Questions for candidates

Eighteen questions on the Flock program and on City use of AI, going to every candidate in the race. The answers will be published in full.

Sent 2026-08-15 to 3 candidates in the Benicia City Council — November 2026 race. Replies requested by 2026-09-05. 5 of 5 questions have an answer on file. Answers are published in full and unedited; where a candidate has not answered, this page says so rather than leaving the space blank.

Candidate	Status	Answered	Received
Kari Birdseye	partial	4 of 5	2026-09-05
Terry Scott	answered	5 of 5	2026-09-05
Justin Zollars	answered	5 of 5	2026-08-19

Most of these rest on documents the City produced itself, so the factual premise should not be in dispute. Where a candidate thinks it is, they are invited to say so and the record will be corrected here.

Terms

The same terms apply to every candidate, and they are published here rather than only in the covering letter so that a reader can hold this page to them.

Every candidate gets the same questions on the same day. No one is sent a different set, and no one sees them earlier than anyone else.
Answers are published in full and unedited, at benicia.watch and provided to local news organisations including the Vallejo Sun, the Benicia Independent, and the Benicia Herald.
Candidates see their answers as formatted before they post.
Non-response is recorded as non-response, alongside the answers received. A blank is never presented as a refusal, and a refusal is never presented as a blank.
Length is up to the candidate. Roughly 200 words a question is plenty; short answers are fine. A candidate who would rather answer by phone can, and the transcript is theirs to check.
Corrections are welcome and will be made in public. If a question rests on a fact the record does not support, say which one and it will be fixed here, with the change logged at the foot of this page.

This site takes no position on who should win. It has a position on the Flock program, stated at length in the findings, and it makes no attempt to hide that. The questions are written so that a candidate who disagrees with that position can answer them straightforwardly.

Benicia's Flock contract runs five years, co-terminous from the first camera installed, so renewal falls to the Council that takes office after this election. The sole-source letter that justified skipping competitive bidding in 2021 was drafted by Flock itself, and the staff report template came from the vendor too. When renewal reaches you: would you put the contract out to competitive bid, renew it, or end it — and what would you need to know first? If you do not yet have the annual cost figure, say so; I am as interested in whether candidates have looked.

Basis in the record: Finding 1 — Flock wrote the city's no-bid justification · Where Flock has failed

Kari Birdseye

I will carefully review the contract. Council has been listening to our community and updating the guardrails and relationships we have with Flock and affiliated partners. We will continue to prioritize community protections. I am always open to your feedback and will continue to learn from you and all anti-Flock advocates.

Terry Scott

Gregg I can’t seriously give you a simple renew-or-end answer today, because that can’t be an honest answer. I can tell you is this: for the next two years, I’m going to keep asking questions, keep reading and listening to concerns, and keep gathering information from people who represent all sides of this issue including our police department. Today, I believe most people I represent believe Flock System is working legally in Benicia. We saw that recently when cameras aided BPD make an arrest after the mural was vandalized. Two years is a lifetime in technology development. There may be new vendors. The technology and guardrails may change. Public opinion may shift. My job is to stay aware and informed so that when the renewal decision comes to Council, it reflects where this community is at that point in time and not where I guessed it will be.

Justin Zollars

The cost is irrelevant - but public data shows each camera costs between $2,500-$3,000 per annum but I could be completely wrong; I don't have access to the contract. That said, the contract between Flock Safety and the City of Benicia cannot supersede our constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In my opinion, The service flock provides is a violation of the spirit of this much more important 234 year old National contract. Not only will I not renew the Flock Contract I will terminate it.

Benicia shares its ALPR data with 82 outside agencies. Until this month the instrument was a one-page letter the receiving agency signed itself — no term, no audit right, nothing running back to Benicia. In August 2026 the City replaced it with a version drafted by counsel that requires the receiving agency to hold its own ALPR policy “which includes a process for periodic system audits” and lets Benicia revoke access for non-compliance. Twenty-five agencies signed it between August 4 and August 12. Hayward PD did not, and the City stamped its file NO ACCESS. Fifty-three agencies are still on the old letter and still have access — among them the San Francisco Police Department, which holds three separate Benicia letters including one filed under NCRIC. Should the standard applied to Hayward apply to all fifty-three, and if so by when?

Basis in the record: Finding 6 — shared by letter, with “no formal MOU” · Who gets Benicia's data

Kari Birdseye

I’m interested in examining what these agencies have and open to requiring updated MOUs.

Terry Scott

First off, I’m not sure of that number, but regardless of the number, I have no issue with insisting all agencies have updated MOU’s for sharing access to Benicia’s system. Clearly, we should be looking at making sure we have the most current memo of understanding in place with each of our partner agencies, as much as possible. This isn’t about assuming bad intent. To me it’s about making sure every partner is held to the same standard we hold ourselves to today, not to whatever standard existed when the original agreement was signed.”

Justin Zollars

Sharing private travel logs, of individual citizens, with any outside agency is a serious concern and an egregious personal privacy violation, and a potential 4th Amendment violation. If I am elected, we will immediately stop sharing data, on day one - yes meeting the Hayward Standard and then raising the bar to an even higher standard: The Benicia Standard. This means, there will be a comprehensive account of all data shared, we will create a website allowing you to search your personal data to ensure it was not compromised and we will help residents understand what information was shared, how it was used, and what legal remedies may be available to you. In my opinion, It’s an act of negligence that any private data was shared without your explicit permission. Our government shouldn't be in the business of spying on you.

In June 2026 San Francisco disclosed that its Flock network had been queried 299 times on behalf of federal and out-of-state agencies, through NCRIC and onward to the Western States Information Network. Benicia shares with NCRIC. Asked by the Mayor on June 18 whether Benicia's data was exposed the same way, Chief Menesini answered “Yes, for NCRIC.. No to WISN” and added: “We need to do some research to see if NICRIC shared our Benicia cameras with WISN who in return shared with outside federal agencies.” That was the right question. In everything the City has produced since, there is no record of the research being started, assigned or finished, and NCRIC has since said in writing that no record identifying whose cameras answered a query “exists, could be located, or could be created.” Would you require the City to establish whether Benicia's data travelled that route and publish the answer — and what would you do about NCRIC's access in the meantime?

Basis in the record: Finding 17 — the Chief confirmed NCRIC has Benicia's data

Kari Birdseye

Moot point now. The NCRIC breach was cause enough to revoke access. Done.

Terry Scott

I don’t Speak for Chief Menesini. But this is what I know. I spoke to the Chief about the NCRIC breech, and he did exactly what our policy requires. He immediately revoked access to Benicia data. If you go to the portal you will see they no longer have access.

Justin Zollars

I would not publish private or individual level data, because this is a vector in which you could search your neighbors. I would create a tool that allows you to search your data, to see if it’s been compromised. Allowing you to answer your critical questions: Who has access to my data? When was it shared? What was the reason it was shared? From a macro-prospective - I’d publish clearly if city data traveled this route. And NCRIC’s access would be cut on day one.

Benicia's ALPR policy has required a quarterly audit of search inquiries since 2021 — except in the versions dated January and September 2024, where the section is absent and the only audit language left is that audits “should be conducted on a regular basis”. It returns in September 2025. Separately, of eighteen audits the City has produced from November 2021 to April 2026, the three that reviewed every inquiry found 33 policy violations; the fourteen that sampled ten searches found none — including one quarter where both methods ran against the same data. And in response to a request for the audits themselves, the City has produced the policy requiring them and not a single audit conducted under it. Would you require comprehensive rather than sampled auditing, published on a fixed schedule, and what consequence should follow when an audit documents a violation?

Basis in the record: Finding 8 — 88 letters, one page each, and no outbound audit · PR-2026-180 — the seven policy versions, as produced

Kari Birdseye

No answer to this question.

Terry Scott

Our Deputy Police Chief already conducts quarterly reviews, pulling random samples of Flock search requests and checking them against policy. The question from the audits is has Flock lead to any reported actionable issues, or lead to harm or abuse to a resident.

Justin Zollars

We will do a comprehensive audit and publish it within 6 months. And continue on this cadence until the cameras are gone. Why 6 months? There have been a large number of potential violations. In my opinion, every single Flock search, without a warrant, is a violation of our 4th Amendment guarantees. No city policy should supersede your constitutional rights, your right of privacy, and your right to move freely throughout our City, State and Nation. Consequences should scale to the offense. I won't pre-set a punishment before I've seen what the audit finds.

Benicia has no ordinance governing how surveillance technology is acquired or used, and no written policy on City use of artificial intelligence — including automated decision tools, facial or biometric matching, and AI features added to systems the City already runs. The City's own records show how capability changes happen on this system: in August 2021 the Chief asked Flock to switch public search-auditing on and the list of sharing partners off, and the vendor did both within minutes. No Council decision was involved in either. Would you vote for a surveillance technology ordinance on the CCOPS model — Council approval before acquisition, a published use policy, annual reporting — and would you extend it to AI capabilities added to existing systems? If not, what would you put in its place?

Basis in the record: Finding 4 — public search-auditing is a switch the vendor flips

Kari Birdseye

Terry and I are researching what the AI ordinances of other jurisdictions, such as American Canyon. We are scheduling a meeting with the Am Cam City Manager and a current councilmember, who were heavily involved in creating their ordinance. After we perform our due diligence, I will be better able to give you a direct answer to this question.

Terry Scott

At this point there are very few cities in the US that have Surveillance Technology ordinances. Interestingly, in total there are 26 cities listed by the ACLU that have an ordinance. Three are in the Bay area: SF, Oakland and Berkeley. We’re a small city with limited funding to implement and execute an ordinance. However, I will watch what these cities have adopted and implemented. Let’s all see what their key learnings lead to. I’d like to see how the public process of this kind of ordinance works rather than talk about the promise of a process.

Justin Zollars

Absolutely. I've worked with AI technologies since 2014, and I can tell you with certainty that these systems can be black boxes. They're learning systems, and they have the real potential to introduce or amplify bias: racial bias, gender bias, demographic bias and we need the City Council in the loop prior to any acquisition decision.

Closing statements

Some candidates added a statement not tied to any single question. Reproduced in full, as sent.

In summary, thank’s Gregg for raising these questions. In my opinion, Benicia uses Flock as a tool for crime prevention and crime enforcement, and I support it as tool in the police toolbox to keep Benicia’s residents, visitors and businesses safer.
I believe BPD continues to use the system as a part of that effort as illustrated by the recent mural vandalism arrest where camera data and good solid police work helped make the case.
I don’t dismiss the surveillance and privacy concerns that surround Flock. I have said they are legitimate and require review around data retention and query policy.
But in the end, I don’t believe Flock is the biggest issue facing the City of Benicia.
The biggest issue is filling the $8 million-hole left by Valero’s departure while building an economically stable, vibrant and safe community for the long term.

Terry Scott

Read the covering letter candidates receive with these questions →

About the source

benicia.watch holds 717 files obtained from the City under the California Public Records Act, spanning 2018-12-20 to 2026-08-21. Every claim on the site links to the document it came from, as produced. It draws no legal conclusions, and where the record is ambiguous it says so.

Revisions to this page

2026-08-05 First draft assembled and published. Not yet sent to any candidate.
2026-08-15 Sent. The same letter went to all three candidates at their campaign addresses on 2026-08-15, within six seconds of each other, with replies asked for by 2026-09-05. Campaign addresses rather than City ones: two of the three hold City mailboxes and a candidate questionnaire is campaign correspondence, not City business.
2026-08-14 Cut from twenty-five questions to five before sending. The long list was the right way to work out what the record will support; it is the wrong thing to put in front of three people running a local campaign, who will answer five properly or twenty-five not at all. Each of the five carries a theme the longer draft spread across several, and each asks for a position rather than a description. Dropped, and worth re-asking one at a time once answers are in: the expansion questions on gunshot detection and facial matching, the hidden sharing-partner list, the instruction to officers to log only a case number, the City's own records archive with nothing published since February 2025, SB 274, and what evidence a candidate would require to conclude the program works.
2026-08-14 Seven questions added after two productions on 2026-08-14: the August re-papering of the sharing letters and the 53 agencies left on the old one; the seven versions of Policy 470 and the audit section that leaves and returns; the audits the policy requires and the City has not produced; the NCRIC research the Chief said was needed and no record shows was done; what NCRIC says it cannot answer; the City's own records archive, unpublished since February 2025; and how the program began in 2020. Question numbers are now assigned in document order rather than by hand, so inserting one cannot silently renumber the rest.