This is the thread for the Flock deliberation at this 1pm special meeting, 12/16/2024. Clerk reads in the item.

There are 142 speakers on the item, per clerk. We are going to be here until evening just on Flock.

Gabriel Urquiza is the Flock go to at OPD, and has given all the presentations.

Omar Daza Quiroz is back on the heading for the presentation. He's a board member of the hyper political police union org, OPOA

We have heard this presentation several times already, will cover any changes only.

On ALPR, normative contractual rules based on local rules, use policy and state laws.

This is all a new presentation, but the claims are not new. Some are not exactly true; while not designed to capture any other data but car specs and license, it nevertheless does.

Jenkins threatens crowd about disruptions.

Dr Carlo Beckman is going over the annual report for 2024, 188 MM license plate reads...actual hits a tiny proportion of that.

Beckman noting that most of the cameras are in east Oakland by a wide margin.

Beckman noting that its 2024 audit was statistical sample, not complete. 240 enforcement actions, generating 112 leads, 55 were cleared by arrests, 34 cleared by recovery. Beckman says that in 2024, they've had 98 arrests due to Flock.

The next slide appears to not be consisgtent with the previous. Beckman said there were 98 arrests

The two inconsistent slides

On to the "community safety camera" system

Urquiza describes Flock as the "phone" that allows different apps to be run

Urquiza says that the cameras "provide a window for OPD to access feeds" but they aren't saved, but its clear that the cameras can be streamed. Only OPD has access to the 40 pan tilt cameras data.

"the extensive data analysis related to crime" has no causal component, it is just a demographic crime analysis that gives no insight into Flock use. I am not sure why OPD keep including it.

Jenkins has continued to threaten any attendee who makes any sound with expulsion from the meeting.

Uquiza continues to make claims about Flock that aren't based in any data, are very casual.

Beckman said there were 98 arrests due to Flock, but there is no specifity about those arrests.

No even attempt to link this to Flock, not one homicide is said to have been impacted by Flock in any report.

"I just made this chart"

Flock will cost over 1 MM per year over the two year contract

Contract safeguards

Worth noting that OPD came with a boilerplate contract to the PAC just two months ago, after seeking a contract for almost 6 months. Most of these changes were added since September

Urquiza notes that any data can be accessed by subpoena and court order.

A protester disrupted the meeting for a few seconds and left on their own before Jenkins could summon police.

public speakers lining up...

Clerk is calling the people in batches, zoom speakers will be taken after the in chambers speakers

First batch being called in by clerk

First speaker, calls out OPD misleading correlation

MAGA candidate Mindy Pechenuk supports Flock and says Make Oakland Great Again.

Jenkins just asked the police to remove someone

"If you don't approve the cameras, we will ask Trump to send National Guard"

Opponent of Flock says that the sharing with federal agencies are substantiated "with a bibliography we can supply to CMs if needed"

Another opponent

Supporter

Supporter

Spanish speaker asked Council to put the money and effort into things that work, not surveillance

Another speaker mentioning national guard deployment

Great summation of points from this speaker

So far, my tally is 17 in support of Flock.

Abortion seekers endangered

another great comment

Another Spanish speaking immigrant opposes Flock

An inordinate number of speakers supporting Flock have been administrators at HOAs

So far there are more supporters of Flock here than at previous meetings, and they organized for somehow speaking early at the meeting...but they are still outnumbered by opponents

EBRHA CEO Derreck Barnes, did not identify himself as such

former police commissioner, Jose Dorado opposes

"you pass this, and we will not let you forget"

"OPD get the FLOCK out of Oakland...the people want Flock out of Oakland"

whoa

IT prof would have failed OPD's presentation

The last dozen or so speakers were reading from one document, and they are well worth listening to, with data and examples, and receipts

Another Spanish speaking immigrant asking COuncil to reject the contract, because its intimidation to immigrants

A speaker against Flock called out Ken Houston for not paying attention

Now on to the Zoom speakers. So far, only about 27 speakers have supported Flock. The numbers are still extremely lopsided against Flock.

Brenda Grisham

It's past 5 and we are still on the first item on non consent. Somehow, proponents of Flock knew to get here far earlier than the item should have been heard, before it was moved ahead at last minute during mtg. It will be a late night

A speaker noted that Houston was "flipping off" the audience during public comment. Several people recorded this, and I saw the evidence as well, and it's extremely arguable he did.

Another immigrant speaker in Spanish says she was in favor of something like this in the past, but it's not the time...innocent people will be affected more than wrong-doers. Invest in better things for communities

That's it for the public speakers. About 145 people spoke, only 38 of them spoke in favor to my count.

Now deliberation. Houston blows off the overwhelming opposition "we have been constantly been fooled by this 18% of individuals"

Houston wants to show video and Houston wants more time from other CMs..."I want the public to see that this false narrative that Oakland doesn't want this is false"

This is an Oakland Alliance for Public Safety produced video, an organization whose funding isn't very transparent, but is connected to Piedmont resident Chris Moore and organizations around the recalls.

One of the speakers was just coached to give thanks to the City Council at end of their comment, in Spanish.

Another speaker who did not give their name, I am almost sure is a board member at EBRHA

Gallo asks Wang to give amendments. "...a vote for this system is not a vote to support ICE. I am voting for this proposal because the immigrant communities I represent want these cameras"

Wang says that her community is fearing the worst if this isn't passed, lists crimes...but she seems to be describing worsening crime WHILE Flock has existed.

She's showing one of the pitfalls many of the proponents who previously doomlooped Oakland throughout 2024 as a crime plagued city have had to reverse their tone.

Wang's amendments

The last amendment says that at the end of 2 years with Flock, OPD will have to go through competitive bids, a big concern all around, that is also in the suit against Oakland.

Brown says that she's grateful for every community member that came out for this item.

Brown: "This is our second time hearing the feedback from community, and it's clear that Oaklanders are really divided and I think so much of this has to do with current political landscape"

Brown says that the technology was initially approved by PAC and Council. She says as a member of Rules she felt the item should be heard by all CMs. "on that note, I took the opportunity to deep dive and educate myself on ALPR policy..."

Brown says that Oakland's ALPR policy could benefit from amendments. Brown says she is still apprehension but wants to make the policy stronger

It has to be noted, the main concern is that no policy will prevent data sharing that's not allowed because OPD does not perform comprehensive audits, and users can fill the purpose with anything they like.

Brown's 2nd amendment confirms that "public agency" in SB 34 term excludes out of state and federal agencies.

OPD has already said, it is not capable of doing real time auditing, and can't do complete audits, they are statistical samples.

The argument that this was rushed is attested to by the amendments all happening on the dais, with no presentation to the public before hand. Residents now have to sift through the amendments as they are being read in.

Pretty sure this will pass, with the amendments, all but guaranteed

Gallo: "I am in support of Flock, but I am in support in communicating with our OPD, that this information will be kept in Oakland" Gallo also falling into the pitfall of accidentally arguing that crime is worse while Flock has been in effect since 2024.

Gallo mentions the meeting he had at AC Transit about how many people have been killed on the streets. ACT told him that simple plastic bollards have decreased lethality, and he moved on and asked about more police patrols.

Gallo is now rambling about bad driving.

Ramachandran: "its really important to note that these cameras are not going to keep us safe..." JR says she is supporting "safety ambassadors, ceasefire" as well as Flock. "I am skeptical of all tech companies...last year I was the only CM to vote no on Shotspotter"

JR: "I can't definitively say...that Flock is...I have concerns with the graphs presented..." but with low number of officers and fact that every other city has it..."there are so many Flock cameras that the City has no control over..."

JR: "whether we like it or not, surveillance is already anywhere...and I don't like it" but the fact that we have changed our Flock system to limit searches..."if there is the slightest indication that this policy is being violated, we will cancel the contract..."

JR: "this is a two year experiment...and we've had them two years already"...this will make our city safer..."I am happy to support the amendments"

Unger: "I want to acknowledge that this is a fraught topic, and tensions and words have been running high...all I've seen is people who are genuinely coming from a place of concern...we have a chance to have a convo of merits about the issue"

Unger: "I am not under any illusion that FLOCK is a perfect company...our goal is to do the best we can, we're not aiming for perfection...the road forward is to embed as many safeguards as possible...with amendments we are limiting the reach of the program..."

Unger: "we are clarifying the time for the RFP...this is not Orwellian, nor a progam that looks into our bedroom"

This is false. Some Oaklanders who are in the area of a ring camera will have their bedroom and other areas captured. This is just not Flock.

No explanation if they wanted to assure public, they put all the amendments on the dais today, and not in the packet.

The last minute introduction of amendments speak against credibility.

Fife: "I just want to say I definitely appreciate the sentiment from my colleagures...but I am in disagreement in giving good faith or good will to a vendor that has shown to be unscrupulous"

Fife: I"m anti-Flock...Thiel, Trump, surveillance state..." and there's been no clear explanation about why OPD didn't go to competitive bid

Fife asks Urquiza to explain the end of the contract... Urquiza: "technically the contract expired in July 2025...the termination of the service was going to be January 1"

Beckman comes up to correct, "we executed a series of two MOUS, one with CHP, and one with Flock. The MOU between us and CHP ws for the term of 3 years...in that MOU we were made agent of the contract between Flock and CHP"

Beckman: "I believe it was March 29, 2024 that CHP signed contract with Flock...then that summer we executed" MOUs..."that contract between CHP and Flock expired in March..."

Beckman: "the contract that made us the agent for one year was one year" this isn't true, the MOU is open ended with Flock.

This still doesn't make any sense. If the CHP MOU ended in March, how has the service continued?

Fife: "how do we know Flock is the best provider without procurement, how do we know there isn't one that's more reputable...my concern is the fallible of the vendor"

Fife: "I would like to limit the contract to one year" while we seek procurement...Beckman asked to extend that to 18 months and she agreed. Fife introducing this as a friendly amendment

Tedesco: "on behalf of the OPD we would prefer it to be for two years..."

Tedesco says that they need two years to do the RFP. I will bet real money tonight that they will come back in December two years from now saying that they didn't do an RFP but will lose ALPR if they don't renew the contact for another two years

Fife noted the speaker that spewed white supremacist talking points, "we just watched a video that waws produced by the "recall right"" mentioning Houston's video.

Wang says she discussed 1.5 years w/OPD, they said minimum 2 years. Now it would go back to 18-24 months. "18 months for me is the highest I'm willing to go...first, for me Flock is not a non-starter...24 months is the same as two years, so I don't understand how that's a change"

Ramachandran says she supports 18 months, "we didn't pick Flock in the first place"

Houston asks Tedesco how 18 months would affect the process. Should say Tedesco is also a board member of OPOA. Two members of the OPOA board have direct oversight of Flock.

Tedesco: "I do think the process will take 18 to 24 months to complete"

Not sure where the January 1 date is coming from, it's not in any document. The Flock MOU has no termination date with OPD.

Jenkins suggests doing a straw poll on the contract limt, 18 vs 24 months.

Not related, Brown asks to remove her amendment 7, as its the same as Wang's 2.

Still no explanation about why this is such a rush that no amendments were included for the public to read before the moment of the vote.

On the straw poll, only two are supportive of 18 months. So the contract they are voting on will be for two years, with Wang and Brown's amendments

There's still the entire non consent calendar that will have to be read through after this, including a public hearing and new rules of procedure. That last will benefit from the exhaustion of public on Flock.

JR proposes a friendly amendment of 18 months one last time, going month to month thereafter and that is not accepted

On Flock roll: Brown, Gallo, Houston, JR, Unger, Wang, Jenkins voted yes; Fife voted "Flock no"

On count of people who actually came, and were not part of a video created by a third party org, 119 opposed Flock, 36 supported it. About 75% of speakers opposed.