On Aug. 5, the Oak Park Village Board considered two motions: one to terminate without delay a contract with Flock for eight license-plate-reading cameras; the other to deactivate the cameras for 90 days, providing for board study and public engagement, as well as discussion with police staff (1). The first motion passed with five votes. I believe the board majority made a serious mistake.
The number of retirements and the difficulty of fully staffing the Oak Park Police Department (2) strongly suggest that our police don’t feel supported. Denying them the opportunity to make their case for what they believe they need is the opposite of support.
In contrast, the River Forest Police Department is fully staffed (3). Its village board recently approved without controversy their police chief’s request for 37 more license-plate-reading cameras (4). For that matter, Berwyn and Cicero — both with large Latino populations — are also adding such cameras (5). Apparently, they’re not worried that ICE is going to use the data.
The opponents of Flock cameras, including those on the Citizens Police Oversight Commission, say they don’t work (6). First, let’s remember that Chief Johnson (who all the trustees say they respect) considers them a useful tool. Then consider that the cameras haven’t been allowed to work as well as they could (7). They’re permitted to report only on cars stolen violently, though stolen cars are associated with committing crimes in general. And our police have just eight of the 20 cameras requested, scaled down from an original request for 50 (8).
Trustees Leving Jacobson and Enyia may have believed they had the votes to terminate the Flock contract. I think that’s why they rushed to introduce the motion just two weeks after receiving OPPD’s annual report.
But having the votes didn’t make passing this motion right. By voting to terminate the Flock contract now, the board majority denied the opportunity for public engagement. (Some trustees said there had been plenty of public discussion already, but there has been no outreach to average Oak Parkers who mostly haven’t followed this issue.) The alternative motion provided for this. Their vote denied our police the opportunity to research and recommend technologies that will work for them and to address concerns, including possible modifications by Flock. The alternative motion provided for this.
And they denied themselves the opportunity to make a fully informed decision. The alternative motion provided for this, too.
The alternative motion of trustees Taglia and Wesley even gave Flock opponents a 90-day camera deactivation. It was win-win for all interested parties. And it was the right thing to do. I very much hope there are better board decisions regarding our police in the future.
Sources:
 1) https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/12/the-flock-camera-vote/
 3) https://www.oakpark.com/2025/04/21/river-forest-promotes-next-police-chief-from-the-ranks/
 5)  https://www.atlasofsurveillance.org/search?location=Berwyn%2C+IL&sort=agency_asc
 6) https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/05/decide-rationally-not-ideologically/
 7) https://www.oakpark.com/2024/06/05/flock-cameras-oak-park-police-contract/
 8) https://www.oakpark.com/2022/04/05/oak-park-to-get-eight-license-plate-reading-cameras/
Judith Alexander
Oak Park
