At our September 1 Town Council meeting, I made a motion to take down the Town’s Flock Safety cameras and pause the program while we create space for public input.

The motion passed 4–2.

I want to document clearly why I made that decision.

Public safety matters. I support giving our police department the tools it needs to protect residents, solve crimes, and respond effectively.

But public trust matters too.

The concern I heard from residents was not simply about technology. It was about how the decision was made, what safeguards were in place, how data would be used, and whether the public had been given a meaningful opportunity to weigh in before the cameras were deployed.

That mattered to me.

Government should not wait until trust is lost to start having the conversation.

So my motion was not about being “for” or “against” technology. It was about making sure we get the process right.

What Council Decided

By a 4–2 vote, Council directed that the cameras be taken down and that the Town pause the program while public engagement takes place.

Since that vote, Town administration has begun implementing Council’s direction.

The Town Manager has outlined a process that includes multiple community meetings over the next several months, with different days and times and hybrid participation options so more residents can take part.

The Police Department will also document questions, concerns, recurring themes, and community feedback, and provide Council with a consolidated report alongside its professional recommendations.

That is the right next step.

What I Want Residents to Know

This is not about rejecting public safety.

It is about asking a simple question:

Can we protect public safety while also protecting public trust, transparency, and accountability?

I believe the answer is yes.

But that requires us to hear from residents, understand the technology, understand the legal and operational issues, and decide what safeguards the community expects if this or similar technology is considered in the future.

Those conversations should include questions like:

• What data should be collected?

• How long should it be retained?

• Who should be allowed to access it?

• What information can be shared with outside agencies?

• What uses should be prohibited?

• What level of public notice should be required before new surveillance technology is deployed?

Those are legitimate questions, and residents deserve a voice in answering them.

Leadership Means Slowing Down When Necessary

There are moments when leadership means moving quickly.

There are also moments when leadership means slowing down long enough to make sure the community is with you.

This was one of those moments.

My goal is not to predetermine the outcome of the public-engagement process.

My goal is to make sure the process happens.

We can support our police officers.

We can use technology responsibly.

And we can make sure residents understand and trust the systems their government puts in place.

Those goals do not have to compete with one another.

They should work together.

Mayor Derrick Wood
Town of Dumfries, Virginia