Residents urge pause, transparency on AI cameras and protest proposed meeting removal powers in handbook changes

Several residents used the public forum at the July 28 Mankato City Council meeting to press the council on an artificial intelligence‑enabled camera proposal, to ask that the city rescind prior approval of surveillance tools and to oppose handbook language they said could permit removal of speakers.

Benton Bakke, identifying himself as a resident, criticized surveillance contractors and expressed cybersecurity concerns. Bakke said staff had told him an AI component “would not be turned on” in connection with cameras proposed for public safety vehicles but suggested surveillance vendors and federal partnerships create risk: “Anyone in cybersecurity would be able to tell you that if a thing has a connection to the Internet, it can be hacked,” he said. He also urged reinstating a Human Rights Commission or letting the public decide whether to reinstate it rather than removing it from the handbook.

Ava Corey Greenas told the council she had sought more time to review handbook edits and said language allowing law enforcement to remove members of the public could mirror how council leaders have handled past comments. She said the council had previously curtailed comments about police and that the handbook change to allow trespass/removal powers “is quite in line actually with the way that the council has handled this all throughout the process of considering the AI surveillance proposal.” Greenas asked the council not to adopt removal powers.

Natalie Oracle urged the council to “resend the vote approving the surveillance proposal,” and listed steps she urged the city to take: provide 30‑day public notices for surveillance tech proposals, ensure equal speaking time for civil‑rights and surveillance experts, adopt an ordinance requiring public input before surveillance acquisitions, and prohibit cooperation with ICE for criminal immigration enforcement. Oracle said staff and the Department of Public Safety had provided technically correct but misleading explanations about systems that use license‑plate recognition and cited concerns that a vendor’s database “provides nationwide information like the NCIC.” She also told the council more than 50 residents sent research‑backed letters opposing the proposal in a single week.

These comments occurred during the public forum portion of the meeting and were not recorded as motions or binding council actions. Council members did not act during the meeting on the requests to resend prior votes or pause surveillance procurement; staff and council members referenced the June 9 vote earlier in the transcript but made no motion to reopen it during this session.