Council Emails

I am sharing the emails that I send to Bend City Council in hopes that it will one day be beneficial to others who wish to get involved in local governance.

  • RE:Comments on Bend Police Department Policy 428 — Automated License Plate Readers

    Hi Mayor Kebler and Councilors,

    Thank you for confirming receipt, and for ensuring the comments reach Chief Krantz. I appreciate it.

    I do want to clarify that several of my asks are Council-level governance questions rather than only Department policy edits. Specifically, I am asking whether Council will require public review before treating Policy 428 as sufficient ALPR governance, and whether Council will direct that no new ALPR system, renewal, expansion, or feature activation move forward until the policy is amended.

    Since Councilors are copied on this thread, I want to be clear that the three asks in my letter are addressed to Council as a body. They concern public oversight and governance, not only edits to Department policy, and I would welcome any response from Councilors.

    I would also appreciate understanding the City’s process for written public comment on Policy 428 or future ALPR use. Will written comments be included in the Council packet for the meeting where this comes up, or distributed to Councilors individually?

    I have not seen Policy 428 on a published agenda yet, and I would like to be there in person for public comment if and when it comes up.

    Thank you again.

    Jonathan

  • RE:Comments on Bend Police Department Policy 428 — Automated License Plate Readers

    Thank you Jonathan, I will make sure your specific comments are forwarded to Chief Krantz for consideration regarding department policy 428.

    Thanks,

    Melanie

  • Comments on Bend Police Department Policy 428 — Automated License Plate Readers

    Councilors,

    Attached are my detailed comments on Bend Police Department Policy 428, dated May 15, 2026, along with a one-page summary of requested amendments and Exhibit A, a section-by-section comparison of SB 1516 and Policy 428.

    My central concern is that Policy 428 has two separate problems.

    First, the policy contains specific operational and textual gaps that should be closed before adoption — places where the policy authorizes uses broader than the statute permits, omits required vendor contract terms, or fails to require audit and logging fields the statute requires the operative documents to contain.

    Second, even where the policy fits within SB 1516, it adopts the broadest uses state law still allows rather than a narrower local standard appropriate for Bend.

    SB 1516 is the statutory floor for ALPR use in Oregon — it is not the ceiling for local privacy protection.

    The clearest example is the parking-use authorization. SB 1516 §4(2)(g) permits ALPR use for “regulating the use of parking facilities” — one bounded purpose. Policy 428.3 expands this to “parking regulation and the management of parking facilities” — two distinct authorizations joined by “and.”

    That is the operative permission on the face of the document and cannot be cured by deference to state law.

    The attached letter identifies similar operational gaps in the policy’s required vendor contract terms, including missing CJIS Security Addendum execution and security-incident notification language; the monthly vendor audit fields, including missing the per-search detail SB 1516 §6(1)(i) requires; and the outside-agency search log, including the missing cameras-accessed field SB 1516 §5(2)(b)(C) requires.

    It also addresses SB 1516 §5(2)(b)’s substantive scope limits on outside-agency sharing — “limited to data relevant” and “no unrestricted or ongoing access” — which are independent of the prohibited-purpose list in Policy 428.6.3 and worth operationalizing through the written request-certification process described in Part II.

    The letter also describes eighteen local strengthenings grouped into seven categories:

    • administrative-use limits,
    • sensitive-location and occupant protections,
    • outside-agency controls,
    • retention and historical-search limits,
    • vendor and cybersecurity controls,
    • public accountability and complaint redress, and
    • Council-approval requirements.

    Each is consistent with SB 1516; none asks the City to use ALPRs in a way state law prohibits.

    I respectfully ask Council not to treat Policy 428 as final until Bend PD closes the operational and textual gaps identified in the letter and Exhibit A, and until Council considers stronger local safeguards.

    I would also encourage Council to advance the broader Bend Surveillance Technology Accountability, Privacy, and Civil Rights Ordinance so future surveillance technologies are not added in piecemeal department-policy form without public notice and Council approval.

    I am happy to answer questions, provide further clarification, or discuss any of the items in the attached materials at the Council’s convenience. I can be reached at

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Jonathan

    Attachments

    The documents attached to my email to Council are available below:

  • Proposed amendment to BC 1.20.015(I) — Exhibit A, Item 5

    Mayor and Councilors,

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Exhibit A to Agenda Item 5 from the May 20 Business Meeting. I have one targeted suggestion for BC 1.20.015(I), City Manager Advisory Groups.

    As drafted, subsection (I) creates a category of informal or structured advisory groups, including technical advisory groups, focus groups, task forces, evaluation teams, and steering committees, that may or may not be subject to Oregon Public Meetings Law depending on the group’s role and authority.

    For surveillance-related work, that distinction matters. Vendor evaluation, pilot deployment, policy scoping, and early procurement recommendations often occur before a formal Council vote. If those discussions happen in informal structures that are not treated as public meetings, the public may not have meaningful visibility until the major choices have already been shaped.

    A narrow carve-out would close that gap without disturbing the rest of Chapter 1.20.

    Proposed addition to the end of BC 1.20.015(I):

    «Notwithstanding the foregoing, any group or committee created under this subsection whose scope includes the evaluation, selection, procurement, deployment, oversight, or policy governance of surveillance technology shall comply with the notice, access, minutes, and other open-meeting requirements of Oregon Public Meetings Law, regardless of whether the group or committee makes a recommendation to the City Council or another advisory body.»

    Recommended companion definition, added to BC 1.20.005 or incorporated by reference:

    «“Surveillance technology” means any electronic device, system, hardware, software, or hosted software solution used, designed, or primarily intended to collect, retain, analyze, process, or share audio, visual, biometric, location, or other data associated with identifiable individuals or groups. The term includes, without limitation, automated license plate readers, facial recognition systems, body-worn and fixed-location cameras with analytic capability, drones and aerial surveillance platforms, cell-site simulators, social media monitoring tools, predictive policing software, and data aggregation or fusion platforms. The term does not include standard office productivity software, routine IT security tools, or city-operated infrastructure cameras used solely for traffic signal operation.»

    The “notwithstanding” construction is intended to make this a narrow exception to the discretionary language earlier in subsection (I), without requiring broader changes to Chapter 1.20. The verb list is intentionally broad enough to cover the full procurement and policy lifecycle. The definition is also modeled on language used in comparable surveillance oversight ordinances adopted in cities such as Oakland, Seattle, and Cambridge.

    Respectfully,

    Jonathan