Toledo City Council voted 6-5 Wednesday against asking the city to end its Flock Safety camera deals (resolution R-435-26). Voting YES to end the deals: Mac Driscoll, Theresa Gadus, Nick Komives, Erin Kramer, Sam Melden. Voting NO: George Sarantou, Vanice Williams, John Hobbs III, Adam Martinez, Cerssandra McPherson, Theresa Morris.

But the fight didn’t end there. Councilwoman Brittany Jones arrived late and asked council to reconsider so she could vote; Councilwoman McPherson, who had voted no, made that motion. Councilman Adam Martinez then moved to send the measure to committee, and Council President Vanice Williams sent it there. Councilman Driscoll moved to pull it back out of committee — that vote tied 6-6 (YES: Driscoll, Gadus, Jones, Komives, Kramer, Melden; NO: Sarantou, Williams, Hobbs, Martinez, McPherson, Morris). Pulling an item out of committee needs seven votes, so it failed. Williams said the mayor can break a tie but was not at the meeting. Earlier, a motion to hold the measure two weeks got six votes, one short of the seven needed.

R-435-26 asks the city to end and not renew its Flock agreements, take down or switch off the equipment, and delete Flock’s data as far as the law allows — but even a yes would only have been a request, since the contracts belong to Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz’s administration. The city auditor’s study of the cameras is not done (council ordered the audit Sept. 22). Auditor John Rivalsky needs law-enforcement certifications to reach some of the data and has asked for more time; Williams said she would give him 30 more days.

McPherson said, “It’s not a yes or no when I don’t know and I don’t have all of the information.” Melden wanted the vote: “This notion of the audit being the key to unlocking what we think, I don’t buy it.”

Martinez pointed to his own bill, O-460-26, which would write limits on police technology into city law: bar sharing data with outside agencies, and bar tracking people in Toledo for immigration enforcement, gender-affirming care, or reproductive rights. It also calls for monthly reviews of Flock data sharing and removing 287(g)-affiliated departments and agencies. Komives asked for time to study it, wanting oversight “that isn’t just the police saying we checked ourselves.” Driscoll moved O-460-26 to committee; Martinez agreed.

Komives tied the vote to Tuesday’s election results, calling them a “repudiation” that included “building a surveillance state that people do not want,” and raised open questions about Flock and ICE. Martinez said a Flock opponent accosted him and his daughter about a week ago; he called it an active investigation and gave no details. “My daughter became a victim needlessly,” he said. “Now I want the cameras in place.” Williams replied: “No one should accost you and your child at a grocery store.”

Williams also said she has heard complaints about the plate readers but constituents in her district want to keep Flock; residents want a Flock camera (not a plate reader) at Inez Nash Park on East Bancroft, where a 16-year-old was shot last month. The cameras stay active while the auditor’s review continues.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons — Flock Safety camera closeup by Bruxton (CC0).

Sources: Lake Erie Inquiry, “Toledo council votes down Flock measure, then parks it in committee”; Toledo Free Press, “Codified restrictions proposed on TPD: Flock concerns”; ToledoBuzz: Toledo City Council Votes Against Ending Flock Camera Contract (Nov. 4)