You get three minutes. The May 12 vote proved that showing up isn’t enough on its own, but it also proved the city counts heads, pulls agenda items when crowds appear, and answers pressure with concessions like public tours. Sustained, specific, on-the-record comment is how the oversight fight gets won. Here’s the kit.
Where and when
- City Council: 2nd and 4th Tuesdays, 5 PM, Council Chamber, City Hall (70 Court Plaza). Next: Tuesday, Aug 25. Agendas post the Friday before; check whether anything surveillance-related is on the consent agenda; that’s where it’s been buried twice.
- Public Safety Committee: last Thursday of odd-numbered months, 11 AM, virtual (livestream). Next: Thursday, Sept 24 (confirmed on the city’s committee page). Chaired by Bo Hess, the RTIC’s strongest supporter, with Mosley and Smith. This is where implementation oversight actually happens, and almost nobody attends.
- Anytime: email avl-city-council@publicinput.com (goes to all members and into the record) · voicemail 855-925-2801, code 10332 · individual members’ emails are on the city roster.
- RTIC tours: every other Thursday, 2–4 PM, register at 828-259-5881. Go with the Promise Tracker and write down what they tell you.
The rules, learned the hard way
Comment runs 3 minutes per speaker, capped at 1 hour per item. On May 12 that math sent 21 people home unheard. So:
- Arrive early and sign up immediately. The list order determines who gets in under the cap.
- Coordinate coverage. Twenty people making the same point uses one argument and twenty slots. Split the ground: one speaker on process, one on the contract, one on the national record, one on cost, one asking a specific question. The Claims Library is organized for exactly this.
- Written comment is unlimited. Email gets into the record even when the clock cuts speakers off; send your full statement regardless of whether you speak.
A three-minute structure that works
- Who you are (15 sec): name, neighborhood, one line about your stake. Residents move councils; abstractions don’t.
- One fact, sourced (60 sec): a single verified claim beats five vague ones. Pick from the Claims Library and name the source out loud: “The LAPD Inspector General found one in three alerts was a false positive.”
- One specific ask (60 sec): see below. A question or demand creates a record; venting doesn’t.
- The commitment (15 sec): “I’ll be back at the next meeting for the answer.” Then be back. Councils outlast tourists; they respond to residents who return.
The asks: specific, answerable, on the record
These are the accountability demands already in motion (CAMS’s core three, plus the structural fix). Any speaker can carry one:
- Release the contract. “The final Axon contract was not public before the vote. Will the city release the full executed contract, including pricing schedules and renewal terms?”
- Publish the audit logs. “APD promised quarterly audits of RTIC access. Will those audits be published (not summarized, published), and when is the first one due?”
- Define the ICE policy in writing. “APD says no data goes to federal immigration without a court order. Officers in other cities ran searches for ICE as favors. What policy, with what penalty, prevents that here, and can council see it?”
- Make the promises law. “Will council adopt an ordinance requiring council approval and annual public reporting for surveillance technology (the CCOPS ordinance ~26 cities have), so APD’s policies can’t change without a public vote?”
- The unanswered 29. “Council member Roney submitted 29 questions to APD in March 2025. Which have been answered, and where can the public read the answers?”
What’s already been said: don’t repeat, build
The record so far, so new speakers extend rather than restate:
- Jen Hampton (Food & Beverage United), April 14: named it plainly: “a centralized hub for spying on the people of Asheville.”
- Sarah E. Kent (security consultant), May 12: Axon doesn’t negotiate: “customers sign what is on the page.”
- Aaron Dolstorm, May 12: documented Axon’s ~25%/year price escalation, the “Flywheel of Growth.”
- Jessica Myers (contract negotiator), May 12: “We aren’t protected by any of the policies you think we have.”
- Rebecca Hecht (business owner), July: “Who decides whether it’s a real investigation or law enforcement use?”
- GAP of Asheville, May 11: the full oversight bill of particulars: no civilian oversight, no facial recognition ban, vendor lock-in, contract unseen.
What the record still lacks: sustained comment at the Public Safety Committee (where the RTIC reports will actually land), testimony from people in the communities most exposed (immigrant residents, unhoused residents, protest organizers), and anyone tracking the Promise Tracker items meeting by meeting.
Know the counterarguments
You’ll hear these from the dais; have the reply ready:
- “It’s for violent crime.” → Nothing in the approved package limits it to that; the limits are revisable APD policy. Austin’s audit found 10–20% of searches had no documented reason at all.
- “We have strong safeguards.” → Identical safeguards preceded the ICE lookups, the abortion search, and ~50 stalking charges elsewhere. See The National Wave. Safeguards that aren’t law are marketing.
- “The grant saves us money.” → The grant covers the buildout; the 7.5-year Axon contract and its escalations are Asheville’s. LA, Austin, and Denver all found the ongoing costs weren’t worth the results.
- “Cameras solve crimes.” → Sometimes, after the fact. The studies show no deterrent effect, and Flock’s own headline claim collapsed under academic review. Ask what the 3.1 million plate scans have actually produced here; nobody’s published that number.
Sources for every fact on this page: Claims Library · Timeline · Sources