Scottsdale’s Flock discussion should be in a regular meeting
OPINION — At the Sept. 22 city council meeting, Mayor Borowsky moved to agendize a decision on the controversial Flock cameras. She said it was time for council to take a clear stand for or against Flock.
In contrast, Barry Graham and Adam Kwasman extensively spoke for further studying the issue and avoiding action. Ultimately, council voted 7-0 to decide the fate of the Flock cameras at the Oct. 6 meeting.
Four days later, Flock cameras were moved off the meeting agenda and into a study session. Why? How? This change was made without public input, behind closed doors. I filed a public records request to identify which councilmember initiated this change.
The council has been discussing Flock cameras for several years, and has received thousands of resident emails about Flock. Flock’s impact – both positive and negative – has been well-argued in cities across the Valley. Many cities have voted to discontinue the cameras.
A study avoids decisions, kicks the can down the road and freezes action until after the election. Where do candidates stand on Flock? Even worse, public comments are limited to five speakers across all study topics! This session also includes data centers. Flock cameras, data centers and only five members of the public allowed to comment.
This council has already censored the public by moving non-agendized comment to the end of meetings, and ignored multiple petitions against the parking garage in the heart of the historic district. Limiting comments, behind closed doors, further marginalizes residents’ opinions.
If you have concerns for your privacy, the surveillance state and your constitutional rights, email council and demand Flock be moved out of the study session and back to the council agenda. If you support Flock and the safety benefits, do the same – we agree on transparency in following the laws.
Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.
