Pittsboro residents urge review of Flock Safety license‑plate reader contract

Karen Straza, a Pittsboro resident, used the public‑comment period at the Dec. 8 Town of Pittsboro Board of Commissioners meeting to urge a formal review of the town’s contract with Flock Safety and asked the board to consider canceling the cameras.

“I’m here today to express my concern over the use of taxpayer dollars for license‑plate reader cameras around Pittsboro,” Straza said, asking what guarantees exist that data collected “is not used unlawfully” and which outside agencies receive that data. She cited recent rollbacks and legal challenges in other cities and asked the town to convene a stakeholder committee to review the contract and recommend next steps.

Nicholas Schrammick, speaking next during the public‑comment period, did not address the cameras directly but urged civility in town politics; the board heard his request for more respectful civic engagement before a third speaker returned to the camera topic.

A third commenter, identified only as Paul, said he shares Straza’s privacy concerns and specifically asked the council to investigate whether local plate‑reader data could be accessed by federal agencies such as ICE. “Because today, it might be ICE; tomorrow might be the IRS,” he said, and asked the board to form a committee of stakeholders to examine how the technology is used and shared.

Board policy during public comment is to receive but not respond on the spot; staff said they would follow up as appropriate. The board did not take immediate action on the contract during the meeting.

Why it matters: License‑plate reader systems collect movement data that can be aggregated and shared with other agencies; residents asked for transparency about data flows and independent review before the town continues or expands use of the technology.

What to watch for next: The public comment request asks staff or the board to convene a stakeholder committee and to produce a review of contract language and data‑sharing practices. The town has not yet scheduled that follow‑up at the time of the Dec. 8 meeting.