Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Surveillance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues discussion of proposed police surveillance ordinance; staff updates Urbana Police Department tool list
Summary
Councilmembers and staff reviewed a revised Urbana Police Department surveillance-technology inventory, compared Urbana draft language with Oak Park’s ordinance, and discussed timeline for finalizing a city surveillance ordinance.
The Urbana City Council continued deliberations on a proposed ordinance regulating police surveillance technology and received a corrected inventory from staff of the Urbana Police Department’s tools.
Darius (city staff) provided an updated UPD (Urbana Police Department) portion of the surveillance-technology inventory after columns misaligned in a prior packet. The corrected UPD list is intended to replace the earlier version and staff said they will consolidate department lists into a single, updated document.
Council member Grace reviewed a side-by-side comparison of Urbana’s draft definitions and reporting requirements with Oak Park’s ordinance. Grace said Oak Park’s approach to certain definitions (for example, surveillance technology and surveillance impact/use reports) had useful language and recommended staff and council consider adopting similar clarity in Urbana’s code. Council members discussed whether surveillance databases should be treated separately from surveillance hardware and whether certain technologies (for example, license plate readers or gunshot detectors) fall within the ordinance’s scope.
Council members and staff discussed the reporting structure: an initial use report when a technology is approved and an annual, consolidated surveillance report summarizing all technologies. Council member James suggested clearer phrasing to describe the “technology and the data it collects” to reduce ambiguity. Several council members expressed a desire for multiple reviews by council and staff before a final vote.
On timing, council members said an October vote was an optimistic target if all stakeholders and staff complete reviews; November was cited as a more conservative expected timeline. No ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
Council directed staff to continue refining definitions and to consolidate department inventories for a future meeting. Several members asked that the draft incorporate best-practice language seen in other municipalities and that the initial use reports and annual report structure be clarified before finalizing code amendments.
