Remarks by Cesar Zepeda
92 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 4
It actually doesn't say that. That's the sentence before that. But okay. As long as the attorney is okay with that. Okay.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Page 13 references suspensions of the rules. So in order to not follow the rule as it's written, then that means we must suspend our own rules that the council voted for. So to move something, we must suspend something.
Well, it's not up to the mayor. The council rules. So the city attorney has to find out.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
So similar. So you're comparing it against Flock, right? And Flock, it's the big name out there. Everyone knows. And I think there's a lot more information on them. So I'm just trying to figure out. So would Axion have similar issues as Flock would? And I know that you're saying in terms of the contracts, but I'm talking about more in regards to the like my understanding from them is that they it's a closed system it's ours they don't have access to it it's it would be on their on networks I think we're going to be storing it on Amazon I think right and it's it's network that we use for a lot…
Slide 12 says can you get out cleanly can vendor terms can claim a perpetual right to use the city data? My understanding is that if we ever terminate or first up if we ever start with them and then if we ever terminate with them that the data is ours. They don't hold on to it. They don't access it. It's ours. So again, I'm trying to look at some to see because all this information here is it's on it's on flock, but it appears that we're no longer going to be contracting with that, right? So we're pivoting. So now as we're pivoting, and I think this is a question that some of my other…
Thank you for that. Trying to read my own writing here. Can you define a little bit between accessible versus accessed? And we went in council maybe about a year ago, we went over this with our previous chief. So, because the numbers that you were giving are really scary, right? You were saying thousands of searches for Richmond. One is being accessible, but two is being actually accessed because someone looked and Richmond appear in some list doesn't mean they actually looked at our data. And I don't know if the chief is around, but maybe the chief can help answer that as well. If he may…
Chief, while you're there, if I may, so there was a reference that there was searches past 30 days. And now I think that we want to distinct as well that there's before you turned off the cameras and then after, and then you make changes to the way that the flock was accessed. So currently, are people able to search past 30 days?
Chief, just to confirm, when did that, was that a new? or was that since the beginning, or when did that change?
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Thank you. Thank you. Want to learn a little bit more about to see if there's a great data in here. I want to learn a little more. I know we focus on potential data breaches, all the searches and stuff. Do you happen to have any data on, and this was actually some of the direction council gave last meeting. Do you have any data on how some of the ALPRs are helping some communities potentially? pros and cons, right? Any data on how many illegal dumpings they've caught, how many murders they've been able to catch, how many kidnappers they've been able to catch? When our system went down, there…
Thank you. Thank you. Could we hear from the chief still?
I don't know if he's still there. Okay. Okay.
It will be focused on the actual motion and not on the item. So I still want to speak to the whole item.
Thank you. I'll make an alternate motion. My alternate motion is to approve everything as it is. and having us opportunity because my understanding is that we need about 60 plus days for the contracting to go through. So if we don't vote for them to look at the Exxon contract, then we're not going to have enough time before January. So my motion is to approve everything as is. but making sure that we have a way out after that report comes back to us. So if the report comes back to us mid November and we don't like what we find, then that we then get out because we're not signing the contract…
Yeah, so I made up the November date because I wasn't able to ask more questions. So I'm assuming that the report that we asked for will be coming to us sometime in November because we're not even going to be able to vote on that item. So I'm assuming it's going to move to October. By that time, we're probably not going to get the report until sometime in November. What I'm getting at is that we start moving forward with doing the contract amendments because that's going to take about 60 days. And then by November... Once we get the report, then there we can say, okay, we don't want to…
Yeah, so moving with just about everything as is, what the only difference is that they bring the final contract amendment for a final approval after the data, but they continue moving it forward but not finalizing it until we get the data.
That's also California law that we can I believe that would apply to the government as well, that we can come out of it. But again, the intent is to move it and moving it forward so that they. The legal team, the financial team, everyone can kind of look at everything, bringing it back to us more finalized versus starting it back up, which I believe is what Hanselman-Rubano's original motion was, was to not look at that contract.
I would be more comfortable to do work to tee something up but not say yes we're going to sign it until we get the data back and I'm wondering what your the intent of your motion was just what you mentioned so the intent is to kind of tee it up because it might take us 60 days to get it rolling so we tee it up and then once it's more complete with everything that we're asking for then it comes back to us maybe the same day that we will get the report and then at that time we can say based on the report we're not going to move forward with it or based on the report we do move forward with it…
I have a second from Council Member Brown.
Would he be willing to break it apart? The intent is to prove the Verkada one and the others, and then for the Exxon one to continue to start working on, as the city attorney mentioned, start working on the amendment with all the pieces that we're going to need. Because we can't start later on. So we should be starting that now, hopefully by tomorrow, and be ready to have something to come back to us to do the final, final.
No, it's been the same. I'm just trying to clarify to make sure that people understand what I was saying. Because what I understand. Well, it's hard to understand what you're saying when you keep changing it.
When are we looking back, Council Member Bonner?
When are you looking to bring back the ALPR piece of the contract?