CHULA VISTA MOVES TO CREATE PRIVACY, TECHNOLOGY PANEL

Group will review and advise council on use policies

The Chula Vista City Council last week approved creating an advisory commission that will be tasked with reviewing and recommending best practices on city technology use policies.

The establishment of the Privacy Protection and Technology Advisory Commission passed 4-1, with Mayor John Mccann opposed. A second and final vote is expected later this month.

City leaders first considered the ordinance to create the group last month, but tabled their vote after Deputy Mayor Jose Preciado proposed a series of amendments. They also considered concerns privacy advocates raised that it lacked meaningful oversight responsibilities and failed to give members a strong voice in city purchases and policies.

A 12-member task force developed a policy that governs how the city can use technology and protect residents’ data collected by its surveillance equipment. Adopted by the City Council last year.

The policy came in response to public concerns that data collected by the police department’s license plate readers had been shared with numerous law enforcement agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

That practice is no longer in place.

The updated ordinance now requires that the advisory commission have seven voting members instead of five and one ex-officio member. Experience in accounting and finance and equity and civil rights was also added to a list of categories for which members will be selected. Other backgrounds include public safety, data security, and legal or academic background in government transparency.

Through December 2024, the group will meet at least once every other month and then once quarterly thereafter. Members could vote to meet more frequently, however. The City Council would appoint members.

Advocates said the updated ordinance still falls short because it fails, in part, to list the commission’s duties in a specific and explicit manner.

For example, the advocacy group South Bay People Power said the commission shouldn’t just “review and advise” technology use policies, nor should it do so during the city’s acquisition process. It should instead, they suggested, have access to and review “an up-to-date inventory of all surveillance technologies being used by City departments, and be informed of any proposed surveillance technologies or new uses prior to solicitation of funds and proposals or adoption.”

The group also believed that nonresidents who do not own property locally but work or study in Chula Vista should have a shot at applying for the commission. The ordinance allows nonresidents to serve only if they own and operate a business or property within city limits. As is, “this membership provision works to the detriment of the goal to include representatives of often marginalized communities and those targeted by police surveillance such as immigrants, people of color, LGBTQ, religious minorities,’ political activists,” People Power said.

Mccann said he was concerned that the commission “may have some negative outcomes.”

“Many of the loudest voices on this issue in our city and elsewhere have been the most harshly, in my view, unfairly critical of the Police Department and the officers who patrol our streets,” he said. “If these voices become dominant, I am in fear that it may weaken our public safety instead of strengthen it. Just tonight, for example, we heard a passionate plea for surveillance cameras at the main library in the city of Chula Vista.”

Privacy advocates said they were disappointed that council members who had heard their concerns and agreed with them did not deliberate or suggest advocates’ amendments publicly.

Councilmember Andrea Cardenas suggested that after a year’s worth of work by the commission, the City Council could consider making changes. For now, officials said they were satisfied with the current ordinance.