HUNTINGTON, W.Va. — Huntington City Council approved an ordinance Monday night to allow the city to move ahead with implementing its $2.1 million contract with Flock Safety.
The council originally approved the contract, 6-4, at the conclusion of a marathon meeting in July that ended around 4 a.m. The months to follow have been filled with contentious meetings, plenty of revisions, and disgruntled Huntington residents speaking out against the surveillance cameras. Monday’s meeting featured a second reading of Mayor Patrick Farrell’s proposed ordinance, which he said would institute needed guardrails for what the cameras could and couldn’t do in the city once installed.
Flock cameras use artificial intelligence in a wide variety of ways, including its Automated License Plate Recognition software (ALPRs), gunshot detections, as well as surveillance. Farrell has maintained throughout the multitude of discussions about Flock in Huntington that the cameras would not be used for some “Big Brother” mass surveillance that would infringe upon Fourth Amendment rights.
The council approved Farrell’s ordinance, 7-2, allowing the contract to advance forward. The Flock contract has not yet been signed, and at this time, there is no timeline for when it will be signed or when implementation will begin.
Reports about Flock cameras being misused by law enforcement across the country have filled the headlines. Officers have been accused of using the technology to stalk their ex-partners, and those reports have created concern from opponents to the technology.
Farrell pointed to those headlines to support guardrails to the contract. Additionally, many residents have shared skepticism about whether Flock owns the data compiled by its cameras. The company recently announced it was changing its data retention period from 30 days to seven. Farrell said that Flock would not own the data from Huntington once cameras are up at all.
“The city owns all the data generated under this contract,” Farrell said. “We own it. Not a third party, it is our data and we retain it. We decide who can access it, how it can be used, and who it can be shared with.”
To that end, Farrell also noted that there was concern about Flock using Huntington’s data for machine learning and training artificial intelligence algorithms. He said that, since the July meeting in which the contract was approved, city leaders have met with Flock representatives to eliminate that from being a possibility. Farrell credited city attorney Scott Damron for making that happen.
“We had verbal assurances before, and after our meeting, Mr. Damron worked with their lawyers to say, ‘you’ve said that to us verbally, can you put that in writing?'” Farrell said. “They provided something in writing that says, essentially, that they will not use our data for machine learning or artificial intelligence training purposes.”
Farrell recognized that the topic of Flock cameras is extremely divisive. That’s why it’s important to have penalties for those who misuse the technology, he said.
“I’m far beyond expecting the public to trust us,” Farrell said. “Trust in government is pretty low. I know that. That’s why transparency and accountability is built into this; so, everybody can see every search. Every search that’s done, will be documented, put up, and reported out. So, if there are shenanigans, you’ll know. You’ll be able to see it, and you’ll be able to call it out.”
City Councilwoman Sarah Walling initially said that she would support the ordinance, stating that “something is better than nothing” with regard to guardrails. However, she said she has serious misgivings about Flock as a company.
“This is a company that lies,” Walling said. “It lied to our legislatures, it’s lied to cities across the country, we have at least two states that have said that state money can’t be used for them. It can’t be used on public highways. How on Earth is Huntington, West Virginia able to make the assurances that Flock is not going to misuse our data when it’s absolutely done it in other places without any repercussions whatsoever?”
Farrell’s ordinance eliminated municipal court infractions for the technology. Rather, through the ordinance, misuse becomes a felony, not a misdemeanor. Farrell has said he wants the “stiffest penalties” for those who violate the agreed-upon uses for the technology.
City Councilwoman Tia Rumbaugh pressed Farrell about what constitutes a technology. She worried that perhaps a “minor” misuse of the technology wouldn’t result in a felony and therefore wouldn’t bring about any charges against the offender.
“You don’t think there’s going to be an incremental pattern of abuse of this technology?” Rumbaugh asked. “It’s going to go from compliance, ethical use, straight to heinous, felonious stalking, etc., abuse of the system.”
Rumbaugh and Walling both asked Farrell where the baseline for a felony charge of Flock misuse would be.
“I am not the one who determines whether something is a felony or not,” Farrell said.
“But this ordinance determines whether something is a felony or not, and whether it’s a crime or not,” Walling replied. “That’s the whole point. You’ve talked about how this ordinance is designed to take this out of the administrative realm and put it into law and all of this. This ordinance literally determines what’s a crime and what the penalty is.”
The council meeting became extremely heated as the vote approached. Rumbaugh asked Farrell whether he was planning for re-election in two years. That question instantly sparked division on the council, with some calling for a point of order. While Walling supported Rumbaugh’s line of questioning, a vote on the matter shut it down, 7-2. Rumbaugh later clarified that she wanted to know whether Farrell was planning to serve as leader of Huntington long term, stating that she’s heard concern from some residents that Farrell doesn’t plan to stick around.
Farrell said that his goal with the ordinance, and with Flock overall, is to institute long-lasting policies. By going through city council, he said, the guardrails for Flock use carve out clear dos and don’ts into the future, beyond any administrative policies. He maintained that his mind isn’t on re-election in the future.
City Councilman Jason Arthur called it a “historic” day in Huntington by putting guardrails in place to the Flock contract.
“We have seen all the goods, the bads — there’s been a lot of bads, but there’s been a lot of goods — but here’s what we’re doing,” Arthur said. “We’re setting the tone with a standard of setting these guardrails that is unprecedented. We could be first in doing this, and then the state could follow, and so on. I want to say I’m in full support of this.”
Tempers flared several times throughout the meeting, both before and after the vote. Residents took more than an hour to share opposing views to Flock cameras during the three-hour meeting.
Walling expressed displeasure about how the council handled several contentious discussions, including Rumbaugh’s question to Farrell about potentially running for re-election. She said she’s discouraged by the direction that the council is taking.
“I am so disappointed in the lack of professional courtesy,” Walling said. “I used to feel like it was an honor to sit up here. I could not be more disappointed.”