SANDUSKY — “The reality is, there is no privacy. There is no privacy.”
That wasn’t a line from a dystopian novel. That was Sandusky City Commissioner Richard Koonce speaking during a recent city commission meeting. It wasn’t a warning, exactly; it was more an excuse.
The exchange occurred after Ethan Unzicker, a Sandusky resident attending his very first city commission meeting, stepped up to the podium during public comments. Unzicker said he saw the item on commission’s agenda: an emergency ordinance authorizing a 5-year contract with Axon Enterprise.
Unzicker said the description of the purchase listed Axon Outpost and Axon LightPost units. These are static-mounted Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) cameras that can be operated remotely to pan, tilt, and zoom across public spaces.
In short: broader, real-time municipal surveillance.
Commissioners don’t know what they did
The way Unzicker sees it—based on a video message he posted at Facebook—commissioners displayed a dangerous level of municipal complacency, misunderstanding, and outright disdain for constitutional rights.
First came Commissioner Jeff Krabill, who openly demonstrated before the vote that he had no idea what he was actually authorizing. Krabill turned to Police Chief Jared Oliver and asked him to clarify that the contract wasn’t about Flock cameras, assuming it was only for body-worn units and interrogation room feeds. He was voting on a five-year municipal surveillance agreement without having read the basic equipment list.
Then came Chief Jared Oliver, who downplayed the license plate reading capabilities of the new Axon units, assuring commissioners, “We’re not buying it for the LPR feature.” Whether through intent or ignorance, downplaying hardware capabilities to secure contract approvals is a recurring pattern in local law enforcement procurement.
Then Commission President Kate Vargo chimed in with standard bureaucratic fluff, asserting without evidence that adding more live-streaming street cameras simply “makes people feel good to live here.”
Every single commissioner voted “Yes.” Unzicker booed from the gallery and walked out.
Voting for ‘cameras everywhere’
But the most revealing moment of the night, according to Unzicker, came during new after commissioners thought the public had stopped paying attention. Commissioner Koonce took the microphone to rationalize his vote. Shrugging off public privacy concerns, he launched into what Unzicker called a rambling justification:
“Everybody’s really concerned about their privacy. But the reality is, there is no privacy. There is no privacy... When we think about data centers and what they really do, when we think about how we’re on our computers and we’re being watched all the time, right? We don’t even know the extent to which we’re being watched. There are cameras everywhere. We don’t even know where they are.”
Koonce then posed what he seemingly thought was a unanswerable philosophical question: “I don’t like to think about somebody actually monitoring what we’re doing and watching us all the time, but how can you determine when that’s happening?”
The ignorance packed into Koonce’s logic is staggering, according to Unzicker.
Equating Tech Monopoly Surveillance with Government Power: An algorithm tracking your clicks to sell you shoes on Amazon is fundamentally different from a police department mounting remote PTZ cameras on city light poles. You can close a web browser; you cannot close a public street.
Surrendering the Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment exists specifically to protect citizens against unwarranted government intrusion. For an elected official to declare “privacy is dead” as a justification for buying more government surveillance equipment is a total surrender of his oath of office.
Answering His Own Question: How do you determine when monitoring is happening? You do it through public oversight, strict statutory regulations, transparent ordinances, and public debates.
The ‘Emergency’ loophole
Unzicker also called out commission for approving expanding surveillance in the city by approving the purchase as an emergency measure.
Under standard procedure, a city ordinance must be read at two separate public meetings no less than a week apart, followed by a 30-day waiting period before taking effect. That 30-day window gives citizens the constitutional right to organize, petition, and force a public referendum.
By slapping an “emergency” label on a routine five-year technology contract, the commission bypassed the second reading, eliminated the 30-day waiting period, and legally stripped Sandusky residents of their right to petition for a referendum.
There was no emergency. There was no immediate threat to public safety requiring a midnight vote on light-pole cameras. There was only a desire to avoid public scrutiny.
“We need to be having that conversation, but we can't have that conversation if the ordinances get pushed through as emergencies, not giving the public ample time to speak up, and making it not subject to public redress,” Unzicker said in his post.
Unzicker promised to followup with more coverage of Sandusky City Commission.
“I'm going to be making a few more videos about my experience at this last city (commission) meeting, and I encourage you to put your thoughts on the comments below. More than that, I encourage you to show up at every single City Commission meeting and make your voice heard.”
He also explained that at the beginning of each City Commission meeting residents can talk for up to 3 minutes about agenda items and at the conclusion of each meeting residents can speak at the lectern for up to 5 minutes about any city business.
He urged residents to get involved.
“‘The reality is there is no privacy. There is no privacy?’” Unzicker repeated Koonce’s passive observation. “The Fourth Amendment would like a word with you.”
Good for him for calling out these commissioners! My God, at least one, that we know of, didn’t even read it! THAT is scary as hell. In my opinion, Sanduskians have a RIGHT to be concerned. Maybe reach out to ACLU Ohio?