Council resolution on ALPRs does everything within its authority to rein in ALPRs

By Katie Van Zeeland

There is a lot of confusion surrounding the resolution Alderperson Denise Fenton and I have proposed regarding Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and Mass Surveillance Technologies (#9-R-26), largely due to a group claiming it is weak or merely performative. They have drafted their own proposed ‘ordinance’ – one that has never been vetted or adopted anywhere and exceeds the legal authority of the Common Council.

They (and a few alderpersons) are leading people to believe that Alderperson Fenton and I, who worked tirelessly on this resolution for months, chose not to regulate APD policy and other items that cannot legally be regulated by the Common Council.

Council controls funding, contracts, approval conditions, reporting, and renewal. It is sometimes referred to as the power of the purse. This is why, for example, Dane County used budget authority to remove funding for the Flock ALPR system. 

The reality is that the resolution we have presented is stronger in many ways than other local ordinances, including Madison (noted by the ACLU to be an example ordinance). 

Items such as requiring a warrant, or data security are important pieces of technology governance, but those do not fall under Council authority. 

That is why the resolution asks that these policies and information be provided to the Council before any action takes place. (This is when public input shapes policy changes and Council can negotiate conditions and limitations to contract approval, or the contract is denied.) 

This resolution also includes those requirements before trial runs, which is how Flock became so widely used, as trials previously did not require funding and therefore were less scrutinized.

Neither performative nor weak

This resolution is not performative because it creates enforceable requirements that do not exist today and will not exist unless the resolution is adopted.

It is only weak if you mistakenly believe you can pass an ordinance that goes beyond Council's legal authority, and while there are plenty of examples of bad government where legislators and executives try to exceed their authority, the elected City Attorney is responsible for ensuring your alderpersons and mayor do not do this.  

This is precisely why Appleton continues to keep that position as elected when so many cities have made it appointed.

Resolution #9-R-26 does not approve any vendor or technology. It only adds more requirements to provide to the Council before and after any approval and applies those requirements to trial runs as well.

If you are against any type of surveillance technology, I understand that position. However, denying this resolution doesn't ban surveillance technology.

If this resolution fails, it will only make it easier for APD to conduct trials or for Council to approve a contract for this type of tech in the future without any guardrails.

We can’t control what future councils choose to do

I have explained legislative vs administrative authority more than once to the author of the citizen-drafted document, as Alderperson Fenton and I worked beside them even through the Safety & Licensing Committee Meeting. I even created a document explaining it in detail.

The concern the author keeps raising is, “What happens when those trusted people are gone from council and the council has lost your collective knowledge and leadership on this issue, whenever that may be.”

I understand that concern, but no ordinance can legally bind future councils. We cannot out-legislate future elected officials, and we cannot write legislation strong enough to replace public participation. 

This is how democratic government is supposed to work.

What we can do is create a transparent process that requires information, public review, and Council accountability before any technology moves forward.

Van Zeeland is the Alderperson for District 5 in Appleton