Austin City Council Work Session Transcript – 3/25/2025 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 3/25/2025 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 3/25/2025 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. [9:01:00 AM] We have a majority of the council present at Austin city hall, in the council chambers at 301 west second street. Members. I want to just lay out what I see the order of the day being and then we'll we'll go to that. I've now called to order the work session, but I'm going to, in pretty rapid fashion, recess that work session. So that chair vela may call to order the Austin energy oversight committee, and we will first meet as that committee of the whole and allow him to conduct that meeting. When that meeting is completed, I will call back to order the Austin city council work session. And the order that will go in is pretty much the agenda that has been posted. We will take up the one pulled item, which is item 103, and I will recognize at the time, council member Siegel to lay out that as the person that pulled that item, then what we will do is go in the order that you see [9:02:01 AM] is go in the order that you see in terms of executive sessions. We'll take up E one first. I anticipate that that one related to the city clerk will be a very short executive session, and we will just follow then through the evaluations that have been posted. So with that, unless there are questions, oh, let me check with the city clerk's office. And for the record, establish that there is no one that has signed up to speak on any items on the work session. >> That's correct. Mayor. >> All right. We have no one signed up to speak as part of public comment on any of the items on the work session. So unless council members have any questions or objections, we will, without objection, recess the work session of the Austin city council at 9:02 A.M. And I will turn things over to chairman vela. >> Thank you very much, mayor.. Thank you very much. And I'll turn it back over to the mayor. >> Thank you, chairman vela. I'll call back to order the work session. Meeting of the Austin city council at 1047. The city council will now go into closed session to take up four items pursuant to section 5.51074 of the Texas government code, the city will discuss personnel matters related to item E one, discuss personnel issues related to the appointment of the city clerk. These are personnel matters pursuant to section 551074 of the government code. Item E two. Evaluate the performance of and consider compensation and benefits for the city manager. Again, that is a personnel matter pursuant to 551.074 of the government code. Item E three. Evaluate the [10:47:55 AM] Item E three. Evaluate the performance of and consider compensation and benefits for the municipal court clerk again under item 551. Under Texas government code section 551074 and item E four, evaluate the performance and consider compensation and benefits for the city auditor under section 551.074 of the government code for members of the public. We will go in. We will take care of all these items, and at the end of that, we will come back because we will have an item that has been pulled and we will take that item up. So is there any objection going into going into the executive session on the items announced hearing? None. The city council will now go into executive session at 10:48 A.M. Thanks, everybody. Good afternoon everybody. It's [1:06:27 PM] Good afternoon everybody. It's 1:06 P.M. On March 25th, 2025. We have concluded our discussion of personnel matters related to items e1, e2, and e3. So we are out of the closed session and we will now take up the pre-selected agenda items. We have item 103 and I will call on council member Siegel. Thank you mayor, and I'll give staff a couple of seconds to come down. So I just wanted to share with my colleagues that my office made the decision to pull this item after it was added to the addendum late last week, which kind of gave us a short timeline to figure out what public discussion would be needed before our vote this coming Thursday, and I was able to speak with some of our fellow council offices yesterday. And to get context from staff about the pilot program, the pending audit. And I think the belief by several of my colleagues that we need to let this pilot play out and get the results of the audit before we make a final decision on whether to make the apr [1:07:28 PM] on whether to make the apr program permanent. And I definitely respect that kind of wait and see attitude. But with that said, the reason I pulled this item as someone who followed this debate from outside of city hall, is that I'm concerned with how our city's participation in, frankly, a mass surveillance program such as automated license plate readers could negatively impact our community and in particular, some of the most vulnerable segments of our community, including immigrants, people seeking reproductive care, people seeking gender affirming care, and more. And I think that myself, but also many people in this community believe that what is happening right now in Washington, DC, is unique in United States history. For federal law and the united States constitution by the current administration. And so I would say that things have changed since the city council last considered this policy. And in particular, what has changed is how federal power is being weaponized against many communities. And so one example [1:08:29 PM] communities. And so one example is we see the federal government using its immigration authority to deport legal residents who engage in political protest. Mahmoud Khalil is a green card holder who was living in the state of New York. He's married to a U.S. Citizen. He was arrested and sent to a privately run ice detention facility in Louisiana because he participated in political protests in support of palestine. We see the federal government retaliating against judges, law firms, nonprofits, others who are opposed to current federal policy. We see the attorney general of the United States saying that if you protest against Tesla or Elon Musk, the government can declare you a government, sorry, a domestic terrorist. So my concerns regarding this policy are basically based in civil liberties. And, you know, to the extent we're potentially funding a surveillance program that can be captured or commandeered by the same federal government that is repressing rights and attacking our community members. So that is why I pulled this item, the context, and I want to [1:09:31 PM] item, the context, and I want to thank the assistant chief Greenwalt for being here and for speaking with my staff about this. And so I wanted to go over a few scenarios that you discussed with my staff yesterday about how this program intersects with outside law enforcement agencies. For example, our state has criminalized and created felony abortion crimes. So if a state agency such as dps asks for data relating to an investigation of a, you know, an abortion, crime or alleged crime, isn't it true that that data would be provided to the state agency? >> So we have a professional courtesy that we would provide a lot of different data that different agencies would request. However, with the license plate reader specifically, there's a nondisclosure agreement that we make every other law enforcement agency sign for every single request that they put in and in that nondisclosure agreement, it specifically says what they can and cannot use the information for the criminal offense that they're investigating. If it [1:10:31 PM] they're investigating. If it doesn't fall in line with our policies, we can actually withhold it. I think yesterday, I informed your chief of staff that we're going to turn over all information to other law enforcement agencies. The only agency that we're required actually under law to provide that information to would be immigration customs enforcement, ice. But if it was the state for abortion purposes, we would not be required to turn that over. >> Okay. That's good to hear. Thank you. So in regard to immigration offenses, like, for example, there's a felony offense for unlawful reentry. If a state agency or federal agency requested that information, we would be required to provide it. >> By law. Yes, sir. >> Okay. And then could a law enforcement agency continually request data relating to license plate? You know, a reader hits I understand we have a seven day period where we retain this information, but isn't it true that a law enforcement agency could basically renew a request every seven days to continually receive such information? >> Nothing would prevent them from doing that. I think it's worth noting that in the 12 months that we've had the pilot [1:11:32 PM] months that we've had the pilot program, we've had absolutely zero requests from any outside law enforcement agency for any of our data whatsoever. >> Thank you. And then when an agency requests the data, what kind of detail do they have to be? Do they have to provide about alleged crimes? >> They have to tell us the type of crime and provide the case number, their case number that they're investigating. It has to be a criminal offense and not a civil offense. >> Okay. But it could be a class a misdemeanor, or it could be some of the lower misdemeanors that are that are specified in APD policy. That's correct. As well as felony offenses. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, great. And then I guess the other kind of area I want to explore a little bit is how potentially apr relate to pretext stops by our local police. For example, if an officer is using a license plate reader, will the apr notify the officer of a match with any license plate that is in a national or state database and cic or cic, regardless of the reason that the plate is in those databases? >> Yes, as long as the plate has [1:12:34 PM] >> Yes, as long as the plate has been listed into ncic, cic, they'll receive an alert inside the vehicle, and it is up to the officer to look at that particular offense and why that vehicle was entered, to know whether or not they can take action based on our policy. >> So our policy would would limit the officer from making a stop based on the hit. If it's not one of the specified offenses. That's correct. >> Exactly. >> But our policy would not stop the officer from, for example, following that vehicle and finding another reason to pull that that vehicle over, whether it was a, you know, running a red light or something of that nature. >> So that was the first time that question was posed to us. We've been engaged with a lot of different council members over the last, probably two and a half years on this topic and the community. And that specific scenario was brought up for the first time yesterday. It's not specifically outlined in policy, but I think the spirit clearly says we're not supposed to take law enforcement action based on the lpr hit. So I would still argue that that would be a violation of policy. The training that we put our officers through very clearly explains to them that negative outcomes from the use of this [1:13:35 PM] outcomes from the use of this system could revoke the entire system, us being able to use the entire system entirely. So I think that the boundaries, so to speak, have been clearly laid out for our officers and they know what they can and can't do. >> Okay. Yeah. Just to kind of explain a little more, you know, our concern is, for example, our I think our municipal court has something like 66,000 outstanding warrants. And the vast, vast majority of them are for unpaid parking tickets, you know, class C misdemeanors. And so essentially, there's a whole class of warrants out there that could, you know, trigger a hit that are basically people that can't afford to pay a parking ticket. >> And those don't make it to tc I see those those might be in some sort of local database, but those don't make it to us and we don't put those in our our local hotlist either. >> Okay, that's good to know. But there are offenses. For example, for example, our city has decided to deprioritize enforcement of low level marijuana possession offenses. Right. And so, you know, some of those misdemeanors could trigger a hit in the apr program. And so I guess my office's concern is that those people that are in that database or get that hit [1:14:36 PM] that database or get that hit would be subject to increased, you know, enforcement, you know, stops of that nature. >> Understood. And I think it's an important distinction to make that the lpr is not going to register a hit based on a person's name, it's going to register a hit based on the license plate. And for class B misdemeanor, especially low level drug offenses. It's not it's not technically impossible. But for an officer, a detective and investigator, to not only enter the person's name into cic as wanted, but then also track down the vehicle they're driving and also enter that into ncic, cic. It's rare. I mean, it could happen. There's nothing that prevents them from doing it. But technically speaking, the lpr system is looking at plates that are in public. They're not looking for actual names. >> Okay, great. I don't have further questions for the members. Chief, any additional questions on this item? All right. Thank you. Council member. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Members. Those are all the items that we have on the agenda for this work session. So without objection, the city council will be adjourned in the city council work session at 1:15 P.M. We are [1:15:36 PM] work session at 1:15 P.M. We are adjourned.