Two city commissions take up police surveillance and data sharing this week. Here is the rule they are working under

Two of Austin's advisory commissions are set to vote this week on recommendations to the City Council about surveillance technology. Their advice would go to a council that adopted new rules for buying and using that technology in April. Five of its seats are on Tuesday's ballot.

For residents, the questions are what cameras and data tools the city uses, who can see the data, and how long it is kept.

Monday: Public Safety Commission

The Public Safety Commission meets at 4 p.m. Monday, Nov. 2, at City Hall. Its agenda lists one action item: a recommendation to the council "regarding public safety surveillance technology and data sharing and the TRUST Act." The agenda does not include the text of the recommendation.

The commission had a similar item on its Oct. 5 agenda, without the TRUST Act reference, and withdrew it without objection, according to the October minutes. The same meeting also includes a quarterly report from Austin Fire and a presentation on sexual assault data from the Sexual Assault Response and Resource Team.

Wednesday: Technology Commission

The Technology Commission meets at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 4. Its agenda includes a vote on a recommendation to the council on automated license plate readers, an update from its artificial intelligence working group on "their latest public surveillance recommendation," and a presentation from a University of Texas policy institute on research about data centers and public surveillance.

Commission recommendations are advice. Only the council can adopt policy.

What our records add

The TRUST Act. On April 23, the council adopted a new City Code chapter on surveillance technology, which council members called the TRUST Act. It sets rules for how city departments adopt, buy, deploy, use and review surveillance technology. It passed 10-0, with Council Member Natasha Harper-Madison absent.

At the meeting, Mayor Pro Tem José "Chito" Vela, who led the effort, said the ordinance does not decide whether the city uses any particular technology; it "creates a framework" for analyzing it. He said the public would see a privacy impact assessment about four weeks before a new technology comes to the council, covering what data is collected, who can access it and how long it is kept. Council Member Mike Siegel called it "a critical procedural reform" and cited past votes on license plate readers and park cameras where the council lacked information about artificial intelligence features and data access.

Council Member Marc Duchen proposed an amendment and warned that the ordinance's language could sweep in technology that has little to do with surveillance. He argued that technology is a way to stretch police resources while the department is short of officers. The council turned his amendment into direction: a one-year review of how the ordinance affects procurement, with findings to the Public Safety Committee, adopted without objection.

How it started. In February the council approved, 11-0, Vela's resolution asking for the ordinance, co-sponsored by Council Members Siegel, Vanessa Fuentes, Krista Laine and José Velásquez.

License plate readers. In March 2025 the council voted 8-3 to extend APD's license plate reader pilot. Council Members Harper-Madison, Siegel and Zo Qadri voted no.

Park cameras. In August, Council Member Paige Ellis described a park security plan she was sponsoring as being in full compliance with the TRUST Act.

Related coverage. Our Oct. 31 story covers what city officials have said and done since a federal immigration officer shot a man in North Austin in September.

What's next

• Nov. 2, 4 p.m.: Public Safety Commission, City Hall, Boards and Commissions Room. Remote speakers must register by noon the day before, the agenda says.
• Nov. 4, 6:30 p.m.: Technology Commission, City Hall.
• Later: Any recommendation goes to the council. Under the council's April direction, the city manager is to report on existing surveillance technologies and, a year after the ordinance took effect, review its effect on procurement.