Public Comment Ideas

Prepare Public Statements

Tuesday 7pm @ City Hall

Use this script to speak during a public comment period at the meeting. Most likely you’ll have 3 minutes to speak.

We recommend customizing it to fit your concerns. Templates are at the bottom of this page.

---

Tips for Customizing and Delivering Your Comment

• Say where you’re from and why you care.

• Practice reading it aloud: it fits within 2.5–3 minutes.

• You don’t need to be an expert! Speaking as a community member matters.

---

Talking Points Ideas

• Number of cameras per capita (people)

• Cost, subscriptions

• We are not a large city, we don’t need to be surveilled like them

• Crime rate vs Investment, does the crime rate justify the cost?

• $ spend per capita

• Who queries the Woodstock Il cameras most?

• Why doesn’t Woodstock IL have a transparency portal turned on for Flock?

• We host events (Woodstock Pride, Mex independence day, Protests and gatherings, …). Would we have to protect our identities, or do we have to host events at safe places like Emricson Park.

• IL Sec state said to review your contract (ICE)

• Ring Door bell data

• Private moments shared

• Local storage and privacy

• Our citizens data can be used in AI Training

• What is the exit clause? They have perpetual clauses even after exit.

• When are you going to stand up for our privacy as new capabilities and features are possible and rolled out? Facial recognition etc?

• What about the new Flock terms where they own the data? (proof)

• What about spending the $9k on an alternate?

• Apartment privacy for those on the square.

• Can we FOIA the camera data / footage.

• Business tactics are a template contract, language that gives Flock perpetual access to footage. Have we really reviewed it?

• “Trust us with your data” yet has proven to not have proper safeguards in place according to the IL Attorney General.

• Flock had a pilot program with ICE (not to mention demos) & Leadership didn’t know.

• NDA with City Personal?

• Why is there no open Town Hall?

• We are paying attention how this vote goes for the next election

---

Template 1: Policy Fit and Public Safety Effectiveness Angle

I’m a Woodstock resident, and I’m here because I care about evidence-based public safety, not performative security.

This expansion is justified under the Organized Retail Crime grant. Let’s be honest about definitions. Organized retail crime refers to coordinated theft rings, stealing at scale, reselling across networks. That is fundamentally different from isolated shoplifting or nuisance crime.

Is the Woodstock Square truly experiencing organized retail crime?
If so, where is the data?

We have submitted a FOIA to confirm eligibility, because right now this looks like a poor policy fit.

Even if crime exists, cameras alone do not solve organized crime. These grants explicitly allow training, investigations, overtime, and tools. Those investments actually build local capacity. Instead, we are buying a system that emphasizes post-hoc identification, not prevention, not deterrence, and not staffing.

Crime rates should justify investment levels. So should population. How many cameras per capita does Woodstock now operate? How does that compare to similarly sized towns? And effectiveness matters. Has Council been shown evidence that Flock materially reduced organized retail crime in towns like ours, not major metros? Security theater feels safe. Effective policy is harder.

If this vote passes without answering these questions, residents will remember that the city chose optics over rigor, subscriptions over sustainability, and surveillance over strategy.

Public safety should be proportional, targeted, and accountable. This proposal is none of those yet.

I yield the remainder of my time to [Name]

---

Template 2: Governance, Process, and Democratic Legitimacy Angle

I’m a Woodstock resident, and I’m speaking tonight because how this decision is being made matters as much as the decision itself.

This is a major surveillance expansion with long-term financial and civil implications. Yet there has been no open town hall, no structured public Q&A, and no independent review presented to residents.

Some council members were invited to vendor briefings. Some meetings involved NDAs we are told. Residents were not in the room. That creates an imbalance. Vendors get access. Residents get a vote agenda.

Good governance requires more than legal compliance. It requires legitimacy. That means open deliberation, competing options presented side-by-side, and time for public scrutiny before contracts are effectively locked in.

This contract contains complex provisions around data retention, access, exit terms, and downstream use. These are not trivial. They deserve public explanation, not just staff reassurance. If this system is truly beneficial, it should withstand open discussion. If it cannot, that itself is information.

Tonight’s vote may be technically valid. But legitimacy comes from process, not procedure.

I urge Council to pause, hold a public forum, and allow residents to evaluate alternatives before committing Woodstock to another multi-year surveillance obligation.

I yield the remainder of my time to [Name]

---

Template 3: Small-Town Scale and Proportionality Angle

I’m a Woodstock resident, and I want to talk about scale.

Woodstock is not Chicago. We are not Naperville. We are a small town with a walkable square, a known community, and regular civic life. Yet our surveillance posture increasingly resembles that of much larger cities.

How many cameras per capita do we now operate?
How does that compare to peer towns in Illinois?

These systems normalize constant monitoring in places where people live, work, and gather casually. That may be appropriate in high-density, high-crime environments. It is far less obvious here.

Once installed, cameras do not scale down. They only expand. More features. More analytics. More integration. This matters because proportionality is a public-safety principle. Tools should match the risk environment, not exceed it by default. Woodstock’s strength has always been trust, visibility, and community presence, not remote surveillance.

If we continue layering metropolitan security infrastructure onto a small-town context, we should be honest about what we are trading away.

I yield the remainder of my time to [Name]

---

Template 4: Fiscal Responsibility and Grant Misuse Angle

I’m a Woodstock resident, and I’m speaking because I care about how this city spends long-term taxpayer dollars, not just how we use short-term grants.

Tonight’s discussion is framed around a grant. But grants don’t eliminate costs, they shift timing. This FY26 Organized Retail Crime grant lasts one year only. After that, the city is locked into recurring obligations.

Right now, Woodstock already spends $22,500 per year on Flock subscriptions. With the proposed Square cameras, that jumps to roughly $54,000 per year going forward. Over three years, total Flock costs reach about $152,000 across contracts.

$21,500/year over 3 years is $64,500. The $9,000 grant, only offsets just over 13% of the first 3 yrs.

This grant is not Flock-specific. It explicitly allows cameras, CCTV systems, maintenance, training, investigative overtime, and equipment. A local CCTV or NVR system could be installed for roughly $12,000 one-time. With the same grant, that becomes about $3,000 total, with no subscription.

That is a $53,000 savings over three years, for comparable visibility on the Square.

Why is the city choosing the highest recurring-cost option when the grant clearly favors one-time investments?

Has Council been shown a worst-case pricing scenario if per-camera fees rise to $4,000 or more? Prices have already climbed from about $2,000 to over $3,000 per camera. At what price point does Woodstock exit? And where, exactly, will the additional $30,000 per year come from once the grant expires?

Fiscal responsibility means planning beyond year one. Right now, this plan does not.

I yield the remainder of my time to [Name]

Thank you for your time.