City Council - Regular Meeting

microphones are live

No, I have not

The chair will call the July 7th, 2026 meeting of the city council to order. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag 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.

Clerk Redpath, can you please call the roll?

Yes, ma'am. Alderman Cox. Alderman Gregory?

Here.

Alderman Williams?

Here.

Alderman Rockford?

Here.

Alderman Purchase? Here. Alderman Notriano?

Here.

Alderman Carlson? Here. Alderman Conley?

Present.

Alderman Donnelly? Here. Alderman Hanauer? Here. Mayor Busher?

Present.

Mayor, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Can I get a motion from the council to allow Alderman Cox to join by phone? So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. Welcome Alderman Cox. You're welcome. The civility pledge and the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being respectful of others, acknowledging that we are all striving to support and improve our community, and understanding that we each may have different ideas for achieving that objective. This time I'm going to go to the podium for a proclamation we have this evening. And may I invite Angie Sol, the Chief Executive Officer of the YMCA, and Lou Bart, the Communications Director of the YMCA, to join me. How are you?

Good, thank you.

Good. Do you want to speak before the proclamation? Read it? Okay. So I have these wonderful people next to me this evening because we are going to talk about YMCA soccer tonight, which welcome to all the players in the front row. We're glad you're here with us. The city of Springfield recognizes the importance of youth sports in building character, developing leadership, promoting healthy lifestyles, and uniting communities. In 1966, a group of immigrant soccer advocates, including Yavuz Gunulsun, Harold Christofalakis, which There he is. There's Harold. John Watts, Frank Buckmaster, Frank Mercado, and Walter Reed, with a shared vision, helped establish the first YMCA men's soccer team in Springfield. This dedicated group approached Walter Brantley, the YMCA youth liaison, to secure a field for the new team. Brantley challenged them to create a youth soccer league, and the first YMCA kids league played soccer on a field at the former Route 66 drive-in How many of you have been to the drive-in? Have you been there? Yeah. It's where the first field was. Mowed by hand and lined by the coaches themselves, demonstrating the dedication, passion, and perseverance that would become the foundation of YMCA soccer in Springfield. The YMCA soccer program grew rapidly throughout the 1970s, expanding from its humble beginnings to serve more than 1,200 players on 58 teams by 1976, and growing further by 1978 to include 117 teams, 18 divisions, and more than 3,000 young athletes. In May of 1976, the Springfield YMCA Soccer Club proposed to District 186 the creation of a high school soccer program. Through a partnership in which local high schools provided fields and the YMCA Soccer Club provided coaches and referees, high school soccer was established in Springfield and became a lasting part of the community. Aiden Knolson and later David Hicks, who is also with us here today, there he is, served as YMCA soccer coordinators for more than 20 years, helping guide the youth soccer program's tremendous growth by establishing competitive divisions and leagues and expanding opportunities for countless young athletes. The YMCA soccer program has served as the foundation for the growth of soccer throughout Sangamon County, with middle school, high school, and club soccer programs at the University of Illinois Springfield and Lincoln Land Community College, all of which trace their origins back to YMCA soccer. Generations of young athletes have benefited from YMCA soccer by learning teamwork, sportsmanship, discipline, and perseverance with many ongoing to achieve their success at the highest levels of competition. The success of soccer in Springfield today would not have been possible without the vision and determination of our early pioneers, the commitment of the YMCA leaders and the volunteers, and the sustained dedication of coaches, referees, parents, and players who have supported this program for over six decades. The YMCA of Springfield continues its proud tradition of delivering high-quality youth sports, programs that strengthen our community, and help young people develop healthy bodies, minds, and spirits. Therefore, I, Misty Buescher, Mayor of the City of Springfield, together with the City Council here behind me, recognize today as the 60th anniversary of YMCA Youth Soccer and give this proclamation to its Chief Executive Officer, Angie Soule. Thank you. Now we're going to hear from Angie and Lou but I think Alderman Hanauer wanted to stand down here with you because were you involved with you soccer Alderman Hanauer?

I coached a little bit out there out of UIS but I was when they came to me and asked about getting the fields out west I dove in 100% and we were able to get it done and it's great to have it and they've been very good neighbors with the neighborhoods and that so It's been very positive. And, you know, I see Pete out there. Pete's come up through it. And, of course, Harold, you know, it's great to see him too. I wish we could have had a USA win last night to really bring up the, you know. That hurt.

And Alderwoman Conley, you were involved with youth soccer also, right?

I think I coached for close to 10 years at the Y. We have two coaches here. It was a huge part of my family's weekends. I set up those nets at UIS more times than I can count. Love the new fields. You guys, it looks fabulous out there. My son was in town visiting this weekend, and I drove him by, and he's like, oh. That's pretty sweet. It's beautiful. Yeah, a huge part of our community, and I love to see the thriving and the way this program is growing. And excited to see our new champions here, the Bananas, right? Yeah. Awesome.

Step away and let Angie hold that for you. Thank you, Mayor. Absolutely.

Welcome, everybody. I just want to take a couple of minutes on behalf of the YMCA and thank you for inviting us to be here and for this wonderful 60-year recognition. It's kind of hard to imagine 60 years ago where it is now, but it really started as a vision, a place for kids to come and learn about the game, maybe and hopefully fall in love with the game, learn about being a good teammate and team spirit and how to win graciously and to lose graciously. And over the course of six decades, it's grown into what it is now. And the mayor just shared some of those amazing statistics. If you think 3,000 kids a year by 60 years, the number of lives that have been touched by this program is almost hard to fathom. But for many families, it was their first exposure to not only the YMCA, but to youth sports. And we all know, you wouldn't be sitting here if you didn't agree, all the life lessons that come from youth sports and being involved in a team, taking direction from a coach, somebody different than mom and dad, all of that's so important. And we just think for six generations we've been able to share that, share that spirit. And the one thing about the Y program is there's a place for everybody. Doesn't matter your skill level, you've always been included and involved and able to play. And where we celebrate the champions, we celebrate those too who have learned a new skill or helped a teammate score a goal, all that is part of the program. So really this milestone belongs to all of you, everybody that has had a foot or a hand, if you will, in the sport and the growth of it, whose kids have played, who they've coached, volunteered, officiated, sold popcorn. It takes a village, but really this milestone belongs to all of you, and we thank you for that. And I just want to thank the city of Springfield for the proclamation and giving us the opportunity to be recognized and be honored this way. Thank you.

And quickly, I want to recognize a few people. First of all, on the council, who played soccer for Y? I know, Treasurer?

I had two boys who played.

I played through high school. That was word stop.

That's great. We appreciate it. It's really fitting that we're celebrating 60 years of Y soccer in a World Cup year. And it's interesting because, and one that's being played in the U.S., You know, I always said, and Pete helped me out with this, and Dave, when we were studying the history of why soccer, what about, you know, 1966, you know, people in Springfield probably thought soccer was a communist plot, right? You know, people hadn't even seen it. But what was interesting about that year and what was the spark was that 1966 was a World Cup year. So that's kind of fun. It was held in England. So it was a broadcast in English. And for the first time ever, it was shown in the United States. NBC picked it up. They picked up the finals. So they just picked it up right up from BBC. And it was broadcast to homes here. And it was on right before their MLB game of the week on Sunday. So I tried to figure out what the ratings. They didn't have it on there. But a lot of people saw that. And it was a spark for soccer. And then with the folks, the pioneers that really helped start that here, It really took off. So interesting story that we're also celebrating this in a World Cup year. The team here is the Banana Falcons. They are our champion U-14s, who are our highest division team. They were the champions, played a heck of a game out there a few weeks ago, and they're here. And I'd like to have their coach, Mike Pesci, say a few words about Y Soccer and about these folks.

Thank you Lou. Just to reiterate, the program from the YMCA is excellent. Thank you Alex, thank you Lou, thank you Angie. It gets better and better and better. A quick thanks to all these players in here. They come from different ages, different backgrounds. They play different activities, different sports, and they put it all out there every time. So I thank you guys very much, especially the parents. Parents get these kids everywhere in all of their events. The Christopher Lockett's family started this thing. I played back when it was the drive-in way back in the day. Pete and I, rivals, teammates, good friends forever. The whole Christopher Lockers family. Thank you. Thank you, coaches, for sticking up. Thanks, again, to all the parents. So let's just keep this going. It's getting better and better, and I really appreciate all the volunteers and everybody. So thank you, guys. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, let me just – I'm going to be honest with you.

And then lastly, but not leastly, I want to recognize Harold Christopoulakis. And this fourth row here is the entire Christopoulakis, or well, not entire. That would take up multiple rows. But I got to tell you, the greatest thing about this family is I get the pleasure, get choked up a little bit, I get the pleasure every week, mostly, of driving Harold out to the fields. And so we always get to chat. But this is a family that two twins over here, Pete and Stephanie's twins, they play Y soccer. I think most everybody else did. And the whole family comes out to watch every week. So it's really a great thing. Really appreciate everything they've done. I think, Rene, were you going to make a couple comments, if that's okay? Okay.

You can thank Lou for that.

Thanks Lou. Now I'm a little tearful. Okay. Thank you to the past and present city councils for supporting soccer in Springfield and also in our businesses here in Springfield. The Chris Flock his family appreciates everything that you guys have done for all of us all through the years. Uh, 60 great years of soccer. Um, my dad, uh, was part of the beginning. He donated the soccer goals that first were used, him along with all his friends, his best friends, Aiden and Yavuz, Gunnelson, Uncle George, John Watts, all the good oldies. And John Watts and I spent many, many Saturdays along with Dave Hicks at Soccer World. We had a wonderful and we still have a wonderful relationship with the Y at Soccer World and we thank them for that and for bringing the kids in to keep playing. John Watson, his wife, would be out at the Y fields lining the fields in the dark. She had a flashlight and John had the roller. My dad, Iden Yavuz, everybody was always there. And so it is so wonderful to see it still thriving and for you guys to be playing. And Patchy, where are you? Patchy's been around. and it's awesome to see him now coaching because I was chasing him around yelling at him at Soccer World when he was five and six years old. So again, my dad donated soccer goals, helped start it, 30 years of coaching, me, Maria, Peter, and then into his grandkids, he's there on the sidelines yelling just like he did for us when we were young. So it's a wonderful thing and my mom is right there next to him. all of our friends that are no longer with us we wish that they were here today to see all of this because they would be very proud they came from They came from nothing and they made a life here in the U.S. that was a dream. And this is what it's created. So thank you all. And to the YMCA, keep it up. You've made us proud. And as second generation and now third generation of our children, it's a wonderful thing to see all of this grow and to see the future is bright for soccer in Springfield. So thank you all.

And we'll have everybody on the team, the Christopher Lockers, Pete, everybody associated with white soccer would get up for a picture if you would, in council. So kind of like a little horseshoe. You guys in front, okay.

We'll do a picture with the bananas.

Yep. You guys kind of stay in front of this. Should I do my Harold imitation? Should I do my Harold imitation? I built like a hundred soccer fields out here. I'll get back here.

Keep coming, keep coming.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Just so the council will know, your voting machines, the ordinances will show up on your screen, I believe, but the voting machines are down, so we will take voice votes tonight, just so the council knows, okay? Thank you. the chair will now entertain a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the June 16th, 2026 regular city council meeting and approve the minutes. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion say yes. All those opposed, no. The motion carries. The chair will now entertain a motion to incorporate the pre-council first reading of ordinances into the record of this council meeting. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? And my screen is not up, so... You'll have to tell me if there's discussion. No discussion? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. If you need to comment on something, yeah, do the old-fashioned way and raise your hand like Alderman Gregory is showing you so that we can, because the machines aren't going to show that you want to speak. Are you just helping me as an actor, or do you need to speak? No, I'm not mad. Awesome.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

I appreciate it, Alderman. The next item on the agenda would be the consent agenda. The chair will entertain a motion to incorporate the pre-council reading of the consent agenda into the record of this council meeting. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor will say aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Thank you, Alderman. The chair will entertain a motion to place the consent agenda on final passage.

So moved.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, the voting will now be open. So Clerk Redpath will take a voice vote for the consent agenda.

Alderman Cox. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Hold up. Go ahead. No, you're good. It just needs to be a ball call.

Yeah, he is.

Alderman Cox.

Yes.

Alderman Gregory. Yes. Alderman Williams.

Yes.

Alderman Rockford. Aye. Alderman Natriano.

Yes.

Alderman Carlson. Aye. Alderman Conley.

Aye.

Alderman Donlon. Aye. Alderman Hanauer. Aye. Mayor Bush. Oh, don't need you.

So the motion passes with nine voting yes, none voting no, correct? Yes, ma'am. The next item on the agenda is 2026-294. It's being held in committee. Is there any action on this item at this time? Seeing none, we will move forward. The next item on the agenda is item number 2026-315, an ordinance authorizing payment to Flock Group Inc. DBA Flock Safety in the amount of $508,000 for the city's Falcon Automatic License Plate Readers, AELPRs, from March 1st, 2026 through February 28th, 2028, for the Springfield Police Department. Bless you. The chair will entertain a motion to place agenda item number 2026-315 on final passage. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second for final passage. Alderman Gregory has his hand up, so the acting worked.

Yes, Mayor. I would like to introduce amendment number one. I need a second. Second.

Second.

So we have a motion and a second for amendment number one. Alderman Gregory, do you want to discuss this amendment?

Sure. This amendment that I introduced, I know last week we talked about Flock, the company, and the access, and some of the hiccups, and I don't even want to call them hiccups, but some of the infringement on privacy that we have seen across the country. I did look up the ACLU's recommendations and all of these recommendations, THINGS LISTED HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE ACLU OF ILLINOIS AND NATIONAL STANDARDS THAT IS EFFECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AND TRUSTED BY MANY COMMUNITIES. AND IT'S SOME VERY SIMPLE THINGS THAT WE HAVE AND I'M JUST ASKING FOR THAT TO BE STANDARD AND BE GIVEN TO US FOR MULTIPLE THINGS, TRANSPARENCY, EQUITABLE, MAKING SURE THAT THESE THINGS ARE FAIR. And also reporting back to us so we as a council can come budget time, look to address these things in areas. So some of it, you know, the annual reporting, the number of stolen vehicles recovered, the number of violent felony investigations, the number of arrests resulting. It also codifies their existing policies. into our city code, and these are bare minimum. They always can get better. They always can get stronger, for sure. If we remember back in 2020, when our brother George Floyd was murdered, we again put in some things, and that chief then, we codified some of those, what do they call them, general orders from them. So this is no different. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't IT DOESN'T REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD COMPROMISE ACTIVE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, REVEAL CONFIDENTIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES OR JEOPARIZE PUBLIC SAFETY OTHERWISE REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONTRARY TO ILLINOIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. SO THESE THINGS IS WHAT I'VE DRAWN UP THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH. I STILL DON'T LIKE THE FLOCK AS THE COMPANY, AS WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THOSE THINGS. I feel these things help us protect our citizens and our officers as well. Thank you.

Alderman, I did not look this way, so I'm going to assume Hanauer was first. I apologize, I did not get to, I was looking at the alderman speaking, so I don't know who was first. Alderman Hanauer.

I guess that since a lot of this is on the police, has the police, who's here? Officer Dodd or Chief Dodd?

Deputy Chief Dodd is here, and then Commander Phillips is here as well.

You might both of them come up if you want, but...

Commander Phillips says no thanks.

You want to stay back there? Don't blame you. I just... Have you seen this yet, or do you...

I have not seen the amendment. Here, you can have that.

My concern is, I know there's a lot there, and I don't want to throw something on the police... at the last minute if they aren't able to take a good hard look at and comment on. We've had people complain about last-minute amendments up here before, and we just got this today, which is fine. That's part of the rules, but I think it's only fair that we allow the police to weigh in on this.

May I ask a question, Alderman? I know you have the floor, but may I ask a question? Yes, ma'am. Alderman Gregory, did this go to Chief Beal or Assistant Chief Leach? They're both not here right now, so I thought I'd ask.

No, both of them are out of town. I did reach out to them on a separate matter. But all of this is things that Chief Beal spoke on that they do already. They keep track of numbers and how many we pushed on how successful this has been, right? So all of this is saying we'll give us some numbers. Every year, give us some numbers. You know, there's nothing hard in this. The number of arrests that result indirectly from APL alerts, if there's a breach of it, to let the mayor and the council know in seven days. Simple. These are the simple things.

And I will just say this, and I just skimmed it. I didn't have a chance to read it all the way through, but I know one of them says the locations of all the flock. That's probably not something we want out. I don't know if, you know, there's certain things we, you know, that we don't want to let people know where things are. And that's, you know. The idea is to use these for criminal, to help solve crimes.

Absolutely. But I think we already have record. I think they already showed us record of where many of those are.

Alderman, I haven't had time to read this. Is it saying that the documentation should be public? I'm sorry, I haven't had time to read these three pages sitting here. What Alderman Hanauer brought up.

Well, of course, anything that is passed among us as counsels is subject to public record. But all of these is just asking for general numbers, not who you arrested, why, but just general information. And for me and my community, what I look to use systems like this for is to make change in those communities. So if we see that thousands of stolen cars have been recovered by our APL, our automatic license plate readers, then we need to do something different in that area. If we're seeing 1,000 cars getting stopped and pulled over directly from our automatic license plate readers and arrested for gun crimes and stuff, then we, as a council, need to look at those things. So none of this is things that they don't do. They're general orders. He sent it to us. All I'm asking for is those things to be codified in code, so therefore it can't. the minimum, the standards that's set can't go lower. That it can tighten up, we can get better at it if we want to, but we can't get lower than what they have. We all know that government changes, chiefs change, mayors change, aldermen change, but our responsibility to the community and their privacy and their constitutional rights should always stay the same. So it's not blocking them, it's not stopping them from doing anything, it's saying, hey, just give us a report.

Gotcha. Alderman Hanna, do you have anything else on the amendment

No, I just want to make sure whatever we're, we don't want to give sensitive information out, you know, that is my concern. So, and it may not be, but I, again, I just quickly breezed through it. And so I wasn't, you know, I wasn't able to ask the chief any questions about, you know, kind of a deep dive in it.

Okay. Alderman Conley, I know you're next. Do you mind if I ask Deputy Chief Dodd if he wants time to read this before we move on with questions, or do you mind? No, go right ahead. Would you like a minute to read this?

I'll just keep skimming through it if you guys are fine. While we're talking? Yeah, that's fine.

Okay, all right. Alderman Conley?

Thank you. And thank you, Alderman Gregory. We did get a copy of the existing policies. I agree this does look like it kind of just codifies that. We've had a conversation about this. We've had a couple of emails. I still have more questions. And I understand what alderman Hannah was saying about listing locations This just says general locations and that was actually going to be one of my questions for you tonight was to and I know this is So I'm going to kind of loosely tie all of my things to this amendment I've gotten a lot of a lot of questions about this ordinance I'm deeply concerned with flock as a company and and we've had that conversation so deeply concerned and not very comfortable with it. I will say, I think that this does kind of codify a lot of what we had talked about. And again, I'm reading very quickly. But it does say our total number, which we already know, we share that, but general locations. So one of the questions I had for you was, how do you pick locations for where these cameras go? What sort of process is used and how are they set?

So at the beginning, when we were looking at our partnership with Flock, kind of two different schools of thought of how you can deploy flock cameras. Another agency in our area decided to do a very focused deployment of them all around a certain neighborhood where they had higher crime. And so their array of cameras was very specific to that neighborhood. The other way to do it is kind of a citywide approach, and that's the direction that we looked at. So we looked at major thoroughfares coming in and out of the city because there is a huge amount of crime that happens in Springfield from people who aren't from Springfield, so traveling in and out of the city. So we did the ways in and out of the city, interstate access, in and out of Sherman, Taylorville, all those areas were covered. Then we looked at major thoroughfares that go through the city, main streets, to try and pick up as much information as possible. And then the third thing we looked at was historical crime data. Was there any holes in the system where we know this area could be affected by higher crime rates. And that was the last area where we put the cameras. So really our first focus was not to put them all in one area is how can we best use these cameras that we have to affect crime across the city. And that was our first main focus was to spread them out across the city to have the biggest effect, major roads going through,

Or by neighborhoods and then lastly was the crime statistics Okay, and so and then so some of the stuff in in the section one of this amendment I will say I think these are important reports for us to get as a council. In a lot of ways, again, we had a conversation about it, but I think some of the things that we were talking about are topics that people more broadly need to know more about. there is significant concern around privacy issues, tracking of vehicles, tracking of people through the use of these cameras. I know a lot of the people who reached out to me had concerns about face recognition, voice recognition technology. You have assured me multiple times that is not part of the system that we have. Our system does not take front of car pictures at all. Is that correct?

No. Inadvertently, it can pick up front of cars. If it's a smaller road and it's picking them up, obviously there can be cursory. But the focus of the flock cameras is the rear license plate because every state in the union requires a rear license plate. Not every state requires a front. So they've tailored their service to solely focus on the rear license plate of a car. When you look at the images, it's not a close-up image of the car. You're looking at it like you're probably 20, 25 feet away. So you get the whole back of the car. You can see the entire car. rear end of the car, it's focused on the license plate and you see the area around it. So are there pictures that inadvertently are of cars going in the other direction? Yes, but that's not the focus of the technology. They don't pick up audio and they're not a live feed video. It's solely pictures that are captured by our cameras.

And one of the things that we talked about was that you are seeing an increase in stolen vehicles being recovered.

Yes.

As a result of this. And so again, Alderman, I think it's great that you include number of stolen vehicles recovered through the use of this technology, the number of violent felony investigations where this materially assisted the police department in their investigation. you know we we've talked about this i've talked with this with you with with the chief with with prior chiefs having an informed city council and having us understand what tools that you have are effective how they're effective in what ways you're using them makes it easier for us to understand what they're being used for and and again to have a level of support and comfort with something like this because this one's not sitting easily. When we talked about that too, again, I mentioned it last week, but the concept of tracking women who come into Illinois for healthcare purposes is DEEPLY DISTURBING TO ME. I KNOW THAT WE AS A POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE NOT DOING THAT, AND WE'VE TALKED A COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT HOW IS THIS DATA MAINTAINED, BUT ON THE SECOND HALF OF THE NEXT HALF OF THIS AMENDMENT, ONE OF THE THINGS, AND AGAIN, I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS, ALDERMAN GREGORY ASKING FOR INFORMATION ON security breaches and misuse. So this is, as I understand it, these are maintained by the police department. We have an automatic 30-day data destruction unless it's been tagged directly to a case.

Well, everything automatically, after 30 days, Flock automatically deletes it. So it's constantly, it runs through the system. 30 days after that picture is taken, it's off the system. There's no way for us to go back and recover it. It's not archived. It's not hidden somewhere in the software. 30 days and it's gone. So if we get aware of a case that happened 31 days ago, there's nothing we can do to go get that license plate data. Nothing is actually stored in flock. So if we have a hit or a vehicle read that is part of a case, we actually have to take it out of the flock and then we store it in our evidence.com digital evidence vault.

And I guess you kind of mentioned, you said two things right there that I've been, because we've that I've been thinking about a lot. Flock does the destruction after 30 days. And I think, again, my concerns are not with the police department. My concerns are with that particular company. And the fact that they have that ability to do that data destruction, again, leaves the question mark of do they have the ability then to access these images, to share or distribute them with or without our permission?

So when we were going through the RFP process, we looked at the three main vendors that are in the space of ALPRs within the country, Flock and the two others. One of the other two outright admitted that they kept and would sell the data that was captured by the cameras. They were much cheaper than Flock. The second company claimed that they wouldn't sell the data, but when I got a hold of the contract and read through it, there was a clause that clearly stated they could maintain and sell the data if they wanted to. So both of those in the RFP process, we scored very low because when we started this process, we wanted to protect the citizens' rights as much as possible. Flock was very hard pressed that it is an automatic 30 days. The other companies that we looked at, you could set your own retention policy. If you wanted 90 days, they'd give you 90 days. If you wanted longer than that, they'd give you longer than that. Flock from the time that it started throughout its history has been hard 30 days. If you don't get it within 30 days, It's gone. You can't change it. You can't modify it. I can't reach out to FLOG and say, hey, can we switch to 60 days? 30 days.

But do they have access to the data independent of the device?

They have limited access to the actual data in the scope for helping us as consumers. Like if we have an issue with the platform, they can go in under that limited scope. and look at that specific data. Other than that, they can take the aggregate data, which is stripped from all identifying information, license plates, it's really the number of plate reads, that type of information they can use to help improve their system, show statistics, and put out on their own sites, like, hey, this is how many plate reads Springfield has. It's completely stripped, and it's part of our contract, it's completely stripped of all identifying information.

So you mentioned our contract. Yes. And again, Alderman Gregory included that in this amendment. If there's any misuse of the data and there's any, again, uses other than stripped of but with identifying features included in it, what does our contract say then about ending? Can we contractually just end this contract with flock at that point? And what other recourse do we have if that were to happen?

So as part of our master service agreement with them, that they can use it for that limited scope, I would lean on corporation counsel if there's a violation of it, what our actual recourse would be. But I would believe that we'd be able to.

Yeah.

Sure. So in terms of a breach, any material breach of the agreement which you're describing, we would need to give notice and then we're allowed to terminate the agreement immediately. with 30 days notice.

And what other recourse do we have? Because again, when we're talking about a breach of data like this and a breach to a third party that is not subject to the same restrictions that our police department is, what other recourse do we have?

So if there's a breach of our security system, we could seek monetary damages to the extent that we're harmed. Specific performance, we couldn't undo that. So we would what we would pursue most likely is termination and then monetary damages.

So part of the contract, the city of Springfield SPD specifically owns the actual plate reads that come through. That is our data. So flock can't then take that data and sell it to a third party. So that is our data. We own it.

So can I just ask a question? Because you keep saying sell. What if it's not a purchase or sale agreement, but it's actually just sharing? Can Flock share our data with anyone?

I can speak to that, Alderman. So the footage... that comes through these cameras is defined as proprietary information, and it's not allowed to be disclosed outside of the agency, which is the Springfield Police Department. What Flock is allowed to do is aggregate the data, not the footage, but this number of cars or this many.

Again, that broader stripped of identifying features.

Right, stripped of all identifying features, but any disclosure of the footage that happens on these Flock cameras would violate the confidentiality provisions of the contract.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

So SPD, we choose what agencies we want to share our data with. And as a policy, after Texas made some laws that we don't agree with, we turned off our nationwide sharing. So other parts of the country, you can do a search and it'll hit any agency that has opened up their flock camera system and their information. to nationwide sharing. Ours is not. It's hidden from that. So if someone from Texas wants to hit Springfield's ARPR, they can't reach it. It's hidden from them.

And FLOC cannot share that. They can't go through FLOC to get to our data.

No, they can't go through FLOC to get it. And the other thing that we have set up is Chief Beal talked last week about how we share with neighboring departments in our area. So our standard right now is within 50 miles. If an agency gets FLOC, they can get access to ours because of how close we are. outside of that 50-mile radius within the state of Illinois, even Illinois agencies have to send a request to SPD to then get access to our data. So we share with a decent amount of Illinois towns, municipalities, counties, but I have a list on my computer right now of over 100 agencies within the state of Illinois that have requested access to our data. I don't do anything with them. Generally what happens, if there's a case in a municipality where they think they could have information down here, they either reach out to us directly or they'll go through flock to reach out to us saying, Hey, can we access your system? And then that gives us the opportunity. Why do you want to access to our system? What are you looking for? So we're not open to the entire state. We're not open outside the state of Illinois at all. We don't share with federal law enforcement agencies. Our, um, SECURITY AND SETTINGS WITHIN FLOCK PROHIBIT ANY SEARCHES BASED ON IMMIGRATION STATUS OR REPRODUCTIVE CARE.

AND THOSE CONFIDENTIALITY RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE CONTAINED WITHIN OUR DATA, THAT CARRIES IF WE WERE TO WORK WITH ANOTHER AGENCY WITHIN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. THOSE RESTRICTIONS STILL APPLY. SO SOMEONE ELSE CAN'T COME AND TAKE OUR STUFF AND THEN SHARE IT Okay, I will just say, Alderman Grege, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD AMENDMENT. I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. I'M SORRY. I WISH WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN IT A LITTLE EARLIER BUT I DO LIKE THIS A LOT BECAUSE AGAIN GOING TO THE SECTION 3 WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOTIFICATION OF SECURITY BREACHES AND THIS IS AGAIN SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE HAD KIND OF A DETAILED CONVERSATION ABOUT, THE FACT THAT THIS IS A SYSTEM THAT INVOLVES HUMAN BEINGS AND HUMAN BEINGS WILL will do not always make good choices and decisions. And I appreciate that this would require that we as a council are notified when there has been a misuse. It doesn't, I think, and Alderman Gregory, if you don't mind, Mayor, I just want to ask, this doesn't really necessarily say we need to get... names or or things like that but just that something happened and that we get notification of it and that we understand how this was resolved is that correct absolutely okay so um because i've been reading on some very um disturbing abuses of flock of these cameras in other departments and and again, I appreciate that the that that Springfield has Internal controls and we talked about that that you track you have to have a case number that it's there's Documentation every time how often how long is that right someone's well any any search?

In itself doesn't tell us it doesn't track time, but everything is time and date stamped and

That's what I meant.

So that everything, yeah. Okay. So it's all there.

So we have procedures and protocols in place to ensure that there is a gate checking, even on our own officers, that there aren't abuses of this. And I know, obviously, you're probably trying to skim and answer me, and I appreciate that, but- I think those are the ends of my questions. Those were the questions I still had outstanding. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Alderman Donlan.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Chief. Alderman Gregory, everything you stated when you summarized this, I can honestly say that there are questions that we have asked or should be asking about this particular program. I think the program has been extremely successful. The department has done a good job when I met with you individually in answering those questions that I've had and even in this room. But I want to ask a couple of questions. I'll give you a few minutes to take a look at the actual document.

I'll give it a shot.

And you've done a great job thus far, Chief. But Corporation Counsel, I know you passed this out right before the meeting. Have you had an opportunity to review the document? Did you have an opportunity beforehand?

Not in detail, no. I received it today.

Okay. And... That's fine. I'll ask it anyway. Are you comfortable that this allows the department to continue to do what they've been doing, utilizing the product and system?

We could continue to utilize the system. What I would prefer to do or... What I would have talked with the department about is how often we've changed the operating procedures for this or what comes up. We change standing orders quite a bit when new case law comes out or new best practices come out. This allows for modification only when to comply with changes in state or federal law and not maybe best practices being updated. So we need to come to city council to update those standing orders. as we sit here, I don't know how frequently we've done that with flock. Um, so that's just a question mark that I have. Um, but I think we would still be able to utilize the program. I think that would be a question. Um, my, my question, one of my questions regarding this.

Yeah, we, we have had to change and modify the, um, ops eight, which is our general order that covers the license plate readers a handful of times. My concern with, Section 2 on that, and I guess it would be a question for Alderman Gregory, is the Texas law, for example. We were able to very quickly pivot, make modifications within our system, contact FLOC, hey, this is what we want to do. They were tracking. We got it done in an extremely short amount of time. If something like that were to happen again, to bring something in front of the council for an ordinance to to change this amendment. That's my concern is, you know, if there's case law, something changes, we want to be able to pivot to best practice as soon as possible. And unfortunately, we're all in the government. We know that there could be delays in trying to present something in front of the council before we could do it. That's a concern I have on section two.

Alderman Gregory, sorry to interrupt you. Would you mind if we, no, no, no, it's okay. Would you mind if we, we'll all keep track with the note, but possibly we could amend your amendment to say if they want to make the rules stricter, they can do it themselves. They just can't make it looser without council approval. Just think about that if you would.

Yep.

That way they have the ability internally to make stricter rules. rules in place without having to come to council, but not looser rules, which I think would be what would concern you would be the looser rules.

I thought that's what we were getting at with the minimum, you know, where we're at the minimum now. And if, you know, let's say the minimum was before they, um, the Texas law thing came in was the minimum was how they was doing it before. And they seen that and they wanted them that tightens it up.

So they're always able to, but that way they can tighten it up themselves. Yeah. Okay.

Just think about that. Absolutely. Sorry. Thank you, sir. And we can make that language clear.

Perfect. Okay. Alderman Donlan, you have more?

Yeah, I do, Mayor, and thank you for that. Thank you, Alderman. I like when things organically move to a positive direction, so thank you all for the comments. You know, I, too, share the concerns about the data sharing and want to ensure, and what I heard last week from the Chief is that, you know, we are, and heard it again this evening, that we have rules and procedures and our practices in place to protect us, but quite frankly, I've learned that I'm very reluctant to trust not referring to you, but any company, and I don't like what I've read. It's very concerning. But one question I do have that came up while you were speaking, Chief, is how does Flock have the ability to delete something, and maybe it's just semantics of language here, after 30 days or at the 30-day mark, or is the, May I answer my own question or is the application or software set up so that after 30 days? It's automatically deleted unless we take some precaution in other words.

They don't come in and delete do they let me Let me try and find the specific language in the contract that talks about the retention and I'm thinking I think it's in here somewhere. But, yeah, my understanding is it's just removed from the system.

It's set up that way, basically.

I can't get into semantics on how.

And I don't need to put it on the spot like that. But my point was that you're saying that it's our data, we own it, it's protected by us, yet the software itself is set up. Unless we take steps to tag something because there's an active investigation or what have you, then it automatically disappears.

Yep.

Okay. That's an important distinction.

Yeah. I can confirm that after the 30 days, we no longer have access to the data. All the data is actually stored on a CJIS-compliant server that Flock has. So we basically port in and can see the data that is in our little section of the server, and then however they get rid of it after the 30 days, it's just gone as far as we know.

Thank you, Chief. And I think that, again, the key question here is what does this change? What should we be asking for? A lot of good questions on this sheet. The suggestions I heard you all talking about that I know Alderman Gregory is going to respond to more materially is a good suggestion and allows you the flexibility to tighten it up if we need to, but not loosen it up. Thank you, Mayor. That's all I have at the moment.

Alderwoman Notriano. Thank you, Mayor. She had her hand up earlier before you did. I'm sorry. You're next. Yep. I have you down. The lady was first, Alderman. The lady was first. Alderwoman Notriano.

Thank you, Mayor. So how long has Springfield Police Department been using automatic license plate readers?

2022, I believe, is when we got everything.

Okay. And they've always been through FLOC?

Yes.

Okay. Okay. And so when you looked at those other vendors, was it in 2022?

I think we probably started this process in 2021 going through stuff. I'd have to go back through my notes and files and all that. But yeah, it's always been with flock.

Okay. Okay. I, um, and so this came to us as a sole source. Um, Based on the outreach that I've received from constituents, there is very little public trust in this company. And so I think it would behoove us the next chance we get to put out a broader call and perhaps take another look at other vendors since so much time has passed. It's just my suggestion to you and to the administration. I also want to remind my colleagues that our job up here is to provide oversight for the police department. So I understand that you want to make sure that this isn't going to upset the apple cart too much. But we have citizens with very real and very serious concerns And so we should be focused on those concerns and making sure that we're doing what is in our responsibility to do to make sure that we're using this tool the best way possible and in a legal way. So I didn't understand quite. So the agency is within 50 miles. They're able to get onto their flock systems and search ours, or do they still have to go through us?

They can, the way flock is set up, that if they do a search, they can either pick just their own camera array, or they can click on the button that says cameras that are shared. And so ours are shared because of all the stuff, like Decatur is a prime example. Similar cases, similar people coming back and forth. We've opted to share with them, and they share with us. So if we have an incident that happens in Springfield, when we do a search, we can either just search ours, or we can say, hey, did this car, you know, is there a nexus to Decatur, and we can search Decatur's.

Okay. And do you have a data sharing agreement with Springfield or Decatur Police? Okay. Good. Yeah, so that would be good. And to point 10 on this amendment in the first section, it would definitely be good for us to know and make publicly available the other agencies who can go in and on their own do a search of our data. So I got an email today. I was just looking at it as I was walking in from a constituent who's concerned about privacy rights. And I'm not sure if you can speak to this or not. I hate to catch you off guard. But they say, looking at a website, they say that just in May, Springfield officers searched 571 different flock networks with the reason of traffic infraction. Can you speak to that at all?

What was the officer's name?

Oh, just in general, Springfield police officers.

Oh, I thought you gave a specific.

No. Mm-mm. have conducted 571 different flock network searches for traffic infractions. Can you speak to that at all?

So flock doesn't track traffic speeds, anything like that. It just takes pictures of the plate. We can't tell how fast a car was going. We can't tell if they stopped at a red light. We can't tell if they're illegally merging or not using their turn signal.

But, like, when our officer goes in and does a search, don't they have to, like, pick from a drop-down menu? I'm searching this.

So, yeah, there is a handful of reasons, and I can actually, I believe I have the statistics. So, within the past 30 days, the top 10 searches of our flock was motor vehicle theft, 1,243 searches, weapons offenses, 730, hit-and-run accidents, 477, wanted persons, 460, Fleeing, 440. Larceny and theft, 395. Burglary, 276. Drugs and narcotics, 227. Domestic assaults and batteries, 177. And assault and batteries, 165. So traffic is, I'd be interested to see where they're getting that data from.

It's a website, haveibeenflocked.com.

Yeah.

WHICH I'M TELLING YOU, GOT THIS TODAY. THIS IS ME WORKING THROUGH IT AS WELL. SO I HAVE NO IDEA, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, HAVE YOU HEARD OF THAT WEBSITE? AND IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT PARTICULAR SEARCH TERM. AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE, OR REASON FOR SEARCH. CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, IS THAT A SEARCH YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH?

NO.

Okay. Yeah, because, I mean, essentially this person is concerned that there would be searches for that, and I would also be concerned that there were searches for that. But, yeah.

No, we wouldn't use the search for any kind of traffic patterns or anything like that.

Okay.

That's not what is designed. It can't be. Flock can be used for some traffic, but it's accidents and hit and runs, which is key to why it's the third highest search up there.

Okay, good. And then do we search on behalf of the United States Marshal Service?

We have an officer who's assigned to the United States Marshal Service who has access to this system. So if he is part of a case and is looking for a violent fugitive, He has access to it solely for those. The rest of the marshal service does not have access into our system.

And so do we make a record of like that's that searches for that?

Yeah, we every time there's a search, we can see the officers. name, the reason for the search, and the case number that he's working on. So all that information is part of the audit.

So if we... And those are required fields?

Yes. So we know if he's searching it because that's his full-time job is to work with the Marshal Service, that's probably what he's doing. But all of that is captured within the audit.

Okay. Okay.

Great. The U.S. Marshals, FBI, DEA, ICE... They don't have direct access into our system.

Okay, okay. And so I don't know, Alderman Gregory, if you have something in there about those searches, searches done on behalf of federal agencies, but I would like to add that. So just some summary stats on that and those reasons, like, you know, is it, searching for a violent criminal or what have you. Yeah. So I truly believe that this technology is the future of policing. And I know I've seen firsthand that it is been helpful to the police department and I just wish that I and my constituents felt better about the company that we're using to do this so You know, I really would encourage you all to think about Just searching out other options as this contract allows. Thank you.

Alderman, I took note of your suggestion. And when we get done speaking on the amendment, we'll talk about those if you're okay with that. Okay, sure.

I see it's important to have in there, like our officers that are assigned to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. They should be able to access the system. Even though they're assigned to work with the FBI, it's a powerful tool. FBI's not searching it, but our guys who are assigned to those task forces, JTDF, Marshals, DEA, I don't think we can carve them out of this. I think it's such an important tool that they need to have access to it.

Yeah, and I think as long as there's oversight of it, you know, that's fine. It's on us to make sure that it's being used in accordance with the community's values and the laws.

100%.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Alderman Williams.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Chief. I won't prolong it because the majority of my concerns were discussed. A lot of things that my colleagues have asked. I really appreciate you all taking the time to really dig into this, but I got it down to three, so it'll be real quick. The first one, is there any type of agency that exists in this country, or maybe international, that does not need your permission to access our data? Or do all of them, and this is really important, do all of them have to request permission to get the data, or can they get it any other way without your permission? They cannot. They cannot? No matter what level of government?

The conversations I've had with FLOC and the calls that I've gotten from them on behalf of other agencies who are calling to request, unfortunately sometimes they're trying to reach out to me and have those conversations when there's other things going on. It's taken me a while, and they will harp on me. Hey, they really need access because of this specific case. Can you give them access so they can see your data?

No higher authority can say, Get the data. Trump can't tell you. Give me the data. And you can say I'm not doing it.

Yeah, we can say if I went in there today and say there's an issue over in Decatur and they're misusing it, I can, in one click, I can say, all right, Decatur, you can't see our stuff anymore. So we have complete control over who accesses the data. The same audit where I can see my officers that are searching it and the reasons they're searching it, that same audit shows me Officer X from Decatur searched it. What's the reason for this type of case? So it's not just audit on how our officers are using and looking in our data. It's anybody that touches our camera system. Anybody that is doing a search that hits the Springfield police department flock is logged in our audits.

And you're also saying flock can't get permission. Um, even though they're the company, because their contract says they can't, right? So they can't get the permission either. Okay. So to help all of us, I think it would be helpful, even no matter what we do tonight, this got me over the hump. The fact that he shared the amendment and said, hey, this is how maybe we can have Flock again for two more years. But without this, I couldn't support Flock. Maybe with this makes it much more easier. I will say that the amendment is a great amendment. I would have did some things different, but we ain't going to go through a whole bunch of discussion. I'm going to support it if it passes. All we have to do for some of what I'm hearing is look at why other Illinois, not Florida or Texas, Illinois municipalities fired Fox. why they quit, why they didn't renew, why they don't have flock anymore. The young lady that spoke, she gave you many examples around the country and within Illinois. Look at some of the reasons. That helps educate us on some of what seems like impossible that only Springfield, Illinois can do all this and can't no other, you know. Look at some of the reasons is all I'm going to ask not to hold up things. And then my last comment is going to be about locations. You know, Alderman Hanauer brought up locations we might not want. Well, there are flock maps out there. I mean, they've got the flock maps that show you the whole city, where they're at. Now, are they honest? Maybe that's the question. Are they good maps? Are they honest? But there's flock maps. Would you agree there's flock maps that exist where all the locations of our flock cameras are?

To be fair, I have. a map that shows me exactly where all the cameras are, so I've never looked outside of that. Have I been flocked? I don't know how accurate. They're not hard to spot. I mean, they're not camouflaged. You know what I mean? Once you know what a flocked camera looks like, they're pretty easy to see. But, no, I haven't compared our actual map with maps that are online.

I just wanted you to know that I don't think the thought of locations being secret is a part of any of this. Because there's all kinds of flock information out there as far as location is one of the big ones that constantly get searched. People want to know, is one near me, that kind of thing. So I appreciate you coming, Chief. I appreciate you answering the questions because it is an earful. I appreciate my colleagues because by the time it got to me, a lot of my stuff was... So maybe you should... Keep skipping me to that. Noted.

Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate you. Alderman Carlson.

Thank you, Mayor. Chief, so we've had this, what, for four or five years, and this is a two-year renewal. I mean, I want to turn it back to what FLOC is used for and the positive side of it. I mean, we've dealt with, I felt, some roadblocks and maybe some what-ifs. I mean, have we had any serious... issues the last two years or three years. I've only been on the council three years. Have we had issues with the use of it or have we had success stories? The use of it. I mean, by bad actors, bad police, anything. It's not the camera, it's the actors, it's the bad police as I see it. I mean, so, I mean, what it has done is it helps solve, as the chief said last week, use it 70% of the time to help solve issues in the city. Facts are homicides are down last year. Shootings are down the last year. I think in the end, and to me, one of the big, and I've had some people from my ward call me, and we've had great discussions. I've had some people in the ward that think we don't have enough flock cameras. We need more. We need more security. We need more safety. One person brought up that, you know what, we have the AMBER alert system in the state. If my kid is abducted in Peoria, Bloomington, or here, and the car is driving up 151 or through 55, I mean, I want all eyes and ears on that car once it identified. And this is the system, to me, that is going to identify it, is going to help solve that issue, help solve the, find the car.

I think we're all too familiar with, you know, cases in the, you know, 80s, 90s, early 2000s of child abductions where they have, oh, it was a white van. I hate to use such a stereotypical, but, you know, and that's who they believe. took the child, that would be nearly impossible to do in Springfield, because not only can we quickly identify the vehicle, get the plate, put it in the system, and track it. So that's the worst case scenario for the use of it, but in today's day and age, those type of cases would be solved much quicker, kids returned. We haven't had that locally. We have had an Amber Alert that came through town that hit Flock, and one of our detectives was able to do a traffic stop on it and help get the kid back so it is a very powerful tool you know it's hard to predict when we bring pieces of technology or different practices into the law enforcement how big of an impact it's going to have on reducing a crime in solving cases and almost immediately after flock was deployed and implemented within Springfield Police Department detectives were coming up and the constant comment they're making is this is the most powerful tool in law enforcement Because so many crimes are committed everywhere from homicides shootings obviously stolen motor vehicles retail thefts hit and runs so many of them have that Nexus to a vehicle and having the ability to quickly identify a Vehicle the correct vehicle and put that into a case to build it quicker It is a huge huge asset to law enforcement in keeping the city safe

I know it's not quite fair. We've all just had a short time to look at this. Do you see this as extra work doing some of this? I mean, I think to me, before you answer, I think we do have some controls and backstops already in place from Chief Beal last week and what you said tonight. Is there going to be extra work involved in tracking all this information?

So we currently, you know, if you look at Section 1, the police reporting and equitable deployment, right now, when an officer uses flock and it helps solve the case, they put it in the narrative of the report. There's not a button that they click or Mark when they're submitting that report that makes it easy to pull that data and say, all right, they use flock for this or this. So right now we don't have a mechanism in place to be able to produce the numbers in, in the specific details that are requesting this. Does it mean we can't develop something or we can't come up with something to help get the data that you're asking for, but I'm just saying right now that specific piece is something that we're going to have to work on internally. Codification of the AOPR policies, Section 2, I kind of already addressed my concern that we do need to be able to pivot quickly. I guess my question to you is if an agency reaches out to us, say whatever county up north, they want to have access to it, they have a good reason, we can still do that based on our policy and not have to come in front of council and say, you know what I mean? Nope. As long as we not weaken it.

And these are going to be our minimum standards. If you want to make it stronger and tougher, if we want to be like Madison, Wisconsin at the end of this 2028, um, contract and say, you know what? We don't like flock. We want to look for a different vendor for whatever reason, like they'll do. Um, and they're police officers too, right? I'm sure we respect all of our officers throughout the country. Right. And, Some are saying we don't like flock. We're going to go with a different vendor who's better. Some say we like flock. So I'm just saying that our duty is to ensure, and I respect what Alderman Carlson is saying, but however, I've been here for some time, and do you remember a guy named Aaron Nichols? He was here for 25 years. Never had a peak, but he was on a secret website, and he had everybody in this room, white, black, green, yellow.

Women.

Just saying. So we have to have these things in place. We don't want to wait until, you know, it's breached and we don't have protocols in place and not saying that you don't, but we have, it's our responsibility to make sure. And that's what all of this is about.

And I'm fine with some of these policies in place here in backstops, but I don't want our police force and I trust chief bill. I trust assistant chief dot. I don't want you guys to be off target from what you got, what your day to day job is and helping you solve crimes and, and, and, Not to minimize it, but just some undue paperwork that takes your focus off what your real job is on a day-to-day basis. That's what they do.

That's him, chief, everybody with these gold badges. That's what they do. Paperwork means making sure that their staff is following their things. So I will say this. He just answered. probably about 50% of that Section 1 right there. He said 200, and you listed off the numbers. He just answered it right there, no problem. And that's all I'm saying, that, you know, first of the year or whatever, can we just get some numbers of how this has helped us and things. And that's really it. And the general policies, the general procedure that's written is there, and we're just saying, hey, we're going to codify this thing, and it can't go no lower than what the standard is right now. It can always get tighter, and that's what this is all about now.

I do have a question about Section 3, the immediate notification of security breaches. Both Flock and Evidence.com, we take the data from Flock and store it somewhere else. Both of them are procedure compliant, extremely, extremely robust and secure servers or government servers and all that. So the breaches on that level I'm not worried about. My question is about the misuse and the seven-day reporting. Do you guys? internal affairs which is where a violation of this policy would end up and go through the course my only concern is the the seven calendar day to like it's just going to be starting at that point so to to be able to come back and and fairly report misuse when it hasn't even fully been investigated that's that's kind of where my my concern with three would come into if that makes any sense so let me let me let me let me ask you this why would

Why would our internal affairs be investigating something? You know, it may be, you know, like we've seen from it.

Yeah, Alderman Carlson wasn't done, so. Oh, I apologize. But Deputy Chief Dodd brought that up, so we'll circle back to that in a minute. Alderman, if that's okay. Gregory, you and I will circle back to that in a minute. Okay, go ahead.

That's fine. No, I think I'm done. That's fine. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, Chief.

Yeah. Yeah. So chief deputy chief died. You brought up your concern with, with the IA stuff. So if you could answer Alderman Gregory's question, then I know Alderman Hannah, or you had your hand up too. So I'll get to you, but go ahead.

So rule of rules of conduct five, which is a violation of policies, which is what this would fall under. If someone is misusing the system to, I just want to be able to give you guys information and, and go through its course, at least on some level. And that's my concern with the seven day period for its, It's not coming to you guys and giving you the information as much as we can with the contract, but my concern more is the seven-day window of being able to provide you guys with accurate information prior to it actually being fully investigated. Does that make sense?

Okay, sorry. Do you mind if Corporation Counsel Murdoch speaks on this topic real quick? Sure, go ahead.

Yeah, just in looking at this and the way it's written, this initial notification, I would very much prefer if it came from my office and not the Springfield Police Department. That way we maintain privileged information and the attorney-client privilege stands. I think it'd be better coming from my office, so... so you all could see it. There are likely a lot of legal issues. This covers a wide range of items. One of them is unauthorized access by SPD, which is where we would get into internal affairs. We could discuss that in executive session, but that would more likely come from me. And then to review that would likely take more than seven days to get to discipline that came out of it or recommendations. So I think an initial notification might not be able to cover all nine topics here, but we could certainly get some notification out. But then if there's a cybersecurity incident would be something completely different, where if it wasn't one of our officers, there's just different information. But I would ask that we consider that coming from the attorney and not the Springfield Police Department.

I'm making notes, Corporation Council, as we go. Alderman Gregory, I have Alderman Hanauer signed up first, then I'll come back to you, okay? Alderman Hanauer?

I just wanted to, I'm trying to decide, look, I like what, based on the discussion up here, I don't have a problem with the amendment. I just want to make sure, I guess, before I vote, before I support it, I just want to make sure the police are on board with it. Based on what you've seen, do you have serious problems or reservations why we shouldn't enact this?

The biggest thing is section one, to be able to accurately gather that information that's being requested for the report. That's going to take some time for us to find an internal mechanism that can accurately get that information. Most of the stuff we have, I mean, if you look at Section 2, most of that is covered under our existing policy. Right. So having that in place, Section 2 really doesn't throw any major concerns, at least for me. It's just the understanding that Section 1 isn't something that we can start tomorrow.

No.

You know what I mean? Right. that's kind of where I'm at. And then obviously my concerns with, um, section three, just in the, the time of this.

Oh, you're okay. I thought somebody was raising their hand back there. Go ahead.

So, so, but overall, I mean, is it something we can, we can work on or should we, I mean, I don't know. Do we, do we need to hold this, this whole thing? I, I want to make sure that you guys are good with it. And, and I mean, Don't see a problem with getting some reporting, but I also want to make sure that it's not It's not going to be you know that that I want to make sure that that the police department supports it I wish you would have had this beforehand, so you could have you know we could Like for instance section 1 number 7 evaluation of the effectiveness of each ALPR location using objectively public safety data that

again, is going to be somewhat difficult to do. The individual locations compared to areas where they're effective. Because a lot of times when you do a flock search in our camera, you can pick specific cameras. Say down in Beat 600, if it's a retail theft, I want to see if they came out of this store, where are they at on veterans. But a lot of times, they just search the array. So some of these are going to be hard to kind of get our head around. So that's my concern is can we get the data accurately? You know, the fact that it says at a minimum, I don't think there's any issues with us providing an annual report to council, but I don't want to say, yes, we can do this, and then come back and say we don't have number seven because it's not feasible for us to be able to get that. That that's my concern with the way that it's written. It's not reporting back to the council. It's not giving this data It's not taking a look at how the system is used but to hit these 11 benchmarks having just looked at it short like that's where my my concern is it's not the reporting it's What all is the expectation of this report not knowing if it's even going to be possible for us?

One moment. Alderman Hannah, do you have any other questions? No, I'm good. Okay, then the floor is yours because you're next, Alderman Gregory.

No, and I'm ready for you to introduce those amendments and go over those so we can input those. But I will say this, Chief. It's past March 1st, so we got to march our deputy chief. I don't want to get you in trouble. No, you can be the chief. No, no, no. But March 1st, and, you know, I can say that, you know, the things that we can gather and that you can deliver to this council in that report are going to help us. And some of these things, let's say we can't get them, they are good for us to try to get and be working towards. And maybe we are not able to get them in the next year, but for us to start getting some data, some information, and ensuring that any breaches or things are handled properly. And this is so hard because, you know, I respect you and Chief and Leach and all the guys, but we still have jobs to do. Y'all have y'all thing and we have ours. This is not to stop us from using it, but ensure that our citizens are protected under privacy and that if something goes awry, that we're going to fix it and we're going to get to it and we're going to know about it as far as representatives of the community. I hear everybody, hey, I wish we had more time Um, some I'm working, I'll keep working on getting my amendments into Murdoch a little, little, little faster and stuff like that. And, um, that has a lot of things to do with it, but, um, certainly this discussion is fruitful, um, for us all. So thank you. I appreciate you.

Alderman Gregory. I just want to speak to what, um, deputy chief Dodd said with the data tracking itself, um, being the mayor for the past three years, the city of Springfield does not do well at data tracking and Many agencies, police is not by itself. It's something I've been trying to push for. Our software is there, but a lot of our softwares did not have data tracking elements. And data tracking is how you can really see if something's successful or failing. So it's something I've been pushing for. So in Deputy Chief Dodd's defense, the software tracking has not been there in the past, and we're working on getting that beefed up. Specifically, we've been working together on a transparency portal and changing that and updating it, right? And there was a lot of data that we were wanting and that we're starting to build. So I understand what you're asking, and I do understand where we're at right now. So I just wanted to speak to that, okay? Thank you. Alderwoman Conley, you would also raise your hand again.

Thank you. Deputy Chief, and I think, and also with Alderman Gregory, please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I understand your concern about this and kind of like, I see this very, the section one, you're like, you want to follow the rules as they're put in front of you. And I appreciate that. That's what we want in our police department. I will say, I read that and kind of rereading it as we're talking, and I see the kind of, you know, that strengths, weaknesses, analysis that really should be baked into this process. So, you know, and Alderman Gregory, correct me if I'm wrong, with number seven, like, hey, do we have these in places where they really aren't being that effective? And so we're kind of looking at these and we're probably going to be moving some cameras. And that was sort of how I read number seven. Alderman, is that kind of more of your intent there? So not, I guess maybe not like a... Detailed structure, but like yeah, we were using cameras near the mall and and the the West End You know heavier shopping areas the public safety objective there may be more related to retail threat theft car thefts And I don't know that's not my job. But having that analysis is this being effective in its current location? I think that's something important to kind of be baked into the system so I would just encourage kind of that interpretation of number of that report there and Excuse me. The other thing, and this just popped into my head as we were talking, with Section 3 and Corporation Council, I appreciate you saying this should come from you. I also would feel more comfortable if this was an executive session level of report because we are talking about potential disciplinary action. I also, Alderman, if we could, I think we need to also include in there, because it does say to the extent known, which I think kind of gives you an out on some of this. Like, hey, we just want to know, has there been a data breach and we're concerned about it? It may just be the extent that we know is this has occurred. But I also think we need to include in there consistent with contractual rights of the impacted officers. Because you also operate under a contract with the union that represents your officers. And I want to make sure that while we get the information, we know what's going on. We know that there's an incident and under executive session that is protected. We are required, we are expected and required to maintain that as confidential information. I think we also need to be very explicit that it's clear that that will also be shared within the context of what that contract looks like already.

And my point in bringing up the seven days is I think security breaches are one thing because I think we get notified by FLOG. It's never happened. I don't want to put this out here, but there's a breach on their system or whatever happened to the server. That's something that's easy for us to come and report that. My concern with the misuse would be within seven days to be able to present this to you guys don't know how much information we would have. You know what I mean? And that's my concern.

And I think that's where that extent known kind of gives you, again, that's sort of an, you know, look, because I would like to know. And I think that's, you know, we talked about, you know, there was, you know, and again, I want to highlight, it was a domestic situation. And it was women who were being targeted. by an officer, not in Springfield, but we've seen these articles. I know other people have. So we should, I would like, you know, to the extent known, if the extent known is just, hey, look, we want to let you know there's been an incident. We're looking into it at this point. We just want your awareness of it because that, to the extent, that's all we can tell you right now. But then I'd like to know how that's resolved, you know, and, you know, What steps did you have to take? Because those are really serious concerns. So I guess, and Alderman Gregory, correct me if I'm, am I interpreting how you're saying this correctly? Is that?

It's very, I mean, it's very vague. Date and time of the incident occurred was discovered. The nature and scope of the incident, the categories and appropriate volume of data affected, whether ALPR data was accessed, copied, altered, disclosed, or destroyed. the known or suspect cause of the intent. So that's where the contract of things. I'm fine with that. I respect union contracts. I'm fine with that.

Um, corrective actions taken, uh, and remediate the part that might get, might be, we wouldn't know that within seven days, but we would expect, I think you're right in putting that in there because we would expect that level of followup. Again, we're talking about a significant privacy issue. And again, I've had enough people reach out to me really very concerned about this company and that level of surveillance is the word that gets used all the time. So I think as long as there's an understanding that this is not seven days, you need to have everything done and tied up with a bow, but an acknowledgment that in our oversight function, we do want to know when this happens and we would like to know you know, okay, how did you handle it? You've got procedures and protocols. You follow those procedures and protocols. That's what we need to know in our part. And I don't want to micromanage your department. We certainly are not the ones deciding disciplinary action. But I do want to know that things like that are being taken very seriously.

Yeah, so I guess just as a matter of, you know, of course, if we become aware of a potential misuse, when we then notify corporation counsel, And then would it be at the next meeting where you guys would go into executive session? I guess it's just how the process would go based on the language that's in here.

To that point, I was going to make a suggestion that we make the seven days to say or the next city council or committee meeting because it will be an exec session. Would that be okay, Alderman Gregory? Because it might happen on a Friday and we might be here the next Tuesday. It might only be in three days, but there are. two weeks out of the year that we do not have meetings on a Tuesday night. So we only have 24 meetings, not 26. So would that be okay?

You've been writing them down.

I'm writing them down. All right.

And I just, if we could, I do want to say, to the extent known and consistent with contractual obligations, I'm sure Corporation Counsel can clean that up in some way, shape, or form. All right, Section 4.

Okay. Thank you. Alderman Cox, I know you do not have this amendment in front of you, but I'm going to give you the right to say if you have any questions or comments.

Overall, I just hope this thing moves forward this evening. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Cox. So before I go to the notes on amending the amendment, is there any other discussion on the amendment? Okay, everyone's saying no. I don't see any hands up. So it looks like I have, let me just count so I can tell Corporation Council how many comments I think we need to add. It would be one, two, three, it looks like maybe four additional add-ins to this amendment. And Alderman Gregory, just raise your hand if you have an issue with something I'm saying out loud, please, okay? The first would be the reporting needs because of the lack of possible data available. Alderman Gregory, would you be agreeable to us saying that the public reporting and equitable deployment, all items one through 11 will be acknowledged in some way, shape, or form in the report. And if the data is not available, there will be a documented timeline of when we hope that is available. So we can give you what's available and then tell you that we're working on what isn't available. Is that okay?

Yes.

Okay, perfect. And then Alderwoman Notriano, I'm going to put you in with Alderman Gregory on this one. I'm just going to make this all one giant amendment with four captions. Is that okay? Yes. Okay. So Alderwoman Notriano, in section two, codification of ALPR policies, you would like us to add in that the city of Springfield I'm sorry, would it always be an officer that's assigned to DEA or FBI, or would it be any rank above officer?

Officers are assigned to some, and detectives are assigned to the same civil service rank, but different titles.

Okay, so officers or detectives, I should say. Okay, thank you. So officers or detectives assigned to special duty with federal agencies will be the only officers that can access the ALPR readers. the other individuals working within those federal agencies may not have access. Would that work for you? That way our officers still have access, but they're not sharing their sign on or whatever. Sure. Would that be good?

Yeah.

Okay. Is that okay, Corporation Counsel? Yes, it works. Okay. Alderman Gregory, was that all right? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And then the third one, the third sub of this amendment would be that Springfield Police Department, sorry, this is still under codification of ALPR policies, so I guess it might, I don't know if you want to add it into the language, corporation council, or make it like an A, item K, whichever, that Springfield Police Department can make changes to strengthen their controls within the ALPR system, but they may not make the control Guidelines any looser without City Council and mayoral approval Would that be okay alderman Gregory because I think they want the ability to tighten it up if they'd ever like to Okay, and then the last one is section 3 alderwoman Connell bring you in with alderman Gregory on this fourth sub amendment of our amendment immediate notification of security breaches and misuse It would be that the and I might let you write your own, but the city legal, it's going to encompass city legal, not SPD, would be bringing the information to the city council at the next, in executive session, at the next city council or committee of the whole meeting, and that we would also observe all contractual obligations with the police union contract.

Yep. If I could just say, I think maybe I would strike the need for it to be a written report.

Yeah, we can't have written reports in the next session.

Right, so it would be a verbal report. So just strike the written.

Thank you. Is that Alderman Greger, are you good with that too?

Yeah, thank you.

Corp councils or anything with that you want to tweak because it's your office.

I don't think so. No, I think that that works. Thanks.

Okay.

Point of information, maybe. Are these searches subject to FOIA? Like, can someone put in a FOIA request for a license plate number or case number?

I don't think they can access that, but you would have to answer, can we tell them if we did search? I think we can give them. detailed information because of our FLOC contract, correct?

I think it's more aggregate data that they can get, number of searches that were provided, but the FOIA is set up, is my understanding, is that people can't circumvent privacy laws to get access to that. It's kind of like the domestic battery. We don't want FOIA to be used to be able to track someone third party, so that is not open to FOIA.

So the example that you gave, I want to see all records for this license plate, that would be denied.

Okay.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the amendment to amendment number one as presented.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to adopt amendment number one, sub-amendment to amendment number one, maybe. Any questions or discussion, raise your hand, please, on the amendment to the amendment.

Alderman Carlson. For the reasons I stated earlier, and I just don't think this is the right process. We're going about amending this There's something this serious an hour and a half doing this on that. I just Disagree with the process.

I'll be voting no on the amendment Any other discussion on the amendment to the amendment from the council alderman Hanauer?

I think there's a enough understanding We're not in opposition of anything that is in the amendment Reporting up to the council. That's part of our duties or responsibilities something that is this contentious within the community giving you guys an information is not a problem Making sure that we're following our own policy making sure our policy is understood and trained on that's something that we do anyway So that's not bad, and then I think the new mechanism for the reporting of any you know misuse It's going to take some legwork. It's going to take some Some lists for us, but I think once we get things in place being able to present the information back to the council I don't have an issue with that, as it's said. Some of it's gonna be harder than other pieces of it. Some of it may not be feasible, and we can have that conversation when we do the first presentation of it. We have a better understanding of what data we can track, what we can get access to in that. And as long as there's that understanding that maybe number seven is something that's extremely difficult that we're not gonna be able to do, that we're not gonna come back at that point. As far as reporting to the council, reporting to the community, the way that this system is being used, the safeguards that are in place, and reporting to you guys, any misuse? No, honestly, I don't. My side.

Okay, any other discussion on the amendment to the amendments from the council? So the vote right now is only on the amendment to the amendment. It's not on the actual full amendment. It's just on the new amendment. changes we have made to the amendment. So we'll take a voice roll call vote on that. Um, clerk red path, please. Okay.

Alderman Cox, Alderman Gregory. Yes. Alderman Williams, Alderman Rockford, all the women, uh, all the women that Toronto.

Yes.

Alderman Carlson. No. Oh, Alderman Conley.

Aye.

Alderman Donnelly. Aye. Alderman Hanauer? No. And you don't vote.

So we have six yes votes, two no votes, and one present. Would that be correct?

Yep. Passes.

Okay. So the amendment to the amendment passes. Now we're still on the amendment. Is there any further discussion on the amendment itself from the council?

Alderman Carlson? One question I had, and it was probably a half hour ago. I think, Corporation Counsel, were you saying was it best if

if it comes from you or an ordinance with flock or where we at with that or are you talking about with this section three yeah with the language yeah it's it's best if it if it comes from me so if you look at section three there are two different uh... reporting requirements one is twenty four hours after discovery spd needs to notify city council corporation council our our i t department and the mayor and so What I, as a part of what was just amended, I'm going to tweak the language to Springfield Police Department or Corporation Council needs to notify. And so within 24 hours, you'll get notice. And then within seven calendar days or that'll be changed now. But then Corporation Council will have an executive session to address this issue.

Yes. Any other discussion on the amendment from the council? So now we're just going to take a voice roll call vote only on the full amendment.

clerk Redpath Alderman Cox Alderman Gregory, yes, Alderman Williams. Yes, Alderman Rockford. Yes, all the women that Rihanna. Yes Alderman Carlson's on the amendment not the ordinance yet No, okay all woman Connelly Alderman Donnelly Alderman Han our So same total six yeses two noes one present so the amendment passes I

So now we will go to, are there any other discussion from the alders before we go to citizens who have signed up to speak on the ordinance before we take a vote on the ordinance? Any other discussion from the council members at this time? Alderman Cox, do you have any discussion you need to bring up on this ordinance?

No, Mayor, thank you.

Okay. So, Clerk, we thank you. Deputy Chief Dodd, I appreciate it. You're welcome. Clerk, we'll bring up citizens who signed up in advance to discuss this.

We have three to speak to the amendment. It's Aaron. Kirkpatrick is first.

Hold up.

What's wrong?

You can, we'll have someone come in just a second. You can go to the podium. They're trying to get situated, so we're not going to have you speak until they tell us it's okay, all right? If you would give us a second. What did you say? Huh? Did you need something, Corporation Council? Or Council Coordinator, did you need? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said something.

I'm trying to.

Okay, she does have handouts that we need to send somewhere to get from her. My apologies. Okay, are we ready with the timer? Okay, you may start now.

Good evening. First, here is a map from the DFLOC website that gave me a better sense of what we are talking about. FLOC has become the center of a nationwide controversy over its roughly 20 billion monthly license plate scans. My concerns today are around privacy and surveillance and punishment rather than prevention. The ACLU has a campaign to get the flock out, due to flock making at least four changes to their terms and conditions in the most recent February 16th, 2026 contract. These changes include one, the sale of data. Flock's previous terms and conditions stated flatly, flock does not own and shall not sell customer data. That language is now absent. Two, regarding control of data. The new license grants the company the exclusive right to determine and control the method, timing, format, and medium of access to the data that supposedly belongs to the customer. Three, a perpetual license. The terms and conditions now adds a perpetual right for Flock to use customer data to support and improve its services, allowing the company to keep using driver surveillance data even after a customer has terminated its relationship with Flock and no longer has access to that data itself. Four, the new contract also expands Flock's protections against liability for willful misconduct or gross negligence, potentially shifting the cost of data breaches and other failures from the company to taxpayers. It mandates private arbitration under Georgia law when there is a contract dispute, and it makes it harder for customers to terminate Flock contracts. This is bigger than Springfield. How can we guarantee our data is secure? When, as listed on FLOC's transparency portal, 179 external law enforcement organizations across Illinois have access, including ISP Carbondale, Champaign, Yankee County, Lake County, Livingston County, LaSalle County, South Elgin, Waukegan, West Chicago, IDNR. How much do our own policies matter if we are allowing data sharing in jurisdictions over which we have no oversight? Illinois may have safeguards against illegal search options, but one police department successfully entered investigation into the search reason field 111 times and he, he, he 20 times in one month, which demonstrates how easy it is to search flock system while avoiding security triggering words. None of us would imagine that the 21 times romantic stalking interests occurred by officers across the U.S. included the search word of stalking. Note, only a few of these stalking cases were discovered through internal investigations. Check the website, have I been flocked, if you have any concerns. And unfortunately, we can't trust Flock's transparency portal either. In Boulder, Colorado, 90 agencies were listed with access to their camera data, but a public records request revealed that over 6,000 agencies actually had access to them. Are we auditing where our searches are coming from? Per a Tech Times article dated June 29th this year, 53 cities in 20 states across the US have canceled contracts over unauthorized federal access in a pattern of surveillance settings that operated well beyond what cities were told they had signed up for. In Mountain View, California, a statewide setting had been active on 29 of their 30s cameras since installation, unbeknownst to the police department. And one national lookup setting was toggled on without the city's knowledge, with an estimated 600,000 unauthorized searches. Please read the entire new contract and verify that the national lookup feature is disabled. Then repeatedly check that the setting has not changed, as in Oxnard, California, a vendor-based issue silently re-enabled a nationwide query feature. An audit in Dayton, Ohio, revealed 7,100 searches for immigration enforcement purposes, despite being explicitly prohibited under the city's own policy. In November last year, a security researcher found flock accounts for sale on a Russian cybercrime forum. We could trust you all day and still not trust the company itself. Show me your budget, and I'll show you your values, Dr. Kelly Hurst. Last week, we heard about the value of safety, yet there's no substantial evidence that license plate readers prevent crime. We seem to be focused on catching people after harm has happened rather than asking what led to the harm in the first place. A country's level of health, social, and environmental problems is significantly and strongly associated with inequality, and the US is by far the world's most unequal rich nation. Income inequality sits at the heart of social cohesion and well-being. When inequality worsens, so do trust, democracy, racial inequality, gender inequality, homicide rates, imprisonment, mental health stigma, and equal opportunities. As you will see in the summary handout in front of you from the book The Spirit Level, why greater inequality makes society stronger. Violence is often a response to experiences of shame and humiliation, feelings that are exacerbated by social and economic inequality. Although respect and dignity should be a right afforded to all, it is not everyone's reality. Violence may be resorted to as a result of competitive interactions meant to restore dignity and assert worth when people feel a sense of powerlessness and disrespect. In confronting the social unevenness, we must stop considering violent crime as the product of pathological personalities and instead consider it the consequence of a society's structure and take a public health approach that centers inequality as a key to violence prevention. Flock cameras are not in the Massey Commission calls to action. If justice is a budget line, then ours needs remediation. Thank you.

Thank you.

James Meister.

This committee failed Springfield today. By allowing the police to strengthen anything to do with flock just means that they can strengthen it to make it to where you can't access it. That failed Springfield. Springfield Police Department should not be in charge of flock. It's a tool they utilize, but you guys need to say whether it goes up or down as far as policies or anything else with Springfield Flock. Second off, pictures of Flock, where the cameras are. In two minutes sitting here on my phone, I found over 90,000 cameras are in the United States, 49 states have them, and over 2 billion scans per month. What's that got to do with us? In the same search, I found out we've got 140 cameras near Springfield, Illinois, and I'm going to quote this. Each one logs your plate, location, and time stamp. Law enforcement can search your entire 30-day location history without a warrant. That's to start with. The minute you walk out of your house, you have no privacy. No... you lose your privacy when you walk out. Anybody can take pictures, yes, that's fine. But then I look at their map of all the cameras, and I found out about Flock last week. I heard about it on the radio, and they didn't know, well, we think most of the cameras on the south end of town. We're using this to work with crime, But yet the cameras, 90% of them from this map, are south of South Grand, east of Veterans Parkway. There's very little up on Dirksen. There's sporadic here and there, and absolutely none on the west side. So let me guess, if you're rich enough to live on the west side, The city won't break your privacy, won't videotape your car. Flock also has other programs, considering Shot Locator and all the other programs that we have here in Springfield. Why aren't those brought up with this? Flock is the largest in the nation, I think actually in the world. There are some other companies that are doing it. but not to the extent of flock. Flock is the one you're gonna have to stick with, if you stick with it. As word six said, we need to get rid of it. It's a violation of privacy of your citizens. At what point in time do we realize that our constitution says the government doesn't watch the citizens, the citizens watch the government. Flock has its purposes. It's a good thing sometimes. But when it's only used to convict people and people aren't allowed to go in and say, all right, that's not me, then how can we use it to defend ourselves as citizens? Funny story. New York and Illinois have something in common. New York sent a speeding ticket generated by a license plate picture. I'm pretty sure from Flock. Car was speeding. Car belongs to an owner in Illinois. It's in a museum. Sent the speeding ticket to the museum for a New York speeding ticket. Guess what car it was? Pontiac Firebird Knight Rider. Somebody had made their own Knight Rider in New York, got a speeding ticket, had an Illinois Knight Rider plate on it, and that got a ticket sent to Illinois to the museum here in Illinois that holds that car. A car's never left a museum. Flock is not perfect. And unless we as citizens have access, we can't use it to rebut the police that you just allowed the police to make it even harder for you guys to be in charge. Get rid of flock.

Mike Shadow.

Mayor, point of order. Based on the map, what he said was inaccurate as far as where all the flock If this is accurate, where the flock cameras are, they're not mostly on the west side. They're spread out around, and I know out on Dirksen Parkway, probably because a lot of the businesses buy their own flock cameras for when they go in the parking lots and that. I know some of the hardware stores have them. So I just wanted to make that a point that that was inaccurate. Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman. Okay, Mr. Shadow. Mr.

Shadow.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council. My name is Michael Shatt. I'm a lifelong Springfield resident. I have four children, three of whom attend Springfield Public School, one who is a Lanford graduate and will attend LLCC in the fall. My wife and I own a home in Ward 4 and have been paying property taxes here for 26 years. I'm here to urge the City Council not to renew the APLR contract with Flock Security.

And have the cameras moved from the community.

Um, I echo the concerns, uh, that many other people have expressed to their older persons, uh, regarding potential abuses of this system. Um, a lot of people don't realize, uh, the level of oversight. I really appreciate the comments from deputy chief Dodd today. I learned a lot. I was encouraged to find out that the level of oversight that Springfield is implementing. is much better than it is in lots of other communities. I didn't know that until I came here and listened and talked to lots of people I know are concerned. Some people are frightened. The potential for abuse is just too high. I had a whole bunch of examples of misuses of the flock system and other in other communities. I don't think it's necessary to rehash that. I feel like that point was already addressed pretty well by the council. and by the other citizens who spoke here today. My problem is with Flock Security as a company. I was paying a lot of attention to what Alderwoman Notarino, sorry if I mispronounced your name, was talking about how that was used to stalk somebody. Paula Person Conley's comments, too, where she was also very concerned about that. I feel like we're in a pretty good place in Springfield with keeping tabs on how these systems are being used, but my concern with that is what happens if we have a changing of the guard? You know, if we get a new government, how easy would it be for those stringent safeguards that we're putting in place to protect the liberty of our citizens? How easy would it be for a future administration to move those? Right now, we're not using facial recognition technology. We're not using the voice-activated microphones. How easy would it be for somebody else to come in and change that later? I'm very concerned about that. I think flock representatives will claim the security updates have patched the holes and the systems are safe to use, but I don't know that there is a really safe way to implement this system. As Deputy Chief Dodd was saying, this is an extremely powerful tool. I'm not sure we fully understand all the implications of that. Flock's entire business model depends on creating an interconnected nationwide surveillance network that creates risks that no real software updates can eliminate, I don't think. Law enforcement may argue that you don't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. And while that's debatable, we do have reasonable expectation not to have our travel logged into a database, which can be searched by anyone with access weeks or months later, assuming that these are kept up with the retention policies of the departments. But there again, you know, what if that changes? In closing, I urge the council in the strongest possible terms not to fall for the flock marketing gimmick that mass surveillance makes our community safer or less susceptible to crime. Research shows that flock systems do not do any such thing. Tremendous potential for abuse, if anything, makes us more vulnerable. Crimes do not cease to be crimes just because they're committed by someone wearing a badge. I'm not anti-law enforcement. I'll make that very clear. I am anti-stomp on the Bill of Rights in the name of enforcing it. Again, I urge you to vote no for renewing the contract. I implore the council to stand up for the liberty of the citizens of our fair city. not to cave to pressure from law enforcement or surrender it to the false promise of security. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there any other discussion from the Alders before we take a vote on the ordinance itself?

Alderwoman Conley? I'm sorry. I guess we have a button now. I just want to say thank you, Alderman Gregory. I was actually leaning towards not voting for this contract. because of the concerns exactly like that. I've had way too many constituents reach out. I've had so many conversations in the last week with concerns around this company. It would be very clear, not concerns around our police department, but concerns around the company and the way this data is used. I think the fact that it requires a proactive council action to reduce any of these standards of protections in here. I really appreciate putting that in place, and I am more comfortable voting for this contract. And Deputy Chief Dodds, I appreciate your willingness to kind of work with us on this. I'm sure the chief will be in line with this too, and make sure that we have a very active and engaged analysis. of what we're collecting and how we're using it and where it goes. So thank you for your time and answers today. And Alderman Gregory, thank you for your amendment.

Okay. Seeing none other, voting will now be open. If you vote yes, you will be voting for the ordinance as amended. If you vote no, you will not be voting for the ordinance as amended. And it looks like your voting machines should be working, although Alderman Hanauer, you're grayed out. They're not? Okay, so voice vote. Never mind then. Yes, sir.

Alderman Cox. Yes. Alderman Gregory.

Yes.

Alderman Williams.

Yes.

Alderman Rockford.

Yes.

Alderman Interano.

Yes.

Alderman Carlson. Aye. Alderman Conley.

Yes.

Alderman Donlan. Aye. Alderman Hanauer. Aye. 9-0.

The ordinance passes with a 9 voting yes and 9 voting no. The next item on the agenda will be item 2026-345, an ordinance authorizing RFP FD27-11 with memorial behavioral health in the amount of $160,212.94 and authorizing a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $160,212.94 from the opioid settlement restricted fund balance personnel services associated with the beacon project and bolt apparatus for the Springfield Fire Department for emergency passage. The chair will entertain a motion to place agenda item number 2026-345 on emergency passage.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion and a second and I would like to ask Chief Sumo to come up and Division Chief McCormick, and we have a representative from Memorial Behavioral Health here. Do you mind coming up as well? So an explanation to the council, this is on emergency passage because our desire is to get this apparatus in service prior to a three-week time period, and we did the RFP for behavioral health services to be on the Beacon apparatus, and Memorial Behavioral Health responded, and Memorial Behavioral Health also responds with our homeless outreach team at this time as well. I would like to go ahead, and they also respond with our police department. So Chief Simo, if you'd like to speak to this real quick, if you don't mind, and then we'll let the alders ask any questions they may have.

Sure. So when we met about a year and a half ago and we kind of started down this journey, one of the things we mentioned was this was all kind of a fluid plan and we didn't know what the final outcome would be. And moving down that road, we kind of changed some of our focus from, Maybe we do some of this internally to maybe we just partner with some of the agencies that are kind of doing some of this work. So in doing so, we identified there's probably a cost savings there. If nothing else, just not adding headcount to the city and taking that on as we're in this kind of, for lack of a better term, a trial period to find out if this operation is really going to serve the way we hope it does. We did a little pivot. We think this is a better use of the funds and we'll get good care to the people that we're trying to serve. So that's kind of how we ended up where we are.

And then could I ask MBH to come up and just speak? Not a lot. I know you weren't prepared. I didn't tell you you were doing this, but just to our relationship with you, if you don't mind.

Yes. So currently we do participate in the core program with SPD. So we do have, mobile crisis response clinicians that ride along with SPD officers, CIT trained officers on specific shifts throughout the week. And they do the thing that we do all of the time, but with SPD support and responding to calls that come through dispatch that SPD would be going to anyway. But we can also offer then as that ride along option, we can offer that mental health crisis assessment in the moment, basically, when the officer is interacting with the individual. This would function not quite the same, but it would definitely be with one of our MBH mobile crisis response clinicians responding in that same vein with the PERSONNEL WITH THE SPRINGFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT INSTEAD OF SPD.

SO THEY'LL BE WITH BOTH AGENCIES. YES. SO THANK YOU FOR COMING UP.

ALDER WOMAN CONLEY. THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND JUST A VERY QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. QUESTIONS. HOW MANY PROFESSIONALS WILL WE HAVE? WHAT KIND OF TRAINING DO THEY HAVE? AND HOW OFTEN DO YOU THINK THEY'LL BE AVAILABLE TO RIDE ALONG WITH THIS UNIT?

I think specifically is we have one FTE, so full-time employee that is going to be allotted to the fire department, I guess, if that's the right way to say that. It is probably going to be either one or two clinicians that'll be specifically doing those shifts, but it could potentially interchange depending on staffing. For instance, if somebody is off that week for a vacation or something, we might need to supplement with somebody else that works on our team. SO THE MOBILE CRISIS TEAM IN GENERAL, WE HAVE A RANGE OF, I GUESS, EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS AS FAR AS LEVEL OF EDUCATION. SO WE HAVE BACHELOR'S LEVEL INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS MASTER'S LEVEL INDIVIDUALS, LICENSED INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ALL SERVING AS A PART OF THAT SAME MOBILE CRISIS RESPONSE TEAM. THEY ALSO UNDERGO JUST A LOT OF GENERAL TRAINING IN CRISIS RESPONSE, MENTAL HEALTH CARE, TRAUMA-INFORMED CARE, A LOT OF DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT AVENUES THAT WE USE TO TRAIN IN PERSON AS WELL AS DIFFERENT ONLINE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAINING.

AND I THINK JUST KIND OF GENERALLY THEN, HOW MANY HOURS A DAY WILL WE HAVE SOMEONE AVAILABLE? HAVE YOU SET, LIKE, IS IT A CERTAIN SHIFT OR ARE THOSE THINGS THAT YOU'RE STILL WORKING OUT?

SO SOME OF THAT'S STILL BEING WORKED OUT, BUT I THINK IN THE RFP IT WAS A 10-HOUR DAY window and we're going to kind of shift that with what is our prime care but then they would still be on call in the other hours so it's still 24-hour available care and when you read one person that just means an employee will be assigned to uh assist with with the the ambulance that's going to be going out doesn't mean we're only hiring one person but there will always be one person like like you said if someone's on vacation someone else feels

Wonderful, thank you.

Yeah, MCR is available 24-7 for anyone that needs to call, but we would treat it the same as we do when dispatch calls us if we don't have a ride-along happening at that time for SPD. So we would dispatch just like we do normally, so it would be the same for the bolt apparatus.

Okay, wonderful, thank you. Really excited to see this get rolled out. I hope that you, I'm gonna put in a plug for similar to what we've just asked of the police department, that we get reports on this, that we were able to really track and see how you engage with the community. And I hope and pray this is as impactful as it's intended to be. And thank you very much for coming tonight and for sitting through some other very detailed conversations. We really have a lot of high hopes for this in our community, and thank you.

Alderman Hanauer.

Thank you. I also, this is a big deal. This is really moving forward for the, well, for the unhoused and especially the, I mean, there's, you got people that you can help. You got people that need mental health, and this is perfect for it, you know, and I think this is a big step. And it's very exciting. The other part that's even more exciting is, as a budget guy, this isn't coming from the corporate side. So any time we can spend money not in the corporate fund is even better. And that's why I support this 100%. So great job, Mayor. This is tremendous. I'm glad to see it getting rolling.

Yeah, I want to thank the fire department for embracing my ideas. And I want to thank Memorial Behavioral Health for your partnership. It's great. And for the citizens that are listening and for the council members, I want to thank you all that stood with us when we launched this idea and for your support. apparatus that will be Springfield Fire Department and it will be deployed when there is a 911 call for someone in a mental health situation or a drug overdose situation where they need specialists to come in all of our firefighters are paramedics so they will have paramedic care and then they will have behavioral health care and the ask from the administration is if that apparatus needs to be with that individual for four hours to stabilize them, then that's what we do. It's not in and out. We spend plenty of time stabilizing them and making sure the individual knows where the resources are that they need to get help. And this is something our community has been lacking, and I get pretty emotional about it. I have a personal family member who this would help a lot, and it means a lot to me, so thank you all.

Mayor, if I can, I just, since we just grilled the police department.

You're in a grilled cheese zumo now?

No, I'm not. I just, I also want to point out that these funds, as Alderman Hanauer said, are not coming from our general fund. They're coming from the opioid funds, but those go through the police department. And this was, again, a collaboration between our two departments. Appreciate the police being a part of the solution, too.

And we have to give a shout-out to Director Posey's group because they've been a big part of this, too. So, Director Posey, thank you as well. We've got to give you a big shout-out. Alderman Gregory.

I was just going to say, I appreciate this. I feel you on that, on the personal family story. But, you know, we often say this for a particular set of people, but all of us.

Everybody.

Man, every last one of us got some type of mental health. and need some help and need somebody to talk to at times. And it doesn't make you, you know, either way, man, we all just human beings. We all go through so, so, so much. And in these roles here, we might need to go hop in this joint and lay down and talk to them too. So we appreciate y'all and let's just keep working.

I think the most exciting thing is it's, we're trying something different. There's been a lot of mixed emotions on what was being done in the past. This is an attempt to try to just provide something else. That wraparound care is so important to these people that just might need to talk to someone, might not know what is offered, might not know how to get in contact with those people, don't need to go to the ER. And it's not just pick them up, drop them off at the ER and say good luck. This is something else to try to help that person. Appreciate you.

Thank you. Any other discussion from the Alders? Thank you both very much. With that being said, the voting will now be open. I have to find my mouse. Oh, it's a voice call. Never mind. We're roll call voting again.

Alderman Cox. Emphatic, yes. Okay. Alderman Gregory. Aye. Alderman Williams. Aye. Alderman Rockford. Yes. Alderman Tirano.

Yes.

Alderman Carlson. Aye. Alderman Conley. Yes. Alderman Donlan. Aye. Alderman Hanauer. Aye.

I need to vote. It's emergency passage. I vote yes as well.

10-0.

So the motion passes with 10 voting yes, none voting no. Thank you all very much for staying for this, for the discussion. At this point, we are on to unfinished business. Is there any unfinished business to bring before the council at this time? Seeing none, I'm going to move to new business. Is there any new business to come before the council at this time? Seeing none, clerk, we will go to citizens who have signed up to address the council.

Rachel Weller. Rachel Weller. Ken Pasha.

I think after the ordinance that just passed, it's important to note that yesterday marked two years Sonia Massey's murder. So... When we think about the progress we've made since then, that program is very important to it. But I think it's really important to note that we still have a long way to go to avoid those kind of outcomes. I do appreciate the mayor and other people's work on this program and getting it moving forward and funded. We still have a lot more that we can be doing, especially in relation to the Massey Commission CTAs. as well as other reports by moving forward regarding mental health here in Illinois, the city still has a long way to go. And I think that's something that this is a great effort to move towards that. I do appreciate it. While I am critical, I do recognize when good wins and small wins do happen to move things forward. I really would like to focus on the idea, though, that with flock cameras, One of the big things is that things are hackable. Things are easily broken into. I don't know if you guys know this or not, but I can go on YouTube right now and find a video where I could hack into flock cameras that are hanging up. I mean, they're not exactly highly secure. They're hanging on poles. They're very easy to access. Some of you may know green laser lights can actually fry out their lenses. They're not exactly impenetrable devices. They're very much susceptible to outside forces, manipulation, destruction, things like that. So whether or not the Amazon cloud servers that we store our data on are secure is really up to you and how much you know about tech security, which if you know anything about tech security, I'd ask Ralph, but he always leaves during our comments. That's something where they're not. They're very easily accessed by people that are dedicated, interested in it, and as Connelly pointed out, you don't actually have to search for those things. You know you can go into the Flock system and type in like Red Cross, and it'll bring up every car that's got a Red Cross. You can type in almost any term, because while they'll tell you that Flock only has eight characteristics that they track on those cameras, they've had to openly admit in court there's over 130. I don't know what those 130 are. They don't disclose them to anybody. They're very proprietary about that. But 130 is a significantly larger number of tracking vectors than eight. So it just seems like Flock has a hard time telling the truth unless they're forced to or compelled to by a court. That's not a good system or a level of accountability from a company that has access to, again, as I noted last week, everybody's in terms of your location, your license plates. I mean, it's very easy to track. The police can tell you, as they noted with those crimes, that they can very easily find you with just a simple search. The unsettling end of that should be obvious to all of us. I don't think anybody should really have the ability to track non-criminal citizens, people that have done nothing wrong, just going to work, driving a Chick-fil-A, whatever they're doing. That's easily searchable, trackable, and storable. And while they assure us that that data is removed, I think we all can think of examples where that data hasn't been removed, not just by Flock but other companies. Private companies lie all the time and are usually compelled strictly by courts to tell that truth. So when we talk about our private data surveillance and things like that, I think it's a very strong caution for that. So I do appreciate both the amendment and the willingness by members of council, who I normally find to be reluctant to those kind of discussions, to actually discuss that stuff and pass it. I've got to say, that made my day. Note, though, I think it's really important to note for one of our aldermen, though, that that has happened more than once, that an amendment has popped up five minutes before or this landed on our desk before, and I didn't hear any sort of disagreement about that i think it's probably because you supported those ordinances so it's just interesting how we worry about decorum and civility when it counts for us or the things that we want um i'm going to take my last minute to know one thing and while i did give you kudos earlier i'm going to note this the y block you can blame langfelder but you've been mayor for three years the donald trump approach of passing the buck of my predecessor this or Somebody else did that. It's not how leadership functions. That is your Y block now. It doesn't matter what Langefelder did. Just like it's your Wyndham, it's your downtown, it's all your things. So it just kind of disturbed me that when we were talking about solutions to the Y block, our solution is to donate it to the state. And while I understand fiscal year's 25 budget earmarked a park, how often does the state change its mind, lose funding, decide that's not where they want to go with it? Maybe they come up with a better idea, or perhaps somebody offers them enough money for that property. There are no written guarantees that I'm aware of that that will guaranteed be what that remains. or that even Leavitt will be guaranteed to stay there. So that, for me, is worrying. Last couple of seconds. I heard you guys got an RFP for out front, and the only thing that got returned was a fountain. I don't know if that's true or not, but that would be hilarious.

Thank you. Roy Walton. Roy Walton. Tierra Standage. That's it.

What about, hang on one second. Do you have this one? I have a name on it. Oh, she withdrew. Okay. So we have a motion to adjourn. Can I get a second?

Second.

All those in favor? All those opposed? The ayes have it. Sorry, I didn't realize that. My apologies.