The 54 Flock license plate reading cameras in Pekin will remain there for another year.
The Pekin City Council voted 6-1 on Monday to approve the city's annual contract with Georgia-based Flock Safety for a fourth year. A state grant that has covered the annual cost of the cameras expires next year.
Rick Hilst cast the lone "no" vote for the cameras even though the grant is funding the $163,000 cost.
Council votes for the cameras the past three years were unanimous.
The vote Monday was taken in a council meeting room filled with Flock opponents from Pekin and nearby communities.
Eleven opponents spoke during public comment. They noted recent news reports about police abuse of the cameras, and expressed concerns about violations of Fourth Amendment rights and misuse of the data gathered by the cameras.
Pekin resident Greg Hansen said has a unique view of the Flock controversy because he has installed Flock cameras, including the Falcon version that Pekin uses.
"The camera isn't really the issue," he said. "It's a collection point for an AI-powered surveillance system.
"This decision isn't about whether we trust [Pekin Police Chief Seth Ranney.] We do. But he won't always be our police chief, you won't always be on the council and I won't always be the annoying guy at the podium. Safeguards have to be put in place that survive all of us."
Council members who voted to keep the cameras acknowledged and agreed with many of the audience members' concerns and said they appreciated everyone's input.
But their "yes" votes landed in three categories: They felt the good — the Flock cameras' help in solving crimes and finding missing people — outweighed the bad. They had confidence that Ranney and his local control of Flock cameras in Pekin won't allow the abuses that are taking place at police departments throughout the country. And they were perplexed as to why not hearing anything about the cameras in the city for three years, the cameras are suddenly being opposed.
"We've got to look at the original intent of why we bought the cameras. It was to help catch perpetrators of crimes in our city or help another city catch a perpetrator," said council member Dave Nutter.
Council member Peg Phillips said she spent hours researching the Flock issue after council tabled its original vote on Aug. 10. She also talked to friends, acquaintances and others, and her decision came down to this question: What is the worst case scenario for keeping or getting rid of the cameras?
It was the worse case scenario for removing the cameras.
"I don't want to stand in front of a parent in Pekin and tell them that we could be finding their child who is missing, but we don't have this tool anymore," she said.
"That's not saying I don't believe what the people here said about the cameras, or I'm doubting their credibility. This is just what I believe personally."
Council member Karen Hohimer said she knows the cameras have saved lives in Pekin.
"If one child is saved from sex trafficking, or saved from attempting to 'unalive' themselves, then I will 100% vote for this," she said.
Unalive is a euphemism for suicide, popularized on social media as a bypass to content flags and demonitization.
Council member Jake Fletcher said he worries about the information gathered by the cameras being used for the wrong purposes without the ability of being tracked.
"But we as a council give Chief Ranney the tools to do what's best for the citizens of Pekin, and he's done a good job with these cameras so far," he said.
"That said, I'm going to continue asking questions and we'll have this debate again next year. There may be new players in the [license reading] field by then. There are court cases out there now that could change everything we're talking about today."
Hohimer said it's ironic that the city has had the cameras for three years, "and for three years, not one soul has come in here and said anything about them. Now, all of a sudden, they're a big deal."
Council member John Abel echoed Hohimer's thought.
"I've had about 20 people ask me, 'Where have these people who oppose the cameras been for three years?'" he said. "I even had to show some of the people who asked me that where the cameras are in the city.
"These cameras aren't perfect. They're made by human beings, so there will be downsides and mistakes. But the good outweighs the bad."
In answer to audience and council questions, Ranney said he has not seen anything in photos taken in the city by Flock cameras over the past three years that could identify a driver; his department no longer shares information with police agencies outside the state; and the cameras in Pekin are only on private property facing lanes of travel. Each camera location in the city has been approved by the state.
