URBANA — City leaders have a lot of questions when it comes to an ordinance presented by Aldermen Grace Wilken and Jaya Kolisetty that would require Urbana City Council approval for various police technologies, including automated license-plate readers.
However, while the item will remain in committee for at least a few more weeks, the two aldermen said that one of their main priorities was simply getting the matter on the table.
“This isn’t new,” Kolisetty said. “I think good questions have already come up tonight. I think it’s important that we have an opportunity to answer those questions. But this is something that’s been talked about years, and we haven’t seen any response from the administration.”
The current draft of the ordinance can be found in Monday’s meeting packet at urbanail.gov/meetings.
In its current form, the ordinance would require the Urbana Police Department to obtain the city council’s approval before acquiring “any new policing technology or database” or using existing tools that fall into these categories “in a new manner not previously approved.”
The department also would be required to present use reports and policies for all police surveillance technology and databases already in use within 120 days of the ordinance’s passing. The deadline could be extended with written approval from the city council.
The council would then go through the same approval process for the existing technologies and databases.
In considering the ordinance, Alderman James Quisenberry asked whether it distinguishes between surveillance technology and investigative technology.
Wilken replied that there is “a lot of overlap” between the two and also referred him to the ordinance’s language, which defines policing technology or police surveillance technology as systems that can be used to collect, store or analyze “information associated with or capable of being associated with any specific individual or group.”
A screenshot of the proposed ordinance’s definition of policing technology.
The ordinance gives a similar definition for policing databases, with the language focusing on their capacity for “accessing, storing, cataloging, or analyzing information associated with or capable of being associated with any specific individual or group.”
Quisenberry questioned whether this would apply to vehicle registration databases.
“If we pass this, the Urbana Police Department would have to file a use report and get approval to do registration lookups on vehicle stops?” he asked.
“I think that’s some of the gray areas, the details that we can decide here,” Wilken said.
Alderman Chris Evans later said that there has been a “strawman” argument about how this ordinance would require approval of “standard technologies” such as the secretary of state’s database. He then asked if this is actually true.
Wilken replied, “Yes, I think as currently written, the use of any technology or database that has personally identifiable capabilities of gathering information on the public would require approval.”
“How many is that?” asked Mayor Diane Marlin. “I have no idea.”
Wilken said that this is one of the reasons she felt it was important to put this ordinance forward.
“We don’t know what’s being used and how and how much it’s costing us,” she said.
The mayor then suggested that this should be evaluated prior to the approval of the ordinance, and Wilken agreed that this would be “useful” information to have.
Alderman Maryalice Wu also had concerns about the proposed ordinance’s breadth and said that one could interpret its language to mean that bodycams require approval, even though they are not specifically called out, and Wilken said the ordinance would not apply to these devices.
Wu suggested focusing specifically on new surveillance technology, as that seems to be where most people’s concerns lie.
Quisenberry expressed similar sentiments and added that there may be an issue with a section of the ordinance that states that the council shall evaluate the “public safety benefits” of proposed technologies versus “the economic, social, and community costs,” such as potential civil rights violations or inequities.
“We can’t bind a future council to act in a certain way,” he said. “So while that may be what we want them to use as criteria for reviewing these things, we cannot speak to how they will do that.”
He added that the current council cannot determine how a future council will weigh the two sides of the criteria.
As for the other aldermen, Chaundra Bishop expressed support to “narrowing the scope” of the language around surveillance to just the most “high-risk technology” such as automated license plate readers and facial recognition, rather than the secretary of state’s database.
She also said that while she fully supports transparency in policing, she wonders what might happen if there is an emergency and the police have an opportunity to use a new technology to address the situation.
Alderman Shirese Hursey said she could not support the ordinance as written and expressed a desire for more input from both the police and the community.
“I know there’s a lot of fear of surveillance and so on and so forth, but just like any type of technology, there may be times when there’s a benefit for that surveillance and (times) when there is not,” she added.
Evans said he feels the community’s concerns about “intrusive, unexpected, unregulated” surveillance technology are “legitimate” and expressed hope that the city might be able to negotiate a policy that pleases all parties.
He also cited the Final Report of the President’s Taskforce on 21st Century Policing, which recommends that, “Law enforcement agencies should establish a culture of transparency and accountability in order to build public trust and legitimacy.”
Marlin said that while she appreciates the work that went into the proposal, she wished that it had been developed with input from city staff, including the police and legal departments.
“We need to approach this ordinance in the same thoughtful way that we approach every other ordinance that has far-reaching implications, and that is looking at the local impact,” she said.
The council ultimately voted to continue discussion of the proposed ordinance at its next Committee of the Whole session, which will be held on Jan. 6. City officials said that there will also be a regular council meeting that same night.
The council also briefly discussed a draft request for proposals for a new consultant on the city’s ongoing alternative response model study. Council members indicated they wanted more time to review the document before sending it forward to a regular meeting for approval.