Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

NEW BEDFORD — The City Council in an 8-3 vote on Thursday gave first approval to an ordinance that would bar Flock camera use in the city, though its sponsor, Councilor-at-large Shane Burgo, explained it would be a temporary measure.

Burgo said the ordinance would prevent further use of Flock given the approaching Nov. 12 expiration of Flock’s contract (which can be renewed), and allow the council time to develop a more detailed and permanent policy regulating the license-plate readers in the months to follow.

The abridged ordinance seeks to prohibit the city from operating license plate readers, or expanding or renewing a contract for them. It also incorporates language provided by the Police Department to define automated licence plate readers. 

▸ Read the approved ordinance barring Flock camera use

“For those who really want this technology, the rush is now on you to determine how badly you want to make sure this technology is here. Meet us at the table,” said Burgo in comments directed at Mayor Jon Mitchell and his administration. 

“A permanent ban on license plate readers would make our city less safe, as I believe most of the City Council would agree,” said Mitchell in a statement Friday afternoon. “I appreciate that the Council has pledged to work with the Administration on an ordinance that addresses reasonable privacy concerns while enabling law enforcement to utilize the technology effectively and responsibly.”

Burgo told The Light he does not intend to permanently ban Flock cameras from the city. The cameras have been deactivated since early August, after two officers were accused of using them to track their current or former romantic partners. The two officers face possible firing.

New Bedford residents protest the city’s use of Flock cameras ahead of a City Council meeting to vote on an ordinance to restrict the technology. Credit: Anastasia E. Lennon / The New Bedford Light

“I wanted to actually have some real, tangible legislation that the police can have these tools, because I recognize it can be a useful tool to help save people and keep our city safe,” Burgo told The Light. “But the mayor enacted this in 2024 without proper safeguards and we need to put those in.”

The city quietly adopted Flock technology under then-Police Chief Paul Oliveira in late 2024, without any public disclosure. Emails obtained by The Light on Friday show NBPD leadership was communicating with Flock representatives as early as March 2024 and discussing proposed camera locations in July 2024.

Flock representative Jesse Lucarini wrote to then-Chief Oliveira in July 2024: “We’ve been trying to get in touch to discuss a new offering that departments are jumping all over, but we can only have limited participants.” 

Now the proposed ordinance will be published in an advertisement in the Standard-Times for 10 days to inform the public, Burgo said. If there are no objections, the ordinance would then go back to the council in October to be “ordained.” After that, it would go to the mayor, who has 10 days to veto, sign it or not sign it, Burgo said. If he vetoes it, the council needs eight votes to overturn the veto — the same number that agreed to the ordinance Thursday night. 

The nay votes were City Councilors Naomi Carney, Brian Gomes and Shawn Oliver, who is running for lieutenant governor. At meetings, they have said the process is being rushed and that they want more time to develop the language and get input from the Police Department. 

Oliver proposed putting time limits of six, nine, or 12 months on the abbreviated ordinance; his motions failed. He expressed concern that the ordinance was too restrictive concerning future use of the technology. 

Gomes also opposed the motion.

“We’re handcuffing the Police Department, we’re handcuffing the people of this city, we’re handcuffing public safety, we’re handcuffing our investigations,” Gomes said. “Do you know how many crimes have been solved by these cameras?” 

The department has not published any data on how often Flock has contributed to its solving of crimes. 

Police chief reacts

Police Chief Jason Thody, who attended the meeting, sent an 11-page letter to the council on Thursday with his reactions to its earlier, lengthier draft ordinance on Flock cameras. He expressed in an email that he had hoped to get it to them sooner, but that contract arbitration with the union and the recent ICE operations in the city had kept him busy. 

Though the ordinance language that he addressed did not pass last night, it could be the starting point for more permanent legislation.

Thody said that the language on contract termination, “although legally permissible,” would be a breach and entitle Flock to damages. 

“The Police Department supports meaningful City Council oversight of automated license plate readers and other surveillance technology,” his letter reads. “The ordinance should establish approval for acquisition and funding, clear limits on use and retention, vendor controls, audits, and public reporting. 

“It should not require legislative approval for routine operational decisions or unintentionally regulate ordinary public-safety systems that do not perform automated, persistent tracking,” he wrote. Thody added that the department is forming a working group that could help inform the ordinance.

NBPD spokesperson Holly Huntoon on Thursday said the working group has not met yet as members are still being selected. She said Thody will not consider renewing the contract until the working group has met and discussed.

Thody wrote that NBPD supports several provisions suggested in the original ordinance, including a public hearing before the city acquires “new category” of surveillance technology or expands an existing system. He said he supported creating contract provisions protecting city data — such as prohibiting vendor ownership, sale, and unauthorized use of it. But he also said the council’s ordinance language on data ownership and restrictions could put the Police Department in breach of its existing contract with Flock. 

He also wrote that the department supports disclosure of surveillance technology expenditures in the police budget presented to the City Council. The line item for Flock in the fiscal year 2027 budget, which councilors approved this year, has been criticized as too vague. It listed Insight Public Sector, a third-party vendor, and the line item simply read “annual subscription.” It did not mention Flock, cameras or license plate readers. 

Thody enumerated several concerns with the original ordinance language, such as the requirement to disclose camera locations, which he wrote could lead to evasion or vandalism. He recommended that the city disclose the number of devices, the “general geographic areas” or “categories of locations in which they are deployed,” and the criteria they used for placement.  

In addition to monthly department audits, Thody recommended an annual audit by “the City Auditor, a qualified external auditor, or another entity designated by the City Solicitor and Administration.”

Thody inherited the system when he became chief in July 2025. He acknowledged at an earlier council meeting that it was implemented without “adequate safeguards.” The Light confirmed the department was not auditing officers’ use until July.

Burgo also made a motion on Thursday, which passed, to refer Thody’s feedback to the Ordinance Committee to “fully draft” a future ordinance with legislative safeguards. 

“Many people in the public are angry at the officers that were alleged [to] misuse [Flock],” Burgo said. “Just like we don’t give officers guns and tasers without proper training, we shouldn’t have given them this technology without proper training.”

The committee next meets on Oct. 26.

Status of department audit, terminations 

Emily Pacheco and James Marinelli, the two officers for which Thody recommended termination, had their hearings this Wednesday, during which Thody served as the hearing officer. The New Bedford police chief does not have the power to unilaterally terminate an officer — the mayor is the appointing authority.

Thody will deliberate and issue his recommendations to Mitchell, who will have seven days to make a final decision. First Assistant City Solicitor Ryan Pavao said the mayor usually issues his decision sooner than that. 

If Thody, as hearing officer, formally recommends termination and Mitchell agrees, the officers can appeal their terminations through the Civil Service Commission, or through a grievance process with the city that is governed by the collective bargaining agreement. 

The city has also informed the District Attorney’s office of the misuse cases for potential prosecution. The DA has not commented on it.

The department’s audit, which started on July 31, remains ongoing, Huntoon said. Asked if the department has identified any other misuse, she said the department “will not comment prematurely on ongoing investigations.”

Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org

13 replies on “City Council passes temporary ordinance continuing Flock shutdown”

  1. Tremendous progress has been made in developing a city ordinance that protects both public safety and our rights as citizens. This has happened through a great deal of cooperation among our city officials and through a lot of hard work. I want to personally thank them for the work they have done and will continue to do on our behalf.

    I appreciate seeing the recommendations in Chief Thody’s letter to the council. His recommendations confirm that he intends to keep the promises he made to the council and to the public in his previous testimony.

    I also want to thank the New Bedford Light for its excellent reporting about this issue, and for keeping us informed as work progresses. Providing links to city documents really helps readers better understand and appreciate the issue, the cooperation among officials, and the hard work involved in municipal problem-solving.

    Many thanks to all who are doing their best to protect both our safety and our rights.

  2. The far left New Bedford light is not fair and balanced, so many comments that are submitted are never posted, making it clear they will never represent the majority New Bedford and area towns.

  3. This council meeting was just a total disgrace. It’s clear that if Shane Burgo were ever elected mayor, he would drag this city to it’s grave and for the treatment senior councilor Brian Gomes received from the people in attendance and from Council President Ryan Pereira it demonstrated that Pereira is not qualified to be in office and is a complete failure as Council President. For the rest of the council members that supported this mess (Abreu, Choquette, Lopes, Pemberton, Roy, and Baptiste) all should be ran out of office. There is no need to rush this through and not to take the time to listen to all city residents and truly represent the majority of this city. More than ever it’s clear that it’s time for New Bedford to clean house in City Hall.

  4. The debate over Flock cameras is about more than technology. It is about trust, accountability, and what kind of community New Bedford wants to be.

    There is a legitimate public-safety argument for tools that can help police investigate serious crimes and locate endangered people. But powerful surveillance technology must come with equally powerful safeguards. The fact that Flock was introduced quietly, without meaningful public discussion, and that auditing of its use did not begin until this summer should concern everyone, regardless of political viewpoint. The recent allegations of misuse make that concern even more tangible.

    The timing is especially important. New Bedford has recently experienced a major ICE operation in which at least eight people were arrested. For immigrant families who have built their lives here over decades, moments like these can make any system capable of tracking vehicles feel deeply consequential.

    That does not mean abandoning every potentially useful investigative tool. It means demanding transparency, strict limits on access and data sharing, independent audits, meaningful public oversight, and clear protections against misuse.

    Public safety and civil liberties should not be treated as opposing values. New Bedford can, and should, pursue both. The goal should be technology that serves the public without making law-abiding families feel that simply moving through their own city puts them under suspicion.

  5. I support the use Flock. I support the Police Department and the tools necessary for them to perform their very difficult job. I support the use of Flock. I demand all of these politicians perform their duties to public safety responsibly and make public safety a number one priority. I support the use of Flock.

  6. Cameras are everywhere, are you going to tell residents and businesses they can’t have them on their houses and stores. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense, cameras are a deterrent to crime and are needed for public safety.

  7. Once again cameras are a good tool in catching criminals. And I’m all in for the technology BUT the company Flock Safety stores and shares the videos. A new company or arrange a new contract with Flock Safety which doesn’t allow them to store video and sell it. Only the city’s police department should have access to the videos.

  8. For the record, I have used the contact information on the official City of New Bedford web site to share by email documents and links relevant to the Flock issue. The email messages to Councilors Gomes and Carney bounced back or went to spam. I used email because my messages often had attachments or multiple links which would have been too long for a text.

    Today, I decided to try sending a text message to the phone numbers listed on the Council page for councilors Carney and Gomes. My text to councilor Carney did not get rejected. One of my text messages to councilor Gomes also did not get rejected.

    I am hoping that these two text messages did not go to spam. I am asking them to please view the CSPAN video of the recent Senate Judiciary Committee meeting about AI and Flock.

    There is bipartisan agreement on the need to regulate AI and surveillance technology. Witnesses included a young woman whose vehicle was misidentified by Flock, and who was jailed for 18 days until the error was discovered. Also testifying were a sheriff who was lied to by Flock officials, a tech data expert and hacker, and a civil liberties lawyer from the ACLU.

    I think everyone should see this video because it demonstrates that both parties agree on the need for regulation and strict oversight of surveillance technology:

    Experts Testify on Flock AI Surveillance Network

    https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/experts-testify-on-flock-ai-surveillance-network/685629

    1. For the record, after all the far left mumbo jumbo you post, do you really think anyone would respond. The New Bedford Light is not fair and balanced, they let you go on and on, then block out other posts, at the end of the day the New Bedford Light slants left and does not represent the majority of New Bedford residents and everyone knows it.

      1. Senator Josh Hawley is one of THE most conservative Republicans in the Senate. He is the chair of this Senate Judiciary Hearing because his party is the majority party right now. He gets to decide what hearings take place and what bills get advanced to the Senate floor for a vote. There is BIPARTISAN support for guardrails on AI and surveillance technology. Please look at the video.

        Documentation for Hawley’s conservative credentials:
        https://www.newsweek.com/josh-hawleys-prominent-jan-6-role-lies-blasted-home-state-papers-1772074

Comments are closed.