Loading...
License Plate Reader Questions from John McDonaldQuestion 1: City Manager, how can the administration justify recommending or implementing ALPR proposals that burden taxpayers with private subscriptions while creating surveillance records of innocent residents' lives, including near schools, instead of focusing on efficient, privacy -respecting solutions? Question 2: What oversight will prevent mission creep or data sharing issues with existing private Flock cameras? Question 3: How do budget and procurement decisions account for legal risks under state law and the Constitution? Question 4: Would resources be better allocated to community programs or direct staffing? Question 5: Will you commit to full public reporting and resident input on these technologies? Question 6: How does this align with responsible stewardship of city resources and resident trust? Mayor Hunter Question 1: Mayor Hunter, as the elected leader who campaigned on serving and protecting Kalispell residents with transparency and accountability, how can you in good conscience support or preside over proposals for ALPR technology —whether mobile LPR for parking or broader systems —knowing it will create permanent, searchable records of every law-abiding resident's daily movements, including parents dropping children at Flathead High School or running errands? Private Flock cameras are already scanning at local stores like Lowe's and sharing data with law enforcement networks. What will you tell those families when their privacy is sacrificed for convenience and recurring vendor payments? Question 2: Montana law (MCA 46-5-117) exists specifically to prevent unchecked dragnet tracking on our roads and lots, with only narrow exceptions. Combined with Supreme Court rulings against warrantless prolonged location surveillance, how do you justify advancing these systems? Are you comfortable with your legacy including bringing this level of mass surveillance to our community? Question 3: With documented risks of data misuse elsewhere (stalking, overreach, third -party access), how will you personally ensure Kalispell avoids the same outcomes that erode public trust in government? Question 4: Will you commit tonight to directing a full public workshop, independent legal review, and pause on any expansions or spending before further action? Question 5: How does prioritizing these tools over community policing and resident engagement align with the values you were elected to uphold? Question 6: What message does this send to students, teachers, and families potentially affected near school areas? Question 1: Councilor Nunnally, With your strong background in community service, search and rescue, and emphasis on "see something, say something," how can you support shifting away from human -centered, neighborly vigilance toward automated ALPR systems that indiscriminately log every innocent resident's vehicle movements and locations? This risks replacing the community spirit you represent with cold corporate surveillance. Question 2: Knowing these tools have enabled misuse elsewhere, are you comfortable telling long-time Kalispell residents that traditional approaches are insufficient and that tracking law-abiding citizens is now necessary? Question 3: How do you reconcile these proposals with the volunteer values of service and protection that define your public record? Question 4: Will you advocate for stronger limits, audits, and preference for community policing over vendor subscriptions? Question 5: What assurances can you give families about data not being used near schools or for purposes beyond narrow enforcement? Question 6: How will this technology affect the trust you've built through years of community involvement? Question 1: Councilor Blank, you advocate for community -based safety, first responders, affordable housing, and walkable neighborhoods that foster real trust. How does supporting ALPR proposals that log innocent residents' movements and fund private vendors align with those priorities, rather than investing in people -centered solutions? This risks undermining the community fabric you work to strengthen. Question 2: What will you tell families and students when their routines near schools or daily life are tracked without cause? Question 3: Would you prioritize human and community programs over subscription -based surveillance? Question 4: How do these tools impact neighborhood trust and safety in the long term? Question 5: Will you support robust public input and alternatives before approval? Question 6: How does this fit with your vision for safe, connected Kalispell? Question 1: Councilor Fisher, as a long -serving representative, how can you support ALPR proposals that will track law-abiding residents' every movement —via city systems or private Flock networks already in our area —while paying private vendors, when this erodes the privacy and freedom Kalispell Question 2: What will you tell constituents in your ward about the impact on families and daily life, especially near schools? Question 3: Will you demand full transparency on costs, legal compliance, and data risks? Question 4: How does this balance with traditional community safety approaches? Question 5: Are you open to a public workshop and moratorium on expansions? Question 6: What legacy do you want regarding surveillance in our city? Question 1: Councilor Gabriel, as a representative for your constituents, how can you justify proposals that create mass records of innocent residents' movements through ALPR technology and private Flock networks, diverting funds from other priorities while risking privacy violations for families and students? Question 2: What assurances can you give residents that their daily lives won't be tracked without cause? Question 3: Will you push for strong legal review under MCA 46-5-117 and public input? Question 4: How do these tools affect trust in local government for the people you represent? Question 5: Would you support community -focused alternatives over vendor subscriptions? Question 6: Are you prepared to hold the council accountable on transparency for these issues? Question 1: President Waterman, in your role guiding council procedures and decisions, how can you justify allowing proposals for ALPR/LPR technology to move forward without complete public transparency, full cost disclosures (including ongoing private subscriptions), and independent legal analysis of MCA 46-5-117 compliance? Residents expect leaders to protect their freedom, not trade it for enforcement convenience that logs innocent movements. Question 2: What message does this send when council prioritizes systems that could track families near schools or daily routines while paying a private vendor, instead of addressing root safety issues through community means? Question 3: Will you ensure every council member receives detailed briefings on data risks, breaches, and mission creep before any votes? Question 4: How will you prevent these tools from expanding beyond parking enforcement into broader surveillance that undermines trust? Question 5: Are you prepared to support a dedicated public hearing and moratorium until full resident input and legal safeguards are in place? Question 6: As Council President, how do you personally weigh the convenience of these systems against the long-term cost to Kalispell's privacy and community values? Question 1: Councilor Daoud, you previously raised important privacy concerns about city drones and the risks of government technology invading private life or sharing data inappropriately. How can you now support ALPR systems that do this on a far larger scale —logging movements via private Flock cameras at Lowe's and potential city tools —without the same level of scrutiny? This reversal risks harming the very residents you once sought to protect. Question 2: With risks of overreach and tracking families near schools, how do you justify treating vehicle location data differently from drone concerns? Question 3: Will you apply your prior privacy standards to demand warrants or strict limits for any ALPR data? Question 4: How should the council address the trust implications for residents? Question 5: Are you willing to lead on transparency measures or a public workshop? Question 6: What would change your view on these proposals given your drone stance? Question 1: Councilor Leftridge, as an attorney serving the community (including school levy work), how can you support these proposals without ensuring a public legal opinion on MCA 46-5-117 compliance and constitutional risks? Allowing dragnet tracking —especially near schools with private Flock already present —puts families at risk and contradicts legal protections you understand well. Question 2: With Supreme Court precedents on location data, how will you explain to parents why their children's movements could be logged without individualized suspicion? Question 3: Has the city attorney reviewed these for Fourth Amendment and state law issues? Question 4: What steps will you take to prevent mission creep and data misuse? Question 5: Will you call for a pause and full publictlegal review? Question 6: How does this align with your community board service and protecting vulnerable residents? Question 1: Chief Venezio, how can you propose or support ALPR tools that will log movements of every law-abiding driver —potentially integrating with private Flock data from Lowe's—when this risks turning routine policing into mass surveillance that erodes community trust and diverts focus from real, targeted work? Question 2: With documented misuse cases elsewhere, what safeguards prevent abuse or overreach affecting families and students? Question 3: Would community policing, more officers, or targeted methods be more effective and less intrusive than broad tracking? Question 4: How do you ensure compliance with MCA 46-5-117 limits? Question 5: Will you support full transparency on data access and audits? Question 6: What message does this send about trust between police and the public YOU serve? Question 1: Councilor Walker, given your expertise in information security engineering and cybersecurity, how can you support private -vendor ALPR systems (with known cloud risks, potential breaches, and third -party access issues) that will track residents' movements while the city pays ongoing fees? This seems at odds with strong security principles and exposes families unnecessarily. Question 2: With Flock cameras already operating locally at places like Lowe's, are you comfortable with the vulnerabilities these systems introduce to everyday Kalispell drivers, including those near schools? Question 3: What specific safeguards, audits, or city -controlled alternatives would you demand to prevent misuse and data loss? Question 4: How does relying on external vendors align with best practices in your field? Question 5: Will you push for full technical transparency and rejection of systems without ironclad local control? Question 6: What message does this send to residents who expect cybersecurity experts on council to protect, not expose, their data?