01:18] defense type and sort of the drop down to do a search and that the cities again this is

[1:01:23] this confirmation this is the city's data and not you know blockstata. One of those

[1:01:28] safeguards actually go into effect like when did those come online? I believe those most of

[1:01:33] that they they came online in various iterations I believe most of them came online in August and I

[1:01:40] can get the the specific dates for you. So it's like August of 25 plus plus or minus and then

[1:01:46] or there was some communication about that I know in March

[1:01:48] that kind of just laid, okay.

[1:01:51] Since those safeguards,

[1:01:52] a lot of my questions are around

[1:01:54] like the timeline of this process,

[1:01:56] because if you look at sort of news reports about flock

[1:01:58] and what's going on,

[1:02:00] a lot of what happens is we're also talking about things

[1:02:02] that may have happened a year ago, right?

[1:02:04] Because it's an audit that cuts it.

[1:02:06] So my question sort of is,

[1:02:07] since those safeguards went into effect,

[1:02:10] have you have any customers reported issues

[1:02:13] that those safeguards went into effect,

[1:02:16] You lock down the sort of piece, what's happened since the safeguards, and what can you look at in terms of the track record.

[1:02:22] Since that time.

[1:02:23] We've been notified of no instances where the previous examples have happened again.

[1:02:31] So I know that's the case.

[1:02:32] I was just on a call with the other day with another California city with 100% clean audit.

[1:02:41] There are no issues, and I've not been made aware of any additional issues since these figures.

[1:02:46] have been put in grace.

[1:02:48] Let me pivot a little bit to some of these kind of operational questions.

[1:02:51] Part of these are in the draft contract, part of it is in, and I'll try and be judicious

[1:02:56] with my time.

[1:02:58] Question about, if the FBI comes to you with a judicial warrant asking you for access to some

[1:03:05] of Berkeley's data, what's the flux operating procedure now?

[1:03:09] Councillor interjecting.

[1:03:10] Councillor interjecting.

[1:03:11] Councillor interjecting.

[1:03:14] Councillor interjecting.

[1:03:14] We are contractually obligated to notify the city of Berkeley of that request, and internally

[1:03:20] our process is to let that subpoenaining authority know that we do not own the data,

[1:03:25] because contractually we do not own the data and direct them to the city of Berkeley.

[1:03:31] Okay, and then back to the chiefs, so if that comes to you, then what's kind of the city's response.

[1:03:35] So, you know, the fraught comes to us and said we've got this subpoena just again to kind of confirm

[1:03:39] how the process would work from there. Right, so the minute that we got that subpoena,

[1:03:43] we'd be in consultation with the city manager

[1:03:45] and the city attorney's office about proper ways

[1:03:48] to justify that subpoena.

[1:03:50] OK.

[1:03:50] And then similarly, if instead of the FBI with a judicial warrant,

[1:03:53] if it was ICE with an administrative warrant

[1:03:56] that came to ICE and asked for access to Berkeley's data,

[1:03:59] what would that play out?

[1:04:01] Is that any different?

[1:04:02] How is that play out if it's an ICE administrative warrant

[1:04:05] versus an FBI judicial warrant?

[1:04:07] For us, there's no difference.

[1:04:08] We would still direct them to you,

[1:04:10] and we would alert you to that request.

[1:04:12] Okay, and then it would be a similar process for us.

[1:04:18] Okay.

[1:04:19] Good.

[1:04:19] Well, thank you.

[1:04:20] Look, I appreciate you being here and we'll on this sort of answer those questions.

[1:04:25] I appreciate this discussion.

[1:04:27] I think, you know, as we move forward, and I shouldn't hear colleagues, interested in hearing

[1:04:30] from the public, you know, I do want to make sure that, you know, we're really thinking about

[1:04:36] who and, you know, what we're contracting with whom for what, as we move forward.

[1:04:42] And so that'll be something I think I want to come back to later.

[1:04:46] Just to make sure that we're making the best choice.

[1:04:48] Because again, I have full confidence in what the department's doing.

[1:04:51] I think you need to make sure that our tools meet those expectations as well.

[1:04:56] So anyway, thank you.

[1:04:57] Thank you.

[1:04:58] Thank you, Council Member.

[1:04:59] So.

[1:05:00] I did want to directly thank you for being here. My first question is for you. I know it's been

[1:05:09] sometimes since March. Could you recopituate the four principal concerns from the pub and has

[1:05:16] anything changed on that front? Since the last time, this was discussed.

[1:05:23] Thank

[1:05:25] you.

[1:05:28] So from March, the concerns broadly were about the MSA with the concerns broadly were about

[1:05:38] the NSA with Flock.

[1:05:41] The policy is governing drones, the community, the policies concerning drones, the community

[1:05:47] video streams and fixed cameras, and the drone acquisition report, oh, sorry, and the

[1:05:54] integrated platform of surveillance services in one vendor.

[1:06:01] Those were the four concerns from March.

[1:06:05] Since then, there's been additional research done about the procurement process,

[1:06:10] and that's what the PABs letter to you of May 4th,

[1:06:16] which is in the Supplemental two packet outlines.

[1:06:19] So, I don't know if you want me to go into that right now or.

[1:06:24] Yeah, maybe a little later.

[1:06:28] But I do want to make sure I have time to ask.

[1:06:33] Travel some questions and thank you for being here.

[1:06:37] So my first question is in this might also be for staff.

[1:06:44] There's been a lot of discussion about this lookup tool, and are you willing at this

[1:06:52] point to make a commitment that if, partly, was to enter into a contract with Flock, it

[1:07:00] would be disabled entirely?

[1:07:09] National lookup, yes, absolutely, it's already done, it is impossible for any agency in California

[1:07:15] it to enter into the national search feature and we are willing if you would like to put that

[1:07:21] in the contract absolutely a hundred percent we would be comfortable with that as of what

[1:07:25] date did that change on your end approximately around August so I can double check on this specific date

[1:07:34] but that change is already been made okay what is the highest for violation term if there is a breach

[1:07:43] of contract that you're willing to accept, which means is 290k, or glances 200k, we have

[1:07:52] on file the response from flock that you're willing to accept 150k. I'm wondering if just

[1:08:00] your thoughts around,

[1:08:04] there is actually no monetary value that can be placed on a human life

[1:08:10] being impacted on this, so I just wanted to ask.

[1:08:22] Was that a question?

[1:08:24] What is the highest part violation term that you're willing to accept?

[1:08:30] I can't speak to the highest.

[1:08:32] As you said, we have the examples of Oakland enrichment.

[1:08:35] And I imagine we could be amenable to a similar per violation standard here.

[1:08:44] Thank you.

[1:08:45] Folks, I don't believe it's important to know since implementing those, we have never been subject to any of those

[1:08:53] finds for any potential, uh, uh, mystery.

[1:08:58] Thank you.

[1:09:00] Um, I think this,

[1:09:04] do you currently, um, I, I appreciate what you said about, um, not working with ice.

[1:09:11] Um, that counts for a lot in my book.

[1:09:14] Do you currently have any contracts able use or other agreements with other federal agencies such as CBP?

[1:09:23] We have federal contracts, but not with CBP.

[1:09:28] Can you allow us to date on other federal contracts if you do have?

[1:09:35] We have national park contracts, United States Postal Inspection Service, those sorts.

[1:09:40] Yes, but we do not have a contract with us and we do not currently have any contracts with entities under the department of under the Department of Homeland Security.

[1:09:53] Okay.

[1:09:54] What was the date at which any of those contracts for this continued?

[1:10:00] We never had a contract with CBP. We had a pilot agreement. That lasted for approximately four months.

[1:10:07] And it was focused on human and fentanyl narcotrafficking. And that was suspended around September of 2025.

[1:10:18] I can get the specific date on that. That's an estimation.

[1:10:21] Okay. Thank you.

[1:10:25] This might be a question for actually both the chief and Mr. Chandler.

[1:10:32] There has been discussion around, well, we've put it.

[1:10:39] Yeah, my council member, how many just curious how many more questions you have since I think you've actually this is your second time your second period of question.

[1:10:46] This will be my last question.

[1:10:48] Okay. Thank you.

[1:10:51] I understand that flock is currently testing out the utilization of machine learning as part of its system.

[1:11:00] Can you speak to how that would be prescribed are there?

[1:11:08] Would you be agreeable to terms in a contract or MOU that might preclude the use of machine learning?

[1:11:20] specific to Barclay.

[1:11:23] Yeah.

[1:11:24] Thank you, Councillor.

[1:11:25] So we do use machine learning to increase accuracy.

[1:11:28] So as new vehicles come onto the market, a new camera, any number of things.

[1:11:32] We take accuracy very seriously, because we don't want to minimize misidentifications of vehicles and license plates as much as possible.

[1:11:40] As new license plates come on the market.

[1:11:42] We use machine learning to improve that accuracy.

[1:11:44] We have such as an Oakland.

[1:11:46] Some cities have decided they want to opt out of participating in that out of it in extra abundance of caution and we would absolutely be a

[1:11:55] Manimble if Berkeley would want to opt out of the machine learning process

[1:11:59] Obviously, we want we want to continue to hopefully improve

[1:12:03] But if that's something that Berkeley doesn't want to be a part of then we would absolutely opt the city out of it

[1:12:09] Thank you so much

[1:12:11] Thank you councilmember O'Keefe

[1:12:14] Thanks for giving me another

[1:12:15] But at the Apple here, first of all, I want to say it

[1:12:19] Miss Lee, I'm just so happy you're here and I'm just,

[1:12:22] thank you so much.

[1:12:22] It's really important your important voice and just welcome to this

[1:12:26] Welcome to this world back to this world.

[1:12:29] And I guess there's not going to be a presentation

[1:12:32] from the pub.

[1:12:34] Is that right?

[1:12:35] Are you prepared to know?

[1:12:36] I'm not aware that we will have any other presentations.

[1:12:40] Okay, I guess I don't have specific questions,

[1:12:41] but I am curious to hear more about your perspective

[1:12:45] on the issues that were raised by the the pad letter. So I think that's what I'm

[1:12:50] sure you've also asked about that, but you're going to ask more later. You're asking about

[1:12:53] the recent pad letter. Yeah, so yes, it did. Director, if you could speak to that recent

[1:12:59] pad letter. Yeah, it was to hear your current thoughts. My take on it. I would agree with it

[1:13:06] pretty much, substantively. There was a lot of research done, a very deep dive into the series

[1:13:14] of contracts that the department had entered into and how it seems that we ended up sort of

[1:13:21] piece-mailing the various components and a concern that is noted is having an integrated architecture

[1:13:30] without a real sense of really analyzing whether that's needed, whether it needs to be provided

[1:13:42] by one vendor, and the research that the pad members did, what we feel that there are other

[1:13:51] jurisdictions that do use different surveillance technologies from different vendors and use

[1:14:01] some other type of platform to integrate it all, and I think there is a concern to me about having

[1:14:15] anything rely on one vendor. And this is really, and I want to emphasize that this is really

[1:14:21] separate and apart from flock as a vendor, all the procurement issues, and having a single

[1:14:31] vendor provide all of your systems, as the memo outlines, could be a great danger if something

[1:14:43] fails, that means everything could be failing without any sort of backup. And so that is a major concern.

[1:14:54] Sorry, just a bit about your talking about the technology itself failing like not working anymore.

[1:15:00] I want to continue in discussion, but I really appreciate you being here once again. Two more questions.

[1:15:07] Actually, this one is for, actually, I want to thank Council Member Black. I could be asking the great questions of

[1:15:13] a flock representative. I think that was really helpful. And I think after hearing about that, I would like to hear a little more from our

[1:15:18] police about our auditing process. How often is it done? What do you check for if you could just help us understand how that looks a little bit more?

[1:15:29] Yeah, so I'll policy requires that we audit our LPR system twice a year and so that entails

[1:15:38] going into those logs of when other network agencies and search across our network and evaluating the

[1:15:45] reasons and the information that they provided.

[1:15:48] As well as looking at the searches that we've done internally in making sure that they comply

[1:15:52] with all of our policies.

[1:15:55] Yeah, I just want to share that's a formal auditing process, but we have three administrators

[1:16:01] that have access to changing the features in the flux system, the ALPR system.

[1:16:06] Those users are in the system on a regular basis, whether it's every day or every other

[1:16:11] day, certainly during the business week.

[1:16:13] That's how we caught that one issue that we have that we located where we had a term that

[1:16:17] we weren't sure about, and then we were able to chase down, so it's not like we're waiting

[1:16:20] until the end of a six-month period and then looking back,

[1:16:23] we're in that system regularly, doing that in formal auditing,

[1:16:26] looking for irregularities, looking for connectivity issues,

[1:16:28] and things like that.

[1:16:30] Thanks so much for identifying that.

[1:16:32] And the last question, I'm sorry.

[1:16:33] I think somebody may have already asked about this,

[1:16:35] but I wanted to get it clear.

[1:16:36] And actually, maybe we're a soccer representative

[1:16:37] who can comment on this as well.

[1:16:40] It has to do with the facial recognition for the video cameras,

[1:16:44] which is, I understand there's machine learning

[1:16:47] for recognizing the images of cars.

[1:16:49] But I think there's a lot of concern about facial recognition.

[1:16:52] So can you clarify if we use facial recognition

[1:16:55] if what it says in the contract,

[1:16:58] and then I've also interested in sort of the technical ways

[1:17:01] of managing whether that's on and off?

[1:17:04] Sure.

[1:17:05] By policy, we do not allow facial recognition technologies.

[1:17:09] And then if what can you explain how that's achieved?

[1:17:12] Flock does not have facial recognition.

[1:17:14] Don't have it.

[1:17:14] So it can't even be turned on or off.

[1:17:16] It does have individual recognition because there are some of these cameras.

[1:17:21] What does that mean?

[1:17:22] So if a, if a goose were to fly in front of a camera,

[1:17:27] we wouldn't want your law enforcement to constantly be getting alerts about,

[1:17:32] you know, a goose flying in front of a camera.

[1:17:35] So some of our panels zoom cameras.

[1:17:37] They do can identify that there is a person there.

[1:17:40] So or they can look for, you know, you can look for a yellow shirt.

[1:17:44] But there is no facial recognition.

[1:17:49] Okay, that's helpful. Can you say a little bit when you say yellow shirt like that does sound like it's describing some aspects of the person? Can you say a little more about where is that line cut off?

[1:17:59] Yeah, so there I mean put it frankly there is no facial recognition. There is none. There is individual there is the ability to recognize that there is a person in front of a camera. So if you are looking for a suspect with a yellow shirt, these these searches do not base on gender or race.

[1:18:14] They are on characteristics, such as, is there someone wearing a hat?

[1:18:19] Is there someone wearing a yellow shirt?

[1:18:21] So that is what is able to be detected, but there is no facial recognition.

[1:18:26] Okay, so it's focused to make it incredibly trying to understand you.

[1:18:29] So, would it be fair to say you can ask for descriptions of color and items of clothing,

[1:18:37] but nothing more specific than that?

[1:18:39] Correct. You can not ask for a gender, a race, or a protected characteristics.

[1:18:42] Okay, or, well, shhh, that's different than what I said.

[1:18:49] What I said is, is the limit of the search terms, is it limited to things like color and

[1:18:56] clothing items?

[1:18:58] That's it.

[1:18:59] Okay.

[1:19:00] All right.

[1:19:00] And that's just to confirm that's, we are version of the system has that capability, or will,

[1:19:06] I guess we don't have this yet, but is that right?

[1:19:08] Or do we have this turned off also?

[1:19:11] Yes.

[1:19:11] we don't have that feature on the current cameras that we run nor do we turn that feature on.

[1:19:16] So the question comes up about let's say a new camera exists next week, right, or next year,

[1:19:22] and it has that capability, but we don't turn those features on, right? So that's how we,

[1:19:27] we're guided by our use policy and so technology moves past what we originally acquired

[1:19:35] and a capability exists on a technology now. We don't we will either turn that function off

[1:19:40] Right? Or if there was no way to turn it off and it was going to be a part of what would be our routine thing we would see?

[1:19:47] Then we would come back to council and say, hey, this thing that we have now has this extra feature.

[1:19:52] Do you want us to stay using this technology and expand it or do we need to look for a new vendor?

[1:19:58] Okay, but

[1:20:01] So, we're talking, you have with these policy for the Pentel Zoom cameras we have now, and, of course, right now we're discussing whether we're going to be acquiring these flock cameras. So, I guess my question is if we were to get these flock cameras that have this ability for to search for, you know, basic descriptions of people would, would that, that would not be allowed under these policy if we acquired these cameras? Is that what I'm understanding?

[1:20:27] We would be able to use a feature that allowed us to say in this footage right here, can you find us a suspect that was wearing a yellow shirt?

[1:20:36] We would not have, and we would not use, even if it was available any kind of facial recognition or...

[1:20:42] Okay.

[1:20:43] Thank you.

[1:20:43] And I appreciate that clarity.

[1:20:45] Those are my questions.

[1:20:47] Thanks again for coming.

[1:20:47] Thank you.

[1:20:47] Moving back to your council member, Lynn Appara.

[1:20:51] Thank you.

[1:20:52] I have a...

[1:20:53] some more questions. I have some questions for Fox representative. Can you speak to Fox

[1:21:00] Safety's obligation to their investors? I'm specifically interested in Fox biggest investor

[1:21:06] and the firms and founders. I mean, she's going to let her get her question out and its founders

[1:21:12] anti-immigrant anti-DI and pro-Trump views and support of surveillance regulation. How that may

[1:21:18] influence Fox practices and obligations.

[1:21:26] Is there a specific investor that you're referring

[1:21:29] to, it's a, we have, we have a number of investors, more curious about how, how

[1:21:35] Flock safety engages with, it's investors into what extent the views of the investors

[1:21:40] is going to affect how the company operates.

[1:21:42] The company operates within the law, and that's, that's the most important aspect.

[1:21:49] Just like folks, just as hearing California, where we have SB 34, we have fully shut off

[1:21:56] any sharing or disabled, any sharing outside of the state or with federal agencies, that we

[1:22:02] are guided by the laws of the country of the state and of the localities that we work.

[1:22:08] Those are the people we answer to are the legislators.

[1:22:12] You.

[1:22:13] Yeah.

[1:22:14] Oh, no.

[1:22:14] I was just going to say, I don't think that she was asking whether or not

[1:22:18] flock operates within the law.

[1:22:20] She's asking you about how you interact with your investors.

[1:22:24] So could you speak to that, please?

[1:22:25] We interact with our investor similarly to any company. We have board meetings where we provide earnings reports.

[1:22:33] So that is how we engage with our investors, same as any other company.

[1:22:40] Okay. There are federal and state and local laws that don't necessarily align.

[1:22:49] And that have conflicting perspectives on the law. So how does it take that into consideration?

[1:22:53] Thank you so much for asking that question because I think California is the precise example

[1:22:58] of that.

[1:22:59] Where California has a very explicit law with SB 34 that this state prohibits the sharing

[1:23:04] of license plate reader data outside of the state so we have prevented that from happening.

[1:23:09] We are additionally providing groundbreaking industry leading, again, I want to say industry

[1:23:14] leading because no other license plate reader provider has implemented the additional changes

[1:23:18] above and beyond what we have, which allows cities and states to be able to choose who they

[1:23:23] share with and how they share with, including, again, if there is a sanctuary state law.

[1:23:29] If there are limits on data sharing regarding reproductive health information, we have put

[1:23:34] in groundbreaking, in many cases, not even required by a law, guardrails to make sure that

[1:23:40] community values do not have to come at the expense of community safety.

[1:23:43] And what's happened here in California is exactly that.

[1:23:46] We have completely shut it off.

[1:23:47] So that no city in California is able to share with the federal authorities or with any state or entity outside the state of California.

[1:23:57] Okay. Well, I'm that that I'm honestly not satisfied by that given that flock already has violated or allowed cities to violate state law.

[1:24:08] So my next question is, is similar to Councilmember Traygub's question around violations

[1:24:17] and fines for violations?

[1:24:19] How sure are you the city of Berkeley data privacy will not be violated and how much money

[1:24:24] do you think the city should be awarded if it is violated?

[1:24:27] Similar to Councilmember Traygub's question, I think that we have a couple of numbers that

[1:24:34] out there. As was mentioned, we have an agreement with City of Oakland that's $200,000.

[1:24:41] So again, I would just provide to you all. You are the legislators. You are the City Council

[1:24:49] to have that conversation about what is what you view as necessary.

[1:25:02] So, those are outlined in the contract, as well as under state law. So, that would be a violation of sharing that flock is responsible for that goes against the...

[1:25:13] Yeah, I guess I'm asking if there is a violation of the contract that ends up with multiple people being affected.

[1:25:24] Is each individual person being affected? Is that each individual instance of isolation?

[1:25:31] Are they all one violation?

[1:25:33] I will yield to your city attorney on that, specifically when it comes to the legal interpretation of the contract.

[1:25:39] I understand I'm curious what flux interpretation is.

[1:25:43] Again, I would yield to your city attorney because I know our attorneys have been talking with your attorneys,

[1:25:47] and I feel that that would be a question that's better answered by the attorney.

[1:25:51] So you're not willing to answer?

[1:25:54] I would prefer that you're a city attorney answer that question.

[1:25:58] Thank you.

[1:25:59] Those are my questions.

[1:26:01] Okay.

[1:26:02] Council Member Biology.

[1:26:02] Did you have follow up questions?

[1:26:03] Oh, yeah.

[1:26:04] Thank you.

[1:26:05] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:26:05] Thank you, Mr. Flock.

[1:26:07] Sorry.

[1:26:09] Sorry.

[1:26:09] Mr. Flock.

[1:26:11] Mr. Apple.

[1:26:12] Thank you.

[1:26:12] Mr. Apple.

[1:26:14] Meet the Flockers.

[1:26:15] I think it's a movie.

[1:26:17] So now that you're here, I was going to ask you quickly.

[1:26:19] And I think this comes up a lot in conversation, the Foreign Intelligence Service surveillance

[1:26:25] act.

[1:26:25] TV, yes, warrants or other sort of secret federal directives.

[1:26:30] What's that process like for an hour situation?

[1:26:34] So the Pfizer warrants are the same for any company everywhere.

[1:26:38] These are typically confidential warrants that I personally do not have any knowledge of.

[1:26:46] what I can say in what many experts in the field have said is, if someone, if there was

[1:26:52] something of importance of a Pfizer warrant, is an exceptional warrant. If it goes significant

[1:26:57] process. If someone is going through or if someone in the government is going through the process

[1:27:02] to acquire a Pfizer warrant for something, a point in time, image of a vehicle that is potentially

[1:27:09] 30 days old is not likely the most effective use of a situation like that. Obviously, I can't

[1:27:15] to every situation, but it's more likely that it would be used on a phone, on a laptop,

[1:27:21] on something that someone carries with them all the time, not a 30-day old picture of a

[1:27:26] point in time of a particular vehicle. Okay. All right. And then, so regarding the third party

[1:27:33] platforms involved in the Flock ecosystem, you know, what are the steps you can, you can describe

[1:27:39] to take care of our data, so there's no data leakage from one of your partners.

[1:27:45] What do you say partners?

[1:27:48] Well, let's see about the Amazon Web servers and the servers, the camera companies,

[1:27:52] the transport companies, there's a whole host of application providers that make

[1:27:58] a, you know, any product flow, including yours.

[1:28:02] Some curious, just, you know, how do you maintain operational security with these players?

[1:28:07] Absolutely. So we make all our own cameras. These are not, we don't, you know, buy from a Nokia

[1:28:13] factory or a camera factory. We make all of our cameras in-house in addition to our software,

[1:28:21] all of it is in-house. We do use Amazon web servers. We have a robust data security mechanism

[1:28:27] including our new chief of information security officers. We have a new partnership that does

[1:28:32] kind of trade of testing on our servers.

[1:28:35] We have SOC to type 2 ISO 271.

[1:28:39] We go above and beyond to make sure that the data,

[1:28:42] that we are protecting, it stays protected.

[1:28:49] And that includes regular audits, independent audits,

[1:28:52] which we make available on our trust website

[1:28:53] for all of our customers to download.

[1:28:56] And to we update regularly, most of them are annual,

[1:29:00] some of them are more than annual.

[1:29:02] but it's something we take extremely seriously.

[1:29:05] Thank you.

[1:29:06] Thank you.

[1:29:07] So at this time, if there are no more questions, I'd like to move as

[1:29:10] on to public comment.

[1:29:13] There is significant number of people in this room, and there are some folks

[1:29:17] online as well, but we will be limiting public comment to three

[1:29:21] hours.

[1:29:22] That will be two hours in person and one hour online.

[1:29:27] So I would ask that if you have public comment on this item,

[1:29:30] if you could please come forward and and a reminder to folks if you didn't hear me say earlier

[1:30:00] Also, give your minute of time to folks, could you please be quiet while I'm giving the review, so that folks can hear. Thank you. So, as usual, you can give a minute of your time to another individual. Only one time and one person can speak for up to four minutes. So that means three people would be giving them a minute of their time. I ask that you please try and organize that ahead of time, so that we're not trying to figure out who's giving you the minute in the time.

[1:30:29] because it eats away from the comet period.

[1:30:32] So, yes.

[1:30:33] Did you?

[1:30:34] Why is there a room spell?

[1:30:37] Sorry, yes.

[1:30:38] So, I would like to make a motion to expand the rules

[1:30:41] and limit the comet period to three hours.

[1:30:43] And a second from Councilor Matriga.

[1:30:46] OK.

[1:30:46] Well, question question.

[1:30:47] Is there a mechanism?

[1:30:49] Do you want to, is it all in person first

[1:30:51] and then online?

[1:30:52] It will be, yeah, I was saying, so two hours in person, one hour online.

[1:30:57] Is there any interest in doing any alternating?

[1:30:58] I think that's the only other thing.

[1:30:59] Is anyone interested in altering?

[1:31:02] I don't.

[1:31:02] I don't know.

[1:31:03] I'm willing to go to your discretion within.

[1:31:06] Yeah.

[1:31:06] Yeah, I want to go.

[1:31:07] Sorry.

[1:31:08] Go ahead.

[1:31:09] Can we take the roll, please?

[1:31:10] On the most short-art, you need public comment procedures.

[1:31:13] Councilmember Kester Wani.

[1:31:15] Yes.

[1:31:16] Kapplin.

[1:31:18] Bartlett.

[1:31:19] Yes.

[1:31:19] Tragot.

[1:31:21] Councilmember O'Keef is currently absent.

[1:31:25] Black V.

[1:31:26] Luna Para.

[1:31:27] Yes.

[1:31:28] Yes, Humber, yes, and Mary, yes.

[1:31:32] Okay, motion carries.

[1:31:33] Okay, thank you.

[1:31:34] Please come on up.

[1:31:36] Okay, so it's 640.

[1:31:42] Good evening to everyone.

[1:31:43] My name is Brenda Grisham.

[1:31:44] And I just had to make one statement.

[1:31:47] This is my second time here.

[1:31:49] And I have never heard anybody ask,

[1:31:52] How many lives have flocks saved?

[1:31:54] How many girls have they stopped from being traffic?

[1:31:56] How many businesses they have recovered their property?

[1:31:59] Haven't heard any of that?

[1:32:00] We all care about the immigrants, but there are residents here that want safety.

[1:32:07] And we want you guys to take that account, my daughter and my grandchildren live here.

[1:32:10] And I want to be sure that their lives and the things that go on with them is important.

[1:32:15] My son was murdered in Oakland. His cases are solved and I guarantee you.

[1:32:19] I'm fighting for flat cameras in any city I can. Thank you.

[1:32:24] Thank you. Come on up.

[1:32:35] My name is Veter Nika Fuxen.

[1:32:36] I want to thank all of you for the questions you've asked.

[1:32:41] I think all of you mean well, you care about all of us in this community, you're committed

[1:32:46] to this community.

[1:32:48] I think, however, it's naive to be listening to what has been said to you and think that

[1:32:55] cities have canceled because there's no, there's no good reason.

[1:33:00] Cities have canceled, El Salvador last night.

[1:33:03] The last thing I want to say, the very last thing I want to say is that flock needs

[1:33:10] Berkeley, more than Berkeley needs flock.

[1:33:16] flock needs Berkeley, a sanctuary city, as a poster boy, for a community that people

[1:33:27] care about their population, to do business with this company.

[1:33:38] If you don't want to be in that investment, thank you.

[1:33:44] Come on, then, then, come on up.

[1:33:50] Good evening, Council.

[1:33:51] My name is Linda Livenbaum and I'm reading a statement from

[1:33:54] Friends of Adeline, which with everyone from Friends of

[1:33:57] Adeline, please stand or wave.

[1:34:00] Thank you.

[1:34:02] Friends of Adeline, strongly opposed is the Berkeley Police

[1:34:05] Department's proposed expansion of its flocks surveillance camera network.

[1:34:09] This proposal represents the largest expansion of surveillance infrastructure in the city's

[1:34:14] history and directly undermines a Berkeley's long standing commitment to being a sanctuary

[1:34:20] city.

[1:34:21] Approving this contract moves Berkeley toward a more militarized model of policing with serious

[1:34:26] and disproportionate consequences for the people of our black, brown, and immigrant communities.

[1:35:00] Fox track record raises significant concerns despite what we've heard tonight. It is well documented that this company

[1:35:06] shares that with federal law enforcement aid. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Linda.

[1:35:27] Hello, my name is Sally Nelson.

[1:35:31] You are right

[1:35:32] to be concerned about providing safety for all of Berkeley. The reason announcement by the ACLU reveals

[1:35:40] at Flock, now claims that all data gathered by its surveillance belongs to Flock, and not to

[1:35:46] this city of Berkeley.

[1:35:48] Flock may then share that data with any agency or person of its choosing, including ice

[1:35:55] and the CBP.

[1:35:57] This makes all of us less safe, whether we are people of color or undocumented immigrants,

[1:36:04] naturalized citizens, or citizens by birth, whose beliefs may be too progressive for

[1:36:10] opinions we are all at risk for being detained, imprisoned, or subjected to violence.

[1:36:16] We all want Berkeley to be more safe and the contract with Flock.

[1:36:21] The safety of your constituents depends upon your voting, no,

[1:36:27] on having any contract with Flock.

[1:36:29] Thank you.

[1:36:30] Thanks for coming.

[1:36:32] Thank you.

[1:36:42] Hello.

[1:36:43] I'm Dr. Jane Scanelberry from the...

[1:36:46] If you could speak into the mic, please.

[1:36:48] Jane Scanelberry from the Commission on Labor.

[1:36:51] And in a meeting recently,

[1:36:53] we unanimously, unanimously voted to urge the city to suspend its contract with Flock

[1:37:00] and to halt any further expansion of the program.

[1:37:04] Because due to the company's well-documented use of overseas sweatshot labor,

[1:37:09] These are some examples from the letter.

[1:37:13] In 2001, first of all, just about the sweatshop procurement ordinance.

[1:37:17] In 2009, the Berkeley City Council passed the sweatshop free procurement ordinance.

[1:37:24] While the ordinance is specific to the procurement of a peril,

[1:37:29] the wording is an expression of the Berkeley's fundamental values as a municipality.

[1:37:34] the city of Berkeley, and this is from the the ordinance.

[1:37:40] The city of Berkeley recognizes a public interest in avoiding payments,

[1:37:44] to vendors who maintain sweatshop words.

[1:37:46] This person is giving me a minute, too.

[1:37:48] Thank you.

[1:37:50] Including below substance wages, excessive long working, working hours, et cetera.

[1:37:59] As documented in both international media and academic studies,

[1:38:02] flock outstores as much of its work to low-paid gig workers in the Philippines.

[1:38:08] These contractors do data annotations often refer to its crowdwork in which workers

[1:38:14] view thousands of hours of video annotating the data to help train the AI algorithms.

[1:38:22] This is low-wage monotonous yet high-pressure work and the workers doing this analysis

[1:38:28] Our exposed to substandard labor conditions, including extremely low rates of pay and lack of labor rights and protections.

[1:38:37] To outsource much of its data analysis to low paid workers in the global south companies like Flock,

[1:38:43] can maximize their own profits by evading US minimum wage and working condition protections.

[1:38:49] Thank you.

[1:39:03] My name is Martino.

[1:39:05] I know that some of you will be voting against this contract extension, but that most of you will probably vote for it.

[1:39:17] And I want to say that what that means is you are standing in opposition to the momentum of other cities in this area that are voting it down.

[1:39:28] And they do are standing against the tendency in history to get rid of this kind of social whatever it is.

[1:39:44] And that you are, well,

[1:39:51] you are standing in the way of history.

[1:39:55] And I want to say to you that if you are going to vote for this

[1:40:00] Rep. Patent, their own patent that they filed to the U.S. patent office clearly states that their

[1:40:06] technology is capable of categorizing people based on height and weight, race and gender, clothes

[1:40:11] and accessories worn, and animals and bicycles and cars, which is how they might advertise themselves.

[1:40:18] Furthermore, there's 2021 DHS policy actually requires that all ALPR vendors, including flock,

[1:40:25] not leave a trail of ice in any audit logs except in audit logs made available only two

[1:40:31] ice. So when you go and do an audit and you don't find ice in there, that's a false negative.

[1:40:37] Furthermore, in your Insection 4 of your contract, there's a worldwide right's clause.

[1:40:43] And like my ally alluded to earlier, the reason why it's there is because they share,

[1:40:47] they send the data overseas so that Filipino gig workers can analyze it for the training of the AI system.

[1:40:54] Also, another lie that he said was that no more California agencies are sharing data nationally.

[1:41:00] That is not true.

[1:41:02] Alcohol is very much still sharing data nationally, and they're actually countersuing the

[1:41:07] state of California because they want to keep sharing nationally.

[1:41:11] And if you guys want an anecdote on how Border Patrol has used this technology, an elementary

[1:41:17] school teacher in the Mademard Martinez was tracked and hunted down using flock cameras

[1:41:23] for over two weeks. They shot her five times and then bragged about it with each other

[1:41:29] over text messages saying that they shot her five times and she had seven bullet holes

[1:41:34] put that in your bookboys. Why do we have to wait for someone in our community to be harmed by

[1:41:40] this technology to get rid of it? We should just get rid of it. Please vote no one flock.

[1:41:54] This is a city of Berkeley really going to pass a mega plan to create a surveillance city.

[1:42:01] That's what we're really asking here today.

[1:42:04] I want to read a quote from Edwards,

[1:42:06] No system of mass surveillance has existed in a society

[1:42:10] that we know of to this point that has not been abused.

[1:42:14] And so we can expect that kind of thing.

[1:42:16] And when the police say this is going to save us money,

[1:42:19] how many police officers are going to get laid off so that we can pay for this project?

[1:42:22] you know, not are getting laid out. So it's time to save us any money. And those who would give up

[1:42:27] essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[1:42:33] That's been Franklin. So we should think about that. This is big brother here in the latest

[1:42:38] expansion of the surrealist state. This is an investor driven plan, much like the expansion of the

[1:42:50] Let's shut down free speech, so when you guys vote for this, you're shutting down free speech

[1:42:56] because this is going to be a surveillance system on all of us.

[1:42:58] Thank you.

[1:43:05] Hello.

[1:43:07] My name is Johnny Cocher, and I'm a member of Bay Area G's regesis, and I'm here today to

[1:43:11] reject the proposal to urge you to reject the proposal to use for

[1:43:25] through Fox Sharing Network, because of how Fox Architecture works, it connected to all connected

[1:43:31] agencies and function as a drag net touching the camera data of nearly every California law enforcement

[1:43:37] of the Fox customer, including communities throughout contra Costa County.

[1:43:40] This is a centralized or well-in drag net surveillance technology that makes our immigrants

[1:43:45] less safe.

[1:43:46] This is a second and it's against our sanctuary city policy.

[1:43:49] I urge you to vote no on this contract.

[1:43:51] Thank you.

[1:43:56] Good evening, my name is COVID-19,

[1:43:59] I'm a resident of long time resident of District 2,

[1:44:02] and you're only 30 years resident of Berkeley.

[1:44:04] It's heated, and we live in a really polarized world right now,

[1:44:08] and it's really easy for folks to back into their corners and entrench,

[1:44:13] and kind of plug your ears and start, say, you know,

[1:44:17] entrenching in your position, right?

[1:44:20] And I want to, we're not all on the same side,

[1:44:22] we have a real substantive difference of opinion,

[1:44:25] but we are all here because we care about this community.

[1:44:28] We care about each other and we want Berkeley residents

[1:44:30] to be safe.

[1:45:00] To set up this safety versus civil liberties, we deserve, and we can have both. And so, when council member O'Keefe here is so that she doesn't feel

[1:45:12] personally comfortable with certain elements of the drone usage, there's a whole lot of people who aren't comfortable with many parts of that.

[1:45:20] Thank you. Thanks so much.

[1:45:29] I'm Rebecca Canita suspect in the yellow shirt. I live in El Salvador, but I grew up in Berkeley.

[1:45:34] My parents still live here. My partner works here, and I maintain deep connections to this city.

[1:45:40] On Tuesday, the El Serrida City Council voted to end its contract with Flock.

[1:45:44] And here, here are some concerns our council members cited.

[1:45:48] First, their city was initially presented with a new contract which you were told was better.

[1:45:51] But then our police chief recommended we retain the old contract and said, with no reason given.

[1:45:55] Clearly, Flock did not negotiate in good faith.

[1:45:58] Second, we live under an authoritarian federal government. The Supreme Court could change a lot the drop of a hat through the shadow docket

[1:46:04] to compel Flock to show data.

[1:46:06] California law won't protect us either.

[1:46:07] The state is currently being compelled

[1:46:09] to share information about undocumented immigrants

[1:46:10] with driver's licenses.

[1:46:12] If the state can't protect itself,

[1:46:14] how can it protect us?

[1:46:15] Is this political environment a safe time

[1:46:18] to the using experimental mass surveillance?

[1:46:20] Third, flocc only fixes issues after other groups

[1:46:23] call out their failures.

[1:46:24] They do not make proactive fixes.

[1:46:26] Fourth, what claims this product is the cameras,

[1:46:28] but it's actually the mass aggregation of data.

[1:46:30] So you know, cancel the contract.

[1:46:32] Thank you.

[1:46:39] Good evening, my name is Erin. I am a resident of District 3.

[1:46:43] I am angry. I am embarrassed that we even have to be here because our council might prioritize the interest of Frost corporate tech and police brutality over the constituents who voted for you.

[1:46:53] If VPD won't even be honest about basic facts about Frost, we have no reason to trust how and why they'll use it.

[1:46:58] TPAB members resigned citing BPD actively makes her job impossible by obstructing records of BPD's

[1:47:04] conduct.

[1:47:05] Frankly, I don't trust SWOT to be accountable if BPD refuses to be a hold accountable.

[1:47:10] BPD has made a clear that they do not represent Berkeley-Lies and Safety Council members,

[1:47:14] more than a vote for a rock, betrays the people of Berkeley in favor of your own

[1:47:18] comfort of safety that doesn't even exist.

[1:47:20] Thank you.

[1:47:21] Thank you.

[1:47:26] Hi, I'm just going to really honest here.

[1:47:29] I don't think anyone wants to be here tonight.

[1:47:33] We've been doing this for months and months and months.

[1:47:36] So please just do your job and listen to your constituents.

[1:47:40] We have been telling you for months to not vote for this.

[1:47:44] So if you don't do your job, we can always not reelect you.

[1:47:48] If you're not up for reelection, we can recall you.

[1:47:50] So please just do your job.

[1:47:53] Thank you.

[1:47:55] Thank you.

[1:48:00] Hello, my name is Nick in West Side and I'm a small business owner and Berkeley in a long time resident.

[1:48:06] The reality is that militarized policing and surveillance technologies only assist to our slide into fascism.

[1:48:14] As we know, by the plight of the Palestinian people, as in Gaza, the quick murder of educators, organizers and key figures in Gaza

[1:48:26] and core blood within the matter of a few months

[1:48:29] was only possible through surveillance technology.

[1:48:34] He has really fascist government

[1:48:36] operates by exterminating those,

[1:48:40] and what separates us from gozans.

[1:48:43] We are people just like they are.

[1:48:45] And with this slide to fascism that is quickly

[1:48:47] descending upon us, I don't trust any of these surveillance

[1:48:50] technologies, and I don't trust the future

[1:48:53] of a militarized police state.

[1:48:55] I do hope you won't know against this, so I thank you.

[1:49:06] How many people in this room are for flock?

[1:49:09] Who's for flock?

[1:49:10] Who's not for flock?

[1:49:18] All right.

[1:49:20] So we know we have a council member that went to the 47th Ignoration.

[1:49:27] And it seems like y'all are trying to be fascist right here in Berkeley.

[1:49:32] And we're not accepting that.

[1:49:34] We accepting fascism and surveillance.

[1:50:00] First sit on the end here. So the TAV. Otherwise, I don't know, Mr. Flock is lying on what, but he's been called out. So don't believe the hype. No to Flock, say with me, no to Flock. Thank you.

[1:50:30] I think that's all I need.

[1:50:36] Thank you.

[1:50:41] Who raised their hand real quick?

[1:50:43] There's one, two.

[1:50:45] Wait, sorry.

[1:50:46] Are you taking how many minutes?

[1:50:47] Are you taking three?

[1:50:48] I'm just taking three.

[1:50:49] Okay, so sorry.

[1:50:50] One, two, I missed the third person.

[1:50:54] Three total.

[1:50:56] Go ahead.

[1:50:58] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:50:59] And council members.

[1:51:00] Thank you for being council members.

[1:51:03] Thank you, Council members, Bartlett, Traygub, O'Keef, who's in here, and Blockeby and Luna

[1:51:10] Parrot for your testimony.

[1:51:12] I appreciate it.

[1:51:13] This is really about whether Berkeley normalizes a future, where ordinary public life becomes permanently

[1:51:19] searchable.

[1:51:20] We're told that these systems are narrow, temporary, and only for serious crime.

[1:51:25] But history shows us the same pattern again and again.

[1:51:28] Today's exception becomes tomorrow standard, and meanwhile, the underlying conditions

[1:51:34] people are actually struggling with remain unsolved, surveillance doesn't lower rent,

[1:51:39] it does not house people, it does not fix inequality, it does not rebuild trust in public

[1:51:44] institutions.

[1:51:47] Thank you, technology is not a substitute for good governance.

[1:51:52] What it does do is expand systems of monitoring over ordinary civic life, and when cameras

[1:51:58] are placed on telegraph, vancroft, and Durant in District 7.

[1:52:03] This is no longer some narrowly targeted security measure.

[1:52:06] These are major public corridors, bus stops, economic streets,

[1:52:10] and some of the most accessible city spaces in Berkeley.

[1:52:14] Students, workers, immigrants, unhoused residents,

[1:52:17] organizers, shoppers, and neighbors move through these spaces every single day.

[1:52:21] Privacy is part of public safety.

[1:52:24] A democratic city should not mobilize mass data collection without strict limits, independent oversight, public transparency, and prove that the systems actually improve public safety, instead of simply expanding surveillance infrastructure.

[1:52:37] And if I'm being honest, they really shouldn't be used at all.

[1:52:40] The burden is not on the public to accept being launched.

[1:52:43] The burden is on government to justify why it should.

[1:52:47] Thank you for your time and your testimony.

[1:52:49] I do want to say really quickly that I do believe that surveillance technology should be limited.

[1:52:55] I do believe the city of Berkeley should be the ones that own this technology and encrypted and to end.

[1:53:00] I do believe that the facial recognition should be scattered.

[1:53:04] The data should be poisoned. The AI should be off the table.

[1:53:07] You all have a chance and a ride to make the right call this day.

[1:53:11] But no, this city is not ready for the artificial intelligence that's going to come in the next round of flock data.

[1:53:19] The city is not ready to hold guard blocks in place if that data is hacked by malicious actor.

[1:53:25] And so I think this city is ready to take it seriously that no, we do not want flock.

[1:53:31] No, we do not want surveillance.

[1:53:33] We are a sanctuary city, and that means we protect everyone regardless of whether they're criminal or not.

[1:53:39] because they have due process and need to be seen in a court of law.

[1:53:43] So I thank you for your time and your energy.

[1:53:45] I thank you all for your energy and your time.

[1:53:47] And if anyone wants to hear more, again, my name is Aiden Hill.

[1:53:50] I'm running for Berkeley City Council District 7.

[1:53:54] So I really look forward to working with all of you on this.

[1:53:57] And again, our city deserves sanctuary.

[1:53:59] Thank you.

[1:54:00] Thank you.

[1:54:06] I was given an extra minute.

[1:54:11] All right. Hi, everyone.

[1:54:13] So I agree that it's a false dichotomy

[1:54:15] that we can only have civil liberty protections or safety.

[1:54:18] I do think we can have both.

[1:54:21] But when it comes to police doing their jobs,

[1:54:23] I do think they deserve a lot of support.

[1:54:25] However, history has shown, again and again,

[1:54:27] that the federal government has very little regard

[1:54:29] for our constitutional rights.

[1:54:31] So the assurances made today about contractual obligations

[1:54:34] and processes are not persuasive to me.

[1:54:37] And we can think about co-intel pro

[1:54:39] when the FBI surveilled, infiltrated,

[1:54:41] and sabotaged Dr. Martin Luther King's junior,

[1:54:44] the Black Panthers in the anti-war movement, but church committees revelations about the CIA and NSA

[1:54:49] spying on American citizens. The NSA's mass, warrantless, wire-tapping after 911,

[1:54:54] exposed by Edward Snowden, the NYPD's document surveillance of entire Muslim American community.

[1:55:00] Social confidence that a company like this actually has the technological capability to actually keep the federal government out. We heard tonight that they have new security professionals, but I don't think many respectable information security officers would take a job with a company like this, so I asked that we find another way.

[1:55:17] Thank

[1:55:22] you. Sorry, who's get one minute?

[1:55:24] Okay. Two minutes. Two minutes. Two minutes. Two extra minutes.

[1:55:28] The city attorney told you, flocks seeming willingness to agree to major overhaul the city

[1:55:33] proposals coupled with widespread media reports of other Jewish jurisdictions canceling their

[1:55:38] flock contracts, which likely has put financial pressure on the company suggests that flock

[1:55:43] may be willing to agree to major changes to secure a deal, even though it's technical team will

[1:55:48] not in practice be able to implement those changes, said this, your city attorney. And from

[1:55:54] on website. Here's how it rewards its top sales people. A one-week group vacation that they call

[1:56:00] Eagle's Club and this is what they say. Eagle's Club isn't a participation trophy. You have to outperform

[1:56:06] outwork and out execute in a room full of elite sellers. Eagle's Club is not something that appears at the

[1:56:12] end of the year as a surprise. It becomes a steady motivator throughout. For James, that motivation extends

[1:56:17] beyond the individual. He said, it's always in the back of my mind. My wife's asking, where is this

[1:56:23] But both invested in getting there, this job brings the whole household into it, the winds, the stress, everything.

[1:56:31] It's a culture thing, everyone's thinking about it.

[1:56:34] It's competitive, but in a motivating way.

[1:56:36] That shared energy pushes people to raise their level over time.

[1:56:41] That's their salespeople.

[1:56:42] These are the people that are telling you how much fear is about keeping our data secure.

[1:56:47] They're top salespeople, salivating for a contract with progressive Berkeley.

[1:56:51] I once worked for a company like that, where the sales people sold systems promising they could

[1:56:57] do things that they actually couldn't do, that company did go out of business, but it took

[1:57:00] a long time.

[1:57:03] Thanks, kid.

[1:57:08] Good evening.

[1:57:09] I'm John Canard, the CEO of the Downtown Berkeley Association in 36-year resident in Berkeley.

[1:57:15] We went through a strategic planning process last year, and by far, by far, safety was

[1:57:21] issue number one with all of our stakeholders in our community survey copies for all of you.

[1:57:28] You're in receipt of emails from university Avenue merchants visit Berkeley. The importance of safety

[1:57:34] is paramount for employees, customers, residents and visitors. Today I had a conversation with

[1:57:40] merchants been 45 years in the downtown, said their employees don't feel safe, their people are being

[1:57:45] assaulted, they're asking for help from our ambassadors and PD. We are implementing next year in

[1:57:51] where to cost $250, $60,000 a safety ambassador program, because our stakeholders don't feel safe in our downtown.

[1:58:01] These systems have proven track record. Look at Berkeley, Berkeley scanner. Please do the right thing.

[1:58:07] Provide BPD, the tools to a thanks time and provide a safety community for all of us. Thank you.

[1:58:16] Okay, folks, come on.

[1:58:21] I get four minutes.

[1:58:28] Good evening.

[1:58:28] My name is Abigail Lesbron.

[1:58:30] I'm speaking on behalf of the Berkeley Immigration Collaborative,

[1:58:33] or BIC, where five Berkeley-based organizations

[1:58:35] with decades of experience serving immigrants

[1:58:38] and asylum seekers in the Bay Area.

[1:58:40] I am also a district five resident.

[1:58:43] I was also born and raised in Berkeley.

[1:58:45] My kids go to Berkeley schools and I work in Berkeley.

[1:58:48] This city council has heard from the BIC extensively

[1:58:51] about the dangers of contracting with flock.

[1:58:53] At this time, we want to make one thing clear.

[1:58:56] If you vote yes on this contract,

[1:58:59] you're breaking your commitment to sanctuary.

[1:59:01] That commitment you made last year in September.

[1:59:05] And you are also doing it in the exact moment

[1:59:08] in this country's history when sanctuary matters most.

[1:59:11] You all voted on that.

[1:59:15] This technology is harmful to immigrants, yes,

[1:59:17] but it's also harmful to unhoused neighbors

[1:59:19] who already live under surveillance and constant displacement.

[1:59:22] It's harmful to black and brown residents because this technology is documented to be racial

[1:59:26] biased, and the people that misidentify are the people who are already overpoliced.

[1:59:31] It's harmful to the residents in this room who leverage their privilege to show up as observers

[2:00:01] It is harmful to every person in Berkeley who might one day stand up to an authoritarian federal government. This is not a symbolic battle.

[2:00:11] It is a battle to protect sanctuary and democratic control of our city, our technology and our privacy and our private data.

[2:00:19] 79 jurisdictions to date have already canceled their flock contracts.

[2:00:25] They did it for a reason.

[2:00:27] In some, the police chiefs themselves led the effort.

[2:00:32] Just this week, El Salvador chose sanctuary over flock.

[2:00:37] You can, too.

[2:00:38] The tide is changing.

[2:00:41] And the council can now choose to be on the right side of history

[2:00:44] or to bear the responsibility for violating our rights

[2:00:48] and are safety during the time of authoritarian overreach.

[2:00:52] The time is now.

[2:00:54] According to public records request,

[2:00:56] the federal government accessed Berkeley police departments

[2:00:59] flocked data 86,000 times in two years.

[2:01:05] You say that the contract terms will protect us,

[2:01:08] but our own city attorney is telling you that no contract terms

[2:01:12] will completely protect Berkeley's data

[2:01:14] And it will expose Berkeley to between 30 and 60 million dollars in legal liability.

[2:01:20] I was surprised to hear nobody asked the city attorney any questions about that.

[2:01:27] If you approve this contract tonight, you are doing so against the advice of your own

[2:01:32] council.

[2:01:34] This is a new attorney.

[2:01:35] That is not good governance.

[2:01:39] Yesterday Sarah Hamid of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told El Cereito, City Council

[2:01:44] how flocks network architecture is broad, searchable, multi-juristic, and network where local

[2:01:49] data is repurposed, relabeled, and reached through side doors that will make it impossible

[2:01:54] for cities to monitor.

[2:01:56] What this means is that we do not and will not know the extent to which Berkeley's data

[2:02:01] is being used by flocks AI modeling or federal agencies.

[2:02:06] The police accountability board found that no other jurisdiction uses one vendor for

[2:02:10] of its surveillance technology and warned you against fully integrating all of Berkeley's data

[2:02:15] with flock in this way without first analyzing the vulnerabilities. To conclude, I want to leave

[2:02:21] you with the story of Mari Martinez at another gentleman reference. She's a U.S. citizen who's

[2:02:27] a teaching assistant who I tracked using flock and they shot her five times, luckily they didn't

[2:02:35] her. Martinez said she would see bullet scars for her life, but she said in her

[2:02:41] her educational hearing, and I quote, but perhaps even worse, the mental scars will

[2:02:46] always be there as a reminder of the time my own government tried to execute me.

[2:02:51] Thank

[2:02:58] you. Madam City Attorney, Madam City Attorney, Madam City Attorney, did you want to

[2:03:07] Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

[2:03:10] Our office is aware that a privileged memo from our office was leaked to the press.

[2:03:16] Under established California law, the attorney client privilege

[2:03:20] rests with the city council, the governing body of the city,

[2:03:24] and unless you choose to waive it, it's preserved,

[2:03:28] because you haven't waived it.

[2:03:30] We will not discuss this leaked memo and urge the council members and commissioners and staff to

[2:03:37] similarly refrain from discussing the contents.

[2:03:40] Thank you.

[2:03:42] Okay.

[2:03:42] Go ahead.

[2:03:45] Hi.

[2:03:45] I'm Andrew.

[2:03:46] I'm a district two voter who is voted for some of you up here tonight and I'm really hoping

[2:03:50] I didn't make a foolish decision.

[2:03:52] I needed to make sure I come here tonight and remind you that many people fought and died

[2:03:57] for my first fourth and eighth amendment rights.

[2:04:00] And I'm not here going to be negotiating

[2:04:02] with some tech copy over them.

[2:04:05] Many people behind me with ethics can,

[2:04:07] and we'll make great points regarding how

[2:04:09] master valence violates their first and fourth amendments.

[2:04:13] And I'll make a case for the eighth.

[2:04:15] If your history teacher was as good as mine,

[2:04:17] the eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

[2:04:20] Every animal, except maybe Donnie Badger,

[2:04:23] will have a natural justice response to being followed,

[2:04:26] stock or if it feels a prey animal is there. Humans have the same response. If you set up

[2:04:34] cameras everywhere, you're creating a giant psychological torture device that violates the

[2:04:39] eighth amendment. Or repeat again, I am not going to negotiate over my first fourth and eighth

[2:04:45] amendment rights. Cancel the contract. Good evening.

[2:04:54] Good evening, Mayor ECE and council members.

[2:05:00] The Council on American Islamic Relations, and we want to express our opposition to the proposed

[2:05:04] flock expansion in any ALPR alternatives. To start, flock is patently unsafe, flock's

[2:05:10] hackable nature makes Berkeley liable for SB 34 violations. flock has been proven to be hacked

[2:05:15] within 30 seconds due to 51 security vulnerabilities. In one instance, a user was able to access

[2:05:20] a 24-7 livestream of a children's playground in the Bay Area that is terrifying and that is

[2:05:26] actionable. Flock and ALPRs are a threat to Berkeley residents at large. Berkeley residents

[2:05:31] need to know that when they drive to seek legal assistance when they go to their

[2:05:34] place of worship or when they attend a protest opposing Israel's genocide and

[2:05:38] Gaza that they need to know that they won't be surveilled, kidnapped or killed by

[2:05:41] ICE. Berkeley residents should feel safe enough to move through their city

[2:05:45] with a large shadow looming over them. Please meet for moments. They know to

[2:05:48] Thank you.

[2:05:57] Please stand up for a public safety and for a fact-driven data.

[2:06:03] What's true is over 6,000 cities and communities chose

[2:06:09] Block because they are effective because they help stop crying

[2:06:14] because they work less than 1% did not back out of

[2:06:21] But so you represent the constituents that elected you and they are moderates, they are not the extremist you see here that we're rejected across the country.

[2:06:34] Because the beacon of radical extremism.

[2:06:37] Order enough for your constituents who could not stay here to two in the morning because that's how long your meetings last, last time.

[2:06:45] and they have to go to work.

[2:06:47] So vote with the 99% stand up for public safety.

[2:06:51] There was a child, traffic or rapist that tortured a girl

[2:06:55] and lit her on fire and fuck, put her away.

[2:06:58] That person was in Berkeley.

[2:06:59] Thank you.

[2:07:03] Hold on.

[2:07:04] Before you seek folks, you need to be respectful

[2:07:08] and let folks speak.

[2:07:10] This is that impact the time that everyone has to speak.

[2:07:12] So please let them finish.

[2:07:14] It's also disrespectful.

[2:07:15] Go ahead.

[2:07:16] Thank you.

[2:07:16] So my name is Grant Thompson. I'm a district six resident. I raised my kids here. I'm a lawyer here. I am not an idiot log. I'm not an extremist. I'm your constituents.

[2:07:30] I wanted to comment. I saw an editorial that the pro flock of council members had written and I wanted to address a couple points that they made that a tour of us that they think about it.

[2:07:41] So, it said as a defense to flock, flock does not directly give data to eyes or other federal agencies.

[2:07:50] I'd like for you to sit with that a second and think about how you're going to feel about defending that to a woman who is seeing a loved one taken away and ducted by eyes because it was indirectly shared.

[2:08:04] That's an admission that these paper restrictions that you're talking about aren't going to work.

[2:08:11] We all know this day is going to get out.

[2:08:14] So you can cancel it now or you can wait until you get seen.

[2:08:19] Thank you.

[2:08:20] And people start getting with us.

[2:08:21] Thanks so much.

[2:08:26] That's going to see me one minute.

[2:08:29] Sorry.

[2:08:30] From the, okay.

[2:08:30] Thank you.

[2:08:32] Thanks.

[2:08:32] My name is Luis.

[2:08:33] I live in Berkeley, and I had a lot of points I wanted to make today, but I just want to respond

[2:08:37] to some of the points that Mr. Flock made in response to Council Member Blockeby.

[2:08:43] He said that if Flock received subpoenas from the federal government, that they inform the federal

[2:08:48] government that they do not own the data, and they, and they also immediately inform the local

[2:08:55] agency that the data is being requested for.

[2:08:58] That ignores the fact that there are many well-established pathways for federal subpoenas

[2:09:03] that include a gang order, and that also directly ignores the fact that federal subpoenas

[2:09:09] are not for the owner of the data, therefore anybody who has access to the data.

[2:09:13] And there's a reason that Flock maintains this massive database of all of this data, a single

[2:09:19] subpoena from the federal government to Flock can track the license plate of someone across

[2:09:24] the entire United States, including all of California, and there can be no way of a local

[2:09:29] agency or jurisdiction being made aware of that. According to the electronic frontier

[2:09:35] foundation, there were hundreds of thousands of national security letters which are

[2:09:40] these kind of subpoenas sent by the FBI over the last decade, 97% of them included

[2:09:46] this kind of gag order, which would mean that the person being subpoenaed cannot notify anyone else.

[2:09:51] And it's patently ridiculous to think that they are going to be able to just say, oh,

[2:09:55] well, Berkeley technically owns the data even though I have access to all the data right here.

[2:09:59] That's...

[2:10:23] We're facing a budget deficit and potential layoffs risking multi million dollars lawsuits,

[2:10:29] resulting from Fox welfare established practice of data misuse, will be an irresponsible, financial

[2:10:33] decision when the jobs of essential city workers are in your hands.

[2:10:37] Exhibited police over time is already eating up millions of dollars while critical safety net

[2:10:42] services are under threat.

[2:10:43] If you're not in good conscience allow for example, health housing and community services

[2:10:47] programs that prevent crises create real public safety and still dignity to be placed on the

[2:10:52] chopping block while increasing militarized policing and racial profiling to target the already

[2:10:57] most over-police community members.

[2:11:00] We need to balance our budget not gamble on a bad decision that's extremely unpopular

[2:11:04] and Berkeley. The attend to one CSU board, cove delegates and concerned members, oppose the

[2:11:09] flock contract. Prioritized, Berkeley is over billionaires, services over surveillance, constituents

[2:11:15] of a corporate contract, contracts, and workers of a waste, no flock.

[2:11:40] I have a couple of people

[2:11:41] the pink and then touch. Okay, got it. Three. All right. I'm not quite sure who you counted.

[2:11:48] Okay. My name is Andrew Pritch and I'm a Berkeley cop watch and I just want, and I'm also

[2:11:53] about district two resident. I just want to show you all that you do not care about how we're

[2:11:57] safety more than we do. So we're not here saying, we don't care about safety. We're here because

[2:12:02] we care desperately about our safety. And we perceive the threat differently than you do.

[2:12:07] What I want to say also is that let's be clear that the crime rate in Berkeley is going

[2:12:14] down.

[2:12:14] It was going down before you employed all the ALPRs and inside the flock, the new flock

[2:12:20] cameras.

[2:12:21] So that's a trend that's already happening.

[2:12:23] And I do, I would define anybody to come up with an independent research that says that

[2:12:30] flock cameras are associated with crime declines.

[2:12:32] What we have is flock representatives and cops telling you that.

[2:12:36] Where is the reliable research?

[2:12:39] Where is the reliable data that's independent?

[2:12:43] We are fully aware that we're being asked to trust Flock.

[2:12:47] I want to comment about National Lookup.

[2:12:50] According to CBS, the Venturist County Shaves,

[2:12:54] obviously, had disabled Flock's national lookup feature in June 2023

[2:12:58] to comply with California's law borrowing local agencies

[2:13:02] from sharing automatic license plate reader data

[2:13:04] without a statement that we're law enforcement agencies.

[2:13:08] However, earlier this month,

[2:13:10] deputies learned that several California law enforcement agencies reported

[2:13:14] that the national look-up feature had somehow been reactivated

[2:13:17] without any explanation.

[2:13:20] My question, whether it's deception,

[2:13:23] deviousness, or incompetence.

[2:13:26] How if this was a job interview, would you hire them?

[2:13:30] Would you hire them?

[2:13:32] I'm asking you also to consider that the people of Minneapolis who protested, that they were told that the authorities would be investigating everybody who participated in the protests, that and they've got 300 flock cameras.

[2:13:47] The CEO of Flock recently referred to organizers with a group called Deflock as domestic terrorists simply because they're doing what we're doing right now.

[2:13:55] If our current government,

[2:14:00] we have this, we've given this council a clear mandate about how we want public safety to look.

[2:14:08] We did five years ago and we have not lost lack of that vision.

[2:14:11] We want public safety. We want to reimagine it.

[2:14:14] And we believe that if there's a crisis with cops and there's not enough cops, we already told you.

[2:14:20] We need a non-police response to calls that don't require somebody with a gun on their hip.

[2:14:28] That is a clear way forward that will leave the pressure on these guys and make us all feel a lot better.

[2:15:00] Also, the issue of liability is real. As you well know, leaks happen.

[2:15:14] I can't leak the data. That would be a liability that could cost these city millions of dollars.

[2:15:21] So, you see how easy it is. I also want to make you aware of a bill called the surveillance accountability act that is currently before Congress.

[2:15:29] And what they proposed to do is to restrict

[2:15:32] what was government surveillance by requiring judicial

[2:15:36] ruins based on probable cause for accessing personal

[2:15:40] data, including information from data brokers.

[2:15:44] If that legislation goes forward, then the fundamental

[2:15:47] premise of this whole totalitarian flock infrastructure

[2:15:53] gets the floor taken out from under it.

[2:15:56] Instead of a cop casually like, where's my girlfriend?

[2:15:58] I'm going in there and checking flat database, they would have to get a judicial warrant.

[2:16:05] And that fundamentally alters what is being proposed here today.

[2:16:09] Thank you.

[2:16:18] I've got one minute from, yeah, of course, in the back.

[2:16:24] Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council, our beautiful community and Mr. Flock.

[2:16:30] I am a solid Albert, chair of the Berkeley Rental Stabilization Board, speaking in my own

[2:16:33] capacity.

[2:16:33] I'm speaking tonight in opposition to any relationship between the city of Berkeley and

[2:16:38] Floxarellis.

[2:16:40] I think that we shouldn't do this because it's a reckless, irresponsible thing to do during

[2:16:45] Trump's reign.

[2:16:46] When ISIS shown it is willing to use every tool in its disposal legal or otherwise in

[2:16:51] order to assault our immigrant community.

[2:16:54] But even if that weren't the case, this no-bid contract is a massive boom-doggle for a city facing

[2:17:00] a multimillion dollar deficit.

[2:17:02] The draft budget proposes to lay off city workers,

[2:17:06] cut services, and reduce funding for affordable housing,

[2:17:09] which unlike block surveillance is actually the number one priority of Berkeley voters

[2:17:13] and every poll that we've ever done.

[2:17:19] This is a multi-million dollar no bid contract.

[2:17:24] And even apart from that, the minute the city approves it, you're going to be sued.

[2:17:29] And that's a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

[2:17:30] And, even apart from that, the minute those cameras go up, they're going to be targeted systematically for, you know, for, um, for decoration. Yeah. And that's not a threat from me. That's not, I'm not urging that. That's just a reality.

[2:17:42] We've seen that already throughout the country and in our neighborhood in Oakland, right? So, how is this council going to spend public money?

[2:17:50] They are going to be multiple measures on the ballot this November, including potentially one from the City Council proposing a, unfortunately, regressive sales tax,

[2:17:57] where the people will be asked to tax themselves to fund city services is this council really

[2:18:03] going to throw the public's money into surveillance that we do not want then get sued for

[2:18:08] multiple millions of dollars more of the public's money and then have those cameras all destroyed

[2:18:12] and then tell the public will you give us some more money and raise your sales taxes. I think that's a

[2:18:18] really stupid idea. Thank you.

[2:18:30] Hi I believe I have two minutes from a friend over here and over here.

[2:18:35] So thank you.

[2:18:36] Three minutes total.

[2:18:39] Hi.

[2:18:39] My name is William Martins.

[2:18:41] I'm a Berkeley resident of District 3.

[2:18:43] I'm a local pastor.

[2:18:44] I'm also an organizer with e-spacing e-resistance.

[2:18:48] And I'm here to call you in through song again.

[2:18:53] Last time we had comment on this.

[2:18:55] You may remember, I sent you an invitation to change your mind.

[2:19:00] If you were supporting the vlog comment,

[2:19:02] contract. Today, I'm going to sing for you a new song. And invite any others here who want

[2:19:07] to sing to join me. And this is an invitation to affirm that how we spend our money matters.

[2:19:15] And budgets have moral implications. And we, as a community, are calling you to spend our money in ways

[2:19:23] that honor our community's values, which are being named here very clearly tonight. So you've got

[2:19:31] Put your money where your heart is.

[2:19:36] Find the world you long to see.

[2:19:40] It's time we put our money where our heart is toward every human.

[2:20:00] Let's try that together. We've got to put your money where you're hard. Son, the world, do you want to see?

[2:20:06] Funds, the world you long to see. It's time we put. It's time we put our money where our heart is toward every human, living healthy, living.

[2:20:18] Let's do that verse one more time. We've got to put your money where it is.

[2:20:23] I

[2:20:36] live in free, amazing, so we're gonna do it a little bit more.

[2:20:39] But now we're gonna say, it isn't flop that keeps us safe.

[2:20:43] It's you and me, right?

[2:20:46] Yeah, so that goes like this.

[2:20:48] So you can put your money where your heart, it isn't flop.

[2:20:53] It isn't flop that keeps us safe, it's you and me.

[2:20:57] It's time we put our money where our heart

[2:21:04] live in three. Well, it's time to put.

[2:21:12] It's time to put. It's time to put.

[2:21:21] It's time to put.

[2:21:21] There's living,

[2:21:26] how are we living, how are we living, how are we living, how are we living. Every

[2:21:28] human,

[2:21:38] every

[2:21:46] living, every, every.

[2:22:02] Way to see. I got a minute from Crochet. Okay. Thank you. Catherine. Okay.

[2:22:10] So, George Lippman, I'm a member of the...

[2:22:13] Let's talk in the mic.

[2:22:15] Member of the Peace and Justice Commission.

[2:22:17] And I'm speaking with the...

[2:22:19] At the request of the chair,

[2:22:22] Pastor Dwayne Phillips, who senses regrets.

[2:22:26] In this complex issue,

[2:22:30] there are some things that are very clear.

[2:22:33] We now know that the city is on a 30 raise,

[2:22:35] strong concerns about the liability of $30 to $60 million if we go forward with this proposal.

[2:22:42] Council, you're responsible for the fiscal health of this city. To go forward with this contract

[2:22:48] expansion would be a gross failure of your fiduciary duty. We love Berkeley and we want to help keep

[2:22:56] it safe physically as well as financially. Please take seriously your responsibility as well.

[2:23:04] Then, send this troubling contract back to the drawing board.

[2:23:10] In a larger frame, this is a time when the hard one reimagining public safety initiative,

[2:23:18] essentially finding positive solutions to social problems is on really hard times.

[2:23:24] Specialized care unit is no more, burped out, never got off the ground.

[2:23:29] I want to share at this moment a few of the findings and functions that are contained in

[2:23:36] the Peace and Justice Commission's mandate, findings, H, they're lettered.

[2:23:42] Our best protection lies in initiating, devising, and promulgating, peaceful, and just policy alternatives.

[2:23:52] Finding J, it is a responsibility of one and all to labor hard for peace and justice within

[2:23:59] forms of appropriate scale.

[2:24:02] And two of the functions, functions C, help develop proposals for the city council and the

[2:24:08] school board for actions in furtherance of the goals of peace and justice and help

[2:24:13] publicize such actions in the community.

[2:24:17] Function F, develop ways to resolve conflict which do not involve violence and which may

[2:24:23] be applied on a local level as well as a national level.

[2:24:29] This is now the 40th anniversary of the Peace and Justice Commission.

[2:24:32] Please reach out to the Peace and Justice Commission for help, creating positive solutions,

[2:24:38] strengthen the police accountability board and stop undermining it, reach out to the

[2:24:44] women welfare and community action commission. We are here to help. Thank you.

[2:24:49] Thank you.

[2:25:00] It is of one of the most knowledgeable, educated cities, not just in the state or the country, but the world.

[2:25:14] So, it is surprising to me that a contract with flock would be considered, proposed, rather, and then be considered for a vote, given all that we know about flock.

[2:25:34] The data is before us, right, all the data that we need.

[2:25:38] We've heard it from people who came before me and at the other meeting.

[2:25:43] I also want to address two things that I didn't hear addressed.

[2:25:51] We know from the city attorney that flocked reactivated the national look-up feature.

[2:25:56] After Ventura County, right here in California, deactivated it to comply with state law.

[2:26:01] block to this without notice or explanation.

[2:26:06] So I wonder how we can trust rock around this feature when

[2:26:10] asked about it earlier today.

[2:26:15] The other thing we know is that cities and towns

[2:26:19] who have asked to deactivate block cameras.

[2:26:23] Those cameras were not deactivated,

[2:26:26] and they had to cover those cameras up.

[2:26:28] I didn't hear forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear anything to address that.

[2:26:34] So I'm just wondering how we could go forward with an actor like Flock with all these breaches

[2:26:42] of contracts with all these civil rights violations and the constitutional rights violations

[2:26:47] that we're seeing across the country.

[2:26:56] I'm also seeing a lot of people working extremely hard

[2:26:59] to represent themselves before you and that's very painful to see because we elected you to represent us.

[2:27:15] I'm not seeing that right now. I'm at a move because I only have 30 seconds.

[2:27:23] Since I could not find a single reason, a single good reason to contract with Locke,

[2:27:29] I came up with another list of reasons to contract with Locke. I'd like to share them with you.

[2:27:34] I have another minute from someone I'm so sorry. Thank you.

[2:27:39] I'd like to share my list with you. If we want to fall behind cities, big and small, we should contract with Flock.

[2:27:48] If we want to bring the shame of choosing corporate rhetoric over community safety to our city, into our city, we should contract with Flock.

[2:27:59] If we want to be on the wrong side of history in 2026,

[2:28:04] at a time we are living under a fascist national regime,

[2:28:08] we should contract with flock.

[2:28:11] If we want to support the goals of that fascist national regime

[2:28:14] and its unraveling of our civil rights, we should contract with flock.

[2:28:20] If we want to dishonor and undermine the struggle for free speech

[2:28:23] and the struggle to establish Berkeley as a sanctuary city,

[2:28:27] We should contract with Flock.

[2:28:31] If you city council want to turn your backs on the proud immigrants, people of color, queer,

[2:28:40] delibers, youth, and disabled residents and residents at large, you should contract with Flock.

[2:28:47] Thank you.

[2:28:48] Thank you.

[2:28:49] Thank you.

[2:28:50] Thank you.

[2:28:53] So we're going to take, are you going to get extra time?

[2:29:01] Okay, I think we need to take a break.

[2:29:03] So I don't want to interrupt your time.

[2:29:04] So let's just take, yeah, we're going to take, we're just about it

[2:29:09] almost one hours of two minutes shy.

[2:29:11] So we're going to take a ten minute break that does not count for the public speaking time.

[2:29:16] Thank you.

[2:29:30] Sorry folks.

[2:29:31] Sorry.

[2:29:31] One more thing, if you're standing in line,

[2:29:33] and you're trying to keep your line,

[2:29:35] we've got cards, and we're going to give you numbers

[2:30:07] Okay, we're starting back up. We're starting back up, folks. Please, please come back. We lost Nathan. I think Nathan was first in line.

[2:30:20] Yeah, it looked like it was Nathan myself and Moni Law,

[2:30:44] a crusader.

[2:31:05] Okay Nathan come on up

[2:31:16] okay everyone be quiet it's Nathan's turn to speak Nathan how many minutes do you have I think I got three

[2:31:23] One there the he already yielded one here two

[2:31:28] Sorry wait the third one

[2:31:33] Yeah, oh I don't okay. Thank you. Who's the third

[2:31:35] Um, he raised his hand for somebody else.

[2:31:39] No, I got, I got, no, no, no, you didn't raise your hand for someone else.

[2:31:45] I haven't seen you yet.

[2:31:46] So yeah, you're good.

[2:31:47] You're good.

[2:31:47] And this buddy.

[2:31:48] He was sitting over there before.

[2:31:50] I know, but I'm writing down who?

[2:31:53] Seven out of Swiss.

[2:31:53] Okay.

[2:31:54] Okay.

[2:31:55] Okay.

[2:31:56] So that's four minutes total.

[2:31:58] Go ahead.

[2:32:02] Alrighty.

[2:32:04] Madam Mayor and City Council.

[2:32:05] My name is Nathan Mysell.

[2:32:07] I am a Remport Commissioner, speaking as individual.

[2:32:10] I am the former Vice Chair of the Police Accountability Board.

[2:32:13] I was the chair of the Remastering Public Safety Task Force,

[2:32:16] and I served on the Fair and Improersial Policeing Working Group.

[2:32:21] The facts are not much different, folks,

[2:32:22] and they were, when I spoke to you, about two months ago.

[2:32:27] All of y'all know the facts.

[2:32:30] They've been told to you by the many public speakers here.

[2:32:34] They've been told to you, and the many memos you've read,

[2:32:35] and they've been told to you in the news reports.

[2:32:37] They've been told to you, by your own city attorney,

[2:32:39] who I want to mention here, I was quite critical

[2:32:42] last meeting of the city attorney's office.

[2:32:46] My bad, you nailed the analysis on this one.

[2:32:49] Completely, some of these paragraphs,

[2:32:51] I would have rid of myself,

[2:32:54] everyone with the qualities

[2:32:58] to understand the information, whether they're professionals,

[2:33:01] attorneys, activists, regular people in the public,

[2:33:04] Folks, you don't usually come to these meetings right here because this is important to them.

[2:33:08] Everyone understands.

[2:33:11] There is no place, no place for flock in our city.

[2:33:19] And I know at least four of you up there understand that too.

[2:33:22] I'm hoping for five.

[2:33:24] And I saw the op-ed four of y'all put out.

[2:33:28] That's y'all's opinions.

[2:33:29] I don't think it's very well written.

[2:33:32] I'm sorry.

[2:33:33] I got to be honest.

[2:33:37] But I'm hoping.

[2:33:38] that for the one council member, we don't quite know yet what they might do, that there's some room for convincing.

[2:33:45] Because that is going to change these facts folks.

[2:33:47] I heard so much conversation, of course, around the numbers and the prevents crime and the chief tells you if runs crime and the guy paid by a flock to tell you to prevent crime is here as well.

[2:33:59] If you take the numbers from the op-it, I think it was 52 confirmed reports and again, every crime in the city serves obviously serious crimes as serious.

[2:34:06] Right, I've worked on these issues. I've been in court rooms. The folks who've been victims of crime. I think that's seriously as well

[2:34:13] If you take all of that

[2:34:16] Fays value no analysis of the data

[2:34:18] At the counts for 0.52% of reported crime last year that is the difference we are talking about with flock

[2:34:27] This is not some miracle technology is not making a 20% reduction in crime 10% reduction not even a 5%

[2:34:33] The, it's making zero reduction is, it's not what it does, the technology finds things

[2:34:38] after the facts, 0.52 percent improvement clearance rate, 0.52 percent, a decimal percent

[2:34:46] improvement is what we're willing to sell out our values for in this city.

[2:34:59] I am,

[2:35:00] Future where fascist surveillance is the norm. I am not resigned to a future where our trans and immigrant neighbors are surveilled by

[2:35:10] technologies company and their investors who support the orange man of stairs or maybe down stairs.

[2:35:21] I am not resigned to a future where a city that once dedicated itself to reimagining public safety, I was there trust me.

[2:35:30] now decides that the only public safety we can be afforded is a mass surveillance network

[2:35:35] in the hands of a police chief who constantly violates the law.

[2:35:43] I am not resigned to a future where the voices of your constituents are profoundly ignored

[2:35:52] and are taken for granted and are safety as the value for a technology company that doesn't

[2:35:58] Give a damn about this city beyond signing a check.

[2:36:03] Thank you.

[2:36:09] Moni.

[2:36:10] Y'all can make the share.

[2:36:11] Save it.

[2:36:11] It's Moni's turn.

[2:36:13] Thank you.

[2:36:14] You can make the right decision.

[2:36:15] Moni.

[2:36:16] It's your turn.

[2:36:21] Thank you, Mama Ayana.

[2:36:25] Moor, council, staff, and community.

[2:36:30] I speak in my personal capacity as a resident of Berkeley, a proud graduate of UC Berkeley.

[2:36:37] Go Bears, proud mom of Matthew Raw, oh wait, I have stopped the clock. I forgot to get my extra minutes. Oh, I had some people offering. Can you please raise your hands with all those who offered one, two, wait, who's the second person?

[2:36:53] That's one. Please, I'm sorry. I can't see you, Grace. I couldn't see you around the grace and

[2:37:01] Okay, I guess I just have two and that's a total.

[2:37:03] Oh, I have another.

[2:37:05] What's your name here?

[2:37:05] Sorry, could you stand if I can?

[2:37:07] So I can see.

[2:37:08] Yeah, thank you.

[2:37:08] Okay.

[2:37:08] I don't know your name.

[2:37:11] Thank you.

[2:37:12] So that's a total of four minutes.

[2:37:14] I was going to say you're on her.

[2:37:16] I'm in a turn.

[2:37:17] I think five years at that time.

[2:37:19] You've used 20 seconds.

[2:37:21] So far so you've got three minutes, 40 seconds left.

[2:37:22] Go ahead.

[2:37:23] Thank you.

[2:37:28] I have a plea to each of you on a diet.

[2:37:30] to follow the wise words of Maya Angelou.

[2:37:34] When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

[2:37:39] I also speak as a proud employee of the city of Berkeley, a member of SCIU 1021.

[2:37:44] It was one of many employees who received a letter a couple of weeks ago saying I'm on

[2:37:47] the chopping block after 15 years with the city which I've been working for.

[2:37:52] So I may be retired earlier than expected, but I have bumping rights, but I don't want

[2:37:59] to eliminate a newer employee and have them lose their jobs so I can keep mine.

[2:38:04] I ask you, is this worth it to pay for this and to lose good city employees, to lose

[2:38:10] the wellness, the heating, the warming center, that's on the chopping block.

[2:38:15] Other things are on the chopping block that are essential cares and needs of the city.

[2:38:19] I ask you, and I ask you to think of this, finances, flux, cost is too much in litigation,

[2:38:25] prior trial lawyer of 25 years continue to go practice at Washington State.

[2:38:30] Other cities, 50 other cities have contracted and ended their contracts for reasons of

[2:38:36] irregularity and illegality and exposure to federal offices of police that should not have

[2:38:43] had our information, but they did.

[2:38:46] Why would we subject ourselves with financial losses under litigation as well as well

[2:38:50] it not being safe?

[2:38:51] What's the safety?

[2:38:51] I have started the Berkeley Community Safety Coalition, but not very clearly any members here, the definition of safety is that we feel no harm.

[2:39:04] We feel no loss. We feel community connection. We feel no danger. We feel no injury. There are many people who have been harmed by a flock and we should not be among them.

[2:39:15] Finally, we have Berkeley values that I plead to you to sustain.

[2:39:23] In Berkeley, I was proud to be part of the anti-apartied movement in South Africa and

[2:39:28] Nelson Mandela, thank the people of Berkeley for our work.

[2:39:31] He would not be happy with you going with flock.

[2:39:34] Also our city mayor, Guestner, pork lesson, had a lack of tear gas, police dogs and helicopters.

[2:40:00] That were all part of the force of safety. Again, not for harm or danger and real loss, but for safety. Finally, there are words I'd like to share in my last minute.

[2:40:15] I lost my sister six weeks ago to cancer and she was a lawyer as well.

[2:40:21] And my parents taught me to stand up for justice.

[2:40:26] They taught me the words of Micah in the Bible 6.8,

[2:40:30] to walk humbly, to act justly, and to love mercy.

[2:40:35] That's the city of Berkeley that I am proud of,

[2:40:38] and hope that you will sustain by your proper vote tonight.

[2:40:41] No one flock, please, dear God, please.

[2:40:48] Thanks, Ronnie.

[2:40:50] I'm getting another minute.

[2:40:53] Okay, sorry.

[2:40:54] I have 34 seconds.

[2:40:56] Oh, I don't.

[2:40:58] Here on the clock, she's saw 30 seconds.

[2:40:59] I don't think you can give your.

[2:41:03] Are you were finished, right?

[2:41:04] Money.

[2:41:05] I guess I've finished.

[2:41:06] Yeah, okay.

[2:41:06] Thank you.

[2:41:11] Okay, next person, please.

[2:41:12] Thank you.

[2:41:19] My name is Sochi Sanchez and I must date white organizing manager with the California immigrant policy center.

[2:41:25] Here in solidarity with the people of Berkeley.

[2:41:28] I come from Los Angeles County.

[2:41:29] For more than 11 months, the federal government has unconstitutionally in illegally rated

[2:41:35] work sites, school graduations, day labor centers, churches, and community gatherings

[2:41:41] to target street vendors.

[2:41:44] From LA, Long Beach, Ontario, and the Twin Cities of Minnesota, ICE, not only separates

[2:41:50] families, they shoot to kill and have executed U.S. citizens with impunity.

[2:41:55] do not use fraud to expand surveillance. As we have seen with the sharing of IRS information

[2:42:01] to target item holders and now the data sharing by the California D&B, the federal government

[2:42:07] will abuse this information and use it to terrorize you. You directly, your neighbors,

[2:42:15] observers, protesters, people of color and the working poor. This city council must not

[2:42:22] invest in weaponized technology to criminalize the people of Berkeley. Thanks.

[2:42:30] Okay, folks. I know there's a lot of talking going on. Please.

[2:42:37] Hi, my name is Micah. I live in district six and I am a public school therapist and social worker.

[2:42:45] And when I get to work and I meet with kids and families, it's obvious who I serve.

[2:42:52] When Frog exploits Filipino workers, I meet with billionaire and magazine homens, is obvious who they serve.

[2:43:01] Y'all are elected public servants, so it should be obvious who y'all serve.

[2:43:06] But it's not.

[2:43:08] So once again, you have a room full of constituents, beautiful constituents.

[2:43:18] I can't believe I have to bite my nails one thing if our sanctuary city of Berkeley is going to listen to us.

[2:43:27] Or to listen to mega fascist funders. Who considers extremists and terrorists too?

[2:43:35] Right now the deal does not make sense financially.

[2:43:39] Thanks so much.

[2:43:39] Please let us rest. Thank you.

[2:43:49] Michael Lyon, I'm just listening to this conversation that's

[2:43:55] going on about should this contract be accepted.

[2:44:04] And all this stuff is going on about

[2:44:07] what the compensation should be if something should go wrong. And this is insane.

[2:44:15] We're talking about

[2:44:16] somebody's life, somebody's kids being, being sent out of the country. And for, for Mr.

[2:44:23] flock here, this is just a cost of doing business. Every person who's kidnapped is maybe $200,

[2:44:34] $200,000 out of their profits. It's nothing. It's a drop in the bucket.

[2:44:41] Yeah, really,

[2:44:42] book. So,

[2:44:47] you know, someday we're going to be able to over throw

[2:44:51] copying you and get ready. Thank you so much. Thank you.

[2:45:01] I am here speaking separately on behalf of the Cal Berkeley Democrats. I would first like to recognize the community gathered here today. And remotely, a community upon which the discussions made today will either strengthen or fracture the ever precarious public trust in our institutions. By that, I mean the rapid expansion of a surveillance state.

[2:45:27] Being weaponized in ways that threaten the very civil rights generations have fought to protect.

[2:45:33] When Benjamin Franklin spoke of liberty over security, could he have imagined that our law-biting residents would be the primary targets of the Patriot Act?

[2:45:43] And acts that has been in place longer than many of us in this room were live for.

[2:45:47] A weapon that was used to discredit our Islamic community.

[2:45:50] And now we are expected to sacrifice our community once more to flock and organization willing to see our people remove from a society we have poured our blood sweat and tears into all in a name of security and profit.

[2:46:05] Where now do the winds blow council members.

[2:46:09] By advocating for flock you have shown your distrust for the residents and the faces you see here today.

[2:46:15] You are forcing our immigrant community into hiding, but the greatest humiliation of all is

[2:46:21] the fact that you have forsaken morality for security in the eyes of everyone present here

[2:46:27] today. I call on you to rescind your supporter flock. If not for the people standing here today,

[2:46:34] then do it for the future generations that may never get to enjoy the freedom many of us take

[2:46:39] granted here today. The question before you is not what keeps us safe today, but what kind of society we

[2:46:45] leave behind tomorrow? Because I didn't serve my country as an emancipated 17 year-old for surveillance.

[2:46:52] I did it for them.

[2:46:55] The residents of Berkeley here today stand for our immigrants. We stand for

[2:46:59] our vulnerable, and we stand proud because we stand strongest together. We'll be remembered here

[2:47:04] today for refusing to yield to fear, for refusing to divide our community, and refusing to sacrifice

[2:47:10] our freedom. The question is whether you will have the backbone to do the same.

[2:47:32] My name is Clara. I'm student and a resident of District 7 and I urge you all to terminate

[2:47:36] Berkeley's contract with Flock. We've heard a lot tonight about how Flock doesn't have any

[2:47:40] direct contracts with ISR CVP as if that's supposed to reassure us. As if the fact that you're

[2:47:46] leading the industry is supposed to impress us. Even without direct contracts to ISR CVP, these

[2:47:52] agencies still have been able to obtain flock camera footage through backdoor methods.

[2:47:57] Even if we are to believe the promises that the flock representative has made tonight,

[2:48:00] which I do not, and I don't think any of us here do, how can flock ensure that their data

[2:48:05] is not accessed by federal agencies without their knowledge or their permission?

[2:48:09] We've heard a lot about how flock does not utilize facial recognition technology, as if that

[2:48:14] is supposed to reassure us.

[2:48:16] Even if we believe that this technology can only track people based on their clothing,

[2:48:19] which I do not, and I don't think any of us do.

[2:48:23] How are we to be certain that facial recognition technology will not be implemented in the future?

[2:48:27] That we won't all be back here in a few months or a few years, fighting extensions to the contract.

[2:48:32] The only option is to terminate the contract completely.

[2:48:34] Thanks so much.

[2:48:42] Heather, I think I have one more minute from the crowd.

[2:48:45] Thank you.

[2:48:46] I've also taken, I've heard some technical difficulties are happening on Zoom.

[2:48:50] So I don't know if someone can take a look at that.

[2:48:52] People are getting kicked out and have trouble rejoining.

[2:48:54] So I guess I'll go ahead and start.

[2:48:57] Thank you.

[2:49:00] Good evening, Council.

[2:49:01] My name is Jason Martens, and at 330 today,

[2:49:04] I had to take my daughter to the ER, but thankfully they're fine,

[2:49:08] but I'm here anyway, because that's how important this issue is.

[2:49:14] I've been canvassing for months now in Berkeley.

[2:49:16] I think I've easily talked to 400 Berkeley citizens about this issue.

[2:49:21] And what is clear from my experience and I think corroborated in this room is that this issue is massively unpopular.

[2:49:30] Many people I talked to first express surprise that we are doing this in Berkeley.

[2:49:35] Then they are expressed shock that a majority of the council is supporting it.

[2:50:00] We all dreamed it was. To the council, I would like to know why you are supporting a proposal with overwhelming

[2:50:07] opposition. What's in it for you? I would like to also like to know what motivates you to go against what is

[2:50:15] clearly the desire of your constituents. So I'm here for a third time to ask you to vote no. And if you

[2:50:24] Well, yes, I want you to know that we will be holding you until the contract is cancelled.

[2:50:30] Thank you.

[2:50:31] Thank you.

[2:50:37] Hello.

[2:50:38] I have two extra minutes.

[2:50:42] Sorry, I saw one here.

[2:50:44] Oh,

[2:50:47] I can't.

[2:50:49] Okay.

[2:50:50] Thank you.

[2:50:50] Okay, great.

[2:50:55] My name is Joseph Olman.

[2:50:56] I live here in Berkeley.

[2:50:58] And I'm an animal cruelty investigator with an animal rights network.

[2:51:02] Nonviolent called direct action everywhere.

[2:51:04] I'm here tonight because I'm one of the people who flock has already been used against twice by law enforcement and this is in direct connection with my activism.

[2:51:18] According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, released records documented two separate instances of law enforcement querying the flock network to surveillance.

[2:51:26] name, both tied to my work exposing animal cruelty, not for violent crime, not for a public

[2:51:34] safety threat for activism. I currently face two years, I'm

[2:51:40] correction, two felony charges, and six and a half years, in prison, for rescuing sick,

[2:51:46] amaciated baby goats from a mineberg supplier, a supplier to Whole Foods, and they use the

[2:51:53] certified humane label. The goats that I'm charged with felonies for rescuing

[2:51:58] were dying. Necrofts confirmed coxidiosis, severe respiratory infection, and

[2:52:05] starvation at this facility here in California. Other goats from that same facility

[2:52:10] were dumped by the dozens in a mass grave. This is what investigators like me

[2:52:16] try to expose, and that is the kind of work that flock is being used to track.

[2:52:23] The EFS investigation this past year documented that my own organization direct action everywhere

[2:52:29] has been targeted across Flock Network, including nine queries by the Delaware State Police

[2:52:34] in a single month last year.

[2:52:36] I was charged in Delaware, in connection with that last year, and I was exposed for those charges

[2:52:41] in Delaware last year.

[2:52:44] The same investigation by the EFS found agencies running Flock searches, tied to

[2:52:48] with no king's protests to abortion seekers

[2:52:50] and using racial slurs against Romani people.

[2:52:54] This is the system Berkeley is being asked to renew.

[2:52:57] This op-ed, the op-ed from four council members

[2:53:00] says flock is just another piece

[2:53:02] of an existing surveillance landscape

[2:53:04] so they're refusing to change his little.

[2:53:07] With respect, that is the same exact argument

[2:53:10] that's been used for the past 20 years

[2:53:12] for surveillance systems.

[2:53:15] You're being asked tonight to a new contract

[2:53:17] that has already been used to surveil a Berkeley resident for exposing corporate cruelty.

[2:53:23] I am that resident. I'm asking you directly, reject flock.

[2:53:31] Thank you. Thank you.

[2:53:34] Come on up, my my Anna.

[2:53:39] Are you taking both? Yeah. Okay, one here. I don't use and then this

[2:53:48] person in the back. Okay. Thank you. Greetings council. My name is Ayanna Davis. I am currently

[2:53:55] the vice president of the newly formed nonprofit equity for Black Berkeley, former executive

[2:54:04] director for Healthy Black Families. While at Healthy Black Families with the mayor,

[2:54:18] black Berkeley initiative.

[2:54:21] And as part of that initiative over two years, we did 12 people's

[2:54:26] assemblies all over the city. We had 16 weeks of advocacy training. We did three community

[2:55:00] I came in contact with thousands of Berkeley residents. I am a mother who lost their son to violence. They knew

[2:55:08] who killed my son, even when they closed his call case, they told me they knew. Alex Goodwin,

[2:55:17] my co-worker, Kamika Patterson Smith, her son was killed. The whole community knew who killed

[2:55:25] it's fun. None of the murderers of our sons have been prosecuted.

[2:55:32] All right, you know, but my point being in the course of my experience, and in the course

[2:55:40] of our people's assembly and the data that we have that we share with the city, at no point

[2:55:47] was mass surveillance, a priority for the people.

[2:55:53] At no point, do we believe mass surveillance has lowered crime in Berkeley?

[2:55:59] It is our work that has lowered crime.

[2:56:03] It is our coming together with our neighbors and our community that has lowered time.

[2:56:10] It is education.

[2:56:12] It is outreach.

[2:56:14] It is shared love and understanding that it is the work of the people that create

[2:56:21] community and a place where our children can live and grow and thrive. Now I've lived in

[2:56:28] the same house on the same street for the past 45 years. My family has been here since the late

[2:56:35] 1880s built historical homes that are still standing. I'm a Berkeley person and I will tell you

[2:56:42] I have seen what has created crime and it is poverty, it is the red lining, it is the displacement,

[2:56:56] it is the unhoused community.

[2:56:59] If we're spending money on anything, it should be affordable, not just affordable housing,

[2:57:05] people can live afford to live in.

[2:57:12] We all need to put your phones down.

[2:57:14] I just want to say that.

[2:57:16] Pay attention to the people.

[2:57:17] We don't have much time for our voice.

[2:57:20] Listen, please.

[2:57:22] Who's backfully?

[2:57:24] So I say this to you.

[2:57:27] We're coming together and creating a workforce development coalition

[2:57:31] and a collaborative as we build the Adline Quarter.

[2:57:35] We know you plan on turning San Pablo Avenue into

[2:57:39] what's I hear little man hadn't,

[2:57:43] who's gonna do that work?

[2:57:45] We have to get people trained and ready.

[2:57:48] You need to be a council with vision

[2:57:50] and create a community that has employment

[2:57:55] for the people.

[2:57:56] Good jobs.

[2:57:57] Invest in that, invest in workforce development.

[2:58:01] Invest into the Black Arts and Cultural District

[2:58:04] and to a hard for our youth,

[2:58:05] so they can sell to your.

[2:58:07] Thank you.

[2:58:07] Thanks for my help.

[2:58:08] I love y'all.

[2:58:09] Thank you.

[2:58:10] Raise your head.

[2:58:12] Mommy on this drop.

[2:58:14] Mommy on.

[2:58:14] Thank you.

[2:58:25] I believe a few people did in the game.

[2:58:26] Oh, wait.

[2:58:26] Sorry.

[2:58:28] OK.

[2:58:29] You've never been at for him.

[2:58:30] So two minutes.

[2:58:34] Three.

[2:58:35] Oh, wait.

[2:58:35] Hold on.

[2:58:36] I can't see that person who's sitting there.

[2:58:37] OK.

[2:58:38] Thank you.

[2:58:39] OK, guy.

[2:58:48] Hey, you're a foretotal.

[2:58:59] I would expect better from the city

[2:59:02] that has these flags behind them.

[2:59:05] I would expect better.

[2:59:06] from the city that is this diverse, that is this noted for their civil rights work.

[2:59:16] Frock is a known collaborator with the Trump administration.

[2:59:22] They are a known collaborator with the H.S.

[2:59:26] In fact, the H.S. has a law in place that bars Frock from actually having them show up

[2:59:37] any sort of audit. People have mentioned it before. And can you remind me, what was that county,

[2:59:43] or was that city that actively violates that rule?

[2:59:48] A couple, I can't even figure out which,

[2:59:51] because it's that notable. None of these counties, none of these cities are paying attention.

[3:00:00] We do not need this needless violence brought into the Bay Area. I'm from San Jose. We fail to stop our

[3:00:08] flock contract because Mayor Matt at Mayhand is bought and paid for by them. Don't make the same mistake

[3:00:15] as that man. You have the chance right now to make a better world for your community, to be an example

[3:00:25] to the rest of the world. Berkeley has always been an example from the civil rights perspective

[3:00:31] in my opinion. Hey, put down your phone, buddy. I'm not done talking.

[3:00:40] This is the moment

[3:00:42] where you decide whether or not you are complicit in the hunt of vulnerable people. This is

[3:00:52] moment where you decide whether or not you wish to allow

[3:00:58] trans folks to be hunted, whether you allow

[3:01:03] day laborers to be stalked, whether you allow

[3:01:08] mothers to be killed.

[3:01:12] I hope to pray to God that you

[3:01:14] make the right decision here today because your decision

[3:01:18] has an impact on the rest of the Bay area. Your decision

[3:01:22] vision is not in a bubble here. All of these individuals have been pleading you and begging

[3:01:30] you to make the right decision, the clear decision, which is, don't even bother with a contract

[3:01:37] with flock. Send that man packing with nothing.

[3:01:43] Because he deserves nothing from you.

[3:01:53] He deserves

[3:01:54] and take and take until nothing is left.

[3:01:58] You will not see a dime of that money if something goes wrong

[3:02:02] because they will fight it in litigation.

[3:02:06] You will not see a dime of sympathy

[3:02:09] from the federal government when it happens

[3:02:12] and it will happen.

[3:02:15] Do not be a coward and a traitor to your people

[3:02:18] who are looking to you to be their voice.

[3:02:23] You have the chance to make the right choice here, and in case it wasn't clear, you keep that.

[3:02:32] Thank you.

[3:02:34] Thank you.

[3:02:35] Thank you.

[3:02:45] Hi, again.

[3:02:47] I'm David Allen.

[3:02:48] A Berkeley resident.

[3:02:49] This massive surveillance expansion is far past the point where quantitative becomes qualitative.

[3:02:55] The hardware may already be used in Berkeley, but it builds a network that has the ability

[3:03:01] to track a person from their work, to their appointments,

[3:03:04] to their family, and their home.

[3:03:06] That's facilitated by their patent pending individual recognition.

[3:03:11] They're attempted digitally fingerprint

[3:03:12] each of us without using the word's facial recognition.

[3:03:16] There are many factors that the individual recognition

[3:03:19] machine learning uses that similar left out.

[3:03:23] It uses race, it uses body characteristics.

[3:03:26] It uses walking aid.

[3:03:27] I have that pattern in my hand.

[3:03:32] It is software, not hardware.

[3:03:35] And tonight, the Berkeley BD said that they would use that capability if it was available.

[3:03:41] Flock pushes every boundary.

[3:03:43] It took four or four media doing an expose for Flock to back off.

[3:03:48] Thank you.

[3:03:53] I had an additional minute from Skip.

[3:03:57] It's supposed to be in the room.

[3:03:58] I'm going to go switch, okay, okay, thank you, thank you.

[3:04:01] Okay, flocc saying that they will not date a share with ICE or border patrol as a red

[3:04:07] hearing, because under this current federal administration, everything is upside down.

[3:04:13] No federal agency at this point can be trusted to not engage in abuse of power.

[3:04:20] Office of Civil Rights created to protect civil rights of persons are now entrusted with

[3:04:31] actually investigating transgender treatment and immigration.

[3:04:37] That's what they're doing at the Office of Civil Rights.

[3:05:00] Including for women that are in the country under the Violence Against Women's Act, because they're immigrants.

[3:05:09] A 295,000, or 295,000 dollar fine. It may sound overwhelming to us in the room, but it's nothing to a billionaire investor. It's a drop in the bucket.

[3:05:22] You follow the investors, you follow the gentleman interest.

[3:05:29] So, you heard recently a report from the city auditor on non-competitive contracts and there seemed to be a commitment that going forward all contracts we're going to be competitive.

[3:05:41] So, what's the difference here?

[3:05:44] Why is there no non-competitive content?

[3:05:46] Why is there not competition here?

[3:05:48] Why is everything directed towards Flock at their word?

[3:05:52] And it's the same as declaring that we're sanctuary city and then engaging with flock who has violated the rights.

[3:06:05] And we can't be both.

[3:06:08] It's inconsistent.

[3:06:10] Thank you.

[3:06:10] Thanks, Carol.

[3:06:16] Hi.

[3:06:16] I just had something I wanted to point out, which is that earlier this meeting.

[3:06:20] I heard Jen Lewis refer to a term we weren't sure about when referencing the flock database.

[3:06:25] And I assume that Jen Lewis is referring to the time when Brookley's flock data was searched with the terms ice and CVP because that did happen.

[3:06:35] If this is what she's talking about, I think that that's an appalling way to downplay the severity of those search terms.

[3:06:41] The BD can say that they've prevented this kind of search from happening again by turning off the statewide look-up feature on the database so that other agencies can access the data.

[3:06:51] But last meeting, Jen Lewis said herself that SFPD and OPD and other counties and police departments would also have access to this data.

[3:06:59] Any police officer from any of those counties could access and share a bookly data.

[3:07:03] You can say that you own the data, but you have not addressed that the other police departments have access to it and you don't control them.

[3:07:09] Floxy to base already searched that with the terms ICE and CBP. I don't know why we're speaking about federal access. I was a hypothetical. It's not hypothetical. It's already happens. Thank you.

[3:07:25] No unblock reject the contract.

[3:07:28] I want to speak to a Spineless and absurd op-ed that we saw come out this week. That was full of disingenuous arguments and outright lies.

[3:07:37] There are some lines you should still be afraid to cross, and this is one being a foot

[3:07:45] soldier of fascism is one. And if you don't care about us, which we are seeing from this

[3:07:52] op-ed, is your case, you should care about the litigation that is coming your way because

[3:07:58] it is coming and it is going to be brutal. When legislators fail us, it is up to litigation to

[3:08:05] us and that fact is so sad and it is absurd and appalling that you could even think of bringing

[3:08:13] us to that case, reject the contract, no one flock, listen to everybody here tonight, listen

[3:08:21] to them. Listen to them.

[3:08:25] Thank you.

[3:08:33] My name is Sophia. I'm a resident of District 3. The job of any

[3:08:38] place that calls itself a sanctuary city is to gum up the gears of fascism and authoritarianism

[3:08:43] however we can. Why in the world would you choose instead to serve up weapons on a silver

[3:08:49] platter that will be used and have already been used against not only the most vulnerable

[3:08:54] and overpolice among us, but also against anyone who dares speak out against the government?

[3:08:59] The only way Berkeley can prevent sharing data with ICE or with the feds is to not generate

[3:09:04] and not hold that data in the first place. And certainly not to store it with flock.

[3:09:11] stand with your people, reject, flock, and don't do the fascists job for them.

[3:09:18] Thank you.

[3:09:22] Two minutes.

[3:09:25] Oh, sorry.

[3:09:26] Hold on.

[3:09:27] I need two people to raise their hand.

[3:09:29] Okay, one.

[3:09:30] And then this person in the back corner can you stand.

[3:09:33] So I can just, oh, thank you.

[3:09:38] Go.

[3:09:40] It looks as if the headlines tomorrow may sadly read,

[3:10:00] To deficit. Crime is down. The police chief understandably wants the latest bells and whistles, but the

[3:10:08] Berkeley City Council is supposed to be the adult in the room. Other methods of fighting crime are

[3:10:15] better proven less expensive, keep the money in our community and help locals. The police, again,

[3:10:23] don't need every new bell and whistle. These cameras put the city at risk of liability, up to 60

[3:10:29] million dollars according to the city attorney federal legislation could force us to take

[3:10:34] the cameras down because of the deficit we might lose a fire station.

[3:10:40] Crisis mental health services might be on the block.

[3:10:43] Your constituents want fire stations not cameras.

[3:10:48] We don't need to throw away two million dollars in risk multi-million dollar lawsuits

[3:10:53] for new bells and whistles when crime is down.

[3:10:56] Don't waste our money.

[3:10:59] As the former chair of the Berkley Police Accountability Board stated, council members O'Keef

[3:11:06] Humbert, Kesawani and Taplan and their published op-ed piece seem to have knowingly misrepresented

[3:11:12] some things.

[3:11:14] They didn't mention that the police accountability board strongly advised against this contract.

[3:11:19] They didn't mention that the liability risks that they're aware of.

[3:11:24] They do acknowledge that Frog has altered data sharing without permission, but imply that there's something we can do to manage that risk, which isn't the case.

[3:11:33] They make false comparisons with our tracking devices on our phones, which we can control.

[3:11:40] They imply that Crimes were solved, which would not have been solved without Frog.

[3:11:45] Even though there's no way to prove that in a complex with the University of California Law Center analysis,

[3:11:50] They don't mention that crime is markedly down already.

[3:11:54] They don't mention the budget deficit that this purchase would exasperate, but black

[3:11:59] of being as recent email to constituents makes similar misrepresentations and omissions.

[3:12:06] Public officials who mislead their constituents should consider whether this position of trust

[3:12:11] is really the right place.

[3:12:14] The police accountability board says that the contract process broke city procedural rules

[3:12:19] that should be enough to vote no. The police accountability board advises in general against

[3:12:24] a flock contract that should be enough to vote no. The city attorney tells us that the contract

[3:12:30] puts us at risk of a $60 million lawsuit. I ability that should be enough to vote no. The city

[3:12:36] council members who plan to vote yes, admit this company has already shared data without permission.

[3:12:41] That should be enough to vote no. The majority of citizens would have given feedback to not want

[3:12:46] contract. That should be enough to vote no. There is a budget deficit and other things are

[3:12:52] more important to have you enough to vote. Thank you so much.

[3:13:05] These are not licensed play readers. One of them, sure. That's a licensed play reader.

[3:13:10] A network of them that surrounds us and tracks our every movement puts it in a database can be

[3:13:17] that's a pattern of life-logger detector. It's just wrong. And then okay, if it's just the city of

[3:13:24] Berkeley doing this, just for, you know, solving 50 more crimes in a year. Okay, I'm still pissed off about it,

[3:13:32] but it's way worse than that. I want you to ask Mr. Flock over there, again, pointedly. If the federal government asks for

[3:13:41] or police citizens data with a gag order where you give it to them, where we know, because

[3:13:48] the answer is yes, they will give it to them. No, we will never know. That means we are just

[3:13:53] serving ourselves up on a silver platter to fascism. Don't do this. History will not look

[3:14:00] kindly on this moment. Anyone who votes yes will be shamed. Please do not vote yes. Thank you.

[3:14:15] My name is Jacob. I'm on the disaster and fire safety commission, but I'm just here as an individual today.

[3:14:20] In addition to what everyone else said, which I 100% agree with, one thing that I wanted to talk about is the risk of data leaking to a third party.

[3:14:29] I think all of those have credit card numbers or phone numbers that are kind of out there on the internet and we can never take them back.

[3:14:35] But imagine if that's where you're most likely to be at 530 on any given day or where your kids go to school.

[3:14:42] Once this information is made, it can't be unmade and there's no amount of monetary compensation that can take that back.

[3:14:53] And so this is something that once we take this step, it's crossing a rubicon.

[3:14:58] We can't take it back.

[3:15:00] That district through resident and community organizer. The only thing that makes me feel safe in the city is my neighbors, other organizers who are working for affordable housing, who are working for better education, who are working for safer transit for everybody food security.

[3:15:16] These people in this room who I've seen show up over and over to implore you guys to not contract with flock for all of the many, many, many reasons listed.

[3:15:26] I've also been a victim of a violent crime in the East day and I have never once felt like surveillance technology would keep me safe.

[3:15:34] What's kept me safe are the other people in my community on the streets looking out for each other.

[3:15:39] Police don't keep us safe and surveillance certainly doesn't keep us safe.

[3:15:43] So thank you to everyone I'll speak out because we keep each other safe.

[3:15:47] Thank you.

[3:15:53] I'm going to show you a minute please.

[3:15:56] Thank you.

[3:15:57] Sorry, can I I can't quite see who that person is. Oh, thank you. Good.

[3:16:02] Hello, my name is Allison. I live in District 4 and I wanted to highlight one of the ways that flock data and technology has already been misused is currently being misused and that's in the

[3:16:14] And the use of police, some of which are in our San Francisco police department, using license

[3:16:21] plates, flocked license plate readers to stock and surveil romantic partners, their romantic

[3:16:26] partners.

[3:16:28] And if, you know, anything, if anyone knows anything about power and control surveillance on

[3:16:33] an interpersonal level on a systemic level, surveillance is a classic tactic of power and

[3:16:39] control, and power controls what constitutes abuse.

[3:16:41] and so on both an interpersonal and structural level, expanding, state and police department

[3:16:48] overreach to surveillance is enabling abuse on a systemic level.

[3:16:55] I have worked in the domestic violence field, I have lived in, I have experienced domestic

[3:17:01] violence, I have experienced domestic violence, surveillance by way of cameras and tracking

[3:17:06] has always been a factor of controlling people and not causing safety. I do not feel safe

[3:17:14] at the thought of police departments documented 38% of officers are documented to have domestic violence

[3:17:23] cries and that's what's documented so that's a definite underrepresentation. I don't feel safe

[3:17:31] putting more tools in their hands.

[3:17:34] That's not my vision of safety.

[3:17:36] Meanwhile, domestic violence and IPV services

[3:17:39] in the Bay Area specifically are so drastically

[3:17:41] underfunded, are currently at risk of being struck

[3:17:45] way further.

[3:17:46] And so please, I urge you to stop doing the work

[3:17:49] of the Abuser, the state, the Abuser,

[3:17:54] and actually invest in services that keep people safe

[3:17:57] and don't traumatize survivors further.

[3:17:59] The idea of being surveilled is traumatic for survivors.

[3:18:04] Thank you.

[3:18:11] I'm in D3.

[3:18:12] Mr. Flawke could tell you that.

[3:18:14] His cameras are outside my house.

[3:18:16] There's a false equivalence being asserted that surveillance is safety, which is being strategically deployed tied the fact that the opposite is true.

[3:18:22] Surveillance is not public safety.

[3:18:24] There is no actual demonstrated need for any of this technology.

[3:18:27] And even if there was, the Berkeley Criminal Law and Justice Centers independent policy review

[3:18:31] showed this technology doesn't actually help solve crimes or even work.

[3:18:34] If does create speed data privacy risk for the city, people will die in ice custody as a result

[3:18:39] of getting fucked or getting shot in the street by fascist federal agents with the help of

[3:18:43] this technology.

[3:18:44] And it doesn't matter what vendor you use for your amounts surveillance, drag net.

[3:18:47] Once that data is collected, no matter what encryption you use, no matter who owns the

[3:18:50] data, not who exists and can be acquired with a warrant.

[3:18:55] The only truly safe choice is not collecting it.

[3:18:57] This is not a safety company.

[3:18:59] It's a data broker who answers to the highest bidder and you're selling this out and making

[3:19:03] That's pay for it.

[3:19:07] Thank you.

[3:19:11] Thank you.

[3:19:14] Okay.

[3:19:15] One second.

[3:19:18] Yeah, I'm familiar with this too.

[3:19:20] Yeah, I'll take a couple minutes.

[3:19:23] So I'm here.

[3:19:25] I was just speaking in also read a couple nights ago, where we were very successful.

[3:19:29] Vanquishing.

[3:19:31] The situation from our city.

[3:19:33] And I was one of the core organizers there.

[3:19:35] spent a lot of time, a lot of people spent quite a long time organizing that.

[3:20:00] Well, frankly, how they were treated by Mayor Gabe Quinto, who's up for a election in quite a short time.

[3:20:07] I believe in August, running uncontested as well. I might add.

[3:20:11] So, you know, there's a lot of people in this room tonight who are very motivated,

[3:20:15] and there's a lot of people up here on this city council who might be coming up for election.

[3:20:19] And so I would encourage everybody here if you're serious about this, you can just get the votes next time it comes up,

[3:20:26] and everybody on this council maybe could consider that.

[3:20:29] Furthermore, okay, I often want to cover a little bit of technical stuff.

[3:20:34] So I run a small consulting company specializing in cloud infrastructure, networking, and

[3:20:40] security.

[3:20:41] I work for a lot of AI startups in San Francisco.

[3:20:45] One of my primary objectives with these companies is to help them comply with regulations

[3:20:49] around data and how it's managed.

[3:20:53] So network segmentation, concepts like data sovereignty.

[3:20:57] This is basically the notion of where the data lives, who owns it, what region of the world that's stored in,

[3:21:03] who has access to it, under what legal frameworks can it be shared, et cetera.

[3:21:10] The situation with flock is that the data is being stored in a central location.

[3:21:15] It's not being co-located within your city.

[3:21:18] It's being stored, I don't know, maybe you can explain what region it's being stored in, what cloud provided it's being stored in,

[3:21:25] the U.S. perhaps. These are concerns. I mean, I don't know if anybody knows the answer

[3:21:30] to this, but that really strongly affects the access control of the data. And the thing

[3:21:38] is, no matter what they tell you about the policies and how flock managers the data, they're

[3:21:43] still subject to federal law. Federal law supersedes any local law or any company policy or

[3:21:49] contract stipulation, and there's a few laws on the books, the cloud act of 2019, the

[3:21:54] FISA, which is from 1978, and the FBI has the ability to send national security letters.

[3:22:00] Now, if the FBI sends a national security letter, oftentimes is attached with a gag order.

[3:22:06] And this gag order would legally prevent flock from informing any of their clients that the

[3:22:12] data was requisitioned by the government.

[3:22:14] This means that even the lawyers at flock would not be informed.

[3:22:19] They're all reported cases of this.

[3:22:22] And so if you have time to ask him a question,

[3:22:25] get him up here on the mic and tell you,

[3:22:28] if the federal government asks for the data,

[3:22:30] will they be legally allowed to inform you that that occurred?

[3:22:35] Can I go one more minute, anybody?

[3:22:38] Can I get one more minute?

[3:22:39] Actually, I want to make sure we have everyone speak.

[3:22:42] So, I mean, you're welcome to get on the minute,

[3:22:43] but there are still folks who haven't spoken to me.

[3:22:45] But I will more, very important things today, can I?

[3:22:48] All right, we have one more.

[3:22:51] There's a little bit more in terms of audit logs.

[3:22:58] So, one of the only tools available for a city,

[3:23:01] or an independent set of researchers,

[3:23:03] to use to determine what flock is doing,

[3:23:06] what the data is through an audit log,

[3:23:09] and flock provides audit logs on their website

[3:23:11] to every municipality.

[3:23:13] However, there has been a recent reporting as recently as April from the website called

[3:23:17] Footnote for A, where they're basically analyzing the logs that are publicly available

[3:23:22] and finding that between 3% and 7% of the logs are changing.

[3:23:28] Now we're talking about audit logs.

[3:23:29] This should be an immutable piece of data.

[3:23:32] And when this data is queried and then queried again a week later, they're finding unique

[3:23:36] to have changed timestamps to have changed strong circumstantial evidence that the books are being

[3:23:42] cooked on the flock side.

[3:23:47] I mean the question is like if they're providing audit logs can they

[3:23:50] cryptographically sign the logs and can a third party. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:24:01] Hello everybody. I have two

[3:24:03] minutes. I have Ziggy and Paul Blake back there. So three minutes please. So let's be clear.

[3:24:11] surveillance cameras are a supremacist tool of an authoritarian society.

[3:24:20] Okay, I'm going to say that again, surveillance cameras are a supremacist tool of an authoritarian

[3:24:27] society. How do we know? Some of you have lived under such regimes where they have been

[3:24:33] where you've been surveilled. How do you think Israel was so successful at assassinating so many

[3:25:00] Ashes countries have surveillance. This is not a tool that we want to use here in our community. And who is safer? We keep

[3:25:09] thinking, oh, this is a safety. Who is safer? We have been given, you have been provided data by the BPD. But have

[3:25:19] even collect the date of how many times you wrongfully pull over people because of bad

[3:25:25] data by by a flock? Okay, these cameras did they tell you all anything about this? No,

[3:25:32] have you asked? How many times have they harmed people? Tremendous harm to people that they pull

[3:25:40] over, detain, they've impounded cars and caused innocent people harm. We heard about a woman who

[3:25:47] shot five times seven holes and a man from our community here who's an activist who has been

[3:25:53] honked. Okay, so there's a lot to this story. I've taken a tally so far we've had 97 minutes.

[3:26:02] That's me 97 people who oppose this. Three who have supported it. Okay, the democracy that would

[3:26:09] overwhelming that of course. You represent us. We all elected you. Okay? Maybe you're with

[3:26:18] my former council member before I got redistricted who doesn't have to be on the diet set this

[3:26:23] moment show they'll be go unnamed when I have a private conversation with them in 2020 and I asked

[3:26:28] are you getting lots of calls for you know this was about the police budget this was in 2020 with

[3:26:35] George Floyd about the police budget should go up and this person said, no, but I was elected

[3:26:44] to make a decision and I was elected to make a decision about what I think is best.

[3:26:49] Now what the community said, but what this person literally said that to me.

[3:26:53] So you all are going to take that authoritarian, like you were elected to make because you're

[3:26:58] the parent and you're the big brother that you're supposed to make the decision for your

[3:27:04] constituents in your community or are we part of a democracy or are you representing us?

[3:27:09] Okay, on the audit, the audit was just brought up.

[3:27:12] If you do vote for this, who's going to ensure compliance with this complex contract?

[3:27:17] It can't be flock, it can't be BPD, who's it going to be?

[3:27:21] Flip the Barclay City Council, flip BCC.

[3:27:24] Thank you.

[3:27:24] Check it out.

[3:27:33] Go ahead and move the mic so we can hear you.

[3:27:37] I'm Zandra. I'm a little worse. 50 fucking years ago, I came to California. I came to the Bay Area.

[3:27:46] Why did I come here? I had a five year old child. I was 24 years old. I came here because Berkeley promised to be the kind of country.

[3:27:58] I'm part of that generation that 50s and 60s generation that believed where I teach

[3:28:04] us told us about social justice, about civil rights, about ending war, and Berkeley stood

[3:28:11] for that when I came here.

[3:28:14] I've been so proud, I've been an activist and a business owner in Berkeley for almost 50 years,

[3:28:21] and I've been so proud to be here, but this is not making me proud, this is making me so

[3:28:27] And I already lived in seven states before I came here.

[3:28:31] So I came here, I knew what I was coming to.

[3:28:36] I'm not going to say anything new.

[3:28:38] Thank you.

[3:28:39] I have one more thing so much.

[3:28:42] I want to take that minute from the person to the back.

[3:28:44] Okay.

[3:28:45] Thank you.

[3:28:45] I'm not saying anything new.

[3:28:47] But what I am going to say, you all know.

[3:28:51] You all know all the information.

[3:28:53] Those of you that are voting, yes.

[3:28:55] I asked you to look inside yourself and figure out what

[3:29:01] rock of morality, what rock of humanity is letting you vote for this.

[3:29:08] Letting you accept that we can be safe through surveillance.

[3:29:13] When these women have said, we know how we're going to be safe.

[3:29:16] Equity is the only thing that's going to get us safe providing

[3:29:20] And in poverty, providing, caring for everyone in the city, that's the only thing that will make us safe, not surveillance, that's all.

[3:29:32] Thank you.

[3:29:39] I just want to check, is there two people?

[3:29:42] There's two people?

[3:29:44] Or three?

[3:29:48] Okay.

[3:29:49] Okay.

[3:29:49] Got it.

[3:29:53] Well, I'm a burden.

[3:29:54] I'm leaving.

[3:29:55] I'm in district four.

[3:29:56] I'm actually sure.

[3:29:58] I don't have anything else.

[3:30:00] Like if lock happens, it's kind of over for myself and my friends and my community. I feel you can probably guess why and the activism that I don't want to be doing.

[3:30:18] Flock just doomsus. It's over. There's nothing else for us. Yeah, that's it. I'm sorry. Goodbye.

[3:30:24] Thank you.

[3:30:31] Good evening.

[3:30:32] My name is Sophia O'Brien.

[3:30:34] Can I have a minute from someone?

[3:30:37] There?

[3:30:40] My name is Sophia O'Brien.

[3:30:41] I was born and raised in District 4.

[3:30:44] At a time when this city is discussing cuts to critical public resources and safety net programs,

[3:30:50] while hundreds fill your inboxes and this room to demand investment in our communities,

[3:30:54] This council, well, many from this council, plans to spend millions expanding surveillance

[3:31:01] infrastructure, $2 million plus millions more in inevitable lawsuits that could go towards

[3:31:06] preventing crises, supporting vulnerable residents, and strengthening community services,

[3:31:11] which is public safety.

[3:31:13] Instead, our tax dollars are being directed toward expanding systems tied to policing,

[3:31:19] federal abductions, racial profiling, and mass incarceration.

[3:31:22] If you really cared about public safety, you would invest more money into our schools to make sure that our teachers can afford to live in our city.

[3:31:30] You would invest more money into affordable housing and ensure the most basic social net for the most vulnerable in our community is met.

[3:31:38] Not sell those same people out as data points, so a billion dollar company can make more off of my community.

[3:31:44] Like many have said, you are a public servant, and therefore I hope you will act in the interest

[3:31:50] of your constituents, and if not, that will be a stain on this city for years to come

[3:31:55] and something that you as an individual will never live down as long as you are an elected

[3:31:59] official in our city.

[3:32:02] To move forward with this expansion, despite the legal warnings, the oversight concerns,

[3:32:07] the moral failures, and the erosion of public trust would be a profound mistake.

[3:32:12] The first rule of fascism and the most important rule is do not obey an advance.

[3:32:18] Now please, for the first time in forever, stand on the right side of history and do not

[3:32:23] sell out your constituents the public in the interest of public safety because the public

[3:32:30] is telling you exactly what will make us more unsafe.

[3:32:33] So please vote no on this contract on the expansion of more flock in our city.

[3:32:39] The public does not want this.

[3:32:41] Thank you.

[3:32:49] All right.

[3:32:50] Our final in person speaker.

[3:32:51] Go ahead.

[3:32:52] I'm Gail Alcock from District 2.

[3:32:56] And I...

[3:32:57] I think flock is a big mistake.

[3:33:00] And I was really proud, but I was at home,

[3:33:03] to be listening to the all the information that came.

[3:33:08] And I just hope that it's not news to any of things

[3:33:13] that you have heard tonight, it's not news, is that correct, you didn't hear anything that

[3:33:19] you didn't already know. I'm just assuming that that's the truth. But you do have these

[3:33:26] commissions and they do a lot of research. And then apparently there's this very organized group

[3:33:33] that is tremendously committed and dedicated and has brought so much information. But really,

[3:33:40] I think that you all knew anyway, because I knew without knowing a lot of information that this is creepy.

[3:33:51] I mean, you don't need to know much.

[3:33:54] Thank you.

[3:34:00] Okay, we're going to take, we finished with our in-person comment.

[3:34:05] If you are online for online comment, we have an hour of online comment piece, raise your hand.

[3:34:11] So you can get in the queue and in the meantime,

[3:34:13] we are going to take another 10-minute stretch break.

[3:34:16] Thank you.

[3:34:29] OK, the microphones are on.

[3:35:00] We are going to take on-line public comment now for item number 1A, which is the Public Safety

[3:35:09] Technology, Surveillance Technology, Ordnance of Police Equipment, Ordnance of Proof of

[3:35:13] Policy, Updates, and Contract Authority. So, Clara, can you please go ahead and start it?

[3:35:20] The first speaker has a phone number ending in 405.

[3:35:28] Hi, a drug.

[3:35:30] And I heard I live in District 1.

[3:35:34] I came to Berkeley in 1952.

[3:35:37] I graduated in Berkeley.

[3:35:41] And I look, like, not the digital person.

[3:35:48] I'm saying, show me the money.

[3:35:52] What gave us a billion dollars, the answer should be, no, we will not take, we will not be bought.

[3:36:02] And if the ideas that we are paying to be bought is yes, I'll break this.

[3:36:10] I do think that I'm on the board of directors for local corporations, the best of my knowledge,

[3:36:23] not one director, not one contact with the risk corporations would vote to endorse any

[3:36:37] Thank you for your

[3:36:51] service and there are two questions that I have for Mr. Flock. I really just have these two questions. I'm really interested in hearing there just yes and no questions if that's possible.

[3:37:03] One question is, are there any scenarios in which Floc would have to share data with the federal government?

[3:37:10] And then are there any scenarios in which Floc would have to share data with the federal government and not be able to tell the city of Berkeley or the local police?

[3:37:21] Yes, right now.

[3:37:24] Sorry, we don't respond to questions during the common period, but those were also asked and answered.

[3:37:31] Oh, thank you.

[3:37:33] Okay.

[3:37:36] Next is Beth Rossner.

[3:37:42] Good evening, Marin Council. This is Beth Rossner, CEO of the Berkeley

[3:37:46] Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber supports moving forward with thoughtfully managed public

[3:37:51] safety technology and the strong oversight framework in item one A. For Berkeley businesses,

[3:37:58] public safety and economic vitality are closely connected. Employees, customers and visitors

[3:38:03] need to feel safe in our commercial districts and public spaces and tools that improve emergency

[3:38:10] response and investigations can provide real public benefit. We're concerned about creating

[3:38:16] a gap in public safety capabilities if existing systems are discontinued before replacement

[3:38:21] tools or policies are fully in place. At the same time, we recognize the legitimate concerns

[3:38:27] around privacy, data security and vendor accountability. Strong safeguards, transparency,

[3:38:33] auditing, and local control over data must remain paramount. We appreciate the work being done

[3:38:39] to strengthen oversight while protecting Berkeley's values and keeping the city safe and welcoming

[3:38:44] for all. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Della Luna.

[3:39:01] Yes, thank you. I was going to

[3:39:05] This item is taken up so much of our time, and it feels like with so much of the public being

[3:39:10] against it, it shouldn't even be on the table, it's now two committee multiple times,

[3:39:16] and then I think we're up to one o'clock in the morning talking about it and now again.

[3:39:20] And I feel like it just reflects that you all are not doing your jobs, because we don't

[3:39:26] elect you.

[3:39:27] I guess what I want to say is you all are professionals in your own rights and each of

[3:39:31] as a set of expertise but no one as individuals or collectively has the expertise to sign a contract

[3:39:38] that's going to murder death kill the constituents and we didn't elect you for you to then

[3:39:43] negotiate contracts. So there's like a slight of hand going on where we do elect you to be

[3:39:47] city council but the intention is not for you then to turn around and murder death kill us. So

[3:39:54] yes you all represent the people and the people do not want this and the notion that

[3:40:00] We are a business association in policy advocacy organization representing nearly 400 of the region's employers.

[3:40:06] Three years ago, 125 East Bay employers asked us to form a coalition and response to concerns about safety in the future of the region.

[3:40:13] This coalition strongly supports the continued use of ALPR and related technology in Berkeley.

[3:40:19] Technology is a critical public safety tool, particularly for departments facing staffing challenges.

[3:40:23] On the ground every day, these tools help officers recover soul and property prevent human trafficking and identify suspects in violent crimes.

[3:40:31] We've also seen across the East Bay and the broader region that this technology can be implemented with appropriate safeguards that balance the needs of community privacy with public safety.

[3:40:41] Finally, and importantly, since many nearby cities are already applying this technology using compatible tools, strengthens coordination and safety across jurisdictions.

[3:40:48] Thank you for your consideration and your continued leadership in Berkeley.

[3:40:55] Thank you.

[3:40:57] Tracy Rosenberg.

[3:41:05] Yes, one second.

[3:41:11] Tracy Rosenberg from Oakland Privacy.

[3:41:13] Let's be clear.

[3:41:15] While fully aware of dozens of local sanctuary ordinances.

[3:41:19] California, SB 34 and SB 54.

[3:41:23] So often chose to let customs and border patrol into their database and hold absolutely no one.

[3:41:30] In my news today, Shaker Heights, Ohio, is sitting with a sanctuary policy announced that other agencies searched their flock database for the purpose of immigration enforcement 2773 times in the last three months this year, it is happening and it is continuing to happen every single day.

[3:41:58] you can't negotiate with companies that are lying to you. No on the concept. Thank you.

[3:42:08] Next speaker is Wendy Elfson.

[3:42:22] Thank you. Mayor council speaking on behalf of the

[3:42:27] Berkeley friends meeting in opposition to the approval of these eight items on your agenda.

[3:42:38] It's like to point out that each of them merits a separate agenda with the opportunity for consideration.

[3:42:48] It's been very difficult throughout this process to have any attention on the policies that underlie all of this,

[3:42:56] like to point out that in addition to all of the other things that have been raised,

[3:43:03] particularly by the police accountability board as you can just pay special attention to their recommendations, their most recent one of my sixth on the purchase called purchase order contracting issue, really requires.

[3:43:26] Thank you. Next is Audrey Cramer.

[3:43:34] Good evening, city council and mayor. My name is Audrey Cramer and I am a sophomore at UC Berkeley in a district six resident.

[3:43:41] I'm currently looking at the city managers proposed 2728 budget and balancing plan.

[3:43:46] And so my question for you today is why are we sitting here? Berkeley isn't a ridiculous budget deficit.

[3:43:52] On page 52 of this report, the city manager outlines the eight policemen that Berkeley is firing this year.

[3:43:58] Every department in the city is losing 10% of its budget, and Flock is clearly highly unpopular,

[3:44:04] so I would suggest that you use this exorbitant amount of money to follow the police accountability

[3:44:09] boards recommendation for an RFP on this matter, or use this money for literally anything else.

[3:44:15] Thank you so much for your time. Have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:45:00] I'm Latino. And when extremist ideological experiments go wrong, people die. Socialist extremist policies

[3:45:08] failed Cuba and Venezuela, millions suffered. Here in California, DSA driven defunding a police

[3:45:14] helped create this out of control crime wave. And now you want us to do what? Keep trusting

[3:45:19] your failed social experiment. Here in Berkeley, even common sense liberals are now called fascists

[3:45:24] and bullied into silence. Look, the city's number one job is still to protect residents and

[3:45:29] businesses with proven tools, not gamble with public safety based on ideology and zero evidence.

[3:45:35] What happens when cities turn off flock, Richmond stopped cameras a few months, auto thefts,

[3:45:41] jump by a third.

[3:45:42] That's not theory.

[3:45:43] That's documented facts.

[3:45:45] So who's paying the highest price?

[3:45:47] It's working class, black and brown families.

[3:45:51] Most are single-core households, and when that one car is stolen, it's not a small inconvenience.

[3:45:56] People whose jobs kids miss school families lose their homes, stolen cars become stolen lives.

[3:46:03] Thank you.

[3:46:05] Time is up.

[3:46:06] Thank you.

[3:46:08] Next is Devon.

[3:46:18] Devon, you should be able to unmute.

[3:46:27] Last call for Devon.

[3:46:32] All right.

[3:46:34] Let's go to MR.

[3:46:40] Hello, I'm a resident, a data engineer and a former defense technologist.

[3:46:44] I'm embarrassed to have Shashana O'Keef as my representative.

[3:46:47] Block is not a public safety company.

[3:46:49] They are a data broker as a data near I'm telling you that the oversight narrative for

[3:46:53] this contract is technically infeasible.

[3:46:56] The city and the Berkeley Police Department will absolutely not have the independent

[3:46:59] technical capacity to oversee monitor or manage Berkeley data generated by flock.

[3:47:04] As a survivor myself, I completely reject the use of survivor trauma as justification for

[3:47:09] warrantless mass surveillance, commercial surveillance

[3:47:12] companies, and our products do not address the causes of violence

[3:47:15] or crime, and survivors too deserve

[3:47:17] want and have rights to privacy.

[3:47:19] Shame on you for invoking survivor trauma

[3:47:21] to enable mass surveillance.

[3:47:28] Thank you, and just a reminder to folks

[3:47:30] to not refer to specific council members.

[3:47:32] You have to refer to us as a body.

[3:47:35] OK, one more try for Devon.

[3:47:40] Devon, you should be able to unmute,

[3:47:47] no Devon.

[3:47:49] Next is Mackay Freeman.

[3:47:54] Can you give her extra time, please?

[3:47:55] Thank you.

[3:48:00] Good afternoon.

[3:48:02] Thank you.

[3:48:04] I'm about to send any order to tonight,

[3:48:10] but like,

[3:48:12] they'll describe the residents.

[3:48:17] We usually saw the reversal of zoning rights

[3:48:24] in the cell like this,

[3:48:28] we know what happened, doing colonel for us, we know we have

[3:48:36] a strange problem that's utterance, the pattern is, I think our fleet's, oh there's

[3:48:47] a tree as well,

[3:48:51] I am, I can, I am, can't have that sense of safety, but you know, all

[3:49:02] on the diet. No, there's going to be excuses.

[3:49:11] You are a public servant.

[3:49:16] When a public

[3:49:18] said no, listen,

[3:49:25] I'm not going to reach out. I'm those who have been in a room and children

[3:49:34] Without the parent, sharing numbers,

[3:49:42] it is a false dichotomy,

[3:49:47] that if you don't want the

[3:49:49] field, don't care about public safety and for a part, find it.

[3:50:00] Thanks, Mokai.

[3:50:06] Next is a phone number ending in 4, 5, 3.

[3:50:13] I think that's chair, Kaitano.

[3:50:24] That's for that minute. Chair, Kaitano, can you hear us?

[3:50:33] He's down mute first.

[3:50:37] Phone number ending in 4, 5, 3. You should be able to unmute, star 6 to unmute.

[3:50:43] There you go.

[3:50:44] Hi, everyone. Josh Kaitano, chair of the police accountability board.

[3:50:48] I believe I have direction minutes from people online. I think I raise a hand.

[3:50:51] four minutes total could you give us their names because a lot of people are raising their hands

[3:50:57] oh um I don't know what their name bill is it has um chip Adriana and Lila

[3:51:06] it's one of them is calling on by some chip do you say chip yeah

[3:51:16] um okay one more time chip

[3:51:20] what were the other two Adriana and Lila okay I see Adriana and Lila

[3:51:33] I see Adriana and Lila

[3:51:34] there and do you see them mark?

[3:51:39] Thank you.

[3:51:41] See Adriana.

[3:51:44] Layla is, you know,

[3:51:48] Layla and Nassura Lahi.

[3:51:51] Yes, I'm sorry.

[3:51:53] I'll see you tomorrow on, though.

[3:51:55] So we'll get you that.

[3:51:56] Josh, we'll see if I can get you that

[3:51:58] for a minute in here, but just let's

[3:51:59] for now check on those other two.

[3:52:01] I want to make sure we keep moving.

[3:52:03] Yeah, so we've got three minutes.

[3:52:04] It more gets on than that would be a fourth.

[3:52:08] Oh.

[3:52:09] You have a third minute.

[3:52:10] I've got your third minute here.

[3:52:12] Okay, so a fourth toe, right?

[3:52:13] I'd like to thank you.

[3:52:15] My name is Josh Kaitana.

[3:52:16] I'm Chair of the Police Accountability Board.

[3:52:18] I also graduated at Berkeley Law and at D3 resident.

[3:52:22] First, I would just like to note that nobody has asked

[3:52:25] BPD or finance about their supplemental and why they're no longer standing behind

[3:52:29] their first proposed resolution.

[3:52:31] And I can tell you why.

[3:52:33] The PAD sent a letter this week where we explained the BPD has failed residents of Berkeley

[3:52:37] by exclusively pursuing a contract with Flock without a competitive procurement process.

[3:52:43] Even after the city council sent them back to the drawing board on Flock in Flock 2025

[3:52:46] in the city to that again, the spring.

[3:52:50] And so this had to pivot.

[3:52:50] The city manager said during the common section that we do this all the time.

[3:52:55] And that's exactly the issue.

[3:52:56] It's one of the city auditor recently faulted the city for.

[3:52:59] 40% of it's contracts were not completely bid, and the default rule is a competitive process.

[3:53:05] He also compared this to a contract for a truck or a pencil.

[3:53:08] But we're not talking about trucks and pencils.

[3:53:10] We're talking about the largest expansion of police surveillance technology in Berkeley's history.

[3:53:15] Now, BPD is trying to claim that block is the best out there.

[3:53:18] That nobody else has a comparable product, but this is what's best for Berkeley.

[3:53:22] But they cannot back that up without a competitive process.

[3:53:25] And that's something Berkeley and deserve.

[3:53:27] Second, and speaking for myself now, there's also been a lot of talks about safety from

[3:53:31] Fox supporters, but Fox does not keep our community safe.

[3:53:36] We do.

[3:53:36] I recently spoke with leaders in Helmwood and DM3, her monitoring the neighborhood around

[3:53:40] Sylvia Mendez, making sure children are safe and protected for mice.

[3:53:44] That is safety.

[3:53:45] Now, to talk every month with members of the mayor's sanctuary city task force, the people

[3:53:48] who are tirelessly coordinating each way for our community.

[3:53:52] That is safety.

[3:53:52] My spoke with members, some members of BPD, and with free who are building relationships and schools and on the streets with people in high risk areas.

[3:54:00] That is safety.

[3:54:01] Block does not make us safe.

[3:54:03] We do.

[3:54:05] There is also been a lot of talk from block supporters about accountability.

[3:54:08] Go out to the supporters and ask them, but their track record is on police accountability in Berkeley.

[3:54:15] DPD bury their audit on the last page of reports that they had identified Berkeley's

[3:54:19] own data with search for ISMDHS.

[3:54:21] They didn't bring that to the council of attention.

[3:54:23] We did.

[3:54:24] DPD did not have the courage to say what that was, and call it what it was, the material

[3:54:28] of our trust, and said they explained it away.

[3:54:31] And so what I hear about saying is that they don't know exactly what that was.

[3:54:34] But I think that sitting there today, if they're asking for you to contract with block

[3:54:38] they should admit it.

[3:54:40] Why should we trust what they say if they can't admit, even with their own audit

[3:54:44] The last three years, our own accountability institutions have been undermined, subverted, and

[3:54:50] defunded, and tonight this accountability can start.

[3:54:53] Make them make it happen.

[3:54:54] Thank you all.

[3:55:00] Thank you. Yes, my name is Dr. Kelsey Jackson. I'm in District 1 and I'm concerned about the similarities and surveillance between Israel and the United States in this moment.

[3:55:10] I'm an expert in the perceptions of intercultural empathy, peace, and the other between Palestinians and Israelis. I spent time in the Middle East. I spent time in Palestine and Israel. I walked around the inside of the wall of Palestine at a military checkpoint, where headstones littered the brush while I stared down.

[3:55:28] Sorry, while I was stared down by four Israeli soldiers,

[3:55:31] each holding their AK-47s as they watched me.

[3:55:34] While in Palestine 10 years ago,

[3:55:36] I saw firsthand the detriment of over to surveillance.

[3:55:39] It saw firsthand the way it impeded the lives of Palestinians.

[3:55:43] They weren't able to self-organize.

[3:55:45] They weren't able to gather.

[3:55:46] They weren't able to protest without threat

[3:55:48] of being imprisoned or killed.

[3:55:51] Israel uses the same surveillance technology

[3:55:53] in their red wolf and blue wolf surveillance as flock,

[3:55:56] And it's now being embedded into our cities, our communities, to our neighbors.

[3:56:02] We're on the dangerous path to normalizing master valence of infringing.

[3:56:07] Next is Tim McKenzie, Tim McKenzie.

[3:56:13] Hi, my name is Tim McKenzie.

[3:56:14] I'm a member of the Democratic Socialist of America.

[3:56:18] I'm here to encourage you to get rid of ALPR's cancel the flood contract.

[3:56:23] I actually believe Mr. Flock saying that they are an industry leader and honestly, that's embarrassing for the industry.

[3:56:32] Flock only just introduced two factor authentication.

[3:56:37] That was just admitted at Sunnyvale City Council last month.

[3:56:42] They haven't had less data security than applying for a job.

[3:56:46] It is really impossible to believe that they will be able to protect the data.

[3:56:51] And it's been illegal in California to share data outside of the state for a decade.

[3:56:57] And they have spent years doing that, having a nationwide look up to, well, they've already broken trust.

[3:57:04] They cannot be relied upon.

[3:57:07] You need to cancel the contract.

[3:57:09] Thank you.

[3:57:11] Thank you.

[3:57:15] Next is Mary Lynn Morales.

[3:57:21] Hi, thank you.

[3:57:24] I'm a long time Berkeley resident, homeowner and a small business owner in Berkeley, and members of the city council, I'd be

[3:57:32] seats you in the strongest possible terms, do not renew the flock contract as proposed.

[3:57:41] I am more afraid of flock than I am afraid of crime in Berkeley.

[3:57:44] Prime is already down. Everyone is talked about it. We don't need to expand our invasions

[3:57:50] of privacy and further militarize our police force. Save us from the constant fear of

[3:57:57] big brother. Please. Please. Thank you.

[3:58:03] Thank you.

[3:58:07] Next is Jordan.

[3:58:13] Hi. Can you hear me? Yeah.

[3:58:15] Cool. My name is Jordan. I lived in Berkeley for about 22, 23 years. Recently moved

[3:58:22] still very connected to this community. I go to UC Berkeley law. And I am joining the

[3:58:28] overwhelming chorus of people who are asking you to drop the flock contract. I'd like to

[3:58:33] also expand upon that and say, I think that as we built this grassroots power and this

[3:58:40] grassroots movement against flock, we've also seen people more broadly take a stand against

[3:58:44] master valence in general and that includes drones and that includes shots,

[3:58:48] spotter and that includes all of these technologies that get woven together into

[3:58:52] this intricate web of master valence that we are trying to prevent and cannot escape.

[3:59:00] And I had other things to say but I think you're going to vote how you're going to vote.

[3:59:03] I don't know if us saying this is going to sway anyone but I want to add my voice to the

[3:59:08] chorus and I hope that you listen to your constituents.

[3:59:11] Thank you.

[3:59:19] It's another instance of Wendy Elfson here.

[3:59:24] As is Wendy or somebody else.

[3:59:28] Hi, my name is Marilyn Cleveland and I'm a resident of Berkeley and a retired attorney who spent 30 years advising public entities concerning public contracts.

[3:59:38] The daily cow recently published an article about a leaked city attorney memo describing

[3:59:45] the city's exposure to multimillion dollar lawsuits at the council for seeds to renew

[3:59:50] and expand the plot contracts.

[3:59:52] The article states that the proposed contract follows flocks standard terms and conditions.

[3:59:58] Public entities including Berkeley.

[4:00:00] Procedures from the city's form of contract, not from a standard form that the private entity trying to contract with the city provides, even if that another public entity has accepted those terms.

[4:00:13] Piggy backing on another public entities contract is one way to comply with the California Public Contract Code. Piggy backing does not wave the city's responsibility to comply with the applicable state and municipal requirements,

[4:00:25] including sanctuary laws and military equipment reporting requirements.

[4:00:30] That's your time.

[4:00:35] Next is Zachary.

[4:00:43] I'm Zach, D1 resident.

[4:00:46] I think that cameras and ALPRs are a useful tool for solving crimes.

[4:00:51] Again, convictions, and we should stand against crime, but this is about something different.

[4:00:56] This is aggregation.

[4:00:58] There are other ways to get these tools that don't grant automatic third party access.

[4:01:02] And this is really a conversation about civil liberties.

[4:01:06] I was lucky enough to be born in a world before the Patriot Act.

[4:01:11] Year after year, our rights are trimmed back.

[4:01:15] And on average, we saw a drop of four deaths per year due to terrorism before and after the Patriot Act.

[4:01:22] We could have asked everyone just to wear seat belts and it probably would have been more effective.

[4:01:26] A contract with flock will not fix our criminal justice system

[4:01:30] and it will not be in a step in the right direction, we need to aggregate, sorry, it will

[4:01:36] aggregate our data into their cloud, so that it can be served up the very moment, a whiskey

[4:01:41] soak, Pfizer warrant shows up with NSB07 written on it.

[4:01:44] Thank you, Mr. Tom.

[4:01:45] Project.

[4:01:48] Next is Fabiola.

[4:01:53] Uh, Fabiola D5, Madam Mayor and the City Council members, I urge you all to heed the warning from

[4:02:01] the city attorney regarding the potential liability, burply faces if it renews its contract

[4:02:07] with flock.

[4:02:08] Please don't waste our money.

[4:02:10] Regarding that, Opad, my city council member, co-wrote in the BS that claims flock keeps

[4:02:15] us safe.

[4:02:16] Well, that's BS.

[4:02:17] The Opad talks about arrests made for crimes that were committed.

[4:02:22] Where's the public safety there?

[4:02:23] Crimes were committed.

[4:02:25] They were not prevented.

[4:02:27] Flock does not make us safe.

[4:02:28] Again, this proposal represents the largest expansion of surveillance infrastructure in the city

[4:02:34] history and directly undermines Berkeley's longstanding commitment to being a sanctuary city.

[4:02:42] To those of our app ad writers, supporting the surveillance system is totally maga.

[4:02:49] Please vote no to renew the flood contract.

[4:02:52] Thank you.

[4:02:56] Next is Keon.

[4:02:59] Keon Bliss.

[4:03:05] You hear me?

[4:03:06] You hear me?

[4:03:08] You hear me?

[4:03:14] Colleges, can you hear me now?

[4:03:16] Yep, can you hear me now?

[4:03:21] Yeah, just wanted to say that BPD and Council members argue that up to two million dollars for private surveillance technology is needed to compensate for BPD staffing challenges.

[4:03:33] The department is running well, because the department is running well below authorized strength,

[4:03:40] but it's actually a false choice.

[4:03:42] Technology and staffing have never been interchangeable and reality, LPR, cameras generate

[4:03:48] leads, but require officers to actually investigate them, and BPDs reduce staffing means fewer

[4:03:53] investigators available to follow up on LPR hits.

[4:03:56] And peer review research already suggests LPR's effectiveness depends on dedicated units.

[4:04:00] creating that capacity requires staffing, not cameras, but BPD itself calls this technology

[4:04:05] a resource multiplier, even as it's ready to fund that resource multiplier by eliminating

[4:04:12] up to six-worn officer positions.

[4:04:15] So BPD's argument for flock actually highlights the need to actually invest in people,

[4:04:21] rather than male and technology.

[4:04:22] Thanks so much.

[4:04:25] Next is Ralph.

[4:04:27] Ralph, you should be able to unmute.

[4:04:45] Ralph Brown, can you hear us? Can you please unmute?

[4:04:53] They will come back to you.

[4:04:55] Next is Katherine Lewis.

[4:05:00] Hello.

[4:05:02] I'm here tonight. And can only think about how this body has failed its residents, its constituents

[4:05:13] over and over again. I can only think of the infants in Gaza four days old, who were bombed

[4:05:23] in their apartment because of surveillance. You've all heard of the Palestine Laboratory.

[4:05:32] Well, the Berkeley City Council is complicit because they failed failed to condemn genocide

[4:05:41] in Gaza and continue to fail. Don't fail the children of Berkeley as well. Say no to

[4:05:51] block. We do not need this surveillance. What a waste. Look into your hearts and do the right thing.

[4:06:00] Thank you.

[4:06:03] Go back to Ralph Brown. Ralph, are you there?

[4:06:10] And unmute.

[4:06:17] Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. There you go.

[4:06:20] Excellent. This morning to note from the supporters, there's a lot of money that's actually invested.

[4:06:27] and in Berkeley City Council members from some of the supporters like Bay Area Council, who is most notably a prime backer of flock in the Bay Area, and that comes out to amount of that $81,000.

[4:06:49] And the, also with the Berkeley police officer association for existing members of City Council.

[4:07:00] I mean, it comes out to even more.

[4:07:04] It should actually be listening.

[4:07:07] I hope you are actually listening to what concern constituents are actually telling you to do as it comes to.

[4:07:14] This surveillance is not actually keeping you safe.

[4:07:18] What it is is just a field good measure for a lot of these folks, and it doesn't actually give it to you.

[4:07:24] Maybe for most people.

[4:07:25] Thanks.

[4:07:26] Your time, sir.

[4:07:27] Next is Elmira.

[4:07:33] Hi there.

[4:07:34] My name is Elmira.

[4:07:35] I'm a resident of district five.

[4:07:37] And I've done about flock for a little bit, but it wasn't until I got an email from the electronic

[4:07:43] Frontier Foundation telling me that the organization that I lead direct action everywhere

[4:07:48] I show up in searches that they've done looking at to flock over 50 different times and over 50 times people who have been doing

[4:07:58] Public property protests have been surveilled and their license plates have been tracked and this is

[4:08:05] Happening to residents of Berkeley. I am your constituent. This is happening to my friends who are your constituent

[4:08:10] So, this is not a hypothetical, this has already been used to suppress free speech and intimidate people trying to make the world a better place and I strongly encourage you to vote no on this contract to protect people in Berkeley and everywhere who are fighting for a better world. Thank you.

[4:08:32] Next is Mimi. Mimi, you should be able to unmute. There you go.

[4:08:38] Hi there. My name is Danny. I'm I live for eight years on District 8 and I thought and hoped when I moved to Berkeley that this would be a place that reflects my values.

[4:08:49] The hundreds of people that have spoken tonight and the hundreds of people that have spoken at the tier gas commission meeting.

[4:08:55] Those people reflect my values.

[4:08:58] The people I've been working with at our BLFD school

[4:09:01] and in my neighborhood,

[4:09:03] to set up community watch and mutual aid networks,

[4:09:06] those people reflect my values.

[4:09:09] I feel like I really shouldn't have to worry

[4:09:11] about the Berkeley City Council embracing

[4:09:13] and the city of Berkeley embracing

[4:09:15] the approaches and tools of fascism.

[4:09:18] I'm appalled and limited that we're all here again tonight.

[4:09:22] This dynamic where your constituents

[4:09:24] you and droves to act in our best interest. And then the council acts at the opposite. It's

[4:09:32] awful, it's disgusting, it's gross and I'm begging you literally on my knees please please do not

[4:09:39] even forward with flock. Thank you.

[4:10:00] Hi, my name is Chelsea. I grew up on military bases. Just one second, I'm fixing the echo.

[4:10:10] I grew up on military bases, specifically with

[4:10:16] in depth knowledge about military warfare and psychological warfare. What flock is, is it's an arm for Naziism, it's an arm for the military, and it's a tool for direct psychological warfare and control.

[4:10:29] And people know this. It's obvious. Follow the money. For example, the founders and the

[4:10:36] people that pay for flock, Peter Teele. He's in charge of play on tear and sales intelligence

[4:10:43] tools to ice, DHS, and the Pentagon. Another example, Marita Capital, gives flock a lot

[4:10:50] of money and makes a lot of decisions that's owned by the U.S. military by the Air Force.

[4:10:56] None of this is subtle. These firms, bankroll companies that surveil the tain or kill on the name of national security.

[4:11:03] We don't want this furthermore.

[4:11:09] I'd like to.

[4:11:12] No, it's not.

[4:11:16] Next is J.L.

[4:11:23] Hi, can you hear me?

[4:11:25] Yes.

[4:11:27] Thank you.

[4:11:27] I'm a longtime Berkeley community member. I've seen videos where members of the public can hack into these feeds.

[4:11:32] That means anyone with the tools could use these feeds to follow a women home or could access playground feed and watch kids.

[4:11:42] Which has already been reported in other cities?

[4:11:44] Or could follow home someone who just bought something expensive and find out where they live in order to rob them?

[4:11:48] So from those perspectives, thoughts flock actually introduces the possibility for more crimes to happen.

[4:11:55] I've also seen reports where police themselves have used surveillance tools to follow their ex-partners around

[4:11:59] Not because the partner was part of anything criminal, but rather because the officer was

[4:12:03] facking up for personal reasons.

[4:12:05] As someone else has said, there's no special wording that could possibly be used in a contract

[4:12:09] that could ensure the data will be safe.

[4:12:11] You can introduce fines, but this is a slap on the risk to a company like Flock.

[4:12:15] Many cities are realizing that these risks, these are risks they do not want to take.

[4:12:19] The legal risk that it opens the city too and the actual data security risk.

[4:12:23] Many have canceled their contracts, and this is what Berkeley should do.

[4:12:26] And so when else has said, please heed the warning from the city attorney and do not wait for me.

[4:12:31] Thanks so much for your comments.

[4:12:36] Next is Willemina.

[4:12:40] Hi, this is Willemina Condon.

[4:12:44] I'm in District 7.

[4:12:46] And I'm watching these and coming to the city council meetings and I'm completely gobsfacked at how the council has set themselves up as sort of a paternalistic

[4:12:59] no all, completely disregarding their constituents.

[4:13:07] To me, this issue in the city of Berkeley is outrageous.

[4:13:11] It's a no-brainer.

[4:13:13] There's nothing that I've studied, nothing that I've heard

[4:13:16] that makes this a good decision.

[4:13:19] Please start representing us, not against us.

[4:13:23] We're not your enemy.

[4:13:25] We voted for you.

[4:13:26] we would never have voted for you if you if we imagined that you would do something like this.

[4:13:34] No, I'm flock. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Todd Andrew.

[4:13:47] Oh, hi, Council. Can you hear me? Yes. Hey, Todd Andrew district five. I know this is a tough decision

[4:13:55] and we all know that crime was coming down before the implementation of the cameras

[4:14:01] And we all know that the cameras help to solve crime.

[4:14:05] So it's a tough decision, but we have a regime at the federal level who has proved

[4:14:10] lawless and unaccountable, along with their immigration and customer enforcement and customs

[4:14:17] and border patrol agencies.

[4:14:21] And we've had capitulations on the part of media, we've had capitulations on the part

[4:14:25] of law firms and other organizations in this country who's to say, flock is not going to do

[4:14:30] same thing. I would urge you can we keep please maybe the hardware in place for when the

[4:14:38] Trump regime has been vanquished and then turn them back on once they are the hell out of here.

[4:14:43] Thanks a lot. Thanks, Todd.

[4:14:48] Next is Gigi.

[4:15:00] Aye, I'm Jackie Geronimo. I'm a resident of Alcerito, where we just successfully beat our flock contract. And like others, I frequently come to Berkeley to visit friends, go to restaurants, and check out your parks, and so while I'm relieved that I'm not going to be surveilled at home, I don't want to be watched when I come to your city. And your decision today is not about cameras. It's about flock. And I want to talk about how bad and toxic of a company flock is. Berkeley is a reputable city with a reputation of being a beacon of progressiveness.

[4:15:28] So I don't really know what you all are doing, contracting with the most, that's just

[4:15:31] reputable company on the market.

[4:15:34] Engaging in mass surveillance is going to harness your reputation.

[4:15:37] Fifty cities have already canceled their contracts, even ring, which is a mass surveillance

[4:15:41] company has canceled its contracts.

[4:15:44] You all need to wake up and realize that you are living in 1939 Germany, so whatever you

[4:15:49] imagine that you would do if you were alive during Nazi Germany, you are doing that right

[4:15:52] now.

[4:15:53] How will you feel in 6 or 12 months when one of your residents starts disappearing, because

[4:15:57] They were protesting and you have to live with the realization that you green with the technology

[4:16:01] that made that possible.

[4:16:03] How will you say that?

[4:16:04] Thank you.

[4:16:08] Thank you.

[4:16:08] Next is Jen.

[4:16:10] Jen, you should be able to unmute.

[4:16:13] Hi.

[4:16:13] I'm a district five resident and I strongly oppose doing business with flock and honestly I feel

[4:16:19] a real sense of despair that we're even having this debate.

[4:16:22] Flock has shown itself to be untrustworthy time and again and it seems to me to be magical

[4:16:27] thinking to believe that Berkeley can somehow prevent data sharing when so many other jurisdictions

[4:16:33] couldn't. The question before the council tonight is not simply one of local safety. I really

[4:16:38] really wish it was, but unfortunately the real question here is whether Berkeley is going to voluntarily

[4:16:44] contribute to a mass surveillance network that aids in humane political agendas and imperils the

[4:16:51] privacy rights well being and sometimes the lives of countless people. Dr. Maya Angelou once said

[4:16:57] when people show you who they are believe them the first time. Flux safety has shown us over

[4:17:03] and over who they are please believe them and vote no on continuing to do business with flock. Thank you.

[4:17:12] Thank you.

[4:17:15] Next is the username just says iPhone.

[4:17:26] If you continue to work with Flock, you will be personally responsible for the arrest of women

[4:17:32] who have abortions, like happened in Texas when police performed a nationwide search

[4:17:37] of cameras, last May, Flock employees accessing videos of children's gymnastics rooms,

[4:17:45] a playground, a school, a Jewish community center, and a swimming pool in Atlanta, Georgia,

[4:17:51] Police drawing guns on innocent families, including children, which happened in Arkansas, police dogs mulling innocent black drivers, like happened in West Hollywood just in March.

[4:18:04] The detention and subsequent torture of immigrants, because according to the ACLU, records revealed that many flock searches were carried out by local officers on behalf of ICE.

[4:18:15] stalking of romantic partners by police which has already been documented 14 times per the

[4:18:20] justice institute. 75-year-old grandma was being repeatedly pulled over due to misidentified

[4:18:25] plates which has happened in Boulder, Colorado over the last few months and countless other

[4:18:31] crying moments.

[4:18:37] Next is John Lindsay Poland.

[4:18:41] There have been several claims this evening that

[4:18:45] Richmond turned off its flood cameras that crime went up and this is just a misreading of the data.

[4:18:51] Richmond's cameras went on in April 2023. They turned them off in November of 2025.

[4:18:57] During that period between 2022 and 2024, robbery rates, when the time when the flood cameras were on,

[4:19:05] robbery rates went up by 29%. Sexual assault went up by 22%. Vehicle theft went up by 6.6%

[4:19:14] arson went up by 15% from the times when the flood cameras were off.

[4:19:19] This is just a misstatement of the facts.

[4:19:21] Crime responds to a lot of other things besides whether people are being watched.

[4:19:26] And this is just not one more reason that you should be convinced.

[4:20:00] Hey guys, I'm yet another district five resident ashamed of my representative, really, really embarrassed.

[4:20:08] I know you're not listening, your own lawyer and auditor have told you not to do this, and you're pushing through anyway. Two weeks ago,

[4:20:15] we were talking about the $30 million deficit, but suddenly you found the money to pay for the lawsuits that are going to come from this.

[4:20:22] Really proud of you for finding the money loved to know where it came from seems like there are better ways to spend tens of millions of dollars that your own lawyer

[4:20:30] have told you your opening is up to

[4:20:34] BPPPPPPD staffing issues have everything to do with the erosion of community trust and the fact that they're lying to you and us to get to get more toys

[4:20:43] to play with the spy on us is not helping. It's actually hurting their own staffing issues and

[4:20:49] The community trust that they keep claiming they want to build

[4:20:53] It's not going to be built on this.

[4:20:54] You want to spy on kids playgrounds.

[4:20:56] You want to track down your ex-girlfriend.

[4:20:59] Do it on somebody else's dime.

[4:21:01] This is a bad idea.

[4:21:02] I wish you'd listen.

[4:21:03] We're all just standing.

[4:21:04] Your time's up right now.

[4:21:09] Next is Avery Arba.

[4:21:23] Avery.

[4:21:24] You're unmuted.

[4:21:28] Avery, you're unmuted.

[4:21:30] Can you hear us?

[4:21:39] Avery, are you there?

[4:21:44] Maybe we come back to that.

[4:21:45] We'll come back.

[4:21:48] Next is Anne Dixon.

[4:21:50] I,

[4:21:55] my name is Anna and I live in District 1, and I just wanted to also mention that I believe

[4:22:02] Trevor has Trevor Chandler, Mr. Flawke, has clear conflicts of interest in this that he's

[4:22:09] been working with us. He is not only a board member of the Bay Area Council, which their

[4:22:18] public safety initiative has come to these meetings twice.

[4:22:23] They were in here earlier and pushed flop.

[4:22:25] He's also an elected member of the San Francisco

[4:22:28] Democrat party.

[4:22:30] And I just, this is way too close.

[4:22:33] It's inappropriate for Berkeley.

[4:22:36] And I think that Flock has, once again,

[4:22:39] just wasted a bunch of people's time.

[4:22:41] They cannot do what they say.

[4:22:43] And I mean, this is inappropriate.

[4:22:44] that we cannot actually prove a contract with what is going on, right now, like this has to be talked about before that. Thank you.

[4:22:58] Thank you. Just so folks know we've got about 13 speakers that, but only about 11 minutes. Oh, sorry, 13 minutes. So it's so we might lose some folks because of the timing.

[4:23:11] next is Vince.

[4:23:17] Hi Vince Montemann district five. Excuse me, district five. A lot of the council questions really frustrated me earlier because I think we got bogged down and questions about our sanctuary policies or what language we can put in the contractor, what about this hypothetical.

[4:23:41] But we're basically saying at the end of the day, we're going to build this surveillance state.

[4:23:47] But Berkeley City Council is going to have control over it.

[4:23:51] And I have an issue with that. I'm not comfortable with that.

[4:23:55] I don't care if you're an left wing person or a right wing person or if you're the president or if you're the city council.

[4:24:01] I don't want you to be spying on me no matter who you are.

[4:24:04] So, I just feel like this is the type, you know, we like to march for no kings.

[4:24:10] This is the type of system that a king would build to control the people.

[4:24:15] So we have to oppose this, please don't know on this item.

[4:24:20] Thank you.

[4:24:21] Mark, can we try to get Avery back?

[4:24:23] I think Avery's got their hand up again.

[4:24:27] Uh, yes.

[4:24:31] Who?

[4:24:32] Avery?

[4:24:33] Okay.

[4:24:33] Avery, you're unmeated.

[4:24:35] Can you hear me this time?

[4:24:36] Yes. Okay, fantastic. Good evening, mayor, night mayor and council members. My name is Avery. I'm the chair of the Berkeley tenants union and head of the Berkeley tenant organizing task force.

[4:24:49] After measure VB was passed, one of the first things are first building why tenants union to enter bargaining with their landlord fought for was a data privacy safety plan to protect.

[4:25:03] Next is NB.

[4:25:09] Hi there.

[4:25:12] So, a lot of people are talking about drones, cameras, software, keeping that safe.

[4:25:17] As others have said, there's no independent evidence, such as any of that.

[4:25:20] The surveillance methods decrease crime, or improve clearance rates, right?

[4:25:25] There's no independent studies on this.

[4:25:26] But I also want to talk about what it means for us to do this, even if it did keep us safe,

[4:25:33] We would be throwing everyone else under the bus in the states and localities that Mr. Fox said this stuff is legal right they follow the law

[4:25:42] That means in Texas. They harass trans people and find women getting abortions in Kansas where they overnight made trans drivers life in the legal

[4:25:51] They can track them down. So why would we give our money to this company help train their AI models?

[4:25:56] It's impossible to remove data from an AI model once it's been trained. We don't have that capability. Why would we do that?

[4:26:01] Even if it did keep us safe, why would we throw everyone else in the country under the bus, all of our marginalized communities?

[4:26:16] Devon, you should be able to unmute.

[4:26:19] Yeah.

[4:26:20] Yeah, here I am. Can you hear me?

[4:26:22] Yes.

[4:26:23] Hi, my name is Dr. Devon Pestica.

[4:26:25] I've lived in Berkeley for over 20 years and have been really happy here.

[4:26:30] I live in District 3 with then Bartlett as my council member.

[4:26:34] And I just can't believe I just heard that the license plates are automatically imaged.

[4:26:44] I just can't believe like basically a system that I don't consent to.

[4:26:50] And so many of us don't consent to will be just rolled out like this.

[4:26:56] And I can't believe that Elistrito voted the flock proposal down and here in this progressive left-leaning city that I really have

[4:27:04] expensive excited about living, living in, that they're actually believing that a private corporation will be

[4:27:12] responsible and trustworthy with all of our surveillance data. And that the courts, of course, and federal agencies can

[4:27:23] Go to the courts.

[4:27:25] Thanks for your comment.

[4:27:26] Time's up.

[4:27:27] Next is Deb.

[4:27:31] Hi.

[4:27:32] I just wanted to point out what hasn't been discussed that there's a potential for increasing

[4:27:36] costs over time with flocks, flocks, as a subscription service that they can raise their

[4:27:43] fees over time and apparently they've done that with other jurisdictions.

[4:27:48] So that's kind of another cost that the current council is putting us in for going forward.

[4:27:54] Thank

[4:27:57] you.

[4:28:02] Next is Ann Parker.

[4:28:13] Are you there?

[4:28:14] Ann Parker.

[4:28:19] Let me start over.

[4:28:20] When I hear Mass surveillance being considered as a wave life in Berkeley, I just don't recognize

[4:28:25] the city I've been for years as a student, mom, grandma, pediatrician.

[4:28:32] I'm sure this is not the will of Berkeley residents.

[4:28:35] What's the city council missing and why?

[4:28:37] This is contrary to the reason we live in Berkeley and in this country, country built on generations of people who fled fascism and autocracy.

[4:28:47] Please support democracy in several civil liberties and not democracy and distrust.

[4:28:53] Safety is associated with communities, supporting communities through funding its institutions and not mass surveillance.

[4:29:00] Please hear us hear the majority of those thinking you hear tonight, and the majority of citizens in Berkeley, both against surveillance and begin by voting against this contract with floss for many reasons presented tonight.

[4:29:15] Most of us,

[4:29:19] and most law, rethink supporting fascist.

[4:29:23] Thank you.

[4:30:00] Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, I'm a district five resident and I just wanted to come here tonight to say that like I've listened to everybody's wonderful comments. I've learned a lot from everybody here and whether or not you are

[4:30:19] or against or whatever your political leanings are or whatever whether you believe that we're living under fascism and whatnot.

[4:30:27] It doesn't matter that there has been decades, decades of research into the sorts of things that can be done by a community and a civil infrastructure to reduce the crime to stop crime.

[4:30:43] the surveillance infrastructure is never one of those things. I mean, somebody brought up the Patriot Act earlier and I just wanted to bounce off that because the Patriot Act has been around longer than I've been alive and my whole life I've been hearing about crime crime crime and the Patriot Act is it gives intelligence agencies and the government the ability to

[4:31:14] I am a black mom and tenant organizer in District 7, demanding that you reject and cancel the contract with Flock expansion of the fascist maga police surveillance state.

[4:31:24] Flock is a fascist escalation diametrically and irritate considerably opposed to Berkeley sanctuary city policy.

[4:31:30] There's no way to ethically vote to deploy flock in a quote-unquote sanctuary city, and there's

[4:31:35] especially no way to ethically ignore a vast majority of Berkeley civilian constituents,

[4:31:41] legal counsel, UC research, and the police accountability board, all of whom overwhelmingly

[4:31:45] reject this, listen, no on flock, cancel the contract, reject flock, and break democracy.

[4:31:52] If you still plan to vote for a flock tonight, you should just resign instead, before expanding

[4:31:56] the most of various surveillance technology in the world,

[4:31:59] develop resources to essential tech-like public zoom

[4:32:02] meetings that don't boot constituents multiple times

[4:32:05] in between pandemics.

[4:32:06] Do not wait for further harm to come to your constituents,

[4:32:09] community and neighbors like Martinez,

[4:32:11] not five times, and the giant psychological toll

[4:32:14] of knowing that we are being stalked undemocratically

[4:32:16] by local police and government.

[4:32:18] Right now, in a time set.

[4:32:20] Next is Distavo.

[4:32:28] Um, Gustavo Espinoza, high performance computing machine learning engineer, um, one thing I want to bring up is that

[4:32:38] Flock the whole, I mean, in terms of an efficiency thing, the technology is just not

[4:32:44] efficient. The models are open source, you're able to find them online, and you're essentially just paying for

[4:32:51] Server $2 million for Server costs. That doesn't really make sense. You could just hire an engineer to do this stuff for you.

[4:33:02] There's no fiscal reason why you would invest $2 million in the flock.

[4:33:07] Lastly, there's something I do want to bring up. There's been a lot of parallel between Palestine and Israel

[4:33:13] and it's kind of weird that Mr. Flock used to be associated with a pack up until like 2018, 2019.

[4:33:23] That's kind of telling.

[4:33:29] There's more to say about the title if anyone's curious.

[4:33:33] Thanks for your time, sir.

[4:33:34] Next is KC.

[4:33:36] There's only three people left. I'd like to let them go.

[4:33:41] So...

[4:33:41] Well, there's more reason.

[4:33:43] Well, I'm going to take those three people that we just said that we're left.

[4:33:48] Hi.

[4:33:48] This is Karen Chen.

[4:33:50] I'm a resident of district four.

[4:33:52] I've been here for the past five years in Berglien's 60 for six years.

[4:33:57] I just want to encourage the council and the mayor to vote no on this contract because

[4:34:02] it is.

[4:34:04] This type of surveillance technology is very clearly counter to the aim of community safety

[4:34:08] and obviously a drain on taxpayer resources. Thank you. Thank you.

[4:34:15] And next is Kelly Hammergren.

[4:34:32] Kelly should be able to show us that you're unmuted.

[4:34:40] Kelly, can you hear us? You're unmuted.

[4:34:42] and

[4:34:47] we can come back to Kelly C Rock.

[4:35:00] Aye, aye, aye, give anything. Mayor and members of the city council, my name is Syracmy Kiel. I actually am right outside, but just came back from the housing advisory commission.

[4:35:10] We will not be safe with any version of a flood contract.

[4:35:14] Flock, which has already shared data with ICE, will not fight in a court order to protect the city's data.

[4:35:20] There is nothing we can put in our contract to prevent flood from sharing this, and previous violations of the law and contract by Flock.

[4:35:27] Cities were unaware of data privacy breaches until after they already happened.

[4:35:31] In several cases, city officials still don't know the extent of what happened with their

[4:35:35] constituent state of violations could happen without any of us knowing.

[4:35:39] Law enforcement have violated, fault contracts, and use private data to detain immigrants,

[4:35:44] punish people seeking abortions that even sought ex-partners of police officers.

[4:35:48] And even if we believe BPD's claim that flock will result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings,

[4:35:53] which I do not. This contract exposes the city

[4:35:55] to tens of millions of dollars in liability.

[4:35:57] As documented, the city attorney's memos

[4:35:59] provided to the daily call.

[4:36:01] Please, doesn't community and stop, fuck.

[4:36:03] Thanks, Eric.

[4:36:05] I see, uh, Mark, I see Kelly's iPad that probably is Kelly.

[4:36:08] Yes. And that would be our last speaker.

[4:36:14] Okay, can you hear me this time?

[4:36:16] Yes, we can. You are a final speaker for this evening.

[4:36:19] Oh, that's a big responsibility.

[4:36:21] ability.

[4:36:25] You know, people have said so much tonight. It's hard to even add anything to that.

[4:36:32] Flock. Flock is a nationwide surveillance system. It's the wrong decision. It's the wrong way to go.

[4:36:39] And I plead with you, plead with you, to say no to Flock.

[4:36:45] It, um, there just isn't anything good that I have been able to find about, except looking

[4:36:55] at the Flock website maybe, but everything else I pick up is about all the problems with

[4:37:04] Flock and how data is shared and misused, and we just shouldn't be doing that in the city

[4:37:11] Berkeley. So I plead with you to please say no. And if there hadn't been a line I'd be

[4:37:20] there in person. Thanks Kelly.

[4:37:27] Hey, thank you so much everyone. I appreciate hearing all of

[4:37:31] the public comments. We have now had three hours of public comment, two hours in person,

[4:37:35] one hour of mine. So we will now move on to council comments. Starting with council member,

[4:37:41] back. Great. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So it started first. I just wanted to thank everyone

[4:37:48] who came for speaking out and singing out as the case may be tonight. Over the past few weeks

[4:37:55] and especially the last couple of days I've heard from many residents on all sides of this issue.

[4:38:02] I appreciate all the thoughtful emails and phone calls we've received from folks in district six

[4:38:08] from former colleagues on the police kind of building board, from local business owners,

[4:38:13] from members of the Berkeley Immigration, Collective, and so many others.

[4:38:17] And today with the benefit of that feedback and that input, I want to share how I'm making this decision

[4:38:22] weighing these many factors. The concerns that I have heard, I know many of us have heard

[4:38:27] from constituents are real and serious. Data privacy, the risk of federal authority is gaining access

[4:38:34] the local data and the safety of vulnerable members of our community.

[4:38:39] Given the Trump administration's aggressively unlawful immigration enforcement actions,

[4:38:43] those worries are not abstract.

[4:38:46] I take them seriously and they have shaped how I'm approaching this vote.

[4:38:52] Berkeley's police department is among the finest in the country.

[4:38:57] Chief Louis, Deputy Chief Tate Mr. Momburg and our officers serve our community every day

[4:39:03] with professionalism, intelligence, dedication, and compassion.

[4:39:08] I strongly support the work of the BPD and everything they do to keep our community safe every day.

[4:39:15] I also strongly support the use of modern technology with clear guardrails and frequent

[4:39:19] audits to advance public safety.

[4:39:22] ALPR technology has proven, I think you'll like what I would say.

[4:39:26] ALPR technology has proven to be an important investigative tool.

[4:39:30] Over the past 18 months, Fawke LPRs have assisted Berkeley police in more than 161 cases,

[4:39:36] contributing to 83 arrests involving serious crimes, such as attempted homicide,

[4:39:40] hitting runs, car jackings, assaults, and kidnappings, including six alerts in just one day last week

[4:39:47] that led to a series of investigative follow-ups.

[4:39:51] Behind these numbers are real people.

[4:39:54] I heard earlier tonight, people were trying to discount the numbers, but these are all real people

[4:39:59] and ff

[4:40:00] That I got from the Department. The District 6 alone, ALPRs have helped us solve a series of home invasion

[4:40:06] robberies, recover stolen vehicles, apprehend a roofing and construction scam, rain, yes,

[4:40:13] those exist, and get justice for a sexual assault victim. These people matter too. Some

[4:40:22] critics have suggested that we hire more police officers instead of licensing technology tools.

[4:40:27] Unfortunately, this is a false choice.

[4:40:30] Despite focused work on recruitment and retention,

[4:40:33] BPD has been understaffed for years, not for the lack of effort,

[4:40:37] but this is a hard market to recruit and retain police officers.

[4:40:41] And just the past few months, Berkeley has lost six officers

[4:40:44] to San Francisco's aggressive recruitment campaign.

[4:40:47] We can't just hire our way out of this.

[4:40:50] On the contrary, providing officers with effective tools

[4:40:53] is part of how we recruit and retain them.

[4:40:57] Walking away from modern technology would make our staff in problem worse, not better.

[4:41:03] At the same time, the city must ensure that any public safety technology is

[4:41:08] prepared from a company that can earn and maintain the public's trust.

[4:41:12] That community trust is crucial to me and to everyone up here.

[4:41:16] Flock has faced criticism for past data sharing practices rightfully so, involving outside agencies without local authorization.

[4:41:25] These concerns of understandably created real skepticism within parts of our community.

[4:41:30] We've heard much of it here tonight. I've heard much of it over the last couple of weeks.

[4:41:33] They want careful consideration before moving forward.

[4:41:37] I know Flock has indicated that they have taken steps to remediate, but the outcome remains to be seen.

[4:41:47] As I mentioned from the start,

[4:41:49] This technology is important for Berkeley, but equally important is making sure that we get this decision right, and build the public trust that we need in our decision making process.

[4:42:00] I have full confidence in Chief Lewis and the professionalism of our officers in uniform and the BPD staff.

[4:42:07] We should be equally sure that the tools that we license these same superior standards of performance.

[4:42:13] I believe tonight it's more important to get it right than to get it fast.

[4:42:20] So I propose that we do take that time.

[4:42:23] So for the purposes of moving the process forward and I look forward to comments from my colleagues.

[4:42:30] I've got a multiple part motion and I'll try and lay it out for Mark because I know he's

[4:42:34] right and fast.

[4:42:36] So the motion would be starting with the chief's updated proposal as the base motion.

[4:42:43] as amended by the Supplemental from Mayor Issue, Council Member Runa Park, Council Member Traygad.

[4:42:50] There are sections one through six, eight and nine.

[4:42:54] Not to move forward, we will not move forward with the MSA, the full MSA execution, as proposed.

[4:43:01] Do you want to see what MSA means?

[4:43:02] That's all right.

[4:43:02] We will not move forward with the full contract at this point.

[4:43:05] We will refer to the C Manager, the Initiation of an RFP process, and consultation with police

[4:43:10] kind of build a board in BPD for each of the components and for their integration.

[4:43:16] Through that RFP period, extend the ALPR contract, incorporating as many contract changes

[4:43:22] as possible from the Humberit BlackBee Supplementals plus the letter that we received back

[4:43:27] from flock that indicated acceptance of some of those contract terms and to take no action

[4:43:33] on item 1B on tonight's agenda.

[4:43:36] So, yeah, I just want to thank everyone second by motion, and thank you for thanks for listening.

[4:43:43] Thank you.

[4:43:44] The second was from Council Member Humberg.

[4:43:48] So, yeah, you're in the queue.

[4:43:51] So, I would also like to ask that we sever the part of your motion that was referring

[4:44:00] to our portions, the 1 through 6, 8 and 9 from the supplemental, and I can just request to do

[4:44:07] that.

[4:44:08] So I'm going to do that.

[4:44:10] And then, yeah, does anyone else have anything about this particular motion before we

[4:44:14] continue on?

[4:44:16] Is it symmetrical?

[4:44:18] Yes.

[4:44:18] So the sections, 1 through 6, let me just pull it up.

[4:44:23] And yeah, they are referring to the use the policies around the items themselves.

[4:44:31] And then specifically our asking number eight is referred to the City Manager to amend

[4:44:40] ordinance 2.99 to include a violation slash termination clause for surveillance technology

[4:44:46] vendors.

[4:44:46] And number nine was referred to the City Manager in City Attorney, additional contractual language required vendor to inform the city of any request for information, including but not limited to Sapena's discovery request.

[4:45:00] And through the RFP period, it is for a period of up to 12 months. If we figure out sooner and end up somewhere sooner, you know, we can move sooner, but the extension goes up to 12 months for that RFP period.

[4:45:11] Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's go through the comments. Council member Trigab. Can I clarify quickly? Yes.

[4:45:17] We are severing the supplemental and not the ALPR, the part of the motion that includes

[4:45:29] our supplemental pieces because then we can just vote on that separately.

[4:45:34] Okay, I think I'm still confused, but I'll just, okay, we can we can check in about that.

[4:45:39] All right, Council Member Trigger, Vice Mayor Trigger.

[4:45:43] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[4:45:45] Everyone wants to feel and be safe, and based on lived experiences, safety means different things to different people.

[4:45:53] For businesses and many of our residents, it might mean having cameras and other technologies that help the poor perpetrators of workplace and workplace.

[4:46:02] And to many other Barclay residents, particularly within our most vulnerable communities, it might mean being free from state surveillance and potential prosecution.

[4:46:13] and just for their existence in this country, all of these perspectives are ones that I

[4:46:19] heard from constituents and other Barclay neighbors. All these are to be held with equal

[4:46:25] humanity as we make our decision. For my first hand experience is an immigrant, and as a member

[4:46:32] of a vibrant immigrant community, I can tell you that these fears are grounded in the current

[4:46:38] reality, especially now in the current national climate and current administration, where

[4:46:43] data has been accessed and used in their hands in ways that could undermine Berkeley's

[4:46:49] sanctuary city commitments.

[4:46:52] BPD has demonstrated that there are great community partners and approach their work with

[4:46:57] a strong sensitivity towards all community members.

[4:47:01] I agree that providing our hardworking police officers with effective tools is critically

[4:47:07] important.

[4:47:09] At the same time, vetting these tools with careful consideration is equally as important

[4:47:15] and makes all the difference in our community's trust and city government. Over the last several

[4:47:20] months, the prevailing concern and theme among my district for constituents has been trust.

[4:47:26] A quick blonde rinse of them, conservatively, nearly 95 percent of the over 150 who have contacted

[4:47:33] my office have expressed grave concerns about flock. History and evidence have shown that, however,

[4:47:40] well-meaning its admissions may be tonight, the vendor lacks accountability, and therefore

[4:47:45] cannot be relied on as a trusted partner, I share those concerns. Tonight for being asked to expand

[4:47:52] the system without comprehensive documentation of procurement requirements and without a full

[4:47:57] evaluation of alternatives.

[4:47:59] We're also being asked to do so without ever assessing

[4:48:02] the surveillance system as a whole, not just individual

[4:48:05] components like license plate readers or cameras,

[4:48:08] but the combined network, including 12 and 10-year-old time

[4:48:11] monitoring and its cumulative impact on cost, data use,

[4:48:14] and civil liberties.

[4:48:16] A competitive RFB process would allow us to define

[4:48:21] our needs clearly compare multiple vendors

[4:48:24] and consider a different system designs.

[4:48:27] Furthermore, diversifying our vendors

[4:48:29] would create resilient, senior public safety technologies.

[4:48:34] Flock has made at least four changes to standard terms

[4:48:37] and conditions in the last seven months,

[4:48:39] leading to their most recent February, 2020,

[4:48:43] six version of the contract.

[4:48:45] All of these changes deserve careful consideration

[4:48:47] before renewing our city's contract with Flock.

[4:48:51] While the city technically owns the data,

[4:48:53] The company appears to control how and when we can access it in and what format.

[4:48:58] Grazing weird questions about what ownership means in practice.

[4:49:02] The company now claims a perpetual right to use our data to improve its services,

[4:49:07] although those terms may have been adjusted.

[4:49:12] And the agreement expands protections against liability for real-full misconduct

[4:49:16] across negligence shifting responsibility away from flock and taken together these changes

[4:49:22] which shift control from the city

[4:49:24] and towards the vendor, increasing long-term risks.

[4:49:29] There are also real concerns about how data

[4:49:32] might be used beyond our local control.

[4:49:35] We have heard from residents who worry

[4:49:37] that surveillance data could be subpoenaed

[4:49:39] or accessed by federal agencies

[4:49:41] in ways that conflict with partly sanctuary city values.

[4:49:45] And I was.

[4:49:47] The perception alone of this happening here,

[4:49:49] can a world trust and public safety depends

[4:49:52] on people feeling protected not monitored. For all of these reasons, I will support any

[4:50:00] Any effort of this council to pause an expansion of this contract and conduct a formal competitive procurement

[4:50:07] process. We should evaluate alternatives fully understand the cost and risks, seek legal guidance

[4:50:13] on these evolving contract terms and ensure that any system we adopt aligns with our values

[4:50:18] of transparency, accountability and civil liberties. This is not about projecting technology

[4:50:24] out right, it is about making sure we get it right. Tonight's decision is not just about

[4:50:30] a contract. It is about whether we uphold the standards of good governance, protect the

[4:50:36] rights of a resident, and build the kind of trust on which the community safety depends.

[4:50:41] Thank you.

[4:50:42] Thank you. Okay.

[4:50:49] Tell some of our lunar par was right. I meant to sever the portion of

[4:50:52] contract, which was just the extension of ALPR.

[4:50:55] So, thank you.

[4:50:58] So, are you changing?

[4:51:01] I'm just saying the sever was just the ALPR extension piece.

[4:51:06] So, we'll vote on that piece.

[4:51:08] Oh, that's all.

[4:51:09] Okay, everything else will stay together.

[4:51:12] Yes, that's all.

[4:51:12] Thank you.

[4:51:13] Okay.

[4:51:14] It's speaking off.

[4:51:14] It's your turn.

[4:51:19] Okay, thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

[4:51:21] Thank you to our police chief, Deputy Chief Tate.

[4:51:25] Mr. Maulberg, Ms. Lee, Mr. Chandler, as well as all of the public commenters and those who were in person,

[4:51:36] as well as on Zoom and I also want to thank those who have emailed, have engaged with us in other

[4:51:43] ways who are unable to be here tonight, as well as those who did so during our last meeting in March.

[4:51:48] And I know this is a really contentious issue with strong opinions and I just want you

[4:51:57] to know that I have heard your public comments and like my colleagues, I'm concerned

[4:52:04] about the data sharing breaches that have occurred in the past with this vendor.

[4:52:09] I know that we will never have what some are seeking, which is this 100% guarantee that

[4:52:15] want to occur in the future. But I do feel reassured by what we heard from Mr. Chandler tonight

[4:52:22] about the way that Flock has adapted to data security concerns by changing the capabilities

[4:52:27] of its system. One of the public commenters asked why some of us are open to extending or renewing

[4:52:36] this contract. And so I, you know, I just want to be honest about it. It's when you are an elected

[4:52:42] official, you don't have the luxury of just listening to who has the time to come to the meeting

[4:52:50] in person and share their opinion. You have to consider everyone that you represent. I happen

[4:52:56] to represent 15,000 people in my district. Some of them have been victims of serious violent crime.

[4:53:04] A big consideration for me are the crimes that have been solved by the use of automated licensed

[4:53:10] plate reader technology, you know, some people are talking about stats, you know, in

[4:53:15] 2025, Berkeley police made at least 52 arrests for burglaries, robberies, sexual assault,

[4:53:25] and homicide, homicide directly from ALPR data.

[4:53:32] And they use a network to issue all 29 other cases, you can disagree, but you cannot interrupt

[4:53:37] her.

[4:53:38] And respectfully, I have not heard anyone against the fraught contract renewal propose how,

[4:53:44] how will we solve these serious violent crimes?

[4:53:49] If we fail to at least extend this contract for 12 months, to give ourselves more time

[4:53:55] to weigh our options.

[4:54:01] So as an elected official, I have to think about the worst outcome.

[4:54:05] And that is the possibility that if we do not extend this contract for at least 12 months that I will be responsible for the serious and dangerous outcome of violent criminals who are not caught and arrested.

[4:54:23] Also wait on my conscience with equal weight as the possibility of a data breach.

[4:54:30] So that is why we have been elected to make these hard decisions to weigh difficult

[4:54:36] competing trade-offs.

[4:54:39] And that's what we are doing tonight.

[4:54:42] And I thank you for listening.

[4:54:44] I listen to you for three hours tonight.

[4:54:46] I listen to you for maybe five hours last night, last time in March, and I thank you for listening to me.

[4:54:55] Thank you.

[4:54:59] Folks.

[4:55:02] All right, so we're going to go to council member Luna Paa and then we're going to go online to council member Taplin.

[4:55:12] Thank you. We made a promise to our immigrant residents. We told them in January 2025 to go live a normal life, to go to school, to work, to grocery store, and to believe us that we would do everything in our power to keep them safe.

[4:55:26] We asked them to place their trust in us, and passing this contract would be a slap in the face to those who did trust us.

[4:55:36] I feel exhausted and deeply deeply disappointed that our promises to our residents and our values of sanctuary are so shallow, so fragile,

[4:55:45] that we are not willing to back them up the minute we have to give up even the smallest thing.

[4:55:48] In this case, technology that we have no proof does anything to deter crime.

[4:55:54] I am so frustrated that we have made our community members and organizations who spend their scarce

[4:56:00] time and resources fighting endlessly on behalf of our immigrant residents facing the wrath

[4:56:05] of the federal government argue with the city of Berkeley instead. They are organizing legal

[4:56:09] support. They are camping out at day labor spots to watch out for ice and we are supposed to be

[4:56:14] their allies and instead we are working as if we were purposely trying to waste their time.

[4:56:20] It is easy to say that we support immigrants and transgender people and pregnant people

[4:56:26] and activists and all marginalized people who are targets of federal government, it is easy

[4:56:30] to say that we are willing to stand up to fascism and do everything we can to protect them

[4:56:34] and it is much, much harder to actually do it, especially when it gets hard.

[4:56:38] Yesterday, the Trump administration released its new national counterterrorism strategy.

[4:56:44] It names as one of its top three national security threats, what it calls violent secular

[4:56:49] political groups, whose ideology is, quote, anti-American, radically pro-transgender and anarchist.

[4:56:54] It explicitly names Antifa.

[4:56:57] It promises, and it's own words, to quote, rapidly, identify and neutralize these groups

[4:57:02] using, again, in their words, all tools available to map their membership and cripple them

[4:57:08] operationally.

[4:57:09] It is truly naive to a baffling level that any of us would think that simple contract

[4:57:14] language would save us from a government that is openly telling us that they think that

[4:57:17] they are above the law.

[4:57:27] I also want to respond to this idea that people who support flock are somehow in the silent

[4:57:33] majority. In the past month there was a pretty biased survey that went around Berkeley trying

[4:57:41] to find that a majority of Berkeley supports flock. And in campaigns when a survey a poll isn't

[4:57:48] released that usually means it's because it didn't go your way. And we haven't seen the results

[4:57:53] of that poll. So I think we can take that.

[4:58:02] Okay, with that, I have two amendments,

[4:58:05] friendly amendments that I would like to make it to the motion. And I'm going to share

[4:58:10] my screen quickly. One of them is what I mentioned earlier around first amendment.

[4:58:19] The UAS

[4:58:20] First amendment authorized use to use the, can everyone see this?

[4:58:28] Can you make it a bit?

[4:58:29] It's amendment, amending the UAS surveillance use policy.

[4:58:34] To respond to violent criminal activity,

[4:58:36] I'm asking gatherings or special events,

[4:58:38] only when there is probable cause of a felony

[4:58:40] and an active threat of serious bodily injury.

[4:58:44] And then my second amendment is to the ALPR extension,

[4:58:47] and it should include a referral to include an efficacy assessment and review for compliance

[4:58:55] to be presented to Council at least 30 days before the end of the extension.

[4:59:01] Thanks.

[4:59:01] It's acceptable to me.

[4:59:03] Councillor member Humbard, do you?

[4:59:05] Councillor Humbard, do you?

[4:59:06] Councillor Humbard.

[4:59:08] Yes, Brent has.

[4:59:09] He says, Councillor Humbard, excuse me.

[4:59:12] Council member Bakery.

[4:59:14] Yes, okay.

[4:59:15] Thank you.

[4:59:16] Thank you.

[4:59:16] I also was wondering if the police department could quickly explain their supplemental and just briefly go over it because I just want to make sure that everyone understands what that is changing.

[4:59:30] The only thing it's changing is identifying that once we are in a space to authorize or get authority to enter into contract we want to point to the most current and comprehensive procurement vehicle that exists.

[4:59:41] So that was updating to what that vehicle would have been.

[4:59:44] Thank you. That's a little bit. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Going to online with Councilmember Taplin.

[4:59:53] Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor and good evening, everyone. I would like to thank city admin, legal.

[5:00:00] The PD directly for your diligence and your hard work to address the concerns of the council and the community itself of this process.

[5:00:10] I also want to thank my fellow co-authors, as well as council member Blackbee and the mayor for calling for additional restrictions and guardrails.

[5:00:24] I completely understand the trepidation and reaction to Washington.

[5:00:29] The city also needs to be able to function and provide basic tools for critical public safety services.

[5:00:39] In my view, it would be logical and practical to cause for the system to come down this July.

[5:00:48] And therefore I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

[5:00:51] Thank you. Moving on to Council Member Humber.

[5:00:55] Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[5:00:57] And I want to thank everybody who appeared here and spoke today.

[5:01:03] I want to thank our police leadership and Mr. Chandler for appearing here and responding to questions.

[5:01:13] I respect the positions of all my colleagues.

[5:01:16] And I've listened to all the concerns that have been expressed here tonight.

[5:01:20] I agree that some of the concerns at least are justified.

[5:01:23] And at the same time, I think there's good evidence that automated license plate readers

[5:01:29] in other technological tools are creating crucial public safety benefits.

[5:01:34] A great example was just last week, there was a reference made to it.

[5:01:38] The Prox system led to six apprehensions in a single day.

[5:01:42] That's a real result.

[5:01:44] Those are six people potentially brought to justice and potentially untold number of

[5:01:48] additional crimes prevented.

[5:01:50] And, you know, I'd also go further afield and mention that

[5:01:54] Frock ALPRs help apprehend a heavily armed ex-police officer who apparently intended to kill

[5:02:00] black Americans at a New York New Orleans jazz festival within the past couple of weeks.

[5:02:07] So they do have the potential to save lives.

[5:02:10] I think they probably saved lives there.

[5:02:13] I believe we can get to a place where we have sufficient protections for our data

[5:02:17] in the ability to get out of this agreement, such that the benefits outweigh the risks.

[5:02:22] I understand and can respect the principal position that any marginal risk in this regard

[5:02:27] is too much, but in my view, but my view remains that our residents face public safety risks

[5:02:34] every day, robberies, gunfire, and organized theft. These are the real concrete everyday safety

[5:02:41] threats against which I am rang. And I appreciate it. Councilmember Kester Wani's comments

[5:02:47] on this. I am weighing the more marginal impacts of things like data leaks.

[5:02:54] So I was

[5:02:55] willing, that said I believe that the contract provisions I proposed alongside Councilmember

[5:03:01] Staffland Kester Wani and O'Keef are essential. And I think Councilmember Blackbees and

[5:03:06] amendments or appropriate. And of course, I've just seconded Council member Black Abies motion.

[5:03:14] So that's really about all I have to say on it. My views have not modified since we last took

[5:03:22] this up last March. Thanks. Thank you very much. Council member, I'm going to Council member

[5:03:28] Thank you.

[5:03:29] Thank you.

[5:03:30] I have a statement, but first I want to ask about, I guess, the motion maker, about my

[5:03:36] supplemental, about the drone UAS.

[5:03:39] I initially thought, well, it doesn't matter anymore, because we're not really doing anything

[5:03:43] on drone tonight, but I think if we are going to accept, I mean, I think there is a marginal

[5:03:49] use for it.

[5:03:51] So would you open to it?

[5:03:52] We're going to move the use policies.

[5:03:54] And I'll just say my main concern is if DFR is intended to sort of also clear cases that don't necessarily involve, like, imminent risk.

[5:04:07] But smiling concern is one of the factors of using the DFR is there would be able to sort of clear cases where we don't need a center officer.

[5:04:16] And so I just wanted to make sure that that was captured. That's my concern.

[5:04:19] So you don't have to report my supplements?

[5:04:21] If you want to have a separate vote on, I'd be able to have a vote on it.

[5:04:24] Yeah, I would like that.

[5:04:26] So we could suffer that.

[5:04:27] So we could adopt it, but sever it.

[5:04:32] Okay, so the city attorney is let me know that

[5:04:35] Choose some concerns about the severability or not the severability.

[5:04:40] But I guess the severability of the use policy from the fall contract specifically.

[5:05:00] So it's not necessarily to the severability, but there's a little bit of concern. I thought the council

[5:05:07] was going to just do the vote on extending the contract and then kind of do the use policies later.

[5:05:17] Some of the use policies are very, the flux specific. So I think we need to take a look at that issue.

[5:05:25] How specific are the use policies?

[5:05:26] I think that that was reviewed when we submitted our supplemental.

[5:05:30] So we can take a quick basis to discuss that if you think that's appropriate.

[5:05:35] Yeah, it would be really helpful.

[5:05:36] All right, I do kind of want to let Council Member Bartlett speak, though,

[5:05:40] because he gave us all the comments.

[5:05:42] Yeah, I also wanted to make a statement.

[5:05:44] That's okay.

[5:05:45] Oh yeah, that was my preliminary.

[5:05:46] Yeah, go ahead.

[5:05:46] I'll make a statement and then we'll talk about the, the Dome thing.

[5:05:48] Yeah, I think it, yeah, I'll let you make your comments and then I'm going to have

[5:05:52] Council Member Bartlett make his comments then we'll take a quick rest.

[5:05:54] First, I want to move to extend by 15 minutes.

[5:05:56] second.

[5:06:01] Okay. To extend to 11 15 PM. Councilmember Kesterwani. Yes.

[5:06:07] Tap one. Part. Part list. Yes. Trigo. Hi. Okay. Yes. Black me. Yes.

[5:06:14] In the parah. Yes. Amber. Yes. And Mary is she. No. Okay. I said I already said to everyone. I said

[5:06:22] we're finishing it 11. That's it. So go ahead. Continue. I can speak. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I'm

[5:06:29] I'd be happy to support the motion made by Katzavov,

[5:06:32] remember, back of the, I think it's fundamentally reasonable,

[5:06:35] and I really want to thank him for bringing it so

[5:06:38] thoughtfully, except for the doing part.

[5:06:44] I was prepared to go forward tonight with the original proposal,

[5:06:51] but really my bright line rule is retaining the ALPRs,

[5:06:54] as they exist right now, and so because that's being proposed,

[5:06:58] I'm happy to support it, but really been a valuable tool and I would not be okay taking them away.

[5:07:05] I really believe they taking away the LPR's at this point would make our citizens less safe.

[5:07:11] And I would actually be breaking a campaign promise if I were to agree to that.

[5:07:18] So that is actually like, that is actually how democracy works.

[5:07:21] It was something I campaigned on was allowing police to have better and more effective technology

[5:07:26] and I was like that I saw that so that's important to me. Rolling out, but back to the

[5:07:36] motion that we're debating, it's fine. Rolling out the newer technologies, it can take

[5:07:41] more time. I think we have a good chance to hopefully build more public trust in the process

[5:07:45] before making the next step and that feels appropriate. I do have a question though about whether

[5:07:51] It's possible to build public trust.

[5:07:54] We want survey today.

[5:08:01] Were she talking about my thing?

[5:08:03] Okay, that's misunderstood.

[5:08:06] But I don't want to talk about that right now.

[5:08:08] That's not what that was.

[5:08:10] I do.

[5:08:11] Okay, folks.

[5:08:12] I do wonders.

[5:08:14] I have to say.

[5:08:15] And I really would appreciate it if you all would listen.

[5:08:17] And you can yell in your after if you like.

[5:08:21] I wonder about the good faith.

[5:08:24] whether or not people came here in good faith, willing to consider that.

[5:08:29] Public trust is possible.

[5:08:30] My position on this topic has been well stated in the uped that I offered along with

[5:08:34] my council colleagues.

[5:08:37] So I won't believe it here except to say that it was brought up several times tonight

[5:08:44] and always with criticism.

[5:08:46] And while I understand many disagreed with it, that's fine.

[5:08:48] I didn't expect everybody to agree with it.

[5:08:50] I didn't hear anyone really refute in its fundamental logic, which is that our surveillance

[5:08:57] state should do after, thank you, which is our surveillance state is really unchanged by whatever

[5:09:05] it is we do here tonight. If you, okay folks, you came in here with an iPhone or whatever in your

[5:09:14] I have bad news for you.

[5:09:17] Stop, Nathanna.

[5:09:20] Folks, let her finish speaking.

[5:09:23] You're just, you're, you're using up our time.

[5:09:25] Come on.

[5:09:28] You're already being surveilled to a level of intensity that

[5:09:30] pales in comparison to what's being proposed.

[5:09:34] When I walked to work the other day,

[5:09:36] I counted nine cameras that I walked past.

[5:09:40] Do I have any idea if facial recognition was used on the images

[5:09:45] that captured? Nope. Do I have any idea what happened to those images? Who can access them?

[5:09:50] I do not. I'm sorry to tell you that that is our reality.

[5:09:57] Please hate, excuse me, all I said, I understood people for nothing.

[5:10:00] Okay, let her finish speaking, but I hope it has a more reality-based conversation about what's really at stake.

[5:10:09] Let her finish speaking, sit down, sit down, order or we'll take our recess right now. Sit down, Nathan. Go ahead.

[5:10:23] Okay, I guess, I guess. Folks. Okay, I guess I can speak in this moment now.

[5:10:29] Boarder, we're hearing from Council Member Bartlett now.

[5:10:34] Well, this is a very instructive.

[5:10:38] Context really is king.

[5:10:40] I'm a dented by the administration.

[5:10:43] This council deliberated and implemented the burq dot,

[5:10:49] which was a form of this.

[5:10:50] This was a technology way to kind of remove police bias

[5:10:54] from the automotive policing.

[5:10:57] We did put some cameras up and there was a very little fanfare, is a small grouping and in that meeting, actually, if you recall, it's a couple of years ago, like I said, I thought hard for a motion that I made to air gap our data and air that means to separate it so it can't be used and can't be shared without our control.

[5:11:19] I mean, that motion, I thought hard for it, and it failed.

[5:11:23] Because I knew that while we were trusting a democratic president, things could change.

[5:11:30] Things always change, and that the next administration, because governments can change,

[5:11:35] governments can go bad, it might be a different context.

[5:11:39] And now we're in the context now.

[5:11:42] So it's interesting.

[5:11:44] And my district, district 3 is in the house here for sure.

[5:11:49] I'm going to tell you, my district is really amazing, you know, these are my family, I love all of you who's so much.

[5:11:55] My district is very diverse. It has the wealthiest person in Berkeley, has homeless people, has, has my mayor.

[5:12:05] Yes, my mayor and good friend, a neighbor.

[5:12:08] I have African-Americans, seniors, college people, techies, who else.

[5:12:17] It has people that is the center of disability rights in America.

[5:12:21] It has hospital, it has an ad-bart station, a supermarket.

[5:12:25] It runs the gamut.

[5:12:27] It has the new homeowners, the old homeowners, and two, the person.

[5:12:33] Every single person had managed me to not approve this deal.

[5:12:47] And it's important because if you, if you know what, you know, our tenure, especially the work I've done to these years, you know, they're really, they're a patient, they let me do the wild things I like to do, interesting concepts, they support it, they forgive me when I mess up, they teach me, they're really amazing bunch of people.

[5:13:08] And they let me kind of have my way, but every now and then, every now and then, there's an issue that they care about, and when they care about it, I care about it, because I am them and they are mean.

[5:13:25] So that's my position tonight, the same as yours.

[5:13:30] Thank you.

[5:13:31] Okay.

[5:13:33] We are going to take a brief rest.

[5:13:37] Thank you.

[5:14:01] All right, folks, please.

[5:14:04] I need everyone to quiet down.

[5:14:08] If you can hear me clap once.

[5:14:10] If you can hear me clap twice.

[5:14:11] If you can hear me clap three times.

[5:14:14] Oh, okay.

[5:14:16] All right.

[5:14:17] Wow, amazing how much that works.

[5:14:20] So we have some clarifications around the motions that I think

[5:14:24] needs to be made and just to generally, a couple of clarifications.

[5:14:27] I have some comments and then I'd like us to take a vote.

[5:14:30] So did you want to clarify something?

[5:14:32] Councilman, the little part of the-

[5:14:34] Yeah, I wanted to clarify that the poll that I was talking about was not Council

[5:14:38] Member O'Keeves' personal Google Survey for her constituents.

[5:14:42] It was a separate paid official poll.

[5:14:46] I just wanted to clarify that.

[5:14:46] Okay.

[5:14:47] Thank you.

[5:14:48] Go ahead.

[5:14:48] Councilor Lackaby.

[5:14:49] Clerk, for case you need the motion on the on the extension portion for up to 12 months, and

[5:14:54] 200 k, just to be clear, there's a dollar figure attached to it.

[5:14:57] Okay, a touch to it.

[5:14:58] Okay, thank you.

[5:15:00] Did you have something? Yeah. I wanted to first of all, I appreciate this motion, and I know we're going to

[5:15:11] out an item. I wanted to see if the maker and seconder would be friendly to since the

[5:15:21] the exploration of what was previously in the MSA but is going to be in a potential negotiation

[5:15:32] of the 12-month extension if the maker and seconder would be amenable to an exploration

[5:15:39] of uping the poor violation penalty to $290,000 for violation.

[5:15:50] Yeah, that's acceptable. Yes.

[5:15:54] Thank you.

[5:15:55] Okay. Any other qualifications? Yes.

[5:15:56] Councilmember O'Keefe, did you have something?

[5:15:59] Oh, yeah. I wanted to ask again if I think we've got some clarification.

[5:16:03] I would like to request that we suffer out the UAS use policy both as an issue.

[5:16:09] And, well, I guess, do I also make emotion, then we don't need to, you can request a separate.

[5:16:15] I would like to request a separate, and then I have, I can say what I want to be wrote it on for that.

[5:16:23] Substitute motion?

[5:16:25] I think that's different.

[5:16:26] No, we're just, we would just vote on it.

[5:16:28] Yes, separately.

[5:16:29] So should I say what I want us to vote on?

[5:16:34] Now, or what should I wait?

[5:16:37] Mark?

[5:16:38] Well, I'll just take my intention.

[5:16:39] And I would like my idea is I would like to vote on that separately, and I would like

[5:16:42] I would make a motion for that to be my supplemental and the council member of the

[5:16:50] press suggested to be able to add it to the UAS policy.

[5:16:54] So you would likely need to make a motion to amend the main motion if you wanted your amendments

[5:17:00] in, but the maker and the seconder were not acceptable to a friend.

[5:17:04] Yeah, that's what I wanted to do.

[5:17:06] So just to clarify, I think Councilmember Linnapahra's were already part of it, so, okay, they were all

[5:17:13] separate.

[5:17:13] If we separate out the, yeah,

[5:17:21] okay, I'm being a sub-student motion to amend it with my sub-student

[5:17:24] motion.

[5:17:24] I'm sorry.

[5:17:25] Not in motion to amend the main motion.

[5:17:28] Motion to amend the motion.

[5:17:31] I made that.

[5:17:32] And so we will vote on that first.

[5:17:33] That was second.

[5:17:34] Yeah.

[5:17:34] Thank you.

[5:17:35] So this is a motion to amend the main motion to include Councilmember O'Keeves amendments to the UAS policy into what gets adopted.

[5:17:47] So on motion to amend Councilmember Kesterwani.

[5:17:51] No.

[5:17:52] Tap one.

[5:17:57] No.

[5:17:58] No.

[5:17:59] Councilmember Bartlett.

[5:18:01] No.

[5:18:03] Trigger.

[5:18:05] O'Keeves.

[5:18:06] Yes.

[5:18:06] Black and B. No, Moonapara. Yes.

[5:18:10] Humber. Yes. Mayor E.C. No.

[5:18:14] Councilmember Tragab. Aye.

[5:18:17] Okay, motion, that motion fails. Okay.

[5:18:20] Okay.

[5:18:21] And so we're back to the main motion.

[5:18:23] Thank you. I'm going to give some comments for us in the mobile.

[5:18:26] So I want to thank you all so much for being here this evening.

[5:18:29] I want to thank everyone for coming for your previous presentations

[5:18:33] and also for sitting and listening to our public comment

[5:18:36] answering our questions and engaging in this process.

[5:18:39] I want to make sure folks know that the police chief has been very helpful in answering

[5:18:45] our questions and working with us as we worked on our supplemental in good faith.

[5:18:52] And that my decision here tonight has nothing to do with my trust for the police department.

[5:18:57] I understand that these tools have helped on a number of different cases.

[5:19:00] I myself have seen so many cases that were really heart-wrenching, that would not have been

[5:19:08] solved without these tools.

[5:19:09] So I do understand why it is that police department is interested in having them.

[5:19:15] And at the end of the day, I just don't trust FROCK.

[5:19:24] I don't trust FROCK, and I don't trust our current federal administration.

[5:20:00] Legal safeguards are not enough to ensure that federal authorities will respect local laws and protections. That's what we're seeing now.

[5:20:09] I want to ensure surveillance technologies we adopt fully aligned with Burkese sanctuary city policies and are deeply held free speech values.

[5:20:16] And Flock needs to be proactive, not just reactive. Flock has responsibility to proactively safeguard data and share compliance with contracts and uphold the legal and ethical standards of the communities that it serves.

[5:20:29] When there are legitimate fears, the data could be used to target immigrant communities or

[5:20:34] suppressed, first amendment rights.

[5:20:35] It becomes difficult to justify the use of Fox products.

[5:20:40] Concern about the mass, I'm concerned about the mass aggregation of data with interoperability

[5:20:47] across all platforms and the risks that the interim director of Police Accountability, Kathy

[5:20:53] Lee, and Pav site about over-dependence in one system, increasing our vulnerability as a

[5:21:00] I want to make sure folks understand that the procurement process was done properly.

[5:21:06] And at the same time, I don't feel that it was sufficient.

[5:21:09] So I will be supporting the motion that council members, faculty, and Hamburg have made.

[5:21:17] Flock may be the best technology right now, but we know that technology changes rapidly.

[5:21:22] And our chief has even said that other companies might catch up not too long for now.

[5:21:29] It's not ready for our city yet.

[5:21:31] I don't have full confidence in a company and I can't support something that I just really

[5:21:36] don't trust.

[5:21:38] We've heard so much from the community, I really want to thank you all for coming out to speak.

[5:21:42] I know for some of you this is a really emotional issue.

[5:21:48] And at the end of the day, I know I can't support a thought contract.

[5:21:55] Because if this company does not live up to our standards and our values as a city, we really can't support it.

[5:22:03] So I want to thank you all again, thank you to my colleagues this evening.

[5:22:06] Thank you to the city manager and city attorney and your office, all of our staff.

[5:22:11] For being here and for answering our questions, there's a lot to go through on this issue.

[5:22:16] It's quite complex and we have spent many, many, many hours reviewing all of it.

[5:22:20] So I would like to take a vote, so we have two motions separately.

[5:22:28] I'd like to vote on the first one, not the ALPR part extension, but on the rest of it first.

[5:22:35] So can you please take the roll on that click?

[5:22:37] Okay, so this is the severed portion of the main motion for the use policies as amended

[5:22:48] with the supplemental numbers, 1 to 6 and 8 and 9 in the supplemental materials from the mayor,

[5:22:55] as well as Council Member Winapara's amendments to the UAS and ALPR policies, so on that

[5:23:03] portion of the, because I also include in the no full MSA, right? That's the motion of 10,

[5:23:10] you know, full MSA. Okay. Thank you.

[5:23:14] and no action on one B on that portion of the motion. Councilmember Kesterwani.

[5:23:25] Tap one. Yes.

[5:23:27] Orlet.

[5:23:30] Drag-up.

[5:23:31] Pass.

[5:23:32] Okay.

[5:23:33] Yes.

[5:23:35] Black to be.

[5:23:36] I'm going to parah.

[5:23:37] Yes.

[5:23:38] Humver.

[5:23:39] Yes.

[5:23:40] And Mayor E.

[5:23:41] Yes.

[5:23:43] Councilmember.

[5:23:43] of Vice Mayor Trigger.

[5:23:45] Okay, so that portion is adopted and then on the other severed portion, which is the referral

[5:23:52] to the city manager for our P-Process for the other contract authority, other public

[5:24:01] safety technology and the UAS, the fixed surveillance and the investigative software and the

[5:24:10] extension of the and the extension of the ALPR contract for 12 months with a not to

[5:24:15] see them out $200,000 with a minted contract term for $290,000 penalty

[5:24:21] per violation. So on that portion of the motion, Council Member Kester

[5:24:27] Yes.

[5:24:28] Tap one.

[5:24:29] Yes.

[5:24:31] Bartlett.

[5:24:33] No.

[5:24:34] Trade him.

[5:24:35] No.

[5:24:36] Okay.

[5:24:37] Yes.

[5:24:38] Black could be.

[5:24:39] Yes.

[5:24:40] Anapara.

[5:24:41] Number.

[5:24:43] And Mayor Ishi.

[5:24:44] No.

[5:24:45] Motion carries.

[5:24:48] Thank you.

[5:24:50] That counts remember.

[5:24:50] Keith did you want to see something else?

[5:24:52] I'm sorry.

[5:24:52] I saw your little.

[5:24:54] Okay.

[5:24:55] Sorry.

[5:24:56] Okay.

[5:24:57] All right. Thank you all very much for coming this

[5:25:00] You repeat your motion. I can just so folks, actually, can I just ask because we're nearing the end?

[5:25:06] Well, actually, I think it would be helpful if you clarified for folks what we just voted on.

[5:25:11] So, adopted the use policies for the various technologies to not move forward with the full MSA, with log, initiating an RFP,

[5:25:29] sorry.

[5:25:29] And then extending the ALPR through the period of that RFP process so that we don't go dark in that period.

[5:25:37] And was voted on separately.

[5:25:40] So, so the second vote was on extending the ALPR contract.

[5:25:44] Was the first part, was the rest of it.

[5:25:47] Thank you.

[5:25:48] Okay.

[5:25:49] All right.

[5:25:49] So, and that case, I will see if there's a motion to adjourn.

[5:25:54] So, second.

[5:25:55] Can we take the roll please?

[5:25:56] Okay, to adjourn the meeting, Councilmember Kisterwani.

[5:26:00] Yeah, Councilmember Kisterwani.

[5:26:01] Yeah, Councilmember Kisterwani.

[5:26:02] Hi.

[5:26:04] Bartlett.

[5:26:05] Yes.

[5:26:05] Tragum.

[5:26:06] Hi.

[5:26:07] Okay.

[5:26:08] Yes.

[5:26:08] Lack of ease.

[5:26:11] Humber.

[5:26:12] Yes.

[5:26:13] And Mayor Ishi.

[5:26:15] Yes.

[5:26:15] Okay.

[5:26:16] Meeting is adjourned.

[5:26:18] Thank you, everyone.

Special City Council Meeting - 5:00 p.m.

Agenda

Transcript