Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Six-Year Agreement with Axon Enterprise Inc. for the Acquisition, Support, and Maintenance of 88 Body-Worn Digital Video Cameras and a Digital Evidence Management System in an Amount Not to Exceed $793,792.96.  (Police 3121)
Okay. So we hear the public speaker and then council comment said, okay. Okay, let's hear speaker, please. Craig Erickson. Hello. My name's Craig Erickson. Thank you for having me here. I want I representing Oakland Privacy, which is an advocacy group. And one of the things that we're requesting at this actually not this item, not be on the consent calendar and be given the public an opportunity to ask questions. We know that when this contract first started and this policy came along, I think it was Councilman de SOG that said, hey, if the police department officer. Says that. This is actually something that's going to protect citizens and the police department, I'm all for it. And so we were wondering, what was the verdict? Did it achieve its goals? And if so, where are is there any kind of reports or anything that would show that the vendor axon is actually complying with its policies to make sure that they aren't sharing data with anyone that you're not authorizing and that that data is actually secure for the purpose of. You know, protecting the police and the public. Thank you. And you're a dancer? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Is that our only public speaker? So is this an item that, uh, Chief Valerie, are you prepared to answer questions? So, council, do we have to have any questions? Have now closed public comment. So we're on to council comment and questions. Uh, Councilmember Villa. Um, I'll go ahead and ask the questions that were raised by the Speaker. And hopefully, chief, you can answer them. I think you can. Sure. So, uh, is there an issue with data security or do we know of the data being shared? There has not been an issue. Uh, if you for some of you that remember from the discussion when we got the contract signed four years ago in an open, in an open council session, it was not on consent. Um, we included in the report and it still exists today that Taser has military grade server security and that the data is ours. It's not theirs to release. There has not been a breach at Axon or Taser. They were Taser when we got the contract. Their axon. Now, they have not had a breach. They have not. There's been no unauthorized releasing of any of our videos. And the only videos that we released now is in response to 14 AB 1421 that passed January 1st or became effective and now 748, which became effective July 1st outside of that or a court order. The videos aren't being released. Understood. And how I'm assuming if you could give us a report, I guess, on how the how. The. We're going to get a microphone. It's a little tricky when you're holding a baby. He doesn't speak very loud. We're going to I think we've got a remote microphone. Chief, there was a question about the efficacy of the body cameras and how they're doing in terms of protecting officers as well as members of the public, if you can speak on that. Sure. I can give you some anecdotal numbers, and I know that the letter that we received from Oakland Privacy specifically asked the question about use of force incidents. That was not a problem that we were trying to combat at the time that we bought the cameras. Um, the person who wrote the letter asked specifically if we had seen a, an increase or a reduction in use of force incidents since the cameras were implemented, they've gone up and down, but more or less they've been steady. The high number was 29 in 2014 or 15 sorry, 2015 this year to date we've had six. And in the intervening years the numbers have bounced around 21, 22, 24. So it hasn't shown any an increase or decrease this year. I think we're on pace for a decrease, but there's no evidence that it's specifically related to the body cameras. Thank you. Sure. My final question, which is also in the privacy letter, but is there a reason why this was a no bid contractor or why we didn't go out for bid on it? Yeah, because we're still in contract with them. We weren't asking for a new contract. We were extending the terms of the original contract to to pay for the data overages because of the the extra videos that we're recording. And then also there's some new video redaction software so that we could be compliant with the new state laws. And so we're just trying to extend an existing contract. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chief Hillary. Vice Mayor, did you have any questions as vice mayor? Next wave. Of questions, statements. I'm prepared to support this contract moving forward, but I'd like to ask my colleagues to join me in providing some direction to staff as a part of this contract to bring back sometime this fall both what I would call the expanded Sanctuary City Data and Privacy Referral, which I believe is under discussion under the umbrella of actually just a data privacy policy, but additionally a policy for the Council to consider how and when the city releases videos that are captured from these body cams. It can be a part of that umbrella if that's how staff wants to do it. But I think it's we've had some kind of partial policy requests out there, and I think that if we're going to continue to move forward and collect more and more data about people who are in our community, I think we need to take the steps early on to ensure that we are in control of that data and know what is being done with it. Do you want to comment on that, Chief Hilary? Sure. Just briefly, I would tell you that the retention schedule that we have in our existing policy right now is based on a couple of things. One, we're being compliant with the new state laws 1421 some 48 and then also the other things that we're dealing with are the Statue of Liberty. Patience for the criminal offense that's committed. So a homicide, for example, we hold that forever. Other certain felonies might be three years, might be six years. Sexual assault could be longer. It just depends on the crime. So we're not going to destroy the video before the statute of limitations expires on that on that crime. And then also in response to court orders, discovery motions and things like that. But if I understood the vice mayor correctly, you're also concerned or maybe even more concerned with release policy? Yeah, I think I think the how we how these videos are released. Obviously in compliance with all state laws and federal laws, as it were. But I think that the council should actually have the power to set the policy on how we're releasing that. Okay. Well, and we can certainly consider that as staff direction, although I do think in the policy now, we have criteria for release of the video. Are you are we thinking about public records request the news media or all of the above? So that's if I could just interject, that's where Senate bill or Assembly Bill 1421 and 80, 47, 48 apply before before January 1st and July 1st. The videos couldn't be released in APRA. Now, now they have to be for certain, for certain types of offenses or officer misconduct, critical incidents, use of force, shooting, etc.. So that but outside of that, we don't release them on, on prior requests. Okay. So if I understand correctly, you wanted to make sure that our policy is in compliance with state law. And considered by the policymaking body of the city and in scope. So I see. Manager Levitt so we can we could bring back what the current policy is and have a discussion consistent with and then also have the expanded discussion on data privacy in general. So we could bring both those back this fall, and we could at first just set the guidelines of what we currently do and then give options if you want to look at other. And given that I think some of this legislation is fairly recently passed, we probably it would be nice to have an opportunity to look at whatever updates to the policy might exist in Council Member States. Like I can see when you see. Yeah. Just two points. I think for me personally, I think the path of least resistance when it comes to dealing with the item before us is to move the staff's recommendation. Because I'm weary, at least of the second point. I'm weary of kind of interjecting certain issues that I still have to, you know, be brought up to speed on. So how it intersects, I suspect that Vice Mayor Knox White is not asking us to right now to to endorse a sanctuary city policy whatsoever. I think I suspect he is probably suggesting that we have a conversation on how a sanctuary policy, sanctuary city policy intersects with things like this. But that still leads me to believe, though, that that should be a discussion separate from tonight, in my opinion. Can I just. Vice Mayor. That's right. Thank you. Just just to clarify, the city already has a sanctuary city policy, and we're not talking about that. There was a referral about a year and a half, maybe two years ago from other council members up here to look at how we are using data and how that fits with our sanctuary city. My request is that we actually bring that referral that has been sitting around for two years back, expand it to actually just look at privacy data in general and then fold this conversation into that conversation so that as we are continuing to provide longer and bigger contracts for collecting more and more data, we actually know that we're doing so with a kind of a comprehensive approach to protecting our citizens and cities data. And privacy. Okay. And and I will just add with regard to the comments that were made by the gentleman from Oakland privacy, I remember sitting in on the hearings. I'm including with representatives of the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union. And they had done a white paper. And I read the whole thing. And one of the conclusions the ACLU came to was I remember them saying they surprised themselves in their support for body worn cameras, and they saw them as both protecting the public and protecting the police. And but certainly, you know, any equipment is only as good as the policy that governs it. And I'm sure that it would be instructive to take a look at at what our policy is and with any necessary updates. So I'm hearing, I think, a motion and direction to staff. Is that is that fair assessment? Yes, I'll make that motion with the direction. Okay. So you move approval and then with the direction is stated. Okay. So a motion to have a second go. So what. Is the direction. The direction is for? Why don't we ask the city clerk? Did you take a note of. Bring back the expanded sanctuary city referral along with having a general discussion about data but close enough. To bring back the sanctuary city referral expanded to provide privacy protections for all city data, including a release of the camera data. Okay. So the. Sanctuary and the sanctuary. Privacy. Referral. Okay. So so you were looking beyond just the reference to this because when you're talking about all city data, is that something. And. Seems like we're getting a little beyond. I've spoken to the city attorney and the city manager this afternoon that they are planning to bring back that referral. And so all I'm trying to say is bring back. I think it's great that they're planning to bring it back. My only hesitation is I would like whatever staff direction goes along with this motion to be related to the noticed item. Yes, it is. Basically it's saying that we need to make sure that we have a policy for how we are addressing the data that is collected by these cameras and that we should just wrap that into the conversation that is already planning to come back later this fall. Mr. Shin, can you just illuminate me when the term all-city data seems broad to me? But help me understand. The city manager and I just had a brief conversation and we think we understand the direction. And given that the direction is brief, we will. On a staff between the city manager and I, we will work on getting as much information back as is reasonably consistent with the direction. Okay, well stated by a lawyer. Okay. But I think we have enough information on what of that policy relates to the body worn cameras. It will come back when we look at the body worn camera policy. Okay. And it almost sounds like two items, but I leave it in the capable hands. You're capable hands. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. We just get a second, right? No, we did it. We have a motion. Do we have a second? With a motion and a second discussion. All in favor, I. Hope. The motion was as previously stated, we are moving this item with the staff direction. That was just. And the the in the motion is the one that the city clerk read about the body worn camera contract. Okay. Motion second. I heard how many eyes to have for any opposed. Abstention? Yeah. It's an impose. Okay. Just discretion. If, you know. Obviously I support, you know, any and everything whenever you need capital equipment. I just think that the add on is a substantive issue in and of itself. And I'm and there was a certain language in there that presupposes, um, uh, an opinion that, that I don't hold yet. So it's not that I don't have an opinion on that. Thank you. Okay. Hold it yet. Okay. So when this item is coming, well, you have the year, then the item passes 4 to 1, and we will come back with some further discussion about policy. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Okay, so then our next consent calendar. I think we did three in a row, correct? Yes. Okay. So the next one is five N as in Nancy. Final passage of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section eight, dash 8.5 and eight. Dash 1.2 to authorize the Public Works Director to improve safety and visibility at Alameda Intersections. And we do have one speaker on this item.