Richmond, California
A civic pamphlet. Not a newspaper. No ads. Nothing for sale.
Publius
19 March 2026.
Some Tuesdays rhyme. March 17 was one of them.
In Richmond that night, the Council reached item X.2, the Flock Safety contract extension, at the far end of a long agenda. It had been continued from March 3, and public comment was closed, so this was deliberation only. The Police Chief and his staff presented, joined by a Flock representative. The Council asked for a written statement in the contract on how data requests would be handled, the company’s evidence policy, options for the City to keep its own data, and crime statistics for the period when the cameras were turned off. At about 9:55 p.m. the meeting was extended to finish.
The Mayor moved not to approve the amendment and to seek proposals from a California company. Councilmember Bana offered a substitute: negotiate an amendment that includes an unauthorized-sharing provision and makes the City the owner of its data. The substitute passed 4–3, with Councilmembers Bana, Brown, and Zepeda and Vice Mayor Robinson voting yes, and Councilmembers Jimenez and Wilson and the Mayor voting no.
Say what you like about license plate readers. I have opinions, and they are not tidy. But that was a real debate about a real contract. The Council asked hard questions about who sees the data, who keeps it, and what it buys in public safety. The vote was close and on the record. The public could see every hand go up. That is what a contract decision is supposed to look like, even at ten o’clock at night, even when everybody is tired.
Now cross the county line, figuratively, to Martinez. On the same day, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved a memorandum of understanding with Urban Tilth: $60,000 from the North Richmond Solar Funds for solar installation at the North Richmond Farm, running through March 31, 2027. It was on the consent calendar. Supervisor Gioia moved the consent calendar, and Supervisor Andersen seconded.
There is nothing improper in a consent calendar. Boards use them so they can get home. Solar panels on a farm are a pleasant thing, and $60,000 is modest by county standards. I accuse no one of anything. I only notice the difference in temperature.
In Richmond, a contract that touches the public’s privacy got a long evening, a presentation, a list of demands, a substitute motion, and a 4–3 roll call. In Martinez, a grant to a nonprofit run by a sitting Richmond councilmember got one line on a list and a single motion that also carried everything else on the list. Nobody stood up. Nobody needed to.
The County will tell you the North Richmond funds exist for exactly this sort of project, and that may be so. The question is not whether the money was allowed. The question is why one public board treats a surveillance contract as a matter of grave public concern while another treats public money to a well-connected local organization as routine. Both are public money. Both involve trust. Only one gets the lights turned up.
I would settle for equal lighting. Put the farm grant on the regular calendar, let somebody ask what the panels cost and who else applied, and vote. If it is a good grant, it will survive the questions. Good things usually do. It is the things that only survive without questions that deserve them most.
The next regular meeting of the City Council is Tuesday, March 24, 2026.
— Publius