In a 3-2 vote Tuesday, the Board of County Commissioners approved a $35,104 grant agreement for the Auditor’s Office to procure and install AI-enabled software on existing security cameras.
The software is intended to flag potential threats, including weapons and bombs, for elections staff, according to a copy of the agreement and comments made by Auditor Mary Hall last week. The grant money originates from a U.S. Department of Justice program but will be passed through the Washington State Department of Commerce.
AI broadly refers to technologies or machines that can perform complex tasks by simulating human reasoning and decision-making. The board approved the grant agreement as local or state regulation of AI-enabled surveillance technology is still pending.
Last week, the board directed county staff to prepare an ordinance regulating the acquisition and use of AI-enabled surveillance technology. State legislators have also proposed AI regulations during the current legislative session.
The county does not currently use any AI-enabled surveillance technology, county spokesperson Susan Melnyk confirmed with The Olympian last week. The AI-enabled software being pursued by the Auditor’s Office would change that.
Commissioners Carolina Mejia, Tye Menser and Wayne Fournier voted in favor of approving the grant agreement with Commerce. Commissioners Emily Clouse and Rachel Grant voted against it, citing privacy concerns and a desire for more information. Commissioners explain their votes
Clouse said she wanted to thoroughly review a vendor agreement between the Auditor’s Office and the company that will supply the AI-enabled software before approving the grant agreement.
“I have full trust in our Auditor and her team to operate with integrity and do everything that they can to ensure that privacy is protected,” Clouse said. “This is not a criticism of the Auditor’s staff or her office.”
Earlier in the day, she asked the board to remove this item from the agenda and bring it back at a later meeting. However, a majority of the board did not support that action.
“I have a lot of constituents asking questions about this, and I want to be able to answer those questions and with the full understanding of the scope of this technology and what it’s going to be used for,” Clouse said.
Grant aligned with Clouse on wanting more time and said she did not feel ready to introduce AI-enabled systems in this environment.
“I’m just worried about enforceable safeguards and, you know, and how the data can be used once it leaves our hands,” Grant said. “We can’t fully control or unwind something once it goes ... into other hands.”
Mejia, who proposed AI-regulations last week, said the board was tasked with deciding whether to approve a grant agreement, rather than the technology the grant supports.
The grant agreement, she said, strengthens physical security at the county’s election facility without changing how elections are run.
“It protects people,” Mejia said. “Protecting election facilities from threats and harassment is part of protecting democracy, and that’s why I’m supportive of this request.”
Clouse raised concerns about the grant money originating from the Department of Justice, which is under the control of the Trump administration. Mejia clarified that the Department of Justice should not be able to operate any system supported by this grant.
“I also want to state that nothing in this contract authorizes the Department of Justice or any federal agency to access live camera feeds, recorded footage, voter records, ballots or election systems,” Mejia said.
The federal role here is limited to grant compliance, financial oversight and standard audit requirements that apply to virtually all federal grants, and we have signed many in the past year.”
The agreement states the AI-enabled security cameras will be installed on 14 existing cameras. Six are located on the building exterior and eight are located inside the building.
The Auditor’s Office aims to install AI-enabled software this month and test the cameras over the coming months, according to the agreement.
“This technology is designed to identify potential threats of violence to staff and the public,” Mejia said. “It’s not facial recognition. It is not used to identify voters, and it’s not used to monitor lawful political activity.”
“All systems remain under local control,” Mejia said. “Data is not shared unless required by law, and the county is bound by state and federal privacy civil rights and public records.”
The board has had multiple closed door executive sessions about the technology, citing security reasons. Before one such session last week, Auditor Hall said a facial recognition component was removed. She added her office was concerned about bomb detection.
“Bomb threats are the biggest threat right now in the election sector,” Hall told the board last week.
Menser, who chairs the board, said before the vote Tuesday that he felt confident the technology would do exactly what it's intended to do.
“We are all sharing concerns about certain types of data and how it could be used inappropriately, but I’m very confident that the kind of information being collected here is not that kind,” Menser said.
Menser said the Auditor’s Office needs to implement the technology soon and called it “critical” for election and election staff security.
Fournier said he trusted Hall’s judgment.
“I’m not an elections expert,” Fournier said. “I’m not an election security expert, but, but we do know someone who is; that is Auditor Mary Hall, and she’s been very adamant that this is important for her work.” Does the Sheriff’s Office use AI-enabled surveillance?
Earlier in the Tuesday meeting, the board unanimously approved a memorandum of understanding between the Sheriff’s Office and the Washington State Patrol that touched on AI-surveillance concerns as well.
WSP provides the Sheriff’s Office with records from the National Crime Information Center and the Washington Crime Information Center. The MOU establishes requirements for transmitting, receiving and storing those records, according to county documents.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation maintains the NCIC system while WSP maintains the WACIC system.
The records include information about stolen vehicles, vehicles wanted in conjunction with felonies, wanted persons and vehicles subject to seizure based on federal court orders, county documents state.
It also includes information from AI-enabled license plate readers, such as Flock Safety cameras, operated by other jurisdictions, Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders told the board Tuesday.
Though the Sheriff’s Office does not have license plate readers, Sanders said his office routinely works with agencies that do use the technology.
“For the record, so that no one is misunderstood … we do not have AI-surveillance at the Sheriff’s Office,” Sanders said. “Any approval would have to come through the board anyway, based on how it’s all set up.”
Mejia said she understood talk about this technology raises concerns about data sharing, privacy and federal overreach.
“I do want to clarify that this agreement does not expand federal access to local data,” Mejia said. “It governs how the Sheriff’s Office securely receives and safeguards information that already exists within the NCIC and the WACIC systems, and it sets rules around who may access the data, how it’s stored, how it may be used and how it may not be shared,” Mejia said.
© 2026 The Olympian (Olympia, Wash.). Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
