City Board passed on the police surveillance oversight ordinance again

Saw this one and wanted to see what folks here think. Director Phillips tried a second time to get the surveillance oversight ordinance moving and the board didn't advance it. Last December's try lost 3-5. Here's the writeup if you missed it.

From what I read it wasn't about taking any cameras down. LRPD would just report once a year on the plate readers and other surveillance tech, and the big purchases would get their own agenda item instead of riding along on the consent agenda. Honestly that doesn't sound like much to ask... 🤷 Cameras stay up either way.

I'm not against the police having the tools. I just like knowing what the city is buying and why. Anybody follow the discussion closely enough to know what the objections actually were? Walking around the Quapaw Quarter I notice more of those cameras every year, so I'm curious.

Annual report doesn't sound like a heavy lift to me 🤷 I'd guess the pushback was staff time or "we already do this internally," but that's just a guess... would like to hear from someone who watched the meeting 👀

Separate agenda items for the big buys seems like the easy win though. Folks should at least get to see it before it passes 👍

I didn't watch it either, Monday night was soccer practice taxi duty. But if "staff time" was the objection, that's a funny one. One report a year? I fill out more paperwork than that for a youth league field permit.

The consent agenda part is what gets me. Stuff that rides along there gets voted on in one lump with no discussion, and nobody outside City Hall ever hears about it. Down by the River Market there's a camera on pretty much every other pole now and I couldn't tell you who bought what or when.

Not anti-police, just anti-"trust us." Two tries and still no, so I guess we wait for round three.

Years back, anything that cost real money got talked about out loud at the board table. Now it rides along on consent and nobody hears a word. An annual report seems like a small ask to me. I didn't watch Monday, so I can't say what the objections were.

I'm down at the River Market pavilions most Saturdays for the farmers market, and I'd never counted the cameras until Emily brought it up.

Sorry I'm late to this one, been a week. Emily, "not anti-police, just anti-trust us" is pretty much where I land too. I'm not against the cameras and I'm not asking anyone to take any down. I just think if the city is spending real money on something, somebody besides the people who bought it should get to hear about it once in a while.

The permit thing made me laugh because it's so true. I do a big yard sale every spring and the amount of hoop jumping for a few folding tables and a box of old Tupperware is wild, and meanwhile a whole camera purchase can go through in one lump vote with the rest of the consent agenda. Not saying that's an apples to apples comparison, but it did strike me.

I walk the river trail pretty regularly, usually out toward the Big Dam Bridge, and once Randy and Jerry both brought up counting cameras I started noticing them too. Couldn't tell you who owns half of them. Honestly I think that's the part that bugs me more than the cameras themselves. If the answer is just "we already report internally" then fine, put it in a yearly report and let everybody see it. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.

Also yes to Emily on round three, although I'd kind of like to know what changed between the first vote and this one before I get my hopes up. If anybody does watch the meeting video, please post a summary, I'm not gonna sit through a whole board meeting on my couch lol.

Ha, I know that hoop jumping, Megan. I've been doing a yard sale on the same corner for years and the city's never asked me to explain what I did with the folding tables.

I've lived here long enough to remember when anything costing real money got hashed out at the board table, and folks would show up to argue about it. Now it's one lump vote and on to the next thing. Not saying the old days were better, but at least you heard about it.

I haven't watched the video either. I believe the board agendas get posted ahead of time though, so somebody with more patience than me could flip back through a few and see what's been riding along on consent. That'd probably tell us more than the vote did.

Good idea, Carol. The agendas get posted ahead of time, so I'll try to dig through a few this week and see what's been going through on consent. Might take a couple evenings 😅 If I find anything camera related I'll post it here.

Megan, I'll look for the meeting video too. Still nobody has said what the objections were, and that's the part I'd most like to know. If it was just staff time, that's a weak reason for a once-a-year report.

I'm out on the river trail most mornings and I count cameras now too, thanks to you all. Can't unsee it 🙄