GLENN HEIGHTS — “No ma’am, no ma’am; thank you, thank you; this is a council meeting.”
Mayor Sonja Brown’s response to a resident attempting to clarify vendor costs from the audience Tuesday night came during a sometimes pointed City Council discussion over automated license plate readers — a debate that ultimately ended with council rejecting both companies under consideration.
The council had been asked to consider implementing automated license plate reader software, an issue that has been discussed for several months. The Aug. 4 agenda listed the item simply as consideration of implementing ALPR software, with Councilman Sherron Mosley and Police Chief Glynell Horn listed as sponsors.
But much of Tuesday’s discussion returned to a question that has followed the issue: Which vendor should Glenn Heights use?
Mosley has supported Flock Safety, noting that neighboring communities use the company and that its representatives have attended council meetings. He contrasted that with Axon, which he said had attended only one meeting in person — the mayor’s TACO About It Town Hall.
Horn sought to separate the Police Department from the council’s choice of vendor.
“One thing I didn’t want to turn these council meetings into was vendor spatting matches,” said Horn. He continued by saying, “I’m not married to either vendor; it’s about having options.”
Privacy takes center stage
Beyond the vendor debate, much of the discussion centered on how Glenn Heights would protect residents’ privacy if ALPR technology is eventually deployed.
“Whatever direction we go, that is the crux of the conversation: How are we operating said systems that not only supports law enforcement, but we also are operating them in a safe and responsible manner that takes the privacy and safety of the residents into consideration?” said Chief Horn. “To me, that’s the most important part of this conversation.”
Brown asked whether policies governing ALPR use would remain living documents, who would be responsible for drafting them and how quickly an initial policy could be developed.
Horn said the policies would evolve as best practices change, particularly those involving data sharing.
“Just because you have ALPRs and our neighbors have ALPRs, we just don’t give our neighbors access to our system,” said Horn. “If we went to it here, what I would propose is a case-by-case request and approval.”
Horn described a process in which another police department seeking Glenn Heights ALPR information would have to provide information including a case number, investigator, vehicle description and specific time frame.
“If our neighbors in Red Oak were looking for a system, we wouldn’t just give them access to our system,” said Horn. “They’d have to send us a request, send us a case number, let us know the investigator, they’d have to describe the car and give us a specific time-frame in which they believed that specific car came in our system.”
“We’ll conduct a search and send them the information.” “That is a huge change to where agencies just don’t have access. They are putting in a request, we either approve or deny, we search the information and then provide it.”
What exactly was council deciding?
Councilwoman Shaunte Allen sought clarification about whether Tuesday’s agenda item was simply an approval of ALPR technology and what process would follow for selecting a vendor.
Horn said the system itself was his primary concern and that council could give him direction on how it wanted to proceed before he took it from there.
Councilwoman Nelda Washington questioned how the discussion had evolved after months of conversations involving vendors.
Brown asked Washington whether she supported approving only the software or wanted council to make a decision between Flock Safety and Axon.
Washington said both companies had offered packages, while Tuesday’s discussion appeared focused on the software itself.
Councilman Tramayne Hobbs said previous discussions had not simply been about packages. Axon offers other law enforcement equipment, including body cameras, Tasers and vehicle cameras in addition to ALPRs, while Flock Safety’s proposal centered on ALPRs.
The exchange became sharper when a resident in the audience attempted to clarify what vendors had previously said about costs.
“No ma’am, no ma’am; thank you, thank you; this is a council meeting,” Brown responded from the dais.
City Manager Clifford Blackwell said he did not recall Flock Safety saying it would match the cost of the competing option.
Mayor Pro Tem Travis Bruton urged council to choose a vendor and package so the expense could be incorporated into the city budget. Bruton said he leaned toward Axon overall.
“The big thing about LPR readers, cameras, software for me, is the policy and the safeguards for the citizens,” said Bruton. “After we decide the vendor and the package, those safeguards would be important policy-wise, as you mentioned earlier, and then I would also like to see the CPAC be able to see the policy as well because I think it would be a good opportunity to get that level of citizen engagement on the policy, as well as council.”
Horn agreed that civilian oversight through the Citizens Police Advisory Committee would be important.
Neither vendor gets enough votes
After the discussion, Mosley moved to approve the agenda item and select Flock Safety.
The motion was seconded but failed 6-1.
Bruton then moved to select Axon.
That motion also failed, 4-3.
The result leaves Glenn Heights without an approved ALPR vendor despite months of discussion over the technology, costs, privacy safeguards and competing systems.
It was not immediately clear Tuesday night whether the issue will return to the council or what the city’s next step will be.
