At a Tuesday, Oct. 13, meeting of the county Board’s Protection and Judiciary Committee, supervisors discussed two amendments related to the cameras. One, introduced by District 2 Supervisor Heidi Wegleitner, would remove the funding from the county executive’s capital budget proposal. Wegleitner said the county should gather more community and board input, with particular attention to communities that experience disproportionate law enforcement contact and use of force.

The discussion has taken on added urgency for some residents since the fatal July shooting of Corey Ruiz by a Madison police officer. Madison police and the Dane County Sheriff’s Office are among the Wisconsin law enforcement agencies that do not have body-worn cameras in routine use, according to the discussion.

A 2024 review of the sheriff’s office camera pilot in the West Precinct found that most residents there were white and recommended making a specific effort to hear from communities of color before expanding the program countywide.

Sheriff Kalvin Barrett said his office plans to seek committee input on a countywide policy and has existing relationships with groups including the NAACP of Dane County, the Black Men’s Coalition of Dane County and the Urban League of Greater Madison. Barrett, the county’s first Black sheriff, said his perspective would inform implementation. He opposed removing the funding, saying deputies want cameras and the community expects them.

A second amendment, sponsored by Supervisors Keith Furman, Amy Larson and Yogesh Chawla, would establish additional steps for public review of the sheriff’s camera policy. It calls for at least 30 days of public comment on a draft policy and for substantial policy changes to be submitted to the committee at least 30 days before taking effect, with another public comment period.

Some provisions in the amendment are already reflected in the sheriff’s office’s publicly posted draft policy for the 2024 pilot. The draft specifies when cameras must be activated or deactivated and when recording is restricted or prohibited. Chawla said the amendment is intended to create a process for public feedback and help ensure the money is spent effectively.

Residents have voiced both support for cameras as a tool for accountability and concern about how recordings could be used, whether people will know when they are being recorded, and who can access the footage. One Madison resident told local television that cameras could be an important step toward accountability, but not a complete solution to deeper problems involving police conduct and community trust.

The committee discussion did not settle whether the $3 million will remain in the capital budget. The debate leaves supervisors to balance calls for accountability with questions about privacy, policy safeguards and whether communities most affected by policing have a meaningful role in shaping the program.