City Council - Regular Meeting

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

. . . . Thank you.

. . so so Thank you.

Thank you. so so Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome to our, praise the Lord everyone first. Welcome back from our summer vacation and thank everybody for being here. Welcome to our August 25th city council meeting. Please stand for invocation, please. Followed by the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Followed by, Father God, we thank you for this day. We thank you for this opportunity to come before you again. Father, we ask that you purify our hearts, Father, our thoughts, Father. Let them be pleasing in your sights, Father. Let our conversation be welcoming to everybody. And we thank you in Jesus' name. Amen. I pledge allegiance. of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Ms. Alicia?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. We are very honored to recognize an outstanding Lynchburg City, or Lynchburg High School athletic team. That's the EC Glass Boys lacrosse team, who recently took home a VHSL Class 4 state championship.

There you go.

Yes, tonight we're proud to recognize the EC Glass High School Boys Basketball, I mean, Boys Lacrosse team. This team also won state champion. This is an honor. A state champions take hard work. It takes teamwork. It takes long practices, strong coaches, and support from family and friends. Also takes faith in each other. Y'all show that. You're a state champion. Faith in each other. Y'all work together, and that's important. You start working together at a young age, and you'll be able to work together, get things accomplished throughout your whole life by working with other people. That's very important. This team stayed focused and finished strong. You represented EC Glass, Lynchburg City Schools, and the City of Lynchburg very well. We know the success took time, effort, and sacrifice. Tonight, we celebrate all of it. And on behalf of the City of Lynchburg City Council, and the city of Lynchburg, congratulations, EC Glass Boys Lacrosse team, your coaches, your family, and everyone who supported you. May God continue to bless you on your journey and all things ahead of you. God bless you.

Do it again next year.

Okay.

Ms. Alicia.

Tonight's city council agenda is divided into three sections, consent agenda, public hearing, and public comment. The first section is the consent agenda, includes routine items that can be approved with one vote.

We have a motion. Move for approval.

Second.

I vote. On the consent agenda? Yes.

I'm still waiting for a few to log in. So happy to call for the voice vote. Council Member Farrelly? Yes. Council Member Mischens?

No.

Council Member Reed?

Yes.

Council Member Timmer? No. Council Member Wilder? Yes. Vice Mayor Deamer?

No.

Mayor Taylor? Yes. The motion passes 4-3. Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

I'd like to, as we discussed in the work session, make a motion to amend the agenda to discuss the three flock camera resolutions. that got pushed out of the last meeting due to time and we agreed we'd do that and also limit it. So I'd like to make a motion to limit it to 15 minutes of discussion on the three and that should give five per resolution.

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I think we just, we had a work session upstairs and I think many of you were down here when that work session happened and we got a presentation from the police department that provided a lot of information and some were asking questions, it got cut short. We did not get an opportunity to present the resolutions that are scheduled and slated to be on our next meeting for a vote. So this would basically be an opportunity to just present those resolutions, not to vote on anything and explain what each resolution does. I've actually got two of those resolutions that were sponsored to be on the work session and then added to the agenda next time. One was to limit to make sure that we could limit how the data was accessed through the flock system, making sure that there's warrants in place for investigative data instead of just automatic hot alerts. And then also instead of just automatically being able to get into it, right? Hot alerts would still be the same. And then the other piece of that was also to Say in Lynchburg, we're not going to use any RF sniffing technology. There's actually technology out there. Signal Trace is a company that makes equipment that can identify the individual unique radio frequency signatures on each individual and through a car. And it pairs up with ALPR cameras. So just to prohibit that. The second one was to... terminate the license agreement altogether. And interestingly enough, one of the things that I found out that I'd like to get more information, I don't see the city manager, but deputy city manager Patrick is in here, gets more information about this. I did find out at the end of the work session, the police chief did say that the audit idea came from one member of council, I thought that we worked as a body. I didn't know that we as single members of council could request things like audits through consultants that cost a significant amount of money. So I'd like to find out more information about how that came forward and how one member of council had the ability to ask for an audit without a decision being made by the body, if you could find that out for me. But I'll second the motion because I do think we need to discuss these resolutions.

Mr. Dean.

As I said, this is not to vote on these resolutions. This is simply for the patrons to give us information about the flock camera resolutions that they are proposing. There are two members who have created them. And I want to give them that opportunity because that's what we agreed to do upstairs and that collegiality. I think we should go forward with that. I do appreciate that the police gave a great presentation with additional information. And I'm in a wait and hold mode and learn as much as I can. So I want to learn about these three resolutions that our members have worked on hard to present and planned on presenting. But again, we're not voting. And my motion is for 15 minutes, which gives five minutes per resolution, and I hope we maybe get a timekeeper, make sure we stick with that a little bit, because I don't want to spend a whole lot more than 15 minutes discussing the resolutions. So if we can amend the agenda, that'd be great. Let's write your resolution.

I would request that we increase it to 30 minutes.

Would the- I'm closing that as a friendly amendment to my motion. I'm willing to accept that. Okay. Yeah, okay. 30 minutes. I will accept that as a friendly amendment to my motion.

We're going to take care of this and then move on.

That's ten minutes per resolution.

Mayor, I think we should just have I'll concede to it, but I would point out that would mean Mr. Missions gets 20 minutes to present both of his. I only get 10, just for the record. And I don't need it.

You won't need 20 minutes.

I will not need 20.

For the sake of making it easy, we can do the 30 minutes, but I don't need 20.

I appreciate that. Let's just keep it at 20 minutes. You get 10 minutes, and he'll get 10 minutes.

That's totally acceptable to me.

So what is the motion at the moment, then? It needs to go into the front of the agenda. That's the question I have.

I can clarify that motion. Is that a friendly amendment for 20 minutes instead of 30?

If the Vice Mayor accepts it.

20 minutes. I'm requesting 30 minutes according to our rules of procedure for any agenda item. So 15 minutes each meeting? That's fine. Just 30 minutes total.

I'm okay with that. 30 minutes. Happy to do a clock. All right. So the motion is to amend the agenda and add the flock resolution discussion at the end of the meeting. Limit discussion to 30 minutes.

I didn't say end of the meeting. I'd actually like to do it right now. Right now? Let's get it done.

Mr. Wilde, questions? One thing, we do have several people who have to speak about that. So should we do it at the end of the meeting so we can hear what they have?

That's not my motion. Okay. I want them to hear it, so I want to do it now.

Either way. They would have heard it before if they were watching the work session, before their comments anyways, if we would. That's fine.

Okay, this is to amend the agenda to add the FOC resolutions discussion and limit that discussion to 30 minutes total.

Yes.

All right, I'll initiate that vote now. Still waiting for a few votes.

Let me reset that.

Are you initiating a vote now? Council Member Reed, it's not capturing the words.

Right, I vote yes. Thank you.

There it is. The motion passes 7-0. Okay. All right, so now the item becomes the discussion on the flock resolutions.

Yes.

I'm happy to set a timer for 30 minutes if you'd like.

30 minutes.

Okay.

Chris, you want to go first?

I would like to reserve the bulk of my time for questions. My resolution is rather simple. It applauds what the police have done as of the 18th. It incorporates a timeline where we would be reviewing the audit and expecting that audit by the end of November. And if that's not produced, or if it is produced, we would have a reconsideration vote on the contract itself for FLOC no later than the first meeting. It would be the first meeting in December, but the date would be December 31st of this year. And that's the resolution as it stands.

Mr. Mayor, they're different items, so I think we should deal with them one at a time because we'll have to deal with them one at a time when they come up in the meetings.

Do yours. I have a question. You have a question for Mr. Farada?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On your resolution, the delay till after the election, is there a reason why you want to wait till after the election?

Because the police said at the work session today that they could not get a confident timeline for producing the audit, and I wanted to hold them to it.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I don't have a specific list of what these questions would be right now, but would you be open to friendly amendments in the context of the audit that would outline specific questions that must be answered in the context of FLOC for that decision-making process?

I'd be open to considering them on the 8th. So if you want to formulate them and bring them on the 8th.

That's helpful. Thank you.

Will your resolution terminate the license agreement with Flock?

The intent of the resolution I'm bringing forward would be to let the contract expire outright. And therefore be void. So the entire use of the system, all of Flock.

Okay. Further question. Further question, Mr. Mayor. When does that contract expire? I think we had a five-year contract initially and we're three years into that.

The contract was set for a five-year period with a variety of factors. And after a certain period of time, it went to an annual reappropriation basis where it just continues to go unless we say no. And so it would be my intent that we would have the contract expire by the end of this year because the renewal date would be in November. So that's the intent.

So that's the intent. But the question, Mr. Ferroni, that I asked, yes or no, does your resolution terminate the license agreement with FLOC that we passed on November 28th, 2023, that you voted against?

The answer would be yes.

So your resolution terminates the license agreement

Yes, because if the contract is void, so is the license agreement. And if it needs to be addressed, I'd be open to including that.

Can you point to me the language in your resolution that terminates the license agreement with FLOC? I'm just asking that question.

I'm articulating if the contract is void, so is the license agreement. If that's not the case, I'm open to including it.

Okay, maybe the question's probably better reserved for the city attorney. Mr. Attorney, since you helped prepare these resolutions, Did the resolution put forward by Mr. Feraldi call for council to vote on the termination of the license agreement with Flock?

I think Mr. Feraldi has answered his question as to what he wants with the resolution. So it sounds like what he's wanting is to consider as part of a reconsideration, a termination of the contract.

No, it would be to let the contract expire outright.

Okay. So reconsider and it'll terminate by expiration. So if you're asking if, If the word terminate is in that resolution, it's not. And Mr. Feraldi had just explained why it's not there. Okay.

But the resolution that was before us tonight, was there any language in there to terminate the agreement, the license agreement?

It was a reconsideration.

Okay. So is that a no? There was no language in there to terminate?

This has been answered, Councilman. I'm asking you.

I'm not asking for Mr. Feraldi's answer. You're the legal expert here.

I've answered the question. Thank you.

I've asked you very simply, Mr. Attorney. very interesting that you won't answer the question. It's a simple yes or no question. Very simple yes or no question.

I said the word terminate was not in there. Okay. I answered.

Thank you.

Is there any other questions for Mr. Ferrari?

No. Any submissions? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the first resolution, so there's two different resolutions. And again, these are independent items. And Madam Clerk, if you could make sure that these show up on the agenda when it's time to do this as independent items on the agenda. These are not to be considered in bulk, so to speak. They could both be adopted. One could be adopted and the other not. It can go both ways. Or neither, correct. So resolution one, it does two necessary things. First, it requires a judicial warrant before any search of the system that would leave hot list alerts in place. So if there was a child abducted and there was an Amber Alert for that license plate, If a vehicle with an Amber Alert passed by the reader and it picked it up and read it, they would still get hot list alerts for active events that we were looking for, stolen vehicles and so forth. That component would still work. A valid investigative reason is not the same as a warrant issued by a judge. to search the system for investigative purposes would require a warrant. That's the standard in the first resolution. And if you think about it, if we demand that standard for E-ZPass data, where we've gotta get a warrant for E-ZPass data to see where a vehicle's been, we should demand it here. It's pretty simple. The second thing it does is it prohibits a type of technology called digital fingerprinting. We all carry, well, most of us, there may be some people out here who do not. So some of my friends do not carry a significant amount of electronic devices on their person that all give off a specific, unique identifier through a radio frequency. Think of like your Bluetooth devices or anything that's Wi-Fi capable. There is technology out there. One of the companies is SignalTrace that creates an add-on type or one of, not the company, but the Leonardo defenses who makes a SignalTrace is the device that can be added on to these ALPR cameras that would not just get the visual of your license plate and the vehicle and the unique identifiers of the vehicle, but it will also sniff the vehicle and pick up any of the unique radio frequencies coming out of that vehicle. Your phone, your watch, your air pods, your air tags, your tiles, whatever it may be that you carry that is Bluetooth capable or Wi-Fi capable, it is trying to capture that unique signature. Why does that matter? Because when you take all of those devices, I know what I carry, right, and you put them all together, now you can track those devices as a group without actually seeing the individual by searching for those radio frequencies. It's an incredible amount of surveillance. that we should never even consider at the local level. So it creates an outright ban on that. And we don't need something that invasive in our city. Not a tracking tool like that. I would say that it's reasonable to say that people have an expectation of privacy to be able to go about their day with a phone, a set of AirPods, an Apple Watch, an AirTag, whatever it may be, and not be able to be identified with some digital signature by government and then tracked. We don't need that. The whole purpose is to restore the Fourth Amendment standard our residents expect and stop the quiet expansion of warrantless surveillance, because that's what's happening with this type of technology. Are we there yet? No, we're not there yet. But you have to have the infrastructure to get there. And that's my concern, is the surveillance infrastructure exists. I just learned something today about the gunshot detectors. I didn't know that they actually record. There's a trigger that makes them record, so they're always listening. But I just learned in our work session that when they're triggered, they actually record audio. So the capability exists. You know, earlier this summer, there was a push from Flock to change the gunshot detectors to pick up signals of distress, more than just gunshots. It would have been a firmware update. So again, the surveillance infrastructure exists and we are a firmware update between constant 24-7 live surveillance.

That's it.

And I can't, I voted against this the first time on November 28th, 2023. I can't continue to support the surveillance infrastructure. You cannot get to any kind of government control without surveillance infrastructure. We cannot have that in Lynchburg. So this would restore those Fourth Amendment standards of that. The policy would apply to FLOC, or if we directed termination of flock in the license agreement, it would also, so this is the first resolution, it would also apply to the future use of ALPR in the city if any other vendor were to be pursued. So it would create those policies in place for all ALPR technology. So that's the first resolution. independent of the second resolution, because if we can't get four votes to terminate the agreement, I think it would behoove us to limit the power of government, to limit the ability of local government to automatically access this data and to ensure that the Fourth Amendment rights of our citizens are protected and that we don't expand any future technology that just really is a complete overreach. So that's, Resolution number one. If anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to take them.

Thank you. Thank you both for your resolutions. I appreciate it. The police officers gave us an amazing presentation earlier today, so I'm thankful to them for enlightening us and giving us that necessary information. I DO APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN FERRARDI'S MOTION, NOT MOTION, HIS RESOLUTION. THEY ARE PAUSING THE FLOT CAMERAS AND THEY ARE REVIEWING THOSE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO REVIEW THE PROCESS. I BELIEVE THE POLICE OFFICERS NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF TOOLS TO MAKE SURE WE ARE SAFE, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO HAVE A CRIME OR A SITUATION THAT THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF A SYSTEM THAT THEY CAN TRACK PERSONS, TRACK CRIMES THAT ARE BEING COMMITTED OR LOOK FOR A MISSING CHILD OR WHATEVER. So I think those things are important. We're in a place now where we used to trust our police and respect our police and support our police. Sometimes now it's a little different. Like January 6th, they attacked police officers. This country now has shifted and changed a little. So I'm not sure where we are in America. But again, I still believe in our police officers. I think we need to support them. And these are some tools that the police officers have instituted to help them better do their jobs. I think we need to have systems in place that we can make sure we have certain crimes, especially in certain areas of our community and things are happening. I think there was a robbery the other day and some other situations. They showed us 100 instances where those cameras were utilized where it supported them in their investigation, whether eliminating certain things or finding certain things. So they need to have certain tools. We still have a crime of a young man who was six years old that was killed in his home. We still don't have the answers to that. We don't have the person who did the bullet. We don't have the information. So if you are a parent and your child is at home and got killed at six years old, you're going to want any kind of measure possible to find out. Just think of yourself as a parent. and your child has been killed, and you still don't know who killed your child. So we need to have some measures in place so we can solve crimes, so we can support them, so we can see how we can do this better. And again, I stress the importance of data. We want to make sure with this audit that they're pausing, we can review the data to make sure our information is secure. We don't want anyone, the government or anyone else, overreaching their authority. So we have to make sure that the systems are secure, that the systems are safe, that the systems are doing what they're supposed to do, that it can't be hacked or infiltrated, whatever the case might be, that we have a better quality level of those systems. Thank you.

Mr. Farodi?

I do have a series of questions for either proposal, and I want to be respectful of time. So if I may ask a question of my colleague. sir.

Thank you.

Mr. Missions, you've said you're 50-50 on ALPR technologies. Is that still your position?

You know, I think that it's probably worth exploring what other options are out there. I just learned we've got 65 ALPR devices on police cars. Right? So it's not just the cameras that are on the poles with the solar panels. It is 65 mobile ALPR devices on police cars. And it's coming through a different system. It's coming through a different vendor. And we haven't really had any concern or issue with that. I think it's because there's a human with the device, right, in the patrol car. It's a lot different than an automated system, stationary system, a stationary camera. So, you know, where I'm 50-50 with it is if we were to ban all ALPR, that would also cause us to take away ALPR from the patrol cars, the 65 patrol cars. That's never been an issue. I haven't heard any concerns about that. And so my position is, you know, I'm 100% Not in favor of flock, I can tell you that. But when it comes to some of the other ALPR products out there, like what we've been using for years in our patrol cars and vehicles, I think that there's a good conversation to be had about how we can continue to use that. Because if there was an Amber Alert out for my child or your child and the vehicle that matched the description passed in front of a police vehicle, I would want that police vehicle to have ALPR so that patrol officer would be automatically notified that that vehicle pulled in front of them and they could rescue my child or your child. That's why. Mayor?

I did say I have a series and I will be as quick as I can, but I'm still affording my colleague full opportunity to respond. Mr. Missions, would you support a policy that prohibits the city from using ALPR technology unless and until Virginia law establishes a statewide support policy that prohibits us from using flock plugged into a national database and, you know,

stationary unmanned mass surveillance infrastructure out in our communities i would absolutely support eliminating that until there was policy that came from the commonwealth of virginia but i don't see what that has to do with the resolution and like i said i can't make a blanket statement on eliminating the alpr technology that we've had in law enforcement vehicles for I don't know, 10 years, maybe more. It's been a long time that we've had that technology in police vehicles manned by police officers and controlled by them.

Mayor, I do have other questions. They are related to his other proposal. So for now, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I'm with you on flock. I have no respect for that company, but I am remaining neutral in it. As Councilwoman Timmer says, I'm in listening mode for sure, and I learned a lot from the police in the previous meeting. Thank you for giving me the locations of the 15 cameras. So that's great. We're making progress, and we, as the elected representatives, should make these decisions. We have that authority. We have that power. And I don't want to wait until after Election Day. I want to know where the candidates stand before then because I think it's important enough to know. But my question for Councilman Missions, if you wouldn't mind, is have you spoken with any of our local judges about whether they have any questions or concerns about their dockets and their workloads? Because I know some of them are pretty full already. And based on what the police have said about the number of flocks, cases, 100 or whatever. That doesn't even include the ones where there was no outcome, but it's still a search. Probably hundreds more. Have you talked to any of them and got any feedback as to whether they have an opinion about their dockets increasing because of the warrant requirements?

I have not, Mr. Vice Mayor, and quite frankly, that wouldn't change my stance because this is a constitutional issue. It's not about whether or not, you know, one of our honorable judges is going to have a busy docket. It's about protecting the rights of our citizens and the privacy of our citizens.

You had another. I do have the next resolution.

I just want to make sure there's no other questions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Second resolution is pretty cut and dry. When this body authorized the original agreement, I voted against it. It was November 28th, 2023. It was a 4-3 vote and it passed. We were presented with a limited tool. The way it was pitched to us the first time was four cameras, and they were gonna be at the major gateways coming in and out of our city for things just like I discussed, the hot list alerts, the Amber alerts, things like that. I don't think anybody in the city would have problems with a camera on a pole on 460, 29, 501, the major arteries coming in and out of our city, looking for abducted children, looking for stolen vehicles and looking for things like that and doing that only. But it has expanded. It's not what was originally presented to us. 15 cameras, 54, I thought it was 55, but I learned it was 54, acoustic sensors all over the city. And today I learned that those acoustic sensors actually have the capability to record if they're triggered. I've seen one that's between two front porches and across the street from a trampoline, and I question whether or not it's even city right away, because it looks like it's on private property. May not be, because I know how the lines can be in the city, the parcel lines, but it sure looks like it's sitting in somebody's kind of front side yard. And, you know, do we want to live in a society where government has recording devices around the city? Whether or not they're active, it's the capability. That's the concern that I have. because we're not all gonna be here forever. And I can't in good conscience not try to stop this because I don't know what some other governing body or some other government or staff members could or would try to do this. We all saw what happened during COVID. The overreach from government during COVID-19 was incredible. Upstairs earlier, I talked about Missouri v. Biden. It's an ongoing case where the federal government went to work with big tech social media platforms to create a censorship industrial complex across the country. People died because of what they did. People died. Horrible. Keeping people from having information that would have saved their lives was a terrible thing, but they did it. And you know what? The data, we may own the data, but a company called Flock, a private big tech company called Flock still has access to the data for technical support. That's a backdoor. That's a backdoor that any state or federal government or alphabet agency or intelligence agency could exploit. I cannot support that in our city. I voted against it the first time. because I was concerned about its ability to become Big Brother, because I was concerned about how the system could expand. Now I find out that firmware updates can completely change the capabilities, can't support it. So the second resolution is very simple. Council made the decision to bring Flock into Lynchburg in a four to three vote. Three of the members that voted for it are still here. Council should make the decision on whether it stays. We should follow the lead of every other Virginia locality that has terminated their agreement with FLOC. Harrisonburg, it was their city council. Charlottesville, it was their city council. Stanton, it was their city council with their city manager and police chief all came out together against it. They were one of the first. Elkton followed Harrisonburg's lead. The town of Elkton town council voted to get rid of it. Other elected officials, elected officials, not unelected staff members. Henry County Sheriff, Floyd County Sheriff, King William County Sheriff. We are the ones that you all elect to represent you. We take an oath to uphold your rights, to defend your rights. Defending you matters. It is not up to the staff to make this decision. City Council voted for this to happen. City Council should vote to terminate the license agreement. The resolution that I have for the second one is very short, very simple, and it terminates that agreement. Now there is one change I believe, Mr. Attorney, that would need to be made to it. I think that the language on what you presented should be changed from contract to license agreement. because that is what we actually adopted on November 28th, 2023. And your quote from back then on October 28th, when it was presented at work session was, you all do have the ability to give flock notice of canceling the license if something came up where you all as a group thought it was kind of big brother. The license component allows you all to terminate the agreement It's a revocable license. It's relatively short notice. Those were the words from our city attorney, Matt Friedman on October 28th, 2023. It's a revocable license with short notice. We don't need to spend tens of thousands or a hundred thousand dollars on another consultant. So the consultant industrial complex can come in here and make a recommendation that protects everybody, gives people political cover, creates deniability. We don't need that. We need to take responsibility for the decision we made in November 28th, 2023, and everybody needs to go on the record. On September 8th, I believe, is our next meeting. Up or down vote. Terminate the license agreement according to the terms. It's that simple. And that is the second resolution It terminates, and like I said, Mr. City Attorney, if you can just make sure that language, would that be appropriate to change that to license agreement?

I can. I'm happy to take care of that. That's fine.

And then we can put the, it's got a blank spot at the end to put the proper date on it, but whatever the 30-day notice I think is what the license agreement has in it, whatever that 30th day would be after the date of the vote would be when it would be effective. I'm happy to take any questions.

I will have a few questions for Mr. Missions, but out of curiosity, Mr. Friedman, it's my understanding the, what's the terminology? The license agreement is strictly pertaining to the use of the cameras in the public right of ways. Is that correct? So the license agreement is all encompassing.

The way the contract is set up.

Follow up question because I have two minutes, Mr. Friedman. And I'll direct this to Mr. Mischens. Your resolution directs the city manager to terminate the flock license agreement. Are you proposing to terminate the service agreement, revoke the separate license or both?

Well, thank you for asking that question. It's a great question, Mr. Feroldi. The license agreement is what permits the technology, the surveillance infrastructure to exist in city rights of way. So the moment that that license is terminated, then, within the 30 days, it is no longer permitted to be in the city rights of way. So that's really all that matters is we won't be allowed to be there and the license agreement actually requires it to be taken down.

The contract stipulates that with a such as this is if it passed, there's a $500 per unit removal fee. So what additional public benefit do taxpayers receive by sending approximately $35,000 to terminate this early rather than using the city's existing contractual rights to establish a long-term policy and end flock in Lynchburg?

That's a great question because it would prevent us from having to continue paying for the service. for the rest of the fiscal year beyond the termination. And it would also prevent us from having to pay, I don't know of a consulting agreement that's going to happen for less than $35,000. So it would prevent us from having to pay for some consulting agreement that would go along with a reconsideration and a pause that carries out for months. So the net difference of terminating is actually going to, create a situation where there would be more money in our police department budget, which is where I'm assuming the consulting dollars would come from, unless it came from our reserve for contingencies, because we wouldn't have to continue to pay for the flock service.

You've called the current pause political theater. If you don't believe the pause was sufficient, what specifically should have happened while the city determines the long-term policy?

Mr. Mayor, may I have just a couple extra minutes to answer the question?

Mayor, I believe this is of critical importance, and I do have a list of questions I prepared. I will not extend beyond them.

I would just like to answer this one question. Can you ask the question one more time, Mr. Ferraldi? Sure.

Mr. Missions, you've called this current pause of the street cameras political theater. If you don't believe the pause was sufficient, what specifically should happen instead while the city determines a long-term policy on ALPRs?

Well, I mean, I think that we need to terminate our license agreement with FLOC. That's what it comes down to. We don't need to be plugged into a national database. And the reason it's political theater is because every proposal other than the two that I put forward was specifically and intentionally extending any vote on the final disposition of the FLOC agreement until after Election Day. There's a lot of citizens that want to know how the seven of us, specifically the three of us, myself, the current and the former mayor, who both supported this and built this system with their votes three years ago, stand on this very issue before early voting begins. And so what I have to say is the citizens deserve to know where each of us stand on this issue before they have an opportunity to go to the ballot box. And anything that is intentionally proposed, intentionally proposed, because I heard the police chief say up there, it would only take a few weeks for the audit. That's not after election day. You can go back and watch the work session video. He said it. He never said it was going to take a few months, right? Any intentional attempt to push this decision that we made, this body made the decision to put the mass surveillance technology up throughout the city. Any decision pushing that beyond election day is intended to protect the people who previously voted for it and to shield them from accountability at the ballot box. It's that simple. It's that simple. So we need to get everybody on the record, follow our rules of procedure. This resolution will be up for a vote in our next meeting, first meeting of September. And it's simple. If you want to continue allowing this equipment and this technology to be up in our city, you vote against it. If you want to terminate the license agreement, and then we can explore if there's some other option that protects the Fourth Amendment rights of our citizens, and then also you know, would, you know, hopefully provide some more privacy, but allow us to clear some of these crimes. I'm open to that discussion, but the flock technology being plugged into a national database, the capability, the backdoor, all of those things, I just can't support it. I voted against it three years ago. I'll vote against it again. And, you know, the,

I'll leave it at that. I just have a select few left. Forgive me. We've got to wrap this up. Five minutes. Thank you, Mayor. I will honor that. Mayor, my question is, so, Mr. Missions, would you want the cameras turned back on while the process is underway over the next few weeks?

I mean... I don't have any specific position on that. What I do know is right now we're paying for the cameras that are covered with trash bags and turned off. So I'd prefer to not be paying for something we aren't able to use. That's my answer.

The reason I requested that information is because if it's political theater and what was done last week is not appropriate, I wanted to make sure I understood if bagging the cameras was a bad policy or not?

No, the political theater is to try to push the decision past election day and to take a victory lap on covering the cameras up with trash bag while you all the taxpayers are still having to pay for them, right? And that they don't provide any public benefit whatsoever. That's the political theater. The political theater is taking a victory lap on no decision because that's what I saw out of some of my colleagues is they took a victory lap on literally no decision. They could just have the bags come off them after the consultocracy gets done with their political deniability report, right? And put them back to work. That simple. We need to vote and make a decision. That's what it comes down to.

I'll conclude by saying this. I'll say it quickly. I want to be clear. I do not support ALPR technology. Full stop. I do not support Flock. I do not support any other vendor. Lynchburg should not be using any system at all that incorporates a warrantless surveillance system without a warrant requirement. That should be done at the state level. It gets legally questionable if we're gonna use HR policies to implement a warrant requirement on Lynchburg citizens and its guests. I would like to see that uphold in a court of law if a warrant is appropriate based off of HR policies. And it's my understanding that we do not have any other such requirement for HR policies to implement a warrant. I also believe we have an obligation to get this right, and I may not have the votes, has been mentioned to eliminate the contract. If we don't have the votes to prohibit ALPR technology outright, I believe the next appropriate step is a statewide warrant requirement, not creating a Lynchburg specific requirement through employment policies. We can eliminate, the contract early. We can terminate it early. The question is whether we should spend that money now and whether terminating the contract actually establishes the long-term policy Lynchburg needs. I don't believe we should spend tens of thousands of dollars simply to rush an early termination when we can have the contractual mechanisms available to us and establish a comprehensive policy on ALPR technology over the long term. Thank you.

Mr. Farabi, a question regarding your resolution. Even though the expiration date would be in November, December, if you are fully against LPR technology, would you be open to a vote? Yeah, this next month? Why wait for the vote?

Because it's my understanding under the terms of the contract, mine would not cost the city $35,000. Right, so... the other proposals would.

But why not vote on allowing the contract to expire next month? It could still expire. Sure.

I believe the audit can produce very interesting findings that the public deserves to know. How have we used the system? How has it been used inappropriately, if at all? What has the police done with using the system? That's valuable information that I think actually sets a precedent across the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. Nobody else is doing that. is the most searched item, the numbers one, two, three, as opposed to looking for a specific car. There's value there. And if we don't want to do that, that's the will of council. But to answer your question directly, there does need to be time to bring in that part of the conversation. Ultimately, if there's a proposal that incorporates those factors, with a shortened timeline. I'm open to that as well. I'm not sure we can come up with that in 40 seconds, but I'm open to that conversation. I believe there's value in the audit. Not many other police departments around the country are doing so.

So do you support paying for a consultant?

with your proposal, because your proposal includes paying for a consultant with the pause. So I'm wondering, you said you don't support paying to end it. And I believe there's two different clauses in there. There's the termination for convenience and termination. Which one would apply, Mr. City Attorney? Do we know?

I'll follow up with you. Because there are two different clauses.

One has a fee per device, the other doesn't. But I do have, I did ask the question, do you support paying for the consultant to, with your proposal, Mr. Ferraldi?

My proposal does not incorporate any appropriation of dollars. If any appropriation comes, it's from dollars that have already been appropriated by this budget that council passed earlier this year.

So the same would be if we canceled it, the dollars would come from the money that's already been appropriated for FLOX. So there's no new spending with either proposal, Mr. Ferraldi.

I would answer your question. I'd be willing to hear what an outside audit would cost. but I'm also not in a position where I'm going to turn around and say, knowingly, that we're going to tear down a bunch of equipment and it costs the city tens of thousands of dollars. Frankly, you've already cost the city about $150,000 in legal fees. We don't need more.

Mr. Faraldi, keep in mind that the city's also had to retain an attorney for me because of you.

All right, let's move on.

hearing. These are required by law or directed by council. Procedure. Staff will give a presentation. The public can give comments. Individuals have three minutes to speak. If you're speaking for a group, you have five. Group seekers must say which group they represent. Each group gets one spokesperson. Each speaker must say their name and the locality of residence. After public comments, the public hearing will close and the matter will rest with council. Agenda item number nine. Consideration of adopting a resolution approving a license agreement allowing Liberty University Inc. to maintain and operate fiber optic lines and related equipment in Candler's Mountain Road. This item was first presented on the July 14th PDC meeting and Lee Newland, City Engineer, will provide a summary of the request.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of council. This is a license agreement, not like flock, but this is a license agreement for Liberty University to install a fiber optic line under Candler's Mountain Road from one of their maintenance facilities on one side over to their new dorm facility, which was the remodeling of the old extended stay hotel.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Alicia, are there any voicemails?

There are none.

The public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion?

So moved. Second.

I'll speak to your motion.

I just support.

I think it's fine. It's not going to cause any problems, and it's needed, so...

That's it.

Well, again, I do support the motion because, again, it's a licensing agreement for them to go from one property to the other part because they've expanded in that particular area. So with fiber optics, that's going to be needed for that new dorm. So I support the motion. Thank you.

Is there any other discussion? No. Cast your votes, please.

All right. Initiating the vote for approval now.

Did you e-vote? E-vote? Mm-hmm.

Go back to agendas. Is it frozen? It's frozen.

Would you be comfortable stating your?

Yes. Okay. Yes, for the fiber.

The motion passes 7-0. All right, the next section is public comment. Speakers have three minutes to speak. If you're speaking for a group, you have five. City Council listens to your comments and may ask the city manager to follow up. Citizens often express differing opinions to make sure everyone feels comfortable speaking. There's no applause, cheers, or jeers. Do not intimidate, insult, or disrupt others. Do not use profanity, promote businesses, or campaign for office. Agenda item number 10. Hear from a group representative regarding updated gas in Darrington, safety of employees at Lynchburg Detention Center, An update on Streetlights, Robert Flood, Rescuers of the YouTube City.

First of all, I'd like to thank the mayor, the vice mayor, and the city council, our members for giving me an opportunity to speak again. It's been a while. You know, it's funny that I was sitting back there thinking about how y'all was talking about safety. You know, number one priority is safety for any department, any organization. And some of the things I'm going to talk about tonight is about safety. You know, as a concerned citizen, I have spoke off and on for about maybe a year and a half about some situations, things that are going on in Lynchburg. And I don't know where it's at now. I don't know if you're talking about it. I don't know if you throw it in the trash. But you're up here talking about safety. And that's all I want to bring to your attention. I had mentioned something about putting the precinct in Ward 2. about a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago. I don't know where y'all at with that. I mentioned something about the methane gas in Durrington, setting up another meeting and letting the neighbors know that it's still existing. I didn't hear nothing else about that, and that was about a year and a half ago. You got human beings that live in the projects in Durrington. Some of them don't know about the gas. It's been going over there for about 40 years. We don't talk about it, but we had a meeting in 2014 and discovered that it was gas all over in the Darrington school, in the projects behind where the pool used to be at. 2014. And this is 2026. I don't understand that. And the other thing I wanted to speak about It's about detention home. That's where detention home I used to work at years ago. The employees can't speak about certain things that's going on over there. When you got one person trying to be in charge of at least 10, 11 detainees, one person on the floor, when you should have two, four time, one part time, when you got 10, nine or ten detainees on one floor. And every time, you know, they speak about it, some of the ones that I've talked to, they get fired. And they come up with some kind of reason they're firing them. I don't work there no more, so I can speak about it. And I know how it goes, because I worked there six years. They're setting the employees up. They're setting up the city for a liability issue if somebody gets hurt. And I don't know if y'all heard about any of this or not, but I'm bringing to your attention. Y'all need to look at the attention home and see what's going on over there. Not the group home, the attention part. And the other thing, Vice Mayor, me and a guy named Sean Hunter, when I first started with the Peacemakers, but I got away from him because I'm not doing the same thing he's doing. We started the cameras. We started talking about putting the streetlights up, brightening. You didn't do that. We done it. Now I don't care who take the credit, get it done. That's your job. Since you working for the taxpayers, get it done. Don't try to take credit for something that you had nothing to do with. Just want to let you know that you had nothing to do. We started that. And let's see it work. And you can have all the credit. With that said, I hope y'all get it together. Election time coming up. Some of y'all ain't gonna be here. Thank you.

Agenda item number 11, hear from a group representative regarding a positive alternative. Will Dorville, the vision firm. Don't see any movement in the audience, so moving along. Agenda item number 12, hear from a citizen regarding government overreach, government negligence, police misconduct. Brandon Anderson. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Brandon Anderson. And I'm a resident and taxpayer standing here tonight to address systemic dismissal, racial discrimination, and improper restrictions on constitutional rights across our municipal departments. regarding social services and a premises ban. Recently, my girlfriend and I visited the Department of Social Services. After checking in, we watched five African-American individuals called ahead of her out of order, out of sequential order from the kiosk. Staff ignored my girlfriend's needs and claimed that I was barred from the premises despite me never receiving prior notice. Barring a taxpayer from a public facility simply for offering non-threatening critique of poor service directly violates First Amendment protections. Public employees carry the burden of professionalism. Ignoring citizens because staff cannot handle criticism is unacceptable. Respect is a two-way street. If they give respect that they are required to, they generally have it reciprocated. in regards to police misconduct and the $50 million headquarters that they have just received. This pattern extends to law enforcement. On May 31st, I experienced a wrongful arrest and hostile treatment by police officers, where I was left in an unventilated vehicle in extreme heat. This occurred right as taxpayers had just allocated $50 million for a new police headquarters. That funding comes with an expectation of unbiased, lawful enforcement. Not wrongful arrests targeting citizens without interrogating the person in question. also discriminating against someone who is autistic, such as myself, when being told that I am autistic by my girlfriend and dismissing the statement with his own ignorance. Rather than questioning me about the incident, I was placed under arrest without any inquiries as to the problem that I was there to address and being arrested for. and in regards to the city manager incident and call to action. Furthermore, when I called the city manager's office to address these separate municipal issues, she made unprofessional and unethical statements and hung up in my face. We fund these facilities, salaries, and departments. as well as Lynchburg City Council. I am formally demanding a call for action for an immediate review of conduct at social services, the police department, and the city manager's office. Appeal to do so will result in a civil class action lawsuit against the city of Lynchburg. Thank you.

Agenda item number 13, hear from a group representative regarding housing intervention, Mitch Richards for the love of the city. All right, not seeing Mitch. Agenda item number 14, hear from a citizen regarding Matthew Friedman Esquire, Andrea Yassalis. Please state your name and locality of residence.

My name is Andrea Yassalis, and I live in Winchburg. Thank you, Mayor Taylor and members of council. I'm speaking tonight regarding the city attorney's performance evaluation. And I do appreciate your email to discuss this earlier, but I felt it was more important to discuss it at city council meeting. The question is not simply whether to give him a raise. The question is whether the current arrangement still serves this council and the city of Lynchburg. On June 24, 2025, when this council was discussing the real estate tax rate, the city attorney Matt Friedman told council the rate would stay at 89 cents unless they voted to change it. That statement was incomplete. The Virginia code requires that if a general reassessment increases total real property tax revenue by 1% or more, the city must automatically reduce its rate unless you hold a mandatory separate public hearing and affirmatively vote to set a higher rate. Not only was council misinformed about the law by Mr. Friedman, but he then subsequently allowed the mandatory public hearing to be immediately adjourned by Mr. Feraldi. And he walked out on our citizens along with the mayor, council members Reed, Feraldi and Wilder. They all walked out on concerned tax paying citizens at a mandated public hearing. And so our real estate tax was increased 7% taking over $7 million out of the pockets of the citizens of Lynchburg and allocating it to where exactly? Mr. Patrick, we never heard from you because you never showed up for that meeting that was immediately adjourned. Mr. Friedman supported this gross breach of the statute and the rules and blatantly ignored the citizens. Then Mr. Friedman advised the city clerk to exclude his words and actions from the content of the minutes of those meetings. His advice on procedural motions, as evidenced this evening, shows the same pattern of incomplete or one-sided guidance that leaves council members of this body without the full legal picture. That is why this evaluation matters. I ask you to consider whether the city would be better served by independent outside counsel, either for major matters or as a structural change, so that this counsel can again receive candid, complete legal advice that is loyal to its governing body and not to any single member of counsel or to the city manager's department. As council members, you have the authority under the charter, and you have a duty to the citizens of Lynchburg to make that decision. Thank you.

Mr. Salas, I was just going to say I disagree with what you said, but my door is open if you ever want to talk about any of these issues. Yes, ma'am.

Agenda item number 15, here from a citizen regarding mass warrantless surveillance, Ryan Thomas. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

I'm Ryan Thomas. I live in Lynchburg, and I am representing Common Sense Lynchburg.

Okay. Okay.

You'll hear a lot of arguments against flock camera systems and mass warrantless surveillance in general tonight. Some will say they're a gross invasion of privacy, that they're susceptible to abuse, unconstitutional, or some other such nonsense. Quite frankly, my argument is simply that they don't go far enough. We could virtually eliminate domestic violence by placing these systems in everyone's homes. Most of the infrastructure already exists. Citizens can voluntarily allow law enforcement access to private security cameras. I would argue that we simply make it mandatory Then, using advanced AI algorithms, authorities could be alerted anytime these systems detect behavior statistically likely to lead to a violent encounter. Think about what we could prevent, guys. Domestic violence, child abuse, murder, property crime, you name it. These systems could all but eliminate them. We could put them in our cars. If the system determines that someone might be intoxicated, the vehicle could simply be disabled. Thousands of drunk driving deaths would never happen. Felons trying to run from the police disable any vehicle a wanted criminal attempts to operate. Let's just cut to the chase and require every citizen to be surgically implanted with a GPS tracker. Criminals could be tracked effortlessly. Missing children could be found immediately. Fugitive as a concept would cease to exist. All of this technology either exists today or is well within our ability to implement. Crime would plummet, no one could escape what would have become, for all intents and purposes, a functionally omniscient government. And obviously none of us need concern ourselves with what some future government might do with that infrastructure. Surely, such power wouldn't be abused. There are, after all, no historical examples of governments using mass surveillance to facilitate tyranny, oppression, genocide, or all manner of other atrocities. Power does not corrupt, and absolute power, it does not corrupt absolutely. I, for one, am all for trading essential liberties for safety. Our ancestors might have shed their sacred blood to secure the rights we now enjoy, but I say the price is right. Give me assurances of safety over the right to not be surveilled without a warrant by my own government every time I step out the door. So in closing, I ask you not merely to renew Flock, but to expand it. Flock in every home, flock in every car, GPS tracking for every citizen, all feeding into one centralized government database. Think of the children. Don't you care about the children? But seriously, every one of the systems I just described would help law enforcement solve crimes. Every one of them could save lives. And if the mere fact that a surveillance tool is useful to law enforcement is sufficient justification for deploying it against an entire populace, then I don't know what argument exists against anything I just proposed. And I want to make something very clear. These systems don't observe. They surveil. They aren't remotely comparable to carrying a cell phone because I can choose whether to own a cell phone, I can choose whether to carry it. I cannot choose whether the government records my movements as I drive around my own city. And that's the problem. This isn't about whether an individual LPD officer has or hasn't abused flock. The system is the abuse. So this idea that we can fix this with an audit that looks for individual instances of misuse is smoke and mirrors. It's completely irrelevant and completely sidesteps the objection. And putting guardrails around access to the data doesn't solve it either. The fundamental problem isn't merely who gets to search the database or how it's accessed. It's that the data exists in the first place. If the government surveils you but Pinky promises to keep the information it gathered while surveilling you locked away in a filing cabinet unless it really needs it, you're still left with the fact that you were surveilled without a warrant. There is no fixing this. End the contract with Flock and let's commit as a city to rejecting the entire premise of mass warrantless surveillance. I will commit. If the cost of ending the contract is a concern, then I will gleefully remove the cameras free of charge, and I'm sure that I could enlist the help of most in this room. Barring that, I would be happy to raise the money. If we need $35,000, I guarantee you we can have it within a week. I will lead the effort. Thank you.

Agenda item number 16, we did hear from Jonathan Roth earlier. He is unable to make it tonight. Agenda item number 17, hear from a citizen regarding flock cameras, Tyler Turner. Okay, not seeing anybody move. Agenda item number 18, hear from a citizen regarding flock cameras, Michael Mitchell. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

My name is Michael Mitchell. I reside in Campbell County with the Lynchburg address, work in the city. Members of my family live in the city as well. I would like to briefly relate an event that occurred March 20th, 21st, extending into the early morning hours of the 21st, having to do with my personal family and license plate surveillance cameras. An elderly member of my family, exceeding 90 years of age with some serious health deficits, diabetic, not very mobile on his feet, some sight deficits and some hearing deficits, although he still had a driver's license, decided to give us, if you know what an Irish goodbye is, just up and get in the car and take off. Another member of my family alerted me to this. Several hours went by and as evening approached, we realized that there was significant site deficits that he should not be driving at night. Lynchburg City Police were notified. Some license plates were discussed about, we weren't sure of the license plate number, but we finally figured it out. This went from the city of Lynchburg to Roanoke and to Botetourt County. And as a result of license plate identification cameras, not just on poles, but also in law enforcement vehicles, we were able to retrieve our family member about 2.30 in the morning on the 21st in Botetourt County. I would encourage, you all to look at license plate identification for the purposes of amber alerts, silver alerts, stolen vehicles, and that sort of thing. I think it's been already well discussed about recording and auditory devices. I have no input on that. There are other companies available other than Flock, as many of you are aware, and those companies can be evaluated. Thank you.

Agenda item number 19, hear from a citizen regarding Flock, Jared Kajala. Sorry, please correct me. Please restate your name and locality of residence. Yeah, that's okay.

My name is Jared Kyla. I live in Lynchburg. Good evening, everyone. A local retired police lieutenant recently responded on Facebook to people who oppose flock cameras by saying, it'll be easy to spot those against flock. They'll be wearing tinfoil hats. I forgot mine today. I believe that attitude is exactly why we need to have this conversation. Questioning government surveillance does not make someone a conspiracy theorist, it makes them a citizen who is paying attention. We learned during COVID that government policies can change dramatically during a national emergency. People were restricted from going to work, businesses were shut down, and individual liberties were limited. Now imagine if we had widespread automatic license plate recognition systems, ALPR, during that time. If a government ever imposed restrictions on where citizens could travel, an ALPR system could potentially record where you went, when you went there and whether you complied. That isn't about whether you trust today's government. It's about whether you should create surveillance systems today that could be used very differently by the government of tomorrow. And this concern should cross political lines. We should also be asking who ultimately controls the data. We are not living in a fishbowl where this information stays exclusively with our local police department. It is a part of a much, much larger data ecosystem. Once the surveillance infrastructure exists, it is extremely difficult to put it back in the box. Flock and other ALPR companies have a financial incentive to expand monitoring, surveillance, data collection, and data sharing. More data means more capability and more money for these multi-billion dollar companies. Their incentive is to their investors, not to our liberty. And more capability means more opportunity for government agencies, corporations, or future administrations to use that system in ways we never intended. Flock may be marked as a public safety tool. It may help solve some crimes, but public safety cannot become a blank check for surveillance. The same argument that something is justified because it makes us safer can be used to justify restrictions on virtually any constitutional liberty. Those who oppose the Second Amendment can and do make the same argument. That is the essential of the flock and ALPR debate. Is a little additional security worth creating a permanent record of where innocent Americans travel? I say no. Be careful of the good, the good local or federal government today. They could easily become a force for tyranny tomorrow. For the sake of our constitutional freedoms and for the responsible use of our taxpayers' money, let's put flock and mass ALPR surveillance back in Pandora's box and leave it there. Thank you.

Agenda item number 20, hear from a citizen regarding warrantless surveillance, Colin Plank. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Hi, Colin Plank Lynchburg. There is an obvious Fourth Amendment problem with the way flock camera systems operate. They create a profile of each citizen via his or her government assigned license plate number. Recent SCOTUS decisions have found that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their location information collected by cell phone providers. This is in Carpenter versus United States and Chattree versus United States. Searches of this data require a warrant because this data is private and only on suspicion of a crime may individual's data be retrieved under the Fourth Amendment. But the constitutional problem for flock is worse than this. Rather than searching location data that was created for legitimate business purposes, flock systems create data for the sole purpose of tracking individuals who are not suspected of any crime. Simply put, mass surveillance. Much could be said about the practical dangers implicit in such systems, but leaving aside these risks and leaving aside the Fourth Amendment, there is a broader principle that I ask you to give attention to. Today we have 15 cameras. If you don't object to 15, on what grounds will you object to 30 or 100 or 1,000? In the future, cameras will be smaller, use less electricity, transmit faster, capture more details and retain them longer. It is conceivable that in 10 years, these cameras will be cheaper than street lights and could be posted on every utility pole. Crime could become virtually impossible. Wouldn't that be a great start to a dystopian novel? Can our government be trusted not to use power to turn our city into an HOA where every grievance is dealt with by force? The power we give to government will be used by government, and it should be the minimum power necessary to keep peace. Not trusting the government is kind of this country's founding principle. It's why we have the separation of powers, and it's why we have a Bill of Rights. And does our city actually wield control over flock cameras in our city? I noticed and appreciated that LPD bagged up the cameras and I wonder if that's because they couldn't turn them off or because there have been multiple reports of cities turning off flock cameras and finding them turned back on such as in Littleton, Massachusetts and Eugene, Oregon. Who really controls these cameras and would LPD know if flock was sending data to other government agencies? or even to another country. A lot of trust has to be placed in a vendor that the security of our city now depends on. So I urge you, first of all, to cancel Lynchburg's contract with Flock because it violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and it would be wrong to delay this decision for any amount of time if you believe it is unconstitutional, regardless of how much it costs. However, if you are unconvinced that it is a constitutional violation, I still ask you to consider the broader problem of giving too much power to our government. It is not a theoretical problem, and it will become a problem for our city eventually. Thank you.

Agenda item number 21, hear from a citizen regarding flock cameras, Thomas Smith. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Thomas Smith, residence of Rustberg, working in Edgeburg. Hello, and thank you for your time tonight. I'd like to begin by addressing the necessity of flock cameras and whether or not there is one. If we look at the Lynchburg 2025 crime statistics against the historical average, we find that burglary has gone down 23%, larceny down 14%, larceny from auto, 13%, auto theft down 24%, and arson has gone up 15%. Arson is the only one with a rising trend, rising all the way to six cases from a historic average of 5.2%. while the rest trend downwards and have been doing so far longer than flock cameras have been on our streets. This raises the question, why now? Why are we compromising our rights to privacy over a non-issue? There is nothing pressing that should push the practice forward, especially when weighted against the potential flaws and abuses of flock. For instance, a 2024 analysis by a police department in California found flock misread license plates in 71% of the alerts it sent to the police. In a separate instance in Toledo, a car's license plate was incorrectly read as that of a stolen vehicle. This led to a traffic stop where the driver was held at gunpoint before being mauled by a police canine dog. And this is just when the system isn't actively being abused. Media investigations reveal that over 50 law enforcement officers that we know of nationwide have been accused, charged, or forced to resign for improperly using automated license plate readers. These abuses include the stalking of previous and current romantic partners, as well as their children. In response to this coming to light, FLOC declared that they would put forward safeguards against such abuses in the future. Two such measures were a query that needed to be filled out for which case the investigation was for in order to access the network, as well as reducing the amount of time data is retained in the network from 30 days down to seven. However, the clients are allowed to increase that back to 30 if they so choose. In September 2025 alone, a single local Oregon police department was allowed to search Flock's ALPR system after entering investigation into the search reason field 111 times and he, he, he into the field on 20 occasions. But that's not all. Flock's signature goes even further. In the city of Dunwood, Georgia, an independent investigation uncovered that there were over 100 cases of cameras within local communities being accessed by Flock employees. The locations viewed include swimming pools, playgrounds, and children's gymnastics studios. FLOC's chief communication officer, Josh Thomas, responded by claiming the access was part of a demonstration that had been approved by the city. However, the city council disagreed, saying that they had no notion of authorized use by FLOC employees and canceled the contract. It has become obvious that FLOC cannot be trusted, and I, for one, do not feel comfortable with their presence in the city I call home. Thank you.

Agenda item number 22, hear from a citizen regarding reporting on the people's business, Peter Seferati. Please restate your name and locality.

Peter Seferati, Ward 1, citizen. Thanks for being here and listening. Appreciate it. I'd like to quote a few words from our founders from the Declaration of Independence in case maybe some of you have never read this document, but says that we hold these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal, that includes women too at these times, and that they're endowed with their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty, and perceived happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Now, unalienable rights means that they can't be taken away. As a matter of fact, they can't be given away by the citizens. So you've heard a lot of good stuff here tonight, a lot of good reasons, Fourth Amendment, et cetera, why people don't want these cameras. They don't want surveillance cameras. It's not 1984. Let's not look forward to that date happening anytime soon. Self-governing people, which we have a government of the people. That means we're the government. Self-governing people are the government. The government is us. The city council and the city staff are not our overlords. Staff are not supreme. You're not supreme. The people are not subordinate to you. We're not your slaves. We're not your serfs. We're not your tax donkeys. We are your superiors. And you're expected to follow our direction. And that means follow our direction on budget audits, spending priorities, the tax rates, whether or not there's a library board and our privacy rights. I don't think what happens in the city, a lot of times recognizes the fact that we are supposed to be self-governing people with unalienable rights. And that, as I showed you before on your own city organization chart, the citizens are up here, then the representatives, which is you folks on the city council, and underneath that is this damn city government. I'm sorry, I don't mean... towards individual people, just the bureaucracy itself.

That's the way I think about it.

So I'd like to remind some of you that you're up for election and hopefully the people are watching what you do and how you serve us. I'm certainly going to be calling attention to it. I also want Mr. Wilder, please understand that Mr. Ryan's comments were sarcasm. He didn't really mean it. So don't get any ideas. Anyways, Listen to the people we would really appreciate at night. Appreciate all your hard work tonight and every day. I don't know how you do it. Keep it up though. And thank you for staff too.

Thank you very much.

Agenda item number 23, hear from a citizen regarding flock cameras, CJ Jordan. Not seeing CJ in the crowd. So agenda item number 24, hear from a citizen regarding flock cameras, Thomas Stracca. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Good evening. My name is Tomas Straka. I reside in Lynchburg City. It is understood that we have no expectation of privacy in public. However, once those camera systems are in place, data processed by AI systems, we have a warrantless surveillance system that has been ruled unconstitutional already by the U.S. Supreme Court. Some could argue that these cameras could prevent and solve crimes. Well, the experience shows otherwise. London, Great Britain, facing incredible problem with rapes by migrants. You know, those so-called doctors, lawyers, engineers they got. They installed similar systems. It's not preventing crimes. It's not solving those crimes. But those cameras were instrumental in identifying those who came out in protests of those horrific crimes. Imagine that. Now imagine COVID 2.0 scenario. Could you imagine what a government could do to us using these surveillance systems? Now, some could argue that these data will be kept for a short period of time and will not be shared. Well, I learned one thing. Never, ever trust the government. Elected officials, they come and go. Sometimes they deliver on their promises. Most of the time, they don't. But the unelected bureaucrats, they stay. They solidify their power. And once that system is in place, it will be very difficult for us, the people, to control it. Now, these systems have been misused and abused in the past. It's very well documented. Lots of abuse. These systems, in my opinion, undermine our constitution, our rights. It is our task, our duty to defend. And it is your job to protect our constitutional rights. We elected you with the expectation to do so. In fact, protecting our rights should be your number one priority. So do your job. Protect our rights, defend our constitution. Do not abuse it. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Here from a citizen, a group representative regarding GLTC FY27 funding concerns. Tab Sprouts, GLTC Board of Directors.

Hi, good evening. I'm Tab Sprouse. I proudly serve the GLTC Board of Directors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council, the members of our community. I also have some other board members here with me tonight. So I'm here on behalf of the GOTC board to respectfully ask for the release of the 800,000 that was transferred from the GOTC reserve to the GOTC's operations for this fiscal year. This is not a request for new spending and it's not a request for a new funding source. It is a request to make, available funds already transferred from GLTC's reserve for GLTC operations. I want to be clear about what the reserve actually is because I think there's been some confusion in the discussion. The reserve is not simply city funds. The city can redirect at its discretion. It's funded through GLTC's own operating surpluses built up year after year. This matters because the reserve was established under the city's memorandum of understanding, otherwise known as the MOU. The 2012 MOU created a binding bilateral commitment with a $500,000 floor specifically to fund GLTC operations and cover unplanned shortfalls. Which entity's ledger the account sets on doesn't change where those dollars came from or what the MOU obligates it to. If the city believes the commitment should change, we're glad to have that conversation through changing of the terms of the MOU. Now here's exactly what's at stake with the 800,000. It's part of the local match required to draw down federal transit funding. Without it, we risk leaving federal funding on the table. If GLTC can't secure the local match, we estimated a 2.5 to 3 million reduction to our fiscal year 27 $10.8 million budget. That impact compounds over time, cuts today hurt ridership, and puts future funding opportunities at risk. We've already identified what this means in practice, reductions to routes, to microtransit, and to Sunday service. That's our answer in specific terms to what this funding accomplishes and what its absence costs. I also want to be direct about this year's budget. GLTC's fiscal year 27 budget was a service-maintained budget. We weren't seeking to add additional service just to keep what we already had running. To maintain that, we need the city to release the $800,000 as approved by council. On Sunday service specifically, the recent suspension was driven by an operator shortage, and we continue to recruit and retain drivers, but our ability to restore and sustain that service will be driven by the financial resources to operate it. We can't responsibly promise improvements to our riders without knowing the resources will be there to sustain that. Separately, I want to raise a related question. but distinct matter. GLTC has been awarded a competitive five-year TRIP grant. That's Transit Ridership Incentive Program, worth roughly $1.52 million from fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 31. TRIP helps fund current service. It's a step-down grant that the state covers 80% of the costs in year one dropping to 10% by year five with the local share rising to 90%. That means this isn't a one-year discussion. We understand that whether the TRIP grant is ultimately a decision, whether we take the TRIP grant is ultimately a decision of us as a board and we accept that responsibility, but accepting it responsibly requires knowing if the city will commit to the multi-year local match. We can't take that decision lightly as a board. And we do believe with a definitive answer, we can finalize the grant and plan service accordingly. 68% of GLTC riders use transit to get to work, commuting to manufacturing facilities, healthcare providers, restaurants, retailers, and schools throughout our city. When employers and developers look to invest here, transportation is one of the reasons they weigh in. I'm going to skip a lot, so I'm going to respectfully ask for this letter to be added to the minutes. But the board understands that the city faced many competing priorities this year, and we respect that. But tonight, the record needs to be clear. The GLTC board has been transparent about funding and what its absent costs. $800,000 was transferred from GLTC reserves for GLTC operations. If we're going to... If it's gonna be used for operations, we need access to it. And then we need a clear timeline on when we have that access. And we need a joint meeting this quarter on what that multi-year local match would look like for us as a partnership. Thank you so much.

Agenda item number 26, hear from a citizen regarding flock cameras, Alan Spalding. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

My name is Alan Spaulding. I live in Lynchburg. Thank you, Mayor, City Council. I'm here to speak out my concern against the flock cameras. Lots of ideas throughout history are brought up and acted for the good and the safety of people, the city, the state, the county, the empire. the Communists and Nazis took all their citizens' firearms for the good and the safety of the people. Look how that turned out for the citizens and the country and the world. China has massive surveillance all over in their own country and the world for everyone's safety. Now, these flock cameras come under the same heading, safety for the good of all. Now, there is something to be said about getting criminals off the street. But these big brother tactics of capturing everyone's tag and their travel habits, all the info collected, put into a database file. Also, who watches over these files? just a massive warrantless surveillance of all citizens. This can be a path that good intentions can be turned very easily into something dark and sinister under the guise of safety for all. It's Ben Franklin that said, those that would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Thank you.

Agenda item number 27, hear from a citizen regarding National Community Health Worker Awareness Week. Kimberly DiCarsely. Please restate your name and locality of residence. You're going to stay closely.

Did he give them for the councilman? I'm getting ready to hit him. I've got to start your timer. I want them to hear me. You want me to wait on you? If you want to go ahead and go, I can pass them down. All right. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of council, ward representatives, and at large. Kimberly Dye Crossley Lynchburg. So I'm here because this week is National Community Health Worker Awareness Week. And I just wanted to talk about the boots on the ground resource. Pretty much a lot of work is done and there's a title now to fit the work. But it's not a new title. In fact, if you'd like me to email you, let me know. Because we have a new history. Thank you. of community health workers in Virginia, timeline from 1985 up until 2026. Advocacy is a lot of what we do, helping others navigate those systems that they may or may not be aware of. able to be a part of Dr. Wilder's event that he has in a local neighborhood, actually one that I grew up in, Greenfield Apartments. Very different nowadays, and I see that he's working to bring back the vitality of the neighborhood. So we are frontline public health workers who are trusted members of the same communities that we serve. I'm one of those 68% that rides the bus to work. And unfortunately, because I know how to navigate, I've been able to call a local taxi company to pick me up because the bus didn't show up. I was able to navigate. What about the person who couldn't and may have lost their job? I did get a response back. But anyway, I hope that works out and maybe GLTC can help partner with the local Taxi companies who are open and running on Sundays and those same people have to get back and forth to work. Mayor Taylor, I did say earlier this couple of months or so ago that I would come to you for, I don't know, a proclamation or some type of formal recognition of community health workers to include promotores de salud. community health representatives for our tribes, and also Governor Youngkin made a resolution for the month of October a couple years ago. You're invited, all of you, to the first ever Champions of Community CHW Day Conference. It's going to be Monday, August 31st. Yeah, 31st. And that is a collaborative effort put on and led by the Virginia Department of Health and other facilities.

Agenda item number 28, hear from a citizen regarding mass surveillance cameras, Julia Martini. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

My name is Julia Martini. I live in Lynchburg. I'm going to start this off with two numbers I don't really want to talk about. 30 plus cities who canceled contracts because they discovered, keyword discovered, the federal government accessing their data without city approval. The second number I want to talk about is 53 municipalities across 20 states who canceled contracts due to data sharing violations and unauthorized federal access. I do have those names and instance right here if you want to look at them. I'm sure many of those people in those cities, we see the same assurances and compromises that we are being offered. I am not interested in those. This data collection violates our Fourth Amendment. Long-term location tracking requires a warrant, and even just gathering a large picture of a person's data reveals patterns of life without suspicion or cause. This database is searchable for all the data in it. We do not care whether or not you promise us you are going to search for it, what you're going to do with it. the search is done when the data is gathered that is already a warrantless search we are not interested in promises i'm sure those 30 plus cities and 53 municipalities also had promises made to them i do not care about the promises for how you are going to breach the fourth amendment But some other interesting information. You know, we've spoken tonight about crime reduction, about benefits, about helping the police force. Crime reduction is not credibly proven through use of flock cameras as far as I've been able to find. I have found 17 instances of cities that have provided measurable results. And to say measurable, you have to have actually looked into it. You cannot provide data on something you have not looked into and investigated. Twelve of those cities looked and were able to reliably prove that Flockham was provided no measurable decrease in crime. Five cities were able to prove that there was a decrease to vehicle theft. Vehicle theft is a property crime. We should not even be having a conversation about breaching the Fourth Amendment due to property crimes, okay? Another item is When measurement becomes a target, it quickly becomes obsolete. We are acting like these criminals are unaware of the cameras, like they cannot adapt or they cannot change. The only people left who you'd be surveilling with these cameras are going to the people who you do not have warrants to surveil. Another item is recovery of stolen vehicles. Conversation of vehicle recovery is not a major public safety issue. The main organization who stands to benefit from the recovery of stolen vehicles are insurance companies, not the taxpayers who pay and vote for the city council. Finding missing persons. Missing persons cases are uncommon. There are other tools that exist that have been mentioned that fill in this gap. Rare events should not be used to justify violating the rights of the millions of people who will be surveilled. Nothing justifies that, especially not these rare cases that we are attempting to use to justify violating the Fourth Amendment. And also, I do support our police. I care very much about our police. We should not be having a conversation on substituting human police force with government surveillance cameras. Cameras don't build trust. that at all. Thank you.

Agenda item number 29, here from a citizen regarding concerns over growing local government, Chris Quigg. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Chris Quigg, Ward 3. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm changing directions a little bit. There's a true and inspirational story, 1946, where World War II veterans are forced to take up arms in Athens, Tennessee, to put down a corrupt political machine in their city. A Tennessee Democrat named Edward Hull Crump had built a powerful political machine to maintain power, and to maintain power was controlling elections. Stories like this remind me of the value of our Constitution. We the people have the freedom to speak out when we see signs of our government moving in a corrupt direction. Now the Bible tells us why we deal with corruption. Adam disobeyed God and sin entered the world and death through sin. Ultimately, God's answer to our sin and corruption problem is found in Jesus Christ. Now, in the days of Noah, God used one righteous man and his family to deal with the corruption of that day. God doesn't need many, does he? Today, I read about corruption that was uncovered in Martinsville, Virginia last year. The city manager was fired. One thing she did was purchase a hot tub for the mayor who turned around and voted for her to receive a $30,000 pay raise. In the end, it was the city manager who was in the hot water. What about Lynchburg and our city government? Let's not be naive to think corruption couldn't happen here. In fact, I've been seeing signs for months that it is happening here. What signs? Well, this was already mentioned once tonight, four council members stood up in unison and walked out of a meeting preventing citizens from speaking about the tax rate. Certain council members have been removed from the finance committee by the mayor, preventing them from questioning city expenditures. the prevention of effective involvement by city council members in the budget process, steady increases in salaries among our highest paid officials, and a firehouse primary to elect Republican council members where the results were overturned without cause. Do you see a pattern here? I hope I'm wrong, and I really do. I really do hope I'm wrong. But if not, I plan to keep speaking out, I know a number of us do, until we return to honest ways in our city. Thank you so much. Thank you for your hard work.

Moving on to a closed session. A consideration of a closed session to review and or evaluate the performance of the city's clerk of council, city attorney, and city manager, with possible consultation with outside counsel pursuant to Section 2.2-3711A1 and Section 2.2-3711A8 of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended. I'll make a motion.

to go into closed session adding the language that was described, but I'm going to strike with possible consultation with outside counsel, because I don't know anything about any outside counsel. There's been no process for the city council to select any outside counsel, and there has been a plethora of emails between myself and the city attorney about potential conflicts of interest and other issues and concerns related to the previous selection of outside counsel. So I'm not going to agree to go into this with possible outside counsel when we haven't had an opportunity to interview or select any outside counsel. We can go into closed session and do the performance evaluations without outside counsel. So I'll make that as a motion.

Second. I'd like to make a substitute motion that we table this indefinitely. Because the clerk of council, the city attorney, and the city manager will not get a fair evaluation.

Second.

Second. I'll speak to your second.

You said it perfectly.

Mr. Mayor, I'll speak to the motion. I'll be releasing, since they're no longer personnel records, the evaluations that I completed for the city attorney, the clerk of council, and the city manager tonight publicly. They are objective. They are backed by their own words and their own actions. I'm not here to shield high paid bureaucrats. I'm here to defend you and represent you and defend your interests. This right here is a travesty to not have these performance evaluations done. This is going on, I don't know how many years now, we're up to two years. What it is, is we've heard multiple of our constituents tonight talk about staff members of local government who can't handle criticism, right? The charter for the city of Lynchburg says that the city manager's salary is supposed to be set by ordinance or resolution. Shout, the city manager's salary has gone up, I think at least 20% since I've been here without a council vote. Not one, a council vote is an ordinance or a resolution. Right? So this tactic to try to prevent these performance evaluations from being done, you know, pay attention. There's people up here that are not protecting you. And the question is, what are they protecting? Who are they protecting? Because it's not the taxpayers. It's the staff and what's being hidden. That's another question I have. You know, earlier today, I had some remarks about the amphitheater prepared and we didn't have any roll call. And the reason is because, you know, we're talking about performance. Well, I have sent multiple emails and asked multiple questions to get information about how this amphitheater is being managed. And I've gotten, No response on some specific questions. You know, I voted against the Amphitheater project because the cost more than doubled. I didn't see any evidence that would produce a return on investment that justified the roughly $9 million in capital spending. I didn't see it. But it passed over my objection. And you know what? Now we've got to put it to work, and it's got to work for the citizens. We've got to figure out a way to make it work because we've got it. but that requires an operator to meet the basic terms of the contract. I first requested the monthly operational reports and quarterly financial reports required for Mason Lane on July 21st. July 21st, what's today's date? August 21st. 24th, 25th, happy birthday, Mr. Timmer. Those records were not included in the FOIA production. The response never stated whether they exist or not, which the Virginia Freedom Information Act requires it to say whether or not those exist. On August 6th, and again on August 14th, I asked the city manager's office to confirm two straightforward things, whether those required reports have been submitted and whether the $15,000 venue fees, because the management company is supposed to be paying the city coffers, the taxpayers, $15,000 for each non-city sponsored event. is supposed to be coming to the coffers, plus a profit sharing. I asked to have records that those have been being paid. I asked to see if the monthly operational reports have been being submitted per the contract. Haven't gotten them. Haven't gotten an answer whether or not they even exist. There's also supposed to be audits that go to the city manager's office that show what the profit share is for the city. That's the revenue that comes in and pays for it, because if the revenue's not covering the amphitheater, guess who's covering it? You all are, right? Haven't seen that. I shouldn't have to file a formal FOIA request just to find out whether a major city contractor is complying with the most basic terms of its agreement. The lack of transparency with this staff is incredibly frustrating. We've seen it with GLTC tonight and the $800,000 shell game that they're playing with the GLTC budget. Why can't we, the people you elect, get straightforward answers out of the highly paid, highly trained bureaucratic staff? The public's already seeing the operational problems in the amphitheater. Last minute cancellations, delayed refunds, questions about who's actually running the venue. Records that I received in the FOIA, which I'll be happy to provide to the press, also show that during the Independence Jam, you know, the 4th of July fireworks event, where For the first time, you had to buy a $5 bottle of water in Lynchburg. That's not the Lynchburg I want to see, instead of carrying it on your own. The operator closed the street and placed fencing without proper coordination, angering downtown business owners whose access was blocked without approval. When residents are left waiting for refunds and local businesses are surprised by last-minute disruptions, we have a credibility problem. The contract gives the city the ability to terminate with 30 days notice. If Mason Lane is not submitting the required reports and is not paying the $15,000 venue fees as required, then we need a clear answer on whether the city is prepared to enforce the agreement. Whether the city is prepared to enforce that agreement. We need a management partner that actually performs. Our adopted FY2027 budget, I had it printed out here earlier, Here it is right here. This is the revenue detail from the budget that we just adopted. Right here. Non-dedicated revenue line item. New for this year. So we adopted this budget with $345,000 of amphitheater event fees. $345,000 for this year. Are we getting that? Are we getting that revenue? Is it actually coming to us? That's what I want to know. That's our job is to represent you, is to make sure that the city is holding people accountable. If we're not getting it, we need to find somebody who will do it. And if we got it wrong, then we need to say so. I want this amphitheater to work. Enforcing the contract is the first step. And right now, I can't get any answers out of city staff on whether or not that contract is being enforced. I will vote against the substitute motion because the performance of city staff needs to be evaluated because we have real issues that are impacting people. There was just another one of these concerts canceled four days ago. These are real issues and real concerns. This isn't about fairness. If you wanted a fair evaluation, you would move forward, Mr. Mayor, and we would go into closed session. We would have this discussion behind closed doors and we would get it done.

But this is not a fair evaluation.

And you messed it up. I didn't mess anything up. You made the motion to not do it, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I did. I just did. You made the motion to not do it because you guys tried to sneak in some outside counsel. The same outside counsel last time was the same outside counsel that they used to cover up the fact that they were trying. No, it's not because of my attitude. Mr. Mayor, you tried to use outside counsel in the last meeting. That's the same counsel that was used to cover up the city attorney trying to represent a lawsuit for Chris Feraldi. for his election lawsuit. It's in writing. It's in writing. I'll share the records. You can't cover that up with privilege, Mr. Friedman.

Mayor, I would offer one thing, too, just for the council's edification as a whole. The evaluations, whoever may have completed them, you know, and being provided to HR, the mayor, however it may be, I do think those are still confidential records. No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not going to be intimidated by you, Matt.

I'm not going to be intimidated by you.

I'm not going to be intimidated. So these are personnel records. They're personnel records.

People need to know.

I have to say it to protect the city from liability. You're only trying to protect yourself. All right. All right. Well, I've said it, so.

Mr. Ferrati's been waiting. The following was brought to you by Martin Missions for City Council. That's the disclaimer that should have been added there.

No campaigning allowed.

Noted. So a couple things were just said. I struggled to see the germaneness to how what was just opined before the world relates to going. I don't know how an amphitheater conversation is whether or not we should go into a closed session or not. That's not germane at all. There was a vote on the compensation for all three of our employees. There was not a vote, no.

There's no minutes to show a reported vote. Just like you lied about your resolution that terminated the flock agreement. Tonight, Chris, because it's not in there, you're lying right now about a recorded vote. And I will actually make this FOIA request right now because I've made it to both the city attorney and the clerk. Can you show me in the last five years a recorded vote setting compensation for any of our appointees?

Please provide it. Mayor, may I continue and not be interrupted? Don't interfere much. So in the contract of the city employees that we have, this is the answer that my colleague seems to have issues reading. It says corporation on the seal. It's in the contract. Just read it. It says that the three employees are entitled to the same percentage increase that the staff get in the budget. Well, if you go over the last three years, five years, staff have gotten 2%, 2.5%, 3%. And so when the budget passes, that's the ordinance. That's the resolution. And I thought the goal of the last meeting was to not go behind a closed door with outside counsel and discuss salaries. That was the concern. The concern was salaries. So help me understand how not going into closed session at all, period, That's what we're now saying we're going to do because it's not going to be a good faith conversation. How does that then lead us to, well, there's a cover-up. We're not going to do a salary increase. Isn't that what you all wanted? We're not going to be discussing the terms of the contract. Isn't that what you all wanted? And so, candidly, when we're talking about this, I've been consistent. I submitted my paperwork. That's my review. Case closed. If you all want to talk about the review, that's different. I have said for weeks and months that when I turn my paperwork in, my review's done. If I want to give feedback to the three employees, I offer it. This is about if we want to talk about it behind a closed door. I don't think we need to. So.

Let's talk about it right now in front of people.

You are. Let's do it. So with all due respect, I'm not supporting this. the concept of going behind a closed door to talk about their performance. Let's go. Let's be done.

Okay. Ms. Tillman.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I kind of value some of Chris's sentiment, and I'll work with that a little bit, but I do want to speak to the larger issue here, and I wish I wasn't surprised, Mr. Mayor. This is part of a larger pattern. The walkouts, the delays, delays till after the election for votes, Alternate resolutions that have a title but ultimately shift the authority of the decision making to the city manager or defer to a city manager appointed consultant that then provides a city manager narrative. And usually there are historical ties in light of those consulting firms that are brought in in that regard. Threats behind closed doors and the use of attorney-client privilege inappropriately All these things put forward a narrative, but utilize the shield of offense to justify it. using red herrings, using distraction, but ultimately the shield of offense, how dare you raise the question? And you are ultimately defaming someone, heaven forbid, when really what's being brought forward are questions and facts. Though I don't always agree with the tone or tenor of my colleagues, I greatly sympathize with the questions at hand. So The larger pattern is real and is very frustrating, Mr. Mayor. I feel like I've said it a thousand times. Three things that I really think are significant is one, truth really needs to be forefront of our decisions. And if we're going to claim one thing and do another or claim one thing and then change it in the back room for the sake of political convenience, that is wrong and that is false. That's not who we claimed to be. When we campaign, we make a contract with people. We say what we stand for. And then they ultimately decide if we follow through on that contract or not. That's significant, and that's way more important than having our butts in this seat. If we don't follow through on the statements we've made, there's no value in holding the office. Because what's the point? It's not like we make a ton of money. Like we're here to serve the people that put us here. So votes are how they hold us accountable. These discussions and bringing it and having open dialogue is how they hold us accountable. And the leadership and the shift of what has been happening to thwart conversation, to stifle it and encourage it, It's astounding, Mr. Mayor. It has become astounding. And it is developing a larger record because it is an established pattern. So I actually, I'm kind of okay with Mr. Faraldi's comments just in the fact that We know where we stand on some of these questions, and they're not going to be hashed out in a closed session. But I believe it is our responsibility to have the reviews. I think it's our responsibility, and I think it's our duty. So I won't vote for it. I get the sentiment. I've expressed a number of concerns in the reviews that I put forward, which were essentially limited to a word count and the way that it was put and how you had to write it by hand in the mail. change that at a later time. But the pattern's astounding. I'll leave it at that.

Anyone else? things from the public.

The mayor's gavel is used to silence and hide things from the public. And thank God for Marty Mizgins. Thank God for Marty Mizgins. How much would we not know about what goes on behind City Hall closed doors if it wasn't for this gentleman over here fighting for us long before I got here? We I turned my reviews of our three direct report staff members, the city attorney, city manager, and the city clerk over to some of you in the fourth of state, the media. And to date, nobody's done anything to report on the factual, objective review, same kind of review I've given as an employer over my whole life of my employees. and silence from the people who are tasked with informing the citizens of Lynchburg. How long is that gonna go on? So all of this is part of the, I'll use the word again, cover up. The same city government and the same city councilmen who are ready to turn Lynchburg into a surveillance state and point cameras at you, are hiding from you what City Hall's up to. Think about the juxtaposition of that. Is this the government that Lynchburg deserves? Because we're just a reflection of the people of this city. Does the citizens know? That's a reflection on our media. I turned over the review. Factual. I called it the way I saw it. Positive when I saw good behaviors. Negative when I didn't. I was told I had to put it on this size piece of paper and not use this size piece of paper. And I couldn't use email and I couldn't do this, do it that way. And everything to control the narrative and control my review. So I told the mayor I was going to release it. I told you that. And I did. And sue me, Matt. I think the people deserve to know the truth. OK, it's no secret that I don't think some of our staff is competent and some of it's downright malfeasance. OK, let's be honest. But we're just a reflection up here of the citizens. And if you all put up with it, we'll put up with it and nothing will ever change. But the question is, should it change? Should we cancel this meeting? I'm like her. I kind of agree with Chris on this. I didn't like the idea of putting it in the back room. You remember the last meeting I said, no, let's have this discussion out front with the public, with the cameras, with everybody. Open government is good government. Transparent government is good government. I'm trying to be transparent. I've shared mine. I don't know if anybody else has shared their review of the staff, but I did. But if you've got a media that just sits on it, then maybe that's the reflection of the people. Maybe that's what the people want. They don't want to know. Well, it's about seven pages of no story. Seven pages of no story. So anybody wants it, I'll share it with the members of the citizens. Anybody that asks me, I'll email them a copy. It's the good, the bad, the ugly. It's the truth. That's what it is. And maybe somebody decides it's not a story, but I think the citizens of Lynchburg might ought to think about whether they think it's a story or not.

YES, THANK YOU. AGAIN, COMMENT WAS MADE THEY FEEL THAT THEY MIGHT GET A FAIR EVALUATION. I FEEL THE SAME WAY. I'VE SERVED ON THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR NINE YEARS. I'VE SERVED ON LYNCHBURG CITY COUNCIL FOR TEN. I HAVE WORKED WITH SO MANY PEOPLE ACROSS ALL AREAS OF OUR COMMUNITY. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A WORK WITH PEOPLE OF THIS CALIBRE. I have never seen before. And I want to commend our mayor. Again, we have not always agreed, but I want to commend the mayor for sticking up what's right. And I've told him to his face that I commend him. And they thought they could control him, that they could put him in a box, that they could tell him what to do. And he stood up because one thing about my brother, he believes in God. And if anybody's saved, I know he's saved. And I thank God for that, what it came down to it. And also when you see how people are being treated, He stood up for that. If you want to come to work every day and enjoy your job and do what you want to do because you love it, then you get treated like crap by people who are horrible. Send you emails, 10, 20 emails a day. That is harassment. And people, when you use the word of God and be children of God, I've never seen it in the Bible where you treat other people like evil, horrible people. That's not God. You're not showing me the actions of Jesus Christ. That's not what he does.

Ms. Timmer, and then we're going to call the vote.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Dr. Wilder, at some point I would love to have a discussion about specific examples because there's a lot of grandiose language that comes out about treating people like trash. And you include me in those comments, Dr. Wilder, and I would welcome some specific examples because each statement that I have made of concerns has specific time stamps, has specific footnotes and references. It's why I often write my comments in advance. So if we are not going to have the opportunity to deal with the discussions of the issues at hand and how that impacts our citizens, then I don't know what we're doing here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Mayor.

I'm going to call the vote. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just real quick. It'll be 10 seconds. 10 seconds. I'm withdrawing my motion. Therefore, your substitute motion is dead. Motion is withdrawn. And with that, I'll make a new motion to honor what the city attorney said, that we go into closed session and we change the consultation with Hope Towns, which is what he told us in an email was going to happen. We've got a point of order. I'll make that as a motion.

We've got a point of order. Chris? The motion before the council must be dealt with prior to the aforementioned motion can be reconsidered. Do you have a point to it? I'm withdrawing my motion.

There's no more substitute. You can't have a substitute motion of a motion that doesn't exist. I have a right to withdraw my motion.

Martin, can you slow down? Some of us aren't as quick as you are.

Sorry, your IQ can't get up.

Substitute motion. Substitute motion? Yes. The table? That's the substitute motion. Let's vote on the substitute motion.

Point of clarification, Mr. Mayor.

Point of clarification, Mr. Mayor? So with the substitute motion to table this indefinitely, does that mean we're instituting indefinite automatic pay increases for some of our most highly paid bureaucrats? That's indefinite is indefinite. So are we instituting indefinite pay increases for some of our most highly paid staff members in the city organization, and especially when you look at the incredible pay raises in the city manager's office, I'm asking you, point of clarification, with this tabling it indefinitely, indefinite is indefinite, does that mean they're indefinitely... Until the mayor decides to bring it back. Okay, that's not indefinite, though. That's like you're a king. So are you a king or are you the mayor? I am a king. Everybody heard it.

No, you're not.

You are not a king. And my king is in heaven. Yeah, you are not a king, Mr. Mayor. You're not the king of Lynchburg. Let's vote. You are a council member at large, just like myself and Stephanie Reed. There's no difference. Let's vote.

Vice Mayor Dean, we're waiting for yours.

I'm putting my machine away. I'm not voting for any motion from a guy who thinks he's the king.

You can put me down for no on the substitute.

Okay. The motion passes 4-3. Now it becomes the main motion.

Mr. Mayor?

I'm going to speak to the main motion now. And this is an absolute travesty. You know what this is? This is zero accountability for you all. That's what this motion does. Indefinite is indefinite. We don't have Kings and Lynchburg. We don't have, no, I'm speaking, Mr. Mayor, I have the floor. The indefinite is indefinite. Our rules of procedure are clear. It's indefinite. That means it's not coming back. That means no evaluations, no accountability for some of our most highly paid staff members. in the city, zero accountability for you all. You know, I've been dealing today with somebody who had their water cut off on Friday with no notice. You know what? I got zero feedback. The mayor knew about it, never heard from him. He didn't care about this person's water getting cut off. Didn't hear about it from the city manager or the deputy city manager who got the text message. But you know what? I dealt with it at 1030 at night on Friday night.

And you know what? That person illegally turned his water on.

I hope Mr. Barker is watching and it's unfortunate you have legislative immunity for this because that is a complete lie. To hear him talk about citizens like that is disgusting. The city just gave him a $10,000 check back earlier this year because they screwed up his water account. Mr. Mayor, you're being lied to.

This is tabling indefinitely. Let me reset the vote.

Got them on the record, zero accountability. Yep. Just go cut people's water off, no notice. Against Virginia law.

Waiting for your vote, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Vice Mayor.

It's a state code that protects people from that.

Mr. Vice Mayor.

No.

The motion fails, 2-5. Oh.

So that means that it's back on the table. So with that, I'll make a motion. Meeting adjourned. It's back on the table.

That means it comes up as unfinished business in the next meeting. Meeting adjourned.