Oakland County critics blast chair's administrative approvals and Flock surveillance at packed meeting

Residents and advocacy groups used the June 11 Oakland County Board of Commissioners meeting to voice sustained opposition to the county's expanding use of surveillance technologies and to the chair's reported administrative approvals.

Multiple public commenters said Chair David T. Woodward exercised his authority to sign off on grant submissions and contract renewals that included items for automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and a drone pilot. The clerk read a communication from the chair notifying the board that he had exercised authority to approve grant applications in excess of $50,000 to meet submission deadlines; that communication included a $50,000 community energy management grant and an automobile theft prevention authority application (amount recorded in the transcript as "3,27,342"). Public commenters asserted additional line items tied to an auto‑theft prevention grant included Flock quick‑deploy renewals and enhanced ALPR search packages.

Concerns raised at the meeting: Speakers flagged operational and privacy risks, including cross‑jurisdictional access by federal agencies. "These cameras are unconscionable," said Philip Decker, who recounted jurisdictions that had terminated Flock contracts after discovering access by federal units such as Border Patrol and Homeland Security. Several commenters read contract language into the record: one excerpt they cited said the vendor could disclose agency data to law‑enforcement agencies and third parties "if legally required" or under a vendor determination of reasonable necessity — language commenters said weakened local control and left county residents' location data at risk.

Why it matters: Commenters pointed to a pattern seen elsewhere — cities that removed Flock or limited access after audits discovered wide federal access — and warned about the persistence and reuse of location data. "Once that data exists, it doesn't go away," Mary Miller, a resident, told commissioners, urging audits, public hearings and binding safeguards.

County response and process questions: Several commissioners expressed procedural concerns about administrative approvals and the precedent of approving technology spending without fuller review. Some members called for a committee review or suggested alternative funding sources for small community grants rather than using the special projects fund. The board did not cancel or rescind any surveillance contracts during the meeting.

Provenance and next steps: The clerk's communications (read at the start of the meeting) documented the chair's grant authority notification; public commenters cited and read procurement line items and contract sections later in the meeting. Advocates asked the board to (1) pause any renewals until independent audits and public hearings occur, (2) require stricter access controls and warrants for location searches, and (3) explore contract cancellations or renegotiations. The board will determine follow‑up by committee or staff review; no immediate policy vote occurred on June 11.

Ending: The debate drew sustained public turnout and repeated calls for transparency, audits, and county policies to limit third‑party or federal access to location and surveillance data.