Public scrutiny halts East Wenatchee Flock renewal

EAST WENATCHEE — A renewal of East Wenatchee’s contract with Flock Safety was pulled from the City Council’s consent agenda Sept. 15 after residents raised detailed questions about the agreement, and council ultimately took no action on the renewal.

The agreement had been scheduled for approval alongside other routine consent items. Before council considered those items, however, Mayor Jerrilea Crawford asked councilmembers to allow public comment on agenda items first, saying she understood several people were present to address an item on the consent agenda.

Council agreed, opening the floor to a series of commenters who raised concerns ranging from privacy and data retention to specific differences they said they found between the proposed agreement and a previous Flock agreement.

Garth Donald told council he had reviewed the proposed master services agreement and found several provisions he believed warranted closer examination, including an order form referenced in the agreement but not included in the publicly released council packet.

Donald said the missing order form was important because the agreement says it establishes such terms as price, camera count, retention period and deployment plan.

“This is some pretty heavy stuff,” Donald said. “If you’re going to vote on it, this really should be included with your vote.”

He also pointed to documents incorporated into the agreement through links to Flock’s website and questioned provisions allowing some third-party terms to change under certain circumstances.

Astrid, who also spoke during the public comment period, compared the proposed agreement with a 2024 Flock agreement and raised questions about changes involving governing law, dispute resolution, indemnification, liability and insurance.

Among the differences they identified was a provision specifying that the new agreement would be governed by Georgia law and requiring mediation followed by binding arbitration. Astrid said the 2024 agreement instead called for the law of the customer’s state to govern and allowed disputes to be heard in that state’s courts.

They also said indemnification provisions included in the earlier agreement appeared to be absent from the new version and questioned changes to liability and insurance language.

“That’s a materially different risk position than the 2024 form presented,” Astrid said.

Denali White, via Zoom, returned to the missing order form in questioning how long East Wenatchee’s data would be retained. White said the 2024 agreement explicitly provided for footage to be deleted on a rolling 30-day basis, while the proposed master agreement defines a retention period according to the order form.

A budgetary quote included with the council materials lists a 30-day retention period but identifies itself as a nonbinding proposal.

Other speakers focused on the broader implications of the city’s continued use of Flock’s automated license plate reader system, questioning who can access information collected by the cameras, how that information can be shared and the role of a private company in collecting and maintaining the data.

Bridget Egan, a Wenatchee resident who said she works in the technology industry, told council she had concerns about data privacy and retention provisions in the agreement.

“I’m not a legal expert,” Egan said. “I work in big tech, and I’ve just seen data privacy and data retention best practices, and this is not quite baked, and it’s not really right or ready for this community.”

Randal Moseley, an East Wenatchee resident, brought the discussion from the language of the agreement to his experience living around the cameras.

“Every time I leave my neighborhood, there’s a camera that is taking my picture,” Moseley said. “That bothers me a great deal. I really don’t see why anybody needs to know my every movement in and out of my home.”

“This is really a much bigger issue than a contract,” he added. “This is really a privacy issue, a surveillance issue.”

After the public comment period, Crawford reminded councilmembers they could remove individual items from the consent agenda for further discussion.

Councilmember Matthew Hepner moved to remove the Flock agreement. Councilmember Christine Johnson seconded the motion, and council approved the remaining consent items without taking up the Flock renewal.

Crawford suggested the agreement return for consideration when Police Chief Rick Johnson, who had left the meeting, could be present to answer questions.

Hepner said he also wanted a Flock representative to appear before council, either remotely or in person.

“I think there was a lot of good that Flock has done with Silver Alerts and some of the work that our police department has been able to do,” Hepner said. “That is great work. But they’ve also broken my trust.”

Hepner referred to previous reporting involving use of Flock’s national camera network and said he wanted additional scrutiny of the company as well as information about other technologies that could provide similar law-enforcement capabilities.

“They’ve broken a lot of trust, and I think there just needs to be a reckoning,” Hepner said. “And what other options are there for similar technologies?”

Johnson said the public had raised “a lot of good points” about provisions in the agreement that were “either changed or missing or just questionable.”

Councilmembers discussed formally tabling the agreement, but noted doing so would require it to return at the next meeting. Instead, they chose to take no action, allowing city staff more time to review the concerns, coordinate with the police chief and potentially arrange for a Flock representative to participate.

Crawford told commenters their testimony had been recorded and would be reviewed, and said the agreement would return to the agenda once the city knew staff availability and timing.

The council did not set a date for reconsideration of the Flock agreement.

Andrew Simpson: 509-433-7626 or andrew@ward.media