Bob Yancy said:

---

I can confirm the Flock contract will be heard in just over two weeks when we deliberate renewal, or cancellation.

Just fyi

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

I anticipate another 5-2 or 6-1 aquiscence....er, um, I mean legitimate vote. You know the will of the constituents type public service stuff.

You are right about the police's position and I understand that as we benefitted from cameras as well on one occasion. I wish there was a middle ground somewhere that could assure us that the system is not abused, but I've moved over to the "other" side as I don't see that being achieved. If we can't find that assurance, I just don't see how we can cross the bridge over to the Flock side.

Bob Yancy said:

---

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

I can confirm the Flock contract will be heard in just over two weeks when we deliberate renewal, or cancellation.

Just fyi

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Thanks for the update. I saw that you received the endorsement of the College Station Police Officers Association. Congrats on that! Do you feel like that comes with any future expectations or pressures concerning ALPRs?

---

Your extremely dedicated and professional police see Flock as a highly effective tool that helps them do their job better in protecting us. They also see the rising opposition across the country.

I'd ask all of you to see it from their perspective- along comes this tool that offers a proactive way to fight crime. What used to take hours, days, even months of detective work can now be accomplished in moments and they collar a bad guy that was seconds away from potentially hurting or killing someone. That's not exaggeration. It happened here. They get excited about not just the proactive crime fighting tool but also the deterrent effect this technology offers once felons realize they'll get busted in short order just by driving through an intersection after robbing an establishment.

Then the people rise up and demand that tool be taken away. Thats got to be tough for the officer or detective or police chief that just wants to fulfill the mission of a safer community.

Despite this- and to answer your question directly-

No. There was no quid pro quo on my stance on Flock. No, their endorsement isn't predicated on me supporting Flock.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

And I would say to you, what if that same tool were in the hands of bad actors? Making their bad acts easier and more efficient? I don't think a position for liberty and the abolishment of a police surveillance state is counter to police, it is counter to our civil rights violated by our government through the proxy of the 3rd party that we do not control. We can be supportive of police and anti surveillance.

This is firmly in play-

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

I am not willing to give up my freedom from state sponsored surveillance (or bad actors abusing a tool) to be safer.

EliteElectric said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

I can confirm the Flock contract will be heard in just over two weeks when we deliberate renewal, or cancellation.

Just fyi

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Thanks for the update. I saw that you received the endorsement of the College Station Police Officers Association. Congrats on that! Do you feel like that comes with any future expectations or pressures concerning ALPRs?

---

Your extremely dedicated and professional police see Flock as a highly effective tool that helps them do their job better in protecting us. They also see the rising opposition across the country.

I'd ask all of you to see it from their perspective- along comes this tool that offers a proactive way to fight crime. What used to take hours, days, even months of detective work can now be accomplished in moments and they collar a bad guy that was seconds away from potentially hurting or killing someone. That's not exaggeration. It happened here. They get excited about not just the proactive crime fighting tool but also the deterrent effect this technology offers once felons realize they'll get busted in short order just by driving through an intersection after robbing an establishment.

Then the people rise up and demand that tool be taken away. Thats got to be tough for the officer or detective or police chief that just wants to fulfill the mission of a safer community.

Despite this- and to answer your question directly-

No. There was no quid pro quo on my stance on Flock. No, their endorsement isn't predicated on me supporting Flock.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

And I would say to you, what if that same tool were in the hands of bad actors? Making their bad acts easier and more efficient? I don't think a position for liberty and the abolishment of a police surveillance state is counter to police, it is counter to our civil rights violated by our government through the proxy of the 3rd party that we do not control. We can be supportive of police and anti surveillance.

This is firmly in play-

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

---

I'm reaching out today to John Hamilton and Ivan who have spoken regularly at council on Flock. I'm strongly considering a change in my position and I want to meet with them to discuss it. I'm also in close consultation with our Chief and will continue to process both sides and national developments.

Few research harder than me. Bold statement but I believe it to be true. I will not make a politically expedient decision on Flock. My policy stance will be grounded in research and careful analysis from all angles.

I hope that's fair.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

I understand the position of the police. But the constitution was put in place to make their job harder, not easier. Their jobs would be much easier if we got rid of the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments altogether. Many officers see those as nothing more than obstacles to their work. But the end result would be a lesser country for everyone.

Bob Yancy said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

I can confirm the Flock contract will be heard in just over two weeks when we deliberate renewal, or cancellation.

Just fyi

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Thanks for the update. I saw that you received the endorsement of the College Station Police Officers Association. Congrats on that! Do you feel like that comes with any future expectations or pressures concerning ALPRs?

---

Your extremely dedicated and professional police see Flock as a highly effective tool that helps them do their job better in protecting us. They also see the rising opposition across the country.

I'd ask all of you to see it from their perspective- along comes this tool that offers a proactive way to fight crime. What used to take hours, days, even months of detective work can now be accomplished in moments and they collar a bad guy that was seconds away from potentially hurting or killing someone. That's not exaggeration. It happened here. They get excited about not just the proactive crime fighting tool but also the deterrent effect this technology offers once felons realize they'll get busted in short order just by driving through an intersection after robbing an establishment.

Then the people rise up and demand that tool be taken away. Thats got to be tough for the officer or detective or police chief that just wants to fulfill the mission of a safer community.

Despite this- and to answer your question directly-

No. There was no quid pro quo on my stance on Flock. No, their endorsement isn't predicated on me supporting Flock.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

And I would say to you, what if that same tool were in the hands of bad actors? Making their bad acts easier and more efficient? I don't think a position for liberty and the abolishment of a police surveillance state is counter to police, it is counter to our civil rights violated by our government through the proxy of the 3rd party that we do not control. We can be supportive of police and anti surveillance.

This is firmly in play-

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

---

I'm reaching out today to John Hamilton and Ivan who have spoken regularly at council on Flock. I'm strongly considering a change in my position and I want to meet with them to discuss it. I'm also in close consultation with our Chief and will continue to process both sides and national developments.

Few research harder than me. Bold statement but I believe it to be true. I will not make a politically expedient decision on Flock. My policy stance will be grounded in research and careful analysis from all angles.

I hope that's fair.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Are you willing to promise that you will make a decision regarding your policy stance and communicate it to the public BEFORE the election?

AggieBaseball06 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

EliteElectric said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

CS78 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

I can confirm the Flock contract will be heard in just over two weeks when we deliberate renewal, or cancellation.

Just fyi

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Thanks for the update. I saw that you received the endorsement of the College Station Police Officers Association. Congrats on that! Do you feel like that comes with any future expectations or pressures concerning ALPRs?

---

Your extremely dedicated and professional police see Flock as a highly effective tool that helps them do their job better in protecting us. They also see the rising opposition across the country.

I'd ask all of you to see it from their perspective- along comes this tool that offers a proactive way to fight crime. What used to take hours, days, even months of detective work can now be accomplished in moments and they collar a bad guy that was seconds away from potentially hurting or killing someone. That's not exaggeration. It happened here. They get excited about not just the proactive crime fighting tool but also the deterrent effect this technology offers once felons realize they'll get busted in short order just by driving through an intersection after robbing an establishment.

Then the people rise up and demand that tool be taken away. Thats got to be tough for the officer or detective or police chief that just wants to fulfill the mission of a safer community.

Despite this- and to answer your question directly-

No. There was no quid pro quo on my stance on Flock. No, their endorsement isn't predicated on me supporting Flock.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

And I would say to you, what if that same tool were in the hands of bad actors? Making their bad acts easier and more efficient? I don't think a position for liberty and the abolishment of a police surveillance state is counter to police, it is counter to our civil rights violated by our government through the proxy of the 3rd party that we do not control. We can be supportive of police and anti surveillance.

This is firmly in play-

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

---

I'm reaching out today to John Hamilton and Ivan who have spoken regularly at council on Flock. I'm strongly considering a change in my position and I want to meet with them to discuss it. I'm also in close consultation with our Chief and will continue to process both sides and national developments.

Few research harder than me. Bold statement but I believe it to be true. I will not make a politically expedient decision on Flock. My policy stance will be grounded in research and careful analysis from all angles.

I hope that's fair.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

Are you willing to promise that you will make a decision regarding your policy stance and communicate it to the public BEFORE the election?

---

Yes.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

5thSergeantPumpkin said:

---

Tricky wording, he's willing to promise. That doesn't mean he will.

That being said, I think he will.

---

Cut the guy some slack.

None of the rest of our elected officials engage with us.

EFR said:

---

Sometimes things ARE that simple. Many people, myself included, are tired of people seeking office who cannot answer a yes or no question and refuse to vote for them.

---

Why in the world would you want to vote for someone who makes decisions on complex issues without having all of the details and analyzing the repercussions of those decisions?

Personal opinion here but there is zero chance this council chooses to continue with flock. They laid down when a vocal minority opposed the surface lot sale, and again with the data center. Both of those at least had a huge financial upside. There's plenty of loud voices, albeit a minority, to sufficiently deter them from continuing on with flock.

I'm far from an expert on this but it seems to me, and please enlighten me if I'm off base, but it seems to me that the liberty or death folks are missing something here. Yeah, the government will step back from this program, but there are already cameras on private property all over. Flock will continue to develop that business model, and we will have just as many cameras around town, all erected on private property. Law enforcement will continue to access this information and there won't be anything citizens can do to govern that as this will be a contract between private entities. You don't trust the police, and that's fine, but you won't have a choice when it's the LP guy at home depot.

Work has gotten in the way of reading this week, but I have a question for Mr Yancy.

How is the flock network proactive? Supposedly nothing is looked at until a crime has been committed. That's reactive.

Also, how does the flock network "keep us safe". Once again, it's a reactive tool for the police.

I may be persuaded to change my stance on the network, but only if there was a requirement for a judicial warrant to access the data.

Rexter said:

---

Work has gotten in the way of testing this week, but I have a question for Mr Yancy.

How is the flock network proactive? Supposedly nothing is looked at until a crime has been committed. That's reactive.

Also, how does the flock network "keep us safe". Once again, ours a reactive tool for the police.

I may be persuaded to change my stance on the network, but only if there was a requirement for a judicial warrant to access the data.

---

I'm talking with Chief, the CSPOA, and DeFlock leadership. I'm researching policy compromises that would allow this tool to be used as targeted, warranted surveillance of active crimes and only via subpoena in many situations.

I'll post these policy "compromises" here and publish them to the constituencies aforementioned and try to get to a point we can all live with.

The status quo isn't going to fly. Flock contract provisions and public facing comments and national (not local) abuses conflict with what we're being told and I have a real problem with that.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

It needs to be recorded because….
Scenario:
Day 1 (Friday August 28, 2026) an offense occurs (lets say a building was broken into this morning and that store's video shows the suspects walking from down in the parking lot from the direction of a bank with exterior cameras). The patrol officer writes his report and has Saturday and Sunday to get it approved by a supervisor.

Day 4 - Monday August 31, 2026: the records department has to review all reports that have come in over the weekend. If there are no errors needing it to be kicked back to the original officer they mark it for review by a Criminal Investigations Division supervisor.

Day 5 - Tuesday September 1, 2026: the CID supervisor reviews the case and either tasks it out to an intern/volunteer or assign it to a Detective.

Day 6 - Wednesday September 2, 2026: the detective or other person assign to get video types up a subpoena for the exterior bank footage. The subpoena request is an out of county grand jury subpoena because the bank doesn't allow it to be served locally. The subpoena request is sent to the legal secretary at the District Attorney's Office.

Day 7 - Thursday September 3, 2026: The legal secretary drafts the out of county order to accompany the original request and they then get an Assistant District Attorney to sign all the paperwork.

Day 8 - Friday September 4, 2026: The paperwork is walked over to one of the District Judges' offices.

Day 11 - Monday September 7, 2026: the judge sends all the subpoenas he signed down to the District Clerk's office for their seal and signature.

Day 12 - Tuesday September 8, 2026: the District Clerk's office delivers all the signed subpoenas back to the legal secretary at the District Attorney's office. The legal secretary scans in all the subpoenas and gets them emailed off to the Detective who originally filed the subpoena request.

Day 13 - Wednesday September 9, 2026: The Detective gets the subpoena and either serves it on the bank via fax, email, certified mail, or in person at the local branch.

Now it is in the hands of the bank and you just hope and pray that they get back to you within 17 days so your 30 day clock with Flock doesn't expire. If the bank is Wells Fargo, Chase, or Bank of America…good luck as the subpoena gets put in the queue with every other request around the country.

Let's say you do get the video back in time and it shows they got into a white Dodge Charger. You start searching the Flock cameras in town during your offense time frame and you locate 5 possible vehicles. During this time the Detective emails out screenshots to detectives in the region and Tomball PD gets back with you and says they had a similar burglary a week after College Station but have no vehicle description.

You now run all those vehicles you previously narrowed down and find out one of them was in the area of the Tomball case. You now have a vehicle identified but it returns to a 70 year old lady out of Beaumont. The vehicle has no tracker but checking Flock you see it is constantly driving around Houston. Now you put out a BOLO (be on the lookout) for the vehicle to law enforcement across the state. An agency then hotlist the plate in the Flock system.

Two weeks later Sealy PD on I-10 gets an alert that the vehicle is entering their city. Their officer finds the vehicle and follows it until it commits a traffic violation. The car pulls over and they find three guys in the vehicle with grinders and bolt cutters. Legal question: is that enough to arrest them for possession of a criminal instrument? The Sealy officer seizes their phones and notifies the College Station and Tomball detectives who then write up search warrants for their phones. You hope the PD's cellphone download technology allows them to download the devices which will show them on scene of the College Station incident. If it does you write up arrest warrants for those suspects.

All this is dependent on CSPD having Flock LPR cameras because otherwise no one would ever know the suspect vehicle was in College Station.

MidRatsAg said:

---

EFR said:

---

Sometimes things ARE that simple. Many people, myself included, are tired of people seeking office who cannot answer a yes or no question and refuse to vote for them.

---

Why in the world would you want to vote for someone who makes decisions on complex issues without having all of the details and analyzing the repercussions of those decisions?

---

I never said I don't want an elected official to have all the necessary info to make a decision. That being said, at some point they have to stand up and say "I am for/against X and this is why". Dancing around it constantly just comes across like you don't really stand for anything.

Bob Yancy said:

---

I'm talking with Chief, the CSPOA, and DeFlock leadership. I'm researching policy compromises that would allow this tool to be used as targeted, warranted surveillance of active crimes and only via subpoena in many situations.

I'll post these policy "compromises" here and publish them to the constituencies aforementioned and try to get to a point we can all live with.

The status quo isn't going to fly. Flock contract provisions and public facing comments and national (not local) abuses conflict with what we're being told and I have a real problem with that.

Respectfully

Yancy '95

---

The best compromise at this point would be, allowing the people that approved installing these things to keep their positions, if they remove them. There isn't a single councilman in this country that should have allowed this to happen. Where were their critical thinking skills? They didn't need to be civil rights lawyers to see where this would lead. Frankly, its mind blowing that no one stopped to question it.

At this point any compromise that leaves the cameras up, is going to leave the public skeptical. The trust ship set sail when they were installed without public comment. Trying to fix that now will be tough.

For me personally, the only compromise that I would be ok with would require the cameras to catch and store no mass data. Only information on cases that had warrants. John Doe is suspected of robbing a bank. Police go to judge and get a warrant, suspect can then have their info added to the ALPR watch list to be used to study and track their movements. Even that would be tough for me because I don't like the long-term normalization of cameras being on every street corner.

The logistical problem with that is, they might not get enough use to justify the cost and number of cameras currently deployed. The other problem would be, who is going to police the programming to make sure it's not being abused?

Any "compromise" that might entail simply moving to a different company, retaining mass data for less time, or other "safeguards" are simply a no-go.

I want that anti-Flock guy who dresses like Darth Vader to crash one of our meetings here.

Don't tempt me…

Wanted to share this

Stucco said:

---

Well I guess we aren't getting that tasty $308k grant to fund flock after all.

---

Now you know why their budget is half a billion dollars.

Pig Robbins said:

---

Quote:

---

Now you know why their budget is half a billion dollars.

---

The total city budget also includes CSU. The general fund budget (about half goes to police and fire) is about $172 million. According to news reports, it barely increased this year.

---

Listening to the Council meeting this week, there's plenty of issues with the budget, and it was very possible to avoid a tax rate increase. That failed, not for reasons of logic, but because if we didn't get the largest possible tax rate increase this year, we wouldn't have that higher rate to build off of next year, should the state cut the maximum rate, WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL, next year. As with the Public Works building, the city refuses to allow voters to decide how their money is spent. The Capital Budget is the killer, and the Council voted to follow staff's guidance, refusing to use common sense. As our Mayor said "that's for a future Council to wrestle with."

Pig Robbins said:

---

The share of the tax rate that goes toward debt is roughly the same, so the higher tax rate has little, if anything, to do with the large capital project budget.

---

That is exactly the city's line, and it's sorta true, on its face. The debt service costs won't change materially in FY 27. Debt service doesn't begin until debt is actually issued, not when it's approved. Generally, some of that will happen in the year following the approval, a lot in the second year, and most in year 3. So, FY27 should see a good bit of the FY25 capital plan, right? Oh wait, there's another little trick the city uses in forecasting debt service.
Let's say that a bond is issued in the second month of the FY27 budget year. City knows it. They're the ones who have the schedule. It's not a secret. So, is it in the forecast? Nope. I confirmed this with the city. Only after the debt is issued will the debt service forecast be corrected. The city sits on $360m in debt. THIS COUNCIL has approved $335m in debt service, the vast majority of which is not in any forecast. These are the most prolific spenders the city has ever seen. And the new plan? Doesn't even include land, or soil remediation, for the new Public Works building. Need more space? There's an empty former police station right there. There's flooding in parts of the parking lot? Quit approving impervious coverage exceptions. Need more maintenance bays to accommodate the new larger fire engines? Build those. Make them nice. Spend $10m, not $65m or more.
BUT, the tax rate increase for debt service is coming, but feel free to ignore it until it arrives, and then wonder what happened. You won't be alone in that.

Pig Robbins said:

---

The share of the tax rate that goes toward debt is roughly the same, so the higher tax rate has little, if anything, to do with the large capital project budget.

---

Tell me you don't pay CS city taxes without telling me you don't pay CS city taxes. There's a reason the vast majority of CS city employees can't afford to live there.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Your extremely dedicated and professional police see Flock as a highly effective tool that helps them do their job better in protecting us. They also see the rising opposition across the country.

I'd ask all of you to see it from their perspective-

---

Yancy I am circling back to this to add something I meant to add in my initial response-

I think it's safe to say we all see it and understand it from their perspective, and also believe the squeeze isn't worth the juice.

Bear with me here for a second-

Imagine there is a tool that could be super efficient for helping parents educate their children in all aspects, but that tool could also be used in a horrible way by lazy parents and could be a long term threat to their health and safety. We allow this tool into society based on it's perceived "benefits". Now you walk into a restaurant and kids are wearing earbuds and have a phone or tablet out while they are eating and their lazy parents are sitting next to them just as happy because they don't have to engage with little Timmy/Sally.

Just because it makes someone's job easier doesn't make it good for society.