Publisher: The Oaklandside (Eli Wolfe)
Date Published: July 1, 2026
Relevant To: Flock contract retention terms; ICE data-access precedent (Mountain View); bridge-contract/RFP pattern
Verification Status: Verified
Notes: Confirmed via extensive corroboration (Pleasanton Weekly, Berkeleyside, KTVU, Local News Matters). Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 (Bas and Márquez dissenting) to approve an 18-month, $2.4M “bridge” contract extension with Flock Safety (through Dec 2027), unifying three previously separate contracts (ALPR cameras, PTZ cameras, drones) plus new access to “Nova” software centralizing CAD/records-management data and OSINT. Vote came directly after the discovery that county surveillance data was illegally shared with federal agencies — roughly 40 public commenters urged rejection. Oakland Privacy director Mike Katz noted the county’s Flock data retention period is 365 days, far longer than most jurisdictions. Secure Justice director Brian Hofer (who sued Oakland over federal data-sharing) proposed additional safeguards that dissenting supervisors wanted considered before approval. Board President David Haubert, who voted yes, dismissed concerns about disproportionate impact on people of color and downplayed ICE access despite documented instances elsewhere (Mountain View’s Jan 2026 disclosure that federal agencies accessed its Flock system via a “nationwide” search setting enabled without local PD’s knowledge/permission — a directly relevant precedent). Companion reporting confirms Berkeley separately halted its own proposed $2M Flock expansion in May (8-1 vote) and is now soliciting competing bids up to $2.4M instead. Strong comparative case for BPA: documents a bridge-contract/RFP-deferral pattern, a specific 365-day retention outlier, and the Mountain View “nationwide toggle enabled without consent” precedent worth checking against any Oregon vendor agreements.