On the morning of March 3, 2026 — the same day El Paso held its primary elections — the El Paso City Council took up an agenda item that most residents didn't know was happening. City Representatives Chris Canales and Lily Limón had placed the item on the agenda: a proposal that would have allowed the city's contract with Flock Safety to expire on May 16 and not be renewed.
The vote was 6 to 2 against the proposal. The contract lives — for now.
But here is what that vote did not do: it did not renew the contract. It did not authorize a new agreement. It did not make the decision that the city will continue using Flock Safety after May 16. All it did was decline to preemptively end the contract early.
The contract still expires on May 16. The decision still has to be made. The fight is not over — it is just beginning.
"The vote on March 3 was not the end. It was the opening argument."
What actually happened in that meeting
El Paso Police Chief Peter Pacillas presented to the council, making the case for the cameras. He described specific cases where the system helped narrow investigations and make arrests. He argued that the department — already understaffed — benefits from the technology's ability to do work that would otherwise require officer hours.
Reps. Canales and Limón pushed back. Limón was direct about her core concern:
That last statement deserves to sit with you for a moment. A sitting El Paso City Council member — whose job includes oversight of city contracts — did not know what a Flock camera was until a constituent sent them a photo. They spent several days researching it before the meeting. And then six of their colleagues voted to keep 150 of those cameras running.
What the six who voted against the proposal were actually saying
We want to be fair here. Voting against the Canales-Limón proposal was not necessarily a vote of confidence in Flock Safety. Several council members indicated they wanted more information, more transparency, or a formal presentation from the vendor before making any decision. Some cited the police chief's testimony about the cameras' effectiveness. Some cited public safety concerns in their districts.
None of that is unreasonable. What is unreasonable is that 150 cameras were already running — for months — before any of that information was formally presented to the council or the public. The time for "let's learn more about this" was before the contract was signed, not after the cameras were installed and the contract was a year old.
The cameras did not appear after a public debate, a council presentation, or a community input process. They appeared on poles across El Paso because a state grant made it easy and because no one was asked. The March 3 meeting was the first time most council members had formally discussed them. That is the transparency failure at the center of this story.
What happens now
The Flock Safety contract expires on May 16, 2026. Between now and then, the city has to decide whether to renew it, let it expire, or negotiate new terms. That decision will likely come before the council again — which means there will be another vote, another public comment period, another opportunity for El Paso residents to be heard.
Reps. Canales and Limón have signaled they will continue pushing for accountability. Limón specifically mentioned bringing a future agenda item to require a formal presentation from the vendor and a public process before any renewal is signed. That is a concrete ask that residents can support.
The six who voted against the proposal are not fixed in their positions. Council members respond to constituent pressure. Phone calls get logged. Emails get read. Public comment gets heard — especially when multiple people show up to say the same thing, calmly and with specific facts.
Our view
We believe the March 3 vote was a missed opportunity — but not a defeat. A council that didn't know what Flock cameras were three weeks ago is now on record debating them publicly. Two representatives put accountability on the agenda. The vendor's record is now part of the public conversation in El Paso in a way it wasn't before.
The contract expires in weeks. The decision is not made. Every El Paso resident who contacts their council member between now and May 16 is part of making that decision.
We are not asking for the impossible. We are asking for what dozens of other cities have already done — looked at this vendor's record, weighed the risks, and decided El Paso deserves better.
The cameras are still running. The clock is ticking. The decision is still yours to influence.