Residents urge Springfield to halt Flock camera program; council schedules Oct. 20 work session

More than a dozen residents addressed the City Council on Oct. 6 urging the city to cancel or prevent activation of a network of license‑plate‑reading cameras provided by Flock Safety. Speakers raised privacy, civil‑liberties and equity concerns and cited recent actions in other jurisdictions to remove or suspend the company’s devices.

Jason Prophet said the cameras were “an invasion of privacy” and questioned their cost. “Fifty thousand could’ve went somewhere else,” he said, urging voters to oppose a proposed fire levy until surveillance questions are answered.

Several speakers cited incidents elsewhere in which Flock data was shared or devices were reactivated over municipal objections. Kai Fireside stated plainly, “Flock is a dishonest company,” and referenced an Evanston, Illinois, case in which the city ordered devices removed after reporting that federal agencies accessed data; Fireside said Evanston later had to cover devices to stop data collection.

Parents and disability advocates described personal risk. Ken Willis, who said he is the parent of an autistic daughter with atypical gait, described a specific concern about gait‑analysis software: “There is a real and honest fear in the autism community … that those of us with autistic children who have strange walks and gates cannot go on walks now without being flagged,” he said. Other speakers noted placements near Planned Parenthood and said paired cameras could produce linger‑time metrics that identify cars visiting sensitive locations.

Organizers said local outreach had found widespread opposition across political views. Cameron Stringfield, an organizer who said he canvassed residents, said conservative as well as progressive residents oppose the cameras; he asked the council to “terminate the contract with Flock.” Rob Sheldon cited recent actions in Sedona, Arizona, where the city terminated a Flock contract and removed devices after public objections; he said local resistance is growing and promised continued public pressure.

Multiple speakers disputed city communications that the cameras were “installed but not active,” saying public records and on‑line trackers showed tens of thousands of unique vehicle detections. Johannes Tadeo summarized the civic‑trust argument: “A community should always have a chance to weigh in before something this intrusive is placed in our neighborhoods,” he said.

Council President Weber thanked speakers and announced a council work session on Oct. 20 to examine the program. Councilors said they are reviewing resident input and will pursue more information before any policy decision. Councilor Rodley and Councilor Blackwell thanked residents for attending and said they appreciated the feedback; Councilor Moe said he would reserve detailed comments for the upcoming work session.

No ordinance or vote occurred at the Oct. 6 meeting; the matter is set for a council work session on Oct. 20 where staff and council will have more time for analysis and public input.