Councilmembers interviewed an applicant (first name Krupa in the transcript) for a seat on the Surveillance Advisory Board. Questions focused on the applicant’s red lines for surveillance technology, how she would balance public safety and privacy, and how she would communicate with neighbors without violating the Brown Act.

Krupa said her primary condition for supporting surveillance technology is that it be used “in a way that protects people’s privacy and civil rights,” and added that she would not categorically oppose tools if safeguards, transparency and policies to limit misuse were in place. She said she would seek to learn from communities disproportionately affected by surveillance and consult residents’ advocates when assessing proposed tools.

Council members explained the board’s role: to review police technology requests, advise the council on transparency and privacy implications, and help build public trust. The liaison said the commission’s work is intended to balance departmental needs with civil‑liberties protections and that technical expertise and community representation are both valuable on the advisory panel.

Councilmembers thanked the applicant and said they would consider all candidates at an upcoming regular council meeting; no appointment vote was taken at the special session.