HUNTINGTON, W.Va. — The ever-controversial topic of Flock surveillance cameras was once again discussed during Huntington City Council’s meeting Monday night.
The artificial intelligence-powered system has been an emotionally charged topic in Huntington, especially over the past month. City Council voted in July to approve a $2.1 million contract with the company despite many misgivings from the public.
Since then, the council has been tasked with instituting guardrails to the contract. Earlier this month, two ordinances were brought before the council, one from Mayor Patrick Farrell and another from Councilwoman Tia Rumbaugh, in an effort to restrict what Flock cameras could and couldn’t do. Those ordinances were sent back to committee, with council members suggesting that the ordinances should be combined into one.
Council members noted that the contract has not yet been signed.
A new ordinance was proposed by Farrell during Monday’s meeting. He continued to defend the contract with Flock, stating that he’s had many conversations with lawmakers about the guardrail process and how to do it correctly. He said he’s asked both Republicans and Democrats what they’re thinking, in addition to taking in the state legislature’s in-depth interrogation of a Flock administrator during Interim Committee meetings in Charleston.
Flock itself has walked back its policy of 30-day data retention, recently announcing it was shifting to a seven-day window instead. At the time the Flock contract was approved by Huntington City Council, the 30-day period was still in place. City Attorney Scott Damron said that can be changed to the seven-day retention period without much trouble.
Farrell has said that crime statistics in Huntington support the city’s contract with Flock. He pointed out that the city has put together a Public Safety Dashboard on its website to allow every member of the public to see the numbers for themselves and make decisions.
“You don’t have to take my word for it, or anyone else’s word for it,” Farrell said. “What you can do is look for yourself. You can determine, is this the right amount of crime for the city? Is it too much? Is it too little? For me, it’s too much, and I’m pointing to these statistics as the reason why.”
Since no city has ventured into the territory that Huntington finds itself in, Farrell said the city can set a precedent.
“Because our goal was for this council to have model legislation that other cities in the state, or the state itself, could follow,” Farrell said. “Because there isn’t a city that has implemented this in a way that we’re talking about doing it. I think it’s important for those safeguards to come from city council in an ordinance.”
Farrell’s ordinance outlined proposals for both proper and improper uses of the system. He once again emphasized that Flock cameras wouldn’t be used for facial recognition, traffic stops, or anything of that nature. Rather, he said the Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and gunshot detection technologies would be utilized to crack down on crime such as drug activity, kidnappings, and more.
When council members questioned Farrell about the process of tracking down alleged kidnappers, if facial recognition wasn’t used, he said that the ALPRs would be searched. He said they’d be looking for the car linked to the missing person, not the specific alleged kidnapper.
Councilwoman Sarah Walling expressed concern about Flock personnel potentially misusing the stored data, regardless of whether it was retained for seven or 30 days. She said that while the claim that Flock cameras aren’t scanning faces, there are other ways to identify a person — such as their gait or mobility.
Above all, Walling said that the desire from Huntington residents isn’t there for the contract. She encouraged Farrell to listen to what residents are concerned about.
“You said earlier, ‘who watches the watchers? The people do,'” Walling said. “The people don’t want this. I think that we should be listening and watching what they are telling us, because the watchers are telling us that this is bad.”
Councilwoman Tia Rumbaugh proposed multiple amendments to the ordinance. She questioned whether the latest ordinance, which proposed that all violations from personnel using Flock cameras be treated as felonies, was the way to go. Rumbaugh proposed shifting it back so that municipal court could deal with some of the infractions with misdemeanors.
Farrell balked at that idea.
“I want the stiffest penalties in place,” Farrell said. “I can tell you that someone that did that just that ‘one little time’ would most likely be fired. They would lose their livelihood. If they committed a crime, I want the prosecutor to decide, not to give them an administrative little slap on the wrist. I take it very seriously and I know they do, too.”
Rumbaugh’s ordinance failed, 6-4. Her second alteration was unanimously adopted, 10-0, dealing with language around how monitoring people with the cameras was phrased. The ordinance initially said that people would not be monitored “based solely upon” factors such as race, sex, national origin, and more. Rumbaugh altered the language to “based solely or in part upon” those factors, saying that this could mitigate misuse.
The council discussed the ordinance and potential amendments for more than an hour. Once again, irritated Huntington residents also addressed the council to express their displeasure.
Resident Kyle Vass said the idea of reining in Flock’s control is misguided.
“Just to be clear: conceptually, guardrails do not exist,” Vass said. “Because they’re all predicated on trust. This council, and the people of Huntington, have no reason to believe that Flock is telling the truth when it operates its business. They came to the West Virginia Legislature during interims just last week and lied on the record. You all received copies of the West Virginia House of Delegates statement proving as much. It’s a bipartisan concern.”
Another resident, Marcia Hunter, contested the statement by Farrell that a ‘silent majority’ was actually in favor of Flock cameras, but just hadn’t spoken up.
“You all talk about the ‘silent majority’ all the time,” Hunter said. “Some of these ‘silent’ people have no clue what they’re voting on. They’re too old to know anything about modern technology whatsoever. They can’t scan a QR code.”
The council left the ordinance for a second reading at its next meeting.