I recently heard Rahm Emmanuel say that he told presidents Clinton and Obama that “sound is not always fury, sometimes it’s just sound, and don’t assume just because someone is screaming at you that they represent more than their own voice.”
Oak Park has a tiny, noisy minority of defund/abolish the police ideologues (1) formerly known as Freedom to Thrive, rebadged as Activate Oak Park.
Our Citizens Police Oversight Committee (CPOC) isn’t the objective, narrative-free group its mission demands nor residents deserve. Remarkably, the current chair was a Freedom to Thrive organizer. (2)
Four CPOC members co-signed a 2022 letter opposing the installation of Flock license-plate-reading cameras that the Oak Park Police Dept. (OPPD) requested. (3) Recently, referring to Flock, CPOC’s semi-annual report says that “despite repeated requests by CPOC for evidence of “successful investigative outcomes … OPPD remains unwilling to provide such data.”
Chief Shatonya Johnson explained to CPOC multiple times that few crimes are solved by one technology or piece of evidence; almost always a combination of factors and multiple cooperating departments lead to an outcome, making it impossible to assign a contributory value to a specific technology for any eventual outcome, often coming years later. Such a report would be meaningless yet require a significant administrative burden and cost. CPOC has a reasonable answer to this question. Some members refuse to accept it and inaccurately insist that OPPD is being “uncooperative.”
Having failed in 2022 to preclude camera installation and in 2024 to prevent contract renewal, Flock opponents adopt objections de jour seeking an angle that works. Their latest: ICE using legal channels to access Oak Park data. Yes, the chance is not zero, but it’s slight. Do they accept ICE accessing data from cell, car, I-Pass, and license plate cameras in adjacent towns? Or do they just oppose OPPD having an effective investigative tool? They refuse to accept that only OPPD has access to our Flock data. It isn’t shared. Stringent limitations were imposed on Flock, partly, if not largely, because of these ideologues. They demanded strict limits, diminishing effectiveness, then disingenuously claim low productivity proves cameras are ineffectual.
Trustees Straw and Leving Jacobson said recently they respect the chief and department. If sincere, why do they reject OPPD’s emphatic request to retain an effective tool?
This year River Forest’s chief requested an increase to 37 Flock cameras (Oak Park has 8). Uncontroversial, routine board vote, passed unanimously. No circus, no ideological sideshows conflating social issues with an effective investigative tool.
Bike lanes are deemed a safety issue; public surveys and hearings were held. Neighborhood meetings were attended by some trustees. The plan was approved. Several trustees lamented community outreach falling short, citing the need for future improvement of community engagement.
So, why no such outreach on a much bigger safety issue? Will ideologues drive the issue without due process and the board properly engaging the community?
We should give a depleted OPPD the tools it needs to succeed; otherwise we should prepare for the results.
ICE isn’t the issue, crime and public safety is.
Eye on the ball.
Sources:
1) Ideologue: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology, Merriam Webster
3) https://www.oakpark.com/2022/03/29/say-no-to-flock-cameras. Four current CPOC members are listed among the cosigners
Jack Powers is a 35-year resident of Oak Park and a current member of CPOC. He is not writing on behalf of CPOC or any other member.
Correction: We originally had the chief’s name wrong online through no error of the letter writer. It has been corrected.