Source: 2026-06-17 PAB Regular Meeting

The Berkeley Police Accountability Board held its bimonthly meeting on June 17, 2026, featuring discussions on topics concerning the future of police accountability and oversight in Berkeley. Among the range of subjects discussed were two that stood out for their undeniable power to significantly shape Berkeley’s long-term approach to policing: selecting the next Director of Police Accountability and reviewing the police department’s surveillance tech policies for community video streams and investigative software.

The board is searching for a new Director of Police Accountability after the former director was let go earlier this February. The director’s job is to lead the independent police oversight function by investigating complaints against the Berkeley Police Department and advising the board on policy issues. To lead the search, recruiter Lauren Gerson Green of Wendi Brown Creative Partners, an executive recruitment firm, attended the meeting to gather information from board members about the qualifications and priorities they want to see from the next director. During the recruitment discussion, board members emphasized that the next director will need legal expertise and experience in police oversight. They also stressed the importance of strong communication skills, the ability to build relationships with other city officials and community members, and a firm commitment to maintaining the office’s independence from political pressures. “The candidate needs to understand the environment that they’re walking into… It’s a balance between asserting yourself, demonstrating your competency… but also being able to forge relationships,” one board member noted. Several board members said the director will face challenges in navigating differing interests among the City Council, the Police Department, and the public.

The discussion of surveillance tech in Berkeley follows a long debate on a proposed $2 million surveillance network expansion with Flock Safety that was ultimately rejected on May 12th. This does not prevent the City Council from contracting with Flock for tech in the future; in fact, the Council renewed Berkeley’s lease of automated license plate readers that have been active since 2024. At the June 17 meeting, the PAB reviewed the newly drafted Surveillance Use Policies meant to establish the framework for the city’s upcoming bidding process. However, this continued push for surveillance expansion was met with resistance from the community members, many of whom believed the issue had been fully resolved after the protests that led to the Berkeley City Council vote on May 12th. During public comment, frustration was expressed over the lack of transparency with the whole process: “I’m appreciative of the work that the [PAB] did in slowing down the rush to technology. That was helpful. I’m disappointed, as I suspect some [others are], that it looks as if it’s merely slowing down and not a real rethinking of the direction that the city wants to go in,” said one resident. Several board members echoed these concerns, acknowledging the tension between implementing surveillance tech and maintaining public trust; one emphasized that the department cannot function effectively without the trust of the people, and the technology debate has “created suspicion and fear” that is “undermining the ability of the department to do its job.” Furthermore, there was discussion about having surveillance focused on businesses instead of residential areas. Ultimately, the board assured attendees that public feedback would be taken into account as they draft the formal recommendations and Surveillance Use Policies for the City Council’s final review.

The discussion reflected Berkeley’s broader challenge of balancing public safety with civil rights protections. Possible solutions raised during the meeting included requiring stronger transparency measures, maintaining independent oversight of surveillance programs, increasing public engagement before adopting new technologies, and establishing clear policies governing how collected data can be used and retained. The topic of video surveillance remains relevant due to public skepticism about how the government uses surveillance information. Finally, the search for a new director will continue as more feedback is received on the necessary qualifications and expectations of the role.

–Genevieve Yang and Minna Oshry