Email Template and Ideas to send to Council Members
📣 Woodstock, We Need Your Voice
If you don’t want Flock surveillance in our community, now is the time to speak up.
Please email or call your council members and let them know you oppose the Flock expansion and support safer, more privacy-friendly options. Even a quick message makes a big difference.
If you don’t know where to start, we’ve provided ready-to-send templates you can use as is or customize. We encourage everyone to send one template email and one personal email (totally can be short and simple) to help flood their offices and make our message clear.
Your voice matters. Your privacy matters. Our community matters.
Council contact list is below, take one minute today to reach out.
Members Who Voted Against Flock
Darrin Flynn: dflynn@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4485
Melissa McMahon: mmcmahon@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4481
Natalie Ziemba: nziemba@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4484
Subject: Thank you for standing up for privacy, fiscal responsibility, and community trust
Hi [Council Member Name],
Thank you for your vote against expanding Flock cameras! Your stand for transparency, privacy, and fiscal responsibility matters deeply to many of us in the community.As you continue reviewing this issue, here are additional resources and context you may find helpful:
Illinois & Regional Examples
City of Evanston (2025): Deactivated all Flock-linked automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras after a state audit revealed Flock violated Illinois law by allowing unauthorized federal access. City of Evanston+2ABC7 Chicago+2
Village of Oak Park (2025): Voted to cancel its Flock contract and shut down its ALPR system entirely, citing privacy risks, distrust of Flock data-sharing practices, and insufficient benefit relative to cost. Wednesday Journal+1
The $9,000 grant slated for Woodstock Square comes from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office’s Organized Retail Crime (ORC) Grant Program, not from Flock. Illinois Attorney General+2Illinois Attorney General+2
That grant can legally be spent on a range of anti-theft efforts, including investigations, patrols, training, or updating existing camera infrastructure.( Illinois Attorney General+1 )This means the city could deploy non-vendor–locked, one-time-cost options instead of committing to an expensive, long-term, surveillance-heavy contract.
If you’re open to it, I’m happy to help compile a list of alternative systems and costs, to show what’s possible without compromising privacy or budget.
Thank you again for your leadership and willingness to stand up for Woodstock’s values.
Warmly,
Members Who Voted For Flock
Tom Nierman: tnierman@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4479
Bob Seegers, Jr: bseegers@woodstockil.gov | 815-321-4482
Gregg Hanson: ghanson@woodstockil.gov. | 815-321-4483
Subject: Please Reconsider Flock - Our Community Does Not Want This Technology
Hi [Council Member Name],
I’m writing because I know your support for Flock comes from a genuine desire to make Woodstock safer. But I want to be very clear: our community does not want Flock. The public feedback, meeting comments, and conversations around town reflect deep discomfort with this technology.
Illinois law gives strong protections for privacy and biometric data, protections recently tested by real events. A 2025 audit by the office of Illinois Secretary of State Illinois Secretary of State+2Business and Human Rights Centre+2 found that Flock Safety allowed access by federal agencies (including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP) to Illinois license-plate camera data in violation of state law. Illinois Secretary of State+1
Because of that breach and the broader risk it exposed, nearby communities like Evanston, IL and Oak Park, IL terminated their Flock contracts in 2025 and deactivated their ALPR cameras. cityofevanston.org+2Wednesday Journal+2
So the critical question becomes:
“Do we want to risk violating Illinois privacy law when safer, fully compliant alternatives exist?”
We all want Woodstock to be safe, but it’s not just about safety.
How we create that safety matters, too. Mass surveillance doesn’t always make a community feel safer; for many, it undermines trust and civil liberties. Other Illinois communities made that judgment and chose to end Flock participation.
There are more targeted, cost-effective, and privacy-conscious options available, systems that don’t lock us into indefinite subscription contracts or expose us to outsized legal and civil-liberties risk. Because the funding being considered (e.g., grant from the state) is not vendor-specific, we are free to choose those alternatives instead of Flock.
I’m asking you to reconsider your vote so Woodstock can adopt a public-safety approach that truly respects the privacy and values of all residents.
Thank you for listening and for your service to our community.