Pete Furman

Rules and procedures are essential elements of a well-functioning government. They are not always easy or enjoyable to follow, and at times they can make progress feel difficult and slow. However, they are a design feature, not a flaw. It is an essential duty of public officials to understand the rules and procedures — and to follow them.

The public is right to expect accountability. It is not only acceptable but appropriate for residents to hold their elected officials to an even higher standard — and I encourage them to do so.

Norms, too, play an important role. Not everything can be written down, and not every circumstance can be anticipated. Norms of behavior and process are sometimes just as important — if not more important — than the rules and procedures themselves.

Unfortunately, in recent years — really since his election — our Mayor has repeatedly demonstrated confusion about his proper role. It seems he brought with him an “old-school, East Coast, big-city, strong-mayor” understanding of government when he moved to Sedona. That is not how our system works here.

He has received feedback from many people and has been instructed repeatedly on our rules and procedures. His Council colleagues have documented multiple violations including Sedona City Code 2.10.040.D, Sedona Council Rules Of Procedure 2B, 2C, and 2G. He has even received two official private reprimands. Yet, his behavior has not changed. He has not learned.

That is why we are here today — in a public session — following our rules, to formally issue a censureand call for Mayor Jablow’s resignation. This is the extent of our authority as a Council. If the public agrees with our actions and wants further steps taken, that power rests with you. The power of recall is in your hands.

Please know that this Council will remain vigilant in enforcing our rules and procedures. I hope we will not have to go through this again — but if necessary, we will.

Mayor, even if your intentions were absolutely pure and well-meaning — and some of them may have been — your approach has been incorrect, inappropriate, and contrary to our rules. And I fear you may have unintentionally harmed the very causes you were trying to advance.

To our employees and our community: This Council remains fully committed to making Sedona a great place to work and live. Thank you for standing with us through these challenging times. It will get better.

Finally; trust between a government and its people is hard to build – and incredibly easy to lose. I hope and pray that our actions here today are noticed and appreciated, not only by our community but also state and federal officials. I encourage leaders, at every level, to act within their rules and authorities to reign-in power-hungry officials and restore public trust.

Made in support of Kathy Kinsella’s motion to Censure Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow and to call for his resignation. Made at the 9/10/25 City Council meeting. The motion passed 5-2 (Jablow and Pfaff opposed).

Sedona City Council tells staff to get Flock out of town – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council made the unanimous decision to cancel its contract with Flock Safety and to remove the currently installed 11 automated license plate readers during its meeting Tuesday, Sept. 9.

“This underscores the importance of independent media in a democracy. As much as I infrequently agree with [Sedona] Red Rock News, and I think the language that they used in this was hyperbolic, they are the ones that brought it up and forced it to the forefront and made sure the public was aware of it,” Councilman Derek Pfaff said from the dais following the vote. “[This] illustrates the importance that we have media that’s independent and is not subject to the political pressure. So that these kinds of things can come out.”

The majority consensus of the council during its Aug. 13 work session to direct the Sedona Police Department to indefinitely turn off ALPRs and pause the program. Council also directed staff to provide a timeline of the city’s internal discussions on the installation of ALPRs, which had been implemented without council direction, and to develop a plan for forming a citizen work group that would recommend policies for the pilot ALPR program proposed by SPD.

The council was scheduled to discuss the possible formation of a citizen work group, but staff first asked whether they wanted to continue using the ALPRs before moving forward.

Council Comments

“At this point in our history, the only way for us to make sure that data is not broadly shared or abused is to not have any,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said. “So therefore, I agree. We need to cancel the contract. We need to remove the cameras.”

Speaking last, Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow reversed his position from the Aug. 13 meeting when he was the lone dissenting voice wanting to move forward with ALPRs.

“I have since learned more about the overwhelming behind the scenes data sharing that was not disclosed to [SPD] or the council during the last meeting,” Jablow said from the dais, reading a written statement. “I now have very serious concerns. We’ve seen how data from these cameras can be accessed by federal agencies in ways I wasn’t aware of and ways that our community is strongly opposed to … I have listened to your concerns, I read many of the emails — actually every single email — and reflected on the broader implications. Because of that, I am totally opposed to moving forward with the [ALPR] program in Sedona. I believe it is in our community’s best interest to remove these cameras totally and to ensure that both our values and our residents’ privacy are respected.”

Jablow cited his law enforcement career — he worked for the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey — as to why ALPRs could be a benefit to the community. He added the he “had researched many positive examples where these tools were used responsibly to address the serious public safety concerns.”

However, Jablow had directed SPD Patrol Cmdr. Chris Dowell, while he was acting chief while Police Chief Stephanie Foley was out of town, “to find positive news stories to help support the public narrative,” immediately following the NEWS breaking the story June 20 that Sedona’s ALPRs were installed in June without direction from the council.

Jablow’s request was cited in Foley’s July 27, 157-page complaint filed to human resources in which she alleges Jablow has fostered a hostile work environment in part through micromanaging SPD in an effort to replace her as chief because of her gender.

City Manager Anette Spickard also cited Jablow’s direction to Dowell in her own Aug. 17 30-page memo to council in which she alleged she was “being manipulated” by Jablow into being a “fall guy” for public outcry over Sedona’s ALPRs.

Both Spickard and Foley have cited Jablow as providing the sole direction to staff for the ALPR installation.

“This whole topic did [begin] for us by a handful of people who viewed these license plate readers as a modern policing tool, and I think sadly, they missed the public policy implications that normally require community engagement and a more deeper council conversation about it,” Councilman Pete Furman said. “For me to be specific, that policy issue at hand is the shift from traditional policing tools, where we focus on the bad guys, to starting to gather and store data on innocent people who were never suspected of anything.”

However, Furman added that he views ALPR as not falling under the definition of mass surveillance.

“I feel for our city manager, who actually took a lot of heat on this that was completely inappropriate,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said.
“[Spickard] took a lot of heat, absolutely inappropriate,” Jablow concurred. “Again, I apologize. I apologized two weeks ago, and I apologize again.”

Jablow’s Aug. 26 apology was for what he admitted was his failure to control the vocal crowd of about 50 residents at the work session, who were almost unanimously opposed to ALPRs. Despite that, the mayor has never acknowledged Spickard or Foley’s letters during any meeting.

Other Jurisdictions

Council cited recent issues Flock has had elsewhere with the data it collects from the cameras it leases. Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias [D] announced on Aug. 25 Flock “allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois license plate cameras on Illinois roads and surveil drivers,” in violation of his state’s laws.

“While it is true that Flock does not presently have a contractual relationship with any U.S. Department of Homeland Security agencies, we have engaged in limited pilots with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations to assist those agencies in combating human trafficking and fentanyl distribution,” Flock CEO Garrett Langley wrote in an Aug. 25 statement. “We clearly communicated poorly. We also didn’t create distinct permissions and protocols in the Flock system to ensure local compliance for federal agency users.”

Langley announced Flock was pausing its federal pilot programs.

Flock Not ‘Honorable’

“Flock will never make a decision to share your data with anyone else,” Flock Director of Public Affairs Trevor Chandler assured Sedona City Council on Aug. 13. “[SPD] is the only one that can choose if they want to share with another agency.”

Kinsella said the federal government using ALPR data to combat trafficking and the drug trade are “fine goals, [but] that was completely contrary to information that was provided to us in questions [from Chandler] … I am very disappointed in this company as a potential vendor to the city of Sedona. I am not supportive of continuing with going down the road to look into this. … The time is right at all with the data security issues.”

“I’m in 100% agreement,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said. “A company that tells us on Aug. 13 that there’s no data-sharing going on, I swear, and [later] admits that it’s been going on, is not a company that we can do business with, and they’re not, in my opinion, an honorable company.

“So I would like to cancel the contract [and] remove all the cameras.”

Ploog also said the $1.2 million contract with Axon Enterprise council approved during its Aug. 26 meeting included among its purchases patrol car cameras. While those new pieces of equipment have ALPR capability, that functionally will not be turned on.

“Those [patrol car] cameras are not additional surveillance cameras,” Ploog said. “Those cameras are a law enforcement tool to provide a record of what happens at a stop, and they will not be connected to anything other than used for our own purposes.”

“Certainly, since the meeting that we had here, the Flock representative, as it would seem, was not as forthcoming, informed whatever it may be about what was really going on between the company, federal government,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “I’m not comfortable with proceeding any further. I echo what my colleagues have already said, we should shut this thing down, cancel the contract and get the cameras out.”

“I received better data, better information, and I’m man enough to say I made a mistake. I’m not going to sit on principle, just because this is what I said in August,” Jablow said about his position update. “My intention is to protect our community, and that’s a tool that I was under the impression was protecting our community. Unfortunately, the data that I had was wrong.”

Spickard said staff hasn’t had any discussion about seeking legal means for the city to be compensated for the purchase and installation of the existing Flock cameras, considering council’s position they were given inaccurate information.

City Attorney Kurt Christianson following the meeting said he was going to give Flock notification of the cancellation of the contract the following day. He did not have a timeline for the removal of the cameras.

*Editor’s note: this story has been updated to properly attribute a quote.

Council directs Sedona Police Department on license plate readers: ‘Turn it off’ – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona Police Department’s Automated License Plate Reader program with Flock Group, Inc. has been indefinitely shut off following a majority consensus of Sedona City Council special meeting on Wednesday, Aug. 13, with an at-times clamorous 50 attendees — 12 speaking against the program and two in support.

The majority consensus was reached through Councilwomen Melissa Dunn and Kathy Kinsella, and Councilmen Brian Fultz, Derek Pfaff and Pete Furman supporting the shutoff direction and Jablow leaning against. Vice Mayor Holli Ploog was absent.

“This is not mass surveillance,” Flock Director of Public Affairs Trevor Chandler said, drawing laughter from the attendees.

“Mass surveillance is indiscriminate surveillance,” as defined by Privacy International. “Mass surveillance uses systems or technologies that collect, analyze and/or generate data on indefinite or large numbers of people instead of limiting surveillance to individuals about which there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.”

The council additionally directed city staff to provide a timeline of past discussions by the city leading up to the installation of its 11 Flock cameras with an additional one awaiting installation, form a citizen work group and return with a pilot program proposal.

“[ALPR] seems to be a legal and useful law enforcement tool,” Furman later said. “The question will be in the details of who we share data with and exactly what data.” He said SPD Patrol Cmdr. Chris Dowell told him police didn’t find it useful to have access to ALPRs while policy is being developed.

“If there’s one kidnapped child that we get an Amber Alert for, this tool can help us find that is the price that I’m willing to pay,” Furman said at the meeting.

Dowell said he’s the only person in SPD with access to the ALPR.

“ALPR is not a mass surveillance tool; it is a focused, objective investigative asset governed by strict data retention policies and transparency protocols. It enhances public safety without compromising community privacy,” Dowell said. “Under Supreme Court precedent, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in movement on public roadways. … Privacy on roadways and civil liberties are valid concerns … and that’s why we have the protocols in place. “In fact, we went a step above … in our policy ‘Hot List’ entries cannot be made without a supervisor’s approval.”

“Hot lists” are license plates flagged by law enforcement and are often associated with wanted persons or stolen vehicles. While those flagged plates have a narrow focus in order to record those vehicles, an ALPR scans and records every single vehicle in its field of vision. That data is then stored in the cloud and is typically held for 30 days.

“It can pick up unique [vehicle] features, you don’t necessarily have to have a license plate,” Dowell said. “I can just put in: ‘Silver, Ford Explorer with [a] bumper sticker in the back window,’ and it will search that instead of just needing a license plate.”

Critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union have noted that while data like that can appear innocuous, capturing details like bumper stickers can potentially record an individual’s political beliefs.

“I was very impressed with the Congressional Research Service report in the [council] packet, and it clearly outlines that under many courts’ interpretations to date, [ALPR] is not mass surveillance and it’s legal,” Furman later said.

While Dowell noted law enforcement can reconstruct a suspect’s cross-country movements, the timeline and decision-making process behind Sedona’s installation of its own camera network remains unclear.

Timeline

“There’s no gentle way to ask this, so I’ll just be blunt,” Pfaff said. “Why is this just now coming before council?”

When Kinsella asked when and who prioritized the program, Sedona Police Chief Stephanie Foley said ALPR was prioritized by Jablow on April 18, 2024 during the budget work session.

Jablow had asked Foley to come to council on April 18, 2024, to discuss ALPRs after SPD presented its budget the previous day. Jablow cited Cottonwood’s network of 10 cameras.

“I’m just worried how many people are coming into our city that we’re missing,” Jablow said in 2024. “So if it could be really looked at for next year, not for this budget, but for next year.”

Jablow introduced and ended Foley’s April 2024 presentation by saying the ALPRs were “something just to have it on your radar for the future.”

“[ALPR] is very much on our radar, and hopefully next year, this will be one of the topics that we’ll be discussing,” Foley said to council on April 18, 2024. “We’re going to look at all of it and really come with a good idea of what we would potentially want and present to you.”

The ALPR funds were put into the SPD budget for technology upgrades, said City Manager Anette Spickard, who was hired shortly before the April 2024 budget discussion.

“When we went into the actual budget year, the funds were there,” Spickard said. “It was my understanding at that time that this was a project that was expected to be implemented.”

Spickard said the 2025 ALPR purchase fell within her delegated authority, met requirements and that it seemed to her the council expected it to be installed, based on the 2024 talks, so she signed the Flock contract.

“I thought I was doing the right thing back when I first got hired and was given the direction from what I thought was the intent of the council,” Spickard said.

The city’s position is the Flock cameras were considered part of “routine police department programing,” City Communications Manager Lauren Browne stated in the NEWS’ June 20 story that Sedona’s network was installed without ever being agendized by council and was mentioned without a definite plan during the budget work sessions on April 30 and May 1.

“Implement and optimize the use of Flock LPR technology,” was listed among five objectives for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 in the proposed budget as one mention of Flock ALPR technology in the FY ’26’s budget packet discussed.

“Where was the public outreach regarding the use of these cameras in the community. When did that happen? How did it happen? Who was involved?” Dunn asked Foley during the meeting Aug. 13, 2025. “We talk about outreach with every other department. Everything that we do, we ask for outreach to the community. It feels like we failed here.”

“As far as I know, the first line that went out was either by our PR team to the newspaper. … I’d have to go back and look, because I know that either we reached out to the newspaper or vice versa [Browne] put out, potentially something on social media, but I have to go back and look at what that first point of contact was,” Foley responded.

The NEWS was not notified in advance of installation. Residents posted photos of and comments about the Flock cameras in early June 2025. The NEWS contacted city officials on June 6 and received a response on June 11. The city posted a statement to Facebook on June 12. The first NEWS story was published June 20.

“I think it was looked at to be no different than body worn cameras,” Jablow subsequently said to the NEWS about Foley’s comments. “Sometimes the tools of [SPD] are just tools, and I think that may have been an issue of why it didn’t come forward as it was looked at as a tool instead of an item, which is unfortunate, but are we supposed to put everything through the public meetings? Are we going to look at guns? … These are the professionals. They need to have a little bit of leeway with what they use, and also, if it’s for the protection of the community. Do we want everything out there? Sometimes the safety of the community has to take precedence.”

Council is scheduled to have a discussion and possible vote on an agreement with Axon Enterprise for the purchase of $1.2 million in tasers, patrol car cameras and officer cameras during its Tuesday, Aug. 26 meeting, Jablow said.

Public Outreach

“Absolutely there should have been more messaging [about what] we had done and more openness,” Foley said. “I definitely think it’s a lesson going forward of what our community expects and the type of topics that you would like to be involved in.”

Staff repeatedly suggested going forward with a “pilot program” for ALPR cameras during the meeting. Foley said she believed the program was worth supporting.

Deterrence

Dowell cited ALPR for saving the life of one man who attempted suicide this month at Posse Grounds Park after SPD received an alert from Arizona Department of Public Safety, Cottonwood Police Department’s ALPR alerting SPD to an aggravated assault suspect en route to the city also this month and meeting documents included three CPD incidents.

CPD has not responded to a NEWS July 22 information request asking for an investigation log where ALPR data was used.

“There’s quite a few instances where, with the help of [CPD] interacting with [SPD], we were able to hopefully get bad actors off our roads and out of our neighborhoods,” Jablow said. “People can look at the [Sedona] Red Rock News. They’re really good at putting the police information out there once or twice a month. There’s bad people coming in here.”

“I’m just encouraging the council to please consider this as a proper law enforcement tool to assist our PD … and not being a bubble or a donut hole, so to speak, in the state,” Spickard said.

“I’m wondering whether there’s any data? Stories, maybe anecdotal at this point of criminals seeking out places where there aren’t [ALPRs].” Furman asked.

“I have no data specific to that,” Chandler responded. Dowell gave an anecdotal answer.

“I don’t see what collecting the data that we can’t utilize in the field would give us, outside of seeing what we’re missing,” Foley said. “If you would like us to keep it on and then do an audit to say ‘in the time that we’ve had it and haven’t utilized it, we’ve missed this many hits.’ That would be a value to you. For us to present how many things we would have investigated or gone after. … But for us just to sit there with it and not utilize it, just kind of let you know that things are coming into town and our hands are tied, and so I hope you enjoy your free pass through town.”

“I will go along with that, whether the others do or not, I think the community should know what’s going through our town,” Jablow said. “Like you said, ‘Welcome to Sedona. Have a free pass.’ I think that was very eloquent, thank you. If I’m only one so be it.”

There is currently no timeline for bringing the Flock cameras back before council or how a citizen work group would be formed.

“I understand the public’s right to be concerned [because] everybody’s concerned about privacy, and especially with [Immigration and Customs Enforcement],” Jablow subsequently said. “I’m hoping that council and the residents can come together, and we have a compromise that we can help soothe the concerns of residents with the privacy issues, but also protect [us] from criminals who are coming through our community.”

Sedona City Council was right to shut down Flock spy cameras – Sedona Red Rock News

We would like to commend the five members of Sedona City Council Councilmen Brian Fultz, Derek Pfaff and Pete Furman and Councilwomen Melissa Dunn and Kathy Kinsella — for directing city staff to shut down the automated license plate readers purchased from Flock Safety and installed around Sedona beginning in June.

Sedona residents are almost uniformly opposed in a politically bipartisan way to the installation of these cameras and council was wise to not continue with what seems to be a clearly despised public program, but to listen to the will of the public and shut them down indefinitely, perhaps permanently.

It seems that in the end, Mayor Scott Jablow was the only council member to argue in their favor and against the public will.

Contrary to erroneous assertions made by city staff during the meeting, we at the NEWS were not notified in advance of their installation, nor, it seems was the public. Sedona residents began seeing the Flock poles and cameras erected in early June, posted pictures to social media and asked us to investigate, which we did on June 6.

It was only after our inquiry on June 6 that the Communications Department finally responded — on June 11 — and then posted a statement to Facebook on June 12.

After some further inquiries, our lengthy story appeared on June 20.

In the Facebook post, the city notified residents that the city would not be revealing the locations of the proposed 12 cameras, 11 of which were eventually erected, leading residents and our staff to a two-month long hunt to locate them, which seems absurd, considering they were paid for by taxpayer money, installed with taxpayer funds and on public rights-of-way.

Overwhelmingly against the cameras were public comments online posted after the initial story, our concurrent editorial, further posts identifying new cameras and a story that Judicial Watch, a nationwide conservative nonpartisan nonprofit that files Freedom of Information Act and public records lawsuits to investigate claims of misconduct by governments and officials.

The feedback in favor was only from a small handful of Sedona residents, with the rest being active or retired law enforcement, residents from other cities outside the Verde Valley and other states.

It’s rare to have such public output be against the government program across the political spectrum, from liberals who feared that the cameras would supply information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to conservatives who feared of the encroachments on their civil liberties and freedom of movement without government surveillance. But liberals, moderates and conservatives were all united in their fear of threats to our privacy, questioning why the camera data would be retained for 30 days, how it would be used, who would have access, how it might be sold or traded by Flock, a for-profit private company with no government or public oversight.

The anger expressed by council members was palpable. Why they had not had an informed debate ahead of time? Why were residents and elected officials blindsided? Why are the cameras needed?

While purchasing the program was certainly legal and lawful under the purview of the Sedona police chief and Sedona city manager, council rightfully wondered why such a mass surveillance program far grander in scale and more intrusive in scope than police body cameras or vehicle equipment had not been discussed at length previously. While city staff and some council members asserted that the program is lawful and not currently prohibited by Arizona state statute, that evades the key question.

What’s “lawful” is not always what’s “right.” Lawful programs and policies simply may not be in keeping with American values, Western ideals, Arizonans’ morals or Sedona community values, which is why elected officials are entrusted with upholding them.

Fortunately, Dunn, Fultz, Furman, Kinsella and Pfaff did the right thing by shutting down this threat to our privacy and civil liberties.

Christopher Fox Graham is the managing editor of the Sedona Rock Rock News, The Camp Verde Journal and the Cottonwood Journal Extra. Hired by Larson Newspapers as a copy editor in 2004, he became assistant manager editor in October 2009 and managing editor in August 2013. Graham has won awards for editorials, investigative news reporting, headline writing, page design and community service from the Arizona Newspapers Association. Graham has also been a guest contributor in Editor & Publisher magazine and featured in the LA Times, New York Post and San Francisco Chronicle. He lectures on journalism, media law and the First Amendment and is a nationally recognized performance aka slam poet. In January 2025, the International Astronomical Union formally named asteroid 29722 Chrisgraham (1999 AQ23) in his honor at the behest of Lowell Observatory, citing him as “an American journalist and longtime managing editor of Sedona Red Rock News. He is a nationally-recognized slam poet who has written and performed multiple poems about Pluto and other space themes.”

– Advertisement –