Where Our County Commissioners Stand
Five people control the budget that funds Flock in New Hanover County. For weeks, the answer to where they stand was silence. On July 28 that broke — and on September 8, 2026 they answered with a unanimous 4-0 vote to cancel the contract.
In New Hanover County, five elected commissioners approve the budget that pays for the Sheriff’s Flock contract — about about $219,000 over two years. They can fund it, or not. So a fair question for any resident is simple: where does each of them stand?
The Board voted unanimously, 4-0, to cancel the county’s Flock contract — motion by Vice Chair Dane Scalise, seconded by Chair LeAnn Pierce, with Rob Zapple and Stephanie Walker voting yes. We now know exactly where they stand, and we thanked them — read our letter of thanks. The scorecard below is kept as the record of how each of them got there. (What the vote does)
We went looking — through county records, WECT, Port City Daily, WHQR, StarNews, campaign sites, and candidate questionnaires. Here is the honest result.
Update — July 3, 2026: We have now written to all five commissioners directly, asking each to state whether they support the county’s continued funding of the Flock program and whether they will support putting the contract to a public vote. We asked for a reply by Friday, July 24, 2026. As responses arrive, we will post each commissioner’s position here in their own words — and note, factually, where we received no reply. Update — July 13, 2026: with the deadline ten days out, none of the five has responded. We have now sent each commissioner a reminder. Update — July 24, 2026 (the deadline): the reply deadline has now passed. Four of the five — Chair LeAnn Pierce, Bill Rivenbark, Rob Zapple, and Stephanie Walker — did not respond. The one exception is Vice-Chair Dane Scalise, who has engaged with the issue and is reviewing it, though he has not yet stated a position. The scorecard reflects the status as of today.
Update — July 27, 2026: the first response is in.
Dr. LeShonda Wallace (Democrat) is the first of the eight commissioners and candidates to answer on the record. She opposes the county’s continued funding of Flock, and states that if elected she would vote to end it and open a public review. All eight were asked the same two questions through the same documented channels; the candidates’ reply deadline is August 3, and we will post each remaining answer here as it arrives, in the official’s own words. Her full reply, unedited:
Do you support the county’s continued funding of the Flock ALPR program under Contract 25-0364?
Given the current circumstances, I oppose continued funding for the Flock Safety program under Contract 25-0364. The program involves a significant expenditure of public funds; there is currently no publicly available outcome data that measurably demonstrates these cameras reduce crime in New Hanover County. Meanwhile, it erodes the public’s trust, raising legitimate concerns about privacy and the physical safety of innocent residents. Most importantly, the system raises significant concerns about constitutional protections, including the rights to privacy, free association, and freedom from unreasonable government surveillance. The lack of meaningful public oversight, heavily redacted audit records, the system’s expansive surveillance capabilities, and documented misuse in other jurisdictions warrant a thorough public review before any additional taxpayer funding is approved.
If elected, would you vote to end that funding?
Given that the contract allows cancellation without cause, I would vote to end further funding for the Flock ALPR program and to conduct a transparent public review before any further consideration. Thank you for providing the platform for dialogue. — LeShonda
Update — July 28, 2026: the silence broke.
For the first time, New Hanover County commissioners are publicly raising concerns about the Flock program. Chair LeAnn Pierce wrote that she is “concerned” and wants answers before supporting future funding. Vice-Chair Dane Scalise says the board is “digging in” on whether the cameras are right for the county. Commissioner Rob Zapple says his “eyebrows are raised.” None has taken a final position or committed to a public vote — but after weeks of silence, three of five are now on the record. (WECT Investigates) The scorecard below reflects it.
Update — August 3, 2026: a second candidate answers — Bob Drach (Libertarian).
Bob Drach (Libertarian) opposes the county’s continued funding of Flock and, if elected, would vote to end it. He asked that his position be published as a statement; here it is, verbatim and unedited:
I do not support the county’s continued funding of the Flock ALPR program under Contract 25-0364. The warrantless government surveillance happening under this program is a violation of our 4th amendment rights. Problems arise from the AI supercharged networks that process images and share data about our individual movements and behaviors, data that is then exploited by local, state, and federal agencies without consent and with insufficient oversight.
The constitution affords “We the People” protection from coercive government in many ways, most famously in our Bill of Rights. For example, when the government tries to restrict free speech the First Amendment stops them. In another example, if a person gets accused of a crime and arrested, police are required to tell them their rights. This is not because all police may try to intimidate or coerce an innocent person into a false confession, but because some officers have done so in some cases.
And so it is with the warrantless collection and exploitation of data by nationwide networks of government cameras. This is a known threat to our freedoms and democracy. It was so in 1791 when the Fourth Amendment was ratified, and it is even more of a threat today. This threat should be defunded immediately and appropriate controls applied to the all types of collection, storage, access, and use of data for surveilling free people in any way, shape, or form.
Yours truly,
Bob Drach
The scorecard
| Commissioner | Role | Public position on Flock / ALPR | Reply to our July 3 letter |
|---|---|---|---|
| LeAnn Pierce | Chair | Publicly “concerned.” Wrote that she is looking for answers before supporting future funding for the program: “While I do support our law enforcement, I also understand your concerns with these cameras.” (Facebook, July 27, 2026) — and on Sept 8, 2026, seconded the motion and voted to cancel the contract. | On record — concerned; seeking answers before backing further funding (July 27, 2026) |
| Dane Scalise | Vice-Chair | Publicly “digging in.” Frames it as a safety-vs-privacy question and says the board is “trying to get to the bottom of” whether the cameras are right for the county; no final position stated. (WECT, July 28, 2026) — and on Sept 8, 2026, made the motion to cancel the contract (passed 4-0). | Engaged — publicly researching the issue; no final position yet (July 28, 2026) |
| Bill Rivenbark | Commissioner | No public position on record; attended the Sept 8, 2026 special meeting remotely and was not permitted to vote — the measure passed 4-0 without him. | No response as of July 24, 2026 — deadline passed |
| Rob Zapple | Commissioner | “Eyebrows are raised.” Says he wants more information and dialogue on how the cameras are used. (WECT, July 28, 2026) — and on Sept 8, 2026, voted to cancel the contract. | On record — wants more information and dialogue (July 28, 2026) |
| Stephanie Walker | Commissioner | No position on Flock specifically; cast the lone dissent on the 2025 and 2026 county budgets, but reporting ties that to the budget overall, not ALPR. On Sept 8, 2026, voted to cancel the contract. | No response as of July 24, 2026 — deadline passed |
The scorecard above is now the record, not the question. For weeks the answer to where the commissioners stood was silence; on July 28 three of them broke it, and on September 8, 2026 the Board settled it — voting 4-0 to cancel the county’s Flock contract. The quarter-million-dollar program is ending, and the Sheriff’s Office has begun shutting off access. We keep the account above of how each commissioner got there.
The candidates — November 3 ballot
| Candidate | Party | Public position on Flock / ALPR | Reply to our July 25 letter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Richard Collier | Republican | Not in favor of the Flock cameras. Stated on the record (his campaign Facebook, Sept. 2026): “I take privacy very seriously and am not in favor of the Flock Cameras. I do support the Sheriff and his department. Any surveillance of the public needs scrutiny by the public. That’s the type of transparency I plan to bring to the County Commission if elected.” Frames it around transparency and public oversight; supports the Sheriff’s Office. | Responded — on the record (Sept 2026) |
| Bob Drach | Libertarian | Opposes continued funding under Contract 25-0364; if elected, would vote to end it — calls warrantless ALPR surveillance a Fourth Amendment violation that “should be defunded immediately.” (full response) | Responded August 3, 2026 — on the record |
| Dr. LeShonda Wallace | Democrat | Opposes continued funding under Contract 25-0364; if elected, would vote to end it and open a public review. (full response) | Responded July 27, 2026 — on the record |
That makes eight names in all — five sitting commissioners and three candidates — each asked the same two questions through documented, campaign-published or official channels. The whole record lives on this page, and we update it the day an answer arrives.
Update — September 4, 2026: all three challengers on the November ballot are now on record — and all three oppose the program. Republican Richard Collier answered directly on his campaign Facebook: “I take privacy very seriously and am not in favor of the Flock Cameras. I do support the Sheriff and his department. Any surveillance of the public needs scrutiny by the public.” That joins Dr. LeShonda Wallace (D) and Bob Drach (L), who both oppose continued funding — a rare cross-partisan sweep (Democrat, Libertarian, and Republican) against the county’s Flock program. Collier frames his position around transparency and public oversight rather than an explicit defunding pledge; Wallace and Drach both said they would vote to end the funding. Every candidate to answer has now come out against the cameras — while most sitting commissioners still have not stated a firm position.
Update — September 7, 2026: where the outreach stands. The three challengers on the November ballot — Wallace (D), Drach (L), and Collier (R) — all oppose the program. State Rep. Deb Butler has gone on record — she opposes ALPR use “without stringent safeguards” and says she will file a bill to require them. But the two incumbents running for re-election, Chair LeAnn Pierce and Commissioner Rob Zapple, have engaged at most and taken no official stand, and every other letter we sent has gone unanswered. Residents packed the August 17 meeting, the petition has passed 3,800 signatures, and the contract still is not on any agenda. That is the case for removal in one paragraph: you cannot regulate a system whose overseers will not even schedule a vote.
How is that possible?
Because the cameras never got a real public vote. The only time the board formally touched Flock was December 2021, when a $43,750 Flock contract was approved on the consent agenda — a bundle of routine items passed together with no discussion — and then scrapped weeks later when a competing vendor undercut the sole-source justification. (Port City Daily) The current, far larger program runs through the Sheriff’s Office budget, with no separate commissioner roll-call on the cameras themselves.
The Sheriff’s Office has defended the program in general terms — a spokesperson told WECT the readers are “another investigative tool to help protect the community” — but no commissioner has publicly endorsed it, questioned it, or asked for it to be put to a vote. (WECT Investigates)
Silence is a choice — so make them choose in public
A blank scorecard is not bad news. It is an opening. No one on the board has committed to defending Flock, which means every commissioner is still free to be the one who says this deserves a public vote. Our job is to put the question in front of them, on the record, where a non-answer becomes its own answer.
- Ask them directly. Email all five commissioners one question: will you support a public vote on the county’s Flock contract?
- Make them answer in the room. At the next meeting, ask each official to state their position for the minutes.
- We’ll keep score. As commissioners go on record — in meetings, emails, or the press — we’ll update this page with what they said and when. Got an answer? Send it to us.
Methodology & fairness: “No public position on record” means we found no sourced statement, vote, or questionnaire answer specific to Flock or ALPR as of July 3, 2026 — not that a commissioner supports or opposes it. Verbal remarks during a budget presentation may exist in county meeting video that isn’t web-searchable. If a commissioner is on record somewhere we missed, tell us and we’ll correct this the same day.
You’re not a suspect. So stop being tracked like one.
It takes one minute. Add your name — then tell the officials who represent you to take the cameras down.