Thank you to the candidates who answered these questions and gave voters the opportunity to evaluate their positions.
My view: Not answering these questions is telling. At best, it suggests residentsâ privacy concerns are not a priority. At worst, it leaves voters wondering whether a candidate supports mass surveillance but wonât defend that position publicly. We deserve answers before giving anyone our votes.
I asked every City Council candidate in Districts 1, 4, 5, and 6 the following questions and told them I would publish their responses today:
1. If elected or re-elected, how will you vote when the City Council decides whether to renew, cancel, or permanently discontinue the Flock Safety ALPR contract, or on any future proposals to bring mass surveillance technology into Ventura?
2. How will you ensure accountability for the City Manager and Police Department regarding the failure to enforce the CARE Policy and the misrepresentation of the system's auditing capabilities to the Council and public?
Their responses are reproduced below in full, as written. Numbering corresponds to the questions above.
Ventura Police Officersâ Association endorsements: Crawford Coates, Scott Shoemake, Vernon Alstot, and Noe Aguilar Vega.
District 1
Liz Campos â incumbent
1.
I am adamantly against Flock cameras and agree with our residents that the need to be cancelled, removed, and not replaced with any electronic surveillance product.
2.
I will ask our council to return to a discussion of adding an enforcement component to the care policy. We cannot have citizen protection policies violated by our own police dept, nor is it acceptable for the chief to lie to us during a public meeting our individually.
Flock cameras routinely violate our 1st, 4th and 5th amendment constitutional rights. They need to be removed from our city.
Crawford Coates
Endorsed by the Ventura Police Officersâ Association.
October 8, 2026, at a public forum:
In the face of new evidence I would reconsider, but right now I think that having Flock cameras is probably a good thing.
Source
My comment: On October 8, Crawford states Flock was âprobably a good thing.â On October 24, he said he âwill not supportâ it. Without an explanation of what changed, that sounds like doubletalk. I donât know whether the police endorsement played a role, but voters deserve to know what changed and why.
October 24 written response:
1.
I am against mass surveillance. I think Flock is a complex topic that deserves great scrutiny and I am dismayed that this current city council oversaw the greatest expansion of this technology and the preponderance of these cameras in December of 2025 and before that paid for the existing program for years. I am dismayed that my opponent has appeared before the Westside Community Council, where there is police representation every meeting, without ever once discussing what the cameras and backend system do or how they have been deployed. The data agreement has been left in the dark. I don't support this and would not comport myself in this manner. We should have been talking about this months ago, before this council made this huge expansion. The people have had no say in the matter. As I said, I believe it's a complex topic that requires discussion -- not just Flock but Meta, TikTok, Apple, Ring, Reddit, Alphabet, Nest cameras, and so much else. (One of my favorite books is Surveillance Valley by Yasha Levine, which is on my desk right now, but also The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff.) The world is connected and increasingly online. Massive data analysis and social control requires data centers, which I also oppose in Ventura. County. Whatever the issue, if the citizens of Ventura are asked to pay for a service we must be clear on what it is and what it does and at what costs. Flock has not met this standard and so I don't and will not support Flock cameras in the City of Ventura.
2.
This is something I have already begun to address. I met with Chief Dickey and laid out my concerns and asked if city council can have formal and routine audit power, something he was open to. My opponent could have done this at any point in her service. I am a working father and yet I have had time to bring people together to learn and discuss these issues. That it is becoming a political football in the weeks before an election, that council punted on this until after the election is over tells you all you need to know. I have never once approved a budget that included a bill from Flock. My opponent has. (In fact, the December 2025 agreement with Flock has a signature line for council.) They have failed in their auditing powers and should be held accountable by the people. Regarding the city manager, he serves at the discretion of council. Again, they could have had these discussions when they actually mattered. I attend most city council meetings and watch them online where I can't. I know what they discuss, and what they don't, and it's a reflection of what they value. This city council and my opponent have failed in their responsibilities to protect all members of our community, including the most vulnerable. It's why I'm running.
District 4
Jeannette SĂĄnchez-Palacios â incumbent
1.
As much as I would like to provide you with a direct answer, I must be mindful of my responsibility as a sitting Councilmember and Mayor to remain impartial, particularly since this matter will be returning to the City Council for further discussion and a decision.
That said, I do want to acknowledge that I share some of the concerns you and other residents have raised. The reported security breach involving Flock raises serious questions that deserve careful examination. There must be greater transparency, accountability, and oversight regarding how the information collected is accessed, used, and shared, by whom, and for what purposes.
I believe these concerns warrant thoughtful scrutiny, and I am committed to ensuring they receive the attention they deserve as the Council considers this matter.
2.
If gaps in compliance, training, technology, or supervision are identified, the City Manager and Police Department must present a corrective action plan with measurable outcomes, responsible parties, and specific deadlines.
I support regular updates to the City Council and the public to ensure corrective actions are implemented and that the CARE Policy is being consistently enforced.
As Mayor, I recognize that the City Council has a responsibility to hold the City Manager accountable, while the City Manager is responsible for ensuring accountability within City departments, including the Police Department.
Ultimately, this is about more than technology or policy compliance. It is about public trust, responsible leadership, and ensuring that the City of Ventura operates with integrity.
Scott Shoemake
Endorsed by the Ventura Police Officersâ Association.
No response received as of publication.
Kyle Clark
No response received as of publication.
Richard T. Rosin
No response received as of publication.
District 5
Bill McReynolds â incumbent
1.
Iâll start with a clarifying statement.
I cannot tell you how I will vote as it would require that I or any sitting councilmember rescue themselves when a vote occurs on the subject. I can explain what/how I am thinking about the issue/question as the City Council approaches the vote, you will need to draw your own conclusions.
I do not have a law enforcement background, so I have needed to educate myself on the issues concerning Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR, aka Flock Cameras). I do believe that one of the biggest legal issues of the 21st Century that the City Council and our larger society need to be figure out is what is privacy in the 21st Century. That why I originally brought the matter forward to the City Council on August 18, 2026, and initiated the vote concerning the ALPR system on September 22, 2026. Moving forward, I believe that the discussion will be driven by the rights we are all granted in the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution concerning privacy protections and limits to government power. Along with the protections from law enforcement that we all have in the 6th and 8th Amendments of the Constitution that ensure fairness in our criminal justice system.
Over the last several years in particular the courts have made several rulings concerning the uses of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR, aka Flock Cameras). At this time, my understanding is that US v Jones (2012); Carpenter v US (2018), and US v Knotts (1983) are currently the three controlling cases with Carpenter v US being the most important ruling. Carpenter ruled that long-term location tracking (cell site location data) requires a warrant. On October 1, 2026, we got a new federal court ruling, US v Kyle (2026) out of Northeastern Oklahoma.
In Kyle, the court ruled that the warrantless retrieval of extensive historical ALPR data was a 4th Amendment search. It reasoned that compiling a detailed record of a person's movements over time reveals far more information than a single observation on a public roadway. Using the same reasoning as Carpenter, the court concluded that aggregated location data can implicate constitutional privacy interests. This ruling reflects a growing concern that technology can transform information traditionally exposed in public into a record of someoneâs life. The significance of the case is that it is the first decisions to treat a large-scale ALPR query as a 4th Amendment search requiring constitutional justification, extending reasoning associated with Carpenter into the ALPR context.
As I try to educate myself and discuss the subject with attorneys I know and legal minded folks. I think Kyle's core idea is starting to show a broader acceptance as it is building on US v. Jones and Carpenter v. US, where courts have become more concerned with long-term, aggregated location surveillance. The question becomes does Kyle or another ruling becomes nationwide depends on Appellate and Supreme Courtâs decisions.
Final thoughts, as a policy maker on the City Council, I will be looking towards the guidance we are receiving from the courts as I consider my vote.
2.
The CARE policy states that the city will follow the California Values Act (SB 54) which limits the use of city resources to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws. I would agree with the statement that there were violations of the CARE Policy because of external failures by Flock Security that were outside the control of the City Manager and Police Department at the time.
I would also agree that there was a failure of judgement on not making the City Council and public aware of immediately aware of the Flock Security breaches. I do not believe there was ill intent or malintent in not elevating the information on the part of staff. I believe that the City Council was uninformed on the implications of the breaches therefore had not clearly expressed the City Councilâs desire to be immediately informed this or similar issues to the City Manager and Police Department.
If a similar event were to occur in the future, now that there has been clear direction provided by the City Council, there would be immediate actions taken and repercussions.
Vernon Alstot
Endorsed by the Ventura Police Officersâ Association.
No response received as of publication.
District 6
Karba Eckley
1.
I would gladly vote to permanently discontinue the use of the Flock Safety ALPR contract. I would only be open to using ALPR for select parking contracts - not for citywide surveillance. The audit results revealed that VPD and the City can't realistically protect or secure residentsâ data from outside entities. I find that incredibly risky and a violation of privacy.
2.
I would expect the City Manager to deliver a full public accounting of why the CARE Policy wasnât enforced and why the auditing capabilities described to Council didnât match reality. I would be supportive of an independent review of the CARE Policy's implementation, plus a corrective action plan with deadlines.
Kevin Daly
1.
As first and foremost a resident of Ventura since 1984 and as a city Council candidate for District 6 I am completely against the use of flock cameras in parking lots keeping a record of peopleâs license plate numbers and where people have traveled to in the city. Itâs a violation of peopleâs privacy.
I support the ending of the cities contract .
The city has no right to turn this information over to the federal government/specifically federal law enforcement agencies!.
The first time I saw these cameras in parking lots I viewed them as an intrusion into peopleâs privacy!
The city council should vote to end their contract!.
- No answer provided.
My comment: Daly opposes Flock, but he also vocally opposed passage of the CARE Resolution, which protected immigrant, reproductive, and transgender rights. He did not answer how he would ensure accountability for failures to enforce that policy.
Danny Carrillo
1.
I feel there should be a moratorium put in place to possibly suspend this program so that this subject gets fully vetted. I do see a use for these cameras but there must be procedures and rules put in place to insure accountability to how the use of these may get violated.
I will need more information before making any decisions on these cameras but I do see them as another tool to enforce laws, to track kidnappers, stolen cars etc. But again, with strict accountability rules so that any violators will see some kind of discipline; the severity of discipline depends on the level of misuse.
2.
With both private and possibly public admonishment of any violations. Better communications is always the best way to address the who, what, where and whyâs of any subject. The City Manager receives a performance evaluation annually and any mis-cues can be reflected in this while trying to eliminate or reduce any violations of the CARE Resolution or SB54.
Noe Aguilar Vega
Endorsed by the Ventura Police Officersâ Association.
No response received as of publication.
James Loughrie
No response received as of publication.
Steven Almcrantz
No response received as of publication.