Columbia Ward 2 Council Member defends sudden Flock vote, says residents have raised concerns for years

COLUMBIA, Mo. (KMIZ)

Columbia City Councilwoman Vera Elwood said she was surprised but excited to move forward with a vote ending the city's contracts with Flock Safety, arguing that residents had raised concerns about the company's handling of data for years.

Elwood, who represents Ward 2, made the motion near the end of Monday's nearly four-hour special meeting at City Hall. The motion passed 5-2 and prevents the city from automatically renewing its contracts with Flock, the company that provides automated license plate readers. The cameras will remain in operation until the current contracts expire.

Elwood told ABC 17 News she had not expected the council to vote that night. After public testimony ended, council members asked city staff what action they could take during the meeting and were told a motion was possible because the contracts did not require an ordinance or resolution.

“That came as a surprise to me, but one that I was really excited to go ahead and move forward on,” Elwood said.

The decision drew criticism from some residents and council members who expected Monday's meeting to be limited to gathering public feedback. Ward 3 Councilwoman Jacque Sample said the vote caught her by surprise, while former Ward 5 Councilman Don Waterman called it “underhanded.”

When asked whether she believed the council's vote was appropriate, Elwood said, “I think so.” She argued that residents had already had multiple opportunities to weigh in, pointing to discussions that began before the city signed its first contract with Flock and continued through the council's review of its first annual surveillance report about six months ago.

“This is a conversation with Flock that we've been having for a very long time. Flock in particular, we've been having this conversation since before we started that first contract with them in terms of automatic or automated license plate readers and overall surveillance,” Elwood told ABC 17 News. “I know that I've been talking to people in Ward Two since I first started on my campaign trail a year and a half ago, almost two years ago now. When I would knock on doors, often the first thing people would say is, 'Are you willing to get rid of these cameras?’”

Elwood said Monday's public testimony demonstrated how personally the issue affects residents, including people who said the cameras influence their day-to-day decisions.

“I think the testimonial that we heard on both sides of the issue on Monday night really highlighted how important this was to everyone, how personal it was, and how it is affecting people's lives day to day,” Elwood said. “We heard from many people who are having to think about those cameras constantly, and it's deeply affecting their actions.”

Her concerns about Flock also predated her time on the council. With a professional background in education and librarianship, Elwood said data privacy has long been important to her. She had followed reports of data violations in other communities and concerns involving Flock itself.

“I have been a skeptic of that company since the beginning. But I think that for me, the point where I really confidently knew how I was going to vote was hearing that I was not alone in my skepticism, was hearing that people felt unsafe knowing that this third-party company they couldn't trust was holding all of their information,” Elwood told ABC 17 News.

There was some confusion after the vote about whether the council had immediately ended the use of the cameras or simply prevented the contracts from automatically renewing. Elwood said the motion addressed what would happen when the two separate contract terms expire: The city would not pursue another year with Flock, and the contracts would end at that time.

City spokesman Christopher Ave clarified Tuesday that the cameras will continue operating until the contracts expire. The council could still consider a new agreement with Flock, a different contractor or no replacement.

Elwood said she does not expect the city to enter into another contract with Flock. Some council members have expressed interest in exploring alternatives that could provide police with information needed for investigations, but the council has not discussed specific options.

“I do not believe we would enter into a brand new contract with Flock at the end of this. I know there are members of council that are interested in potentially pursuing alternatives, other ways that we can support our police force in making sure that they have the information that they need. But no, not Flock,” Elwood said.

The debate comes as Columbia continues to grapple with concerns about violent crime. The Columbia Police Department has said the cameras are a useful investigative tool.

Elwood pushed back on criticism that ending the contracts amounts to a lack of confidence in the police department or a decision to disregard public safety. She said CPD had strong restrictions governing its use of the software but argued that the cameras were not the only way to address violent crime.

“This was not a vote saying that we are not confident in or trusting of our police department. As we saw in the presentation, the restrictions that the Columbia Police Department had in place on the usage of this software with some of the best in the country, and was actually the NAACP-suggested standard, if you are going to have them, with the preferred standard being of not having flock cameras,” Elwood said.

“But someone got up and said, 'Cameras don't stop guns. Cameras don't stop bullets.' And I think that when we are talking about preventing crime downtown, when we are talking about stopping injuries from happening, there are ways that we can invest our money. There are things that we can be doing. There are things that we currently are doing to help solve that problem. That is not Flock cameras,” Elwood said.

Elwood said the council has not yet spoken with CPD about the decision or potential alternatives.

Despite the disagreement over the vote, Elwood said she was struck by how many residents expressed confidence in the police department during the hearing. She said residents' concerns focused largely on Flock as a third-party company rather than on local officers.

“I was impressed. Surprised. Very proud of the fact that even in our community testimony, we heard very few critiques of our police department. Cities across the nation are having the same conversation as close as Springfield, as far away as California and Florida. They are not having the same confidence in their police department,” Elwood told ABC 17 News.

“What we heard from our public was that they trusted our police department, and their fears were with the third-party company, and I think that makes us incredibly unique in terms of how our public is feeling about the situation and how our public is feeling about our officers here in town.”