This week I attended the Detroit City Council Public Health and Safety meeting to speak in favor of the proposed Community Input Over Government Surveillance (CIOGS) ordinance. As the debate over increasing technologies of surveillance and control escalates in our city, this proposal is an important step in requiring community input into the decision by the government to purchase additional technologies. The proposal also outlines important responsibilities for reporting, documenting, and assessing new technologies.

The ordinance was crafted by City Council President Pro Tem Mary Sheffield. Sheffield worked with community groups, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Detroit Police Department, and Corporation Council to get agreement on the substance of the proposal guaranteeing community input into the purchase of surveillance technologies.  Chad Marlow, Senior Advocacy and Policy Council representative of the national ACLU office had worked closely with Sheffield to design the language of the proposal. He spoke of the unique and delicate balance represented by the legislation and urged the committee to support it. Several other organizations who have been involved spoke in favor of the ordinance, indicating how important it is for public input to be a standard part of any new expenditures for technologies.

As in all efforts to balance competing interests, compromises are always limited. We spoke in favor of the ordinance, even though we object to the section that allows the council to waive public hearings with a 2/3 vote. 

In contrast to the visionary leadership offered by Sheffield, committee members Scott Benson, Roy McCalister, and Janee Ayers seemed hostile to the idea of community voices in decisions about how our tax dollars are spent.

Benson’s primary concern was framed as not wanting to “increase bureaucracy” by mandating community input. Without any understanding that he was speaking in consummate bureaucratic language, Benson said “It would be more efficient if Council decided. We could ask for community input if we thought it was needed.”  Benson didn’t want to waste his time listening to a “few citizens” who might show up for public hearings. 

The disdain Benson showed for the public, and his seeming lack of understanding that the ordinance is designed to educate both the public and the council on implications of new technologies, was matched by both McCalister and Ayers who were more concerned about the police than the public. Ayers acknowledged that the Police Department supported the ordinance, after being reminded several times, but was concerned about what “boots on the ground” thought. McCalister, a former cop, seemed to take the stand that the more surveillance we had, the better. He responded to one of public comments supporting the ordinance saying, “This is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that surveillance makes them feel less safe.”  Apparently, he is unaware of the hundreds of people who have been attending Police Commission meetings for months objecting to increasing the use of such technologies.  

The fact that people suspicious of the public, protective of the police, and unaware of basic issues are making decisions about how to spend our money is troubling.

Rodd Monts of the Detroit ACLU said “We want to see CIOGS passed so that the people who live and  work in this city can have a say in whether their tax dollars are spent on more surveillance in the future. What we learned during the fight against facial recognition technology is that there is a large population in the city that does not feel safe because of expanding surveillance.

People want so see their money spent on the things that truly lead to reducing crime and making neighborhoods safe, like improved education, job readiness training, employment, physical and mental health care, transportation, substance abuse counseling and other quality of life resources.” 

We encourage the council to reject the narrow thinking voiced by the committee members and to advance this ordinance so that citizens can be both aware and a part of any decisions about how we collectively create safe communities.