|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
NEW BEDFORD — Amid a lack of state regulations, city councilors plan to vote Sept. 24 on an ordinance restricting the city’s use of automatic license plate readers, better known as Flock cameras.
In two meetings this week, some councilors said they felt urgency to act during the city’s temporary suspension of Flock and before its contract expiration in November.
Councilor-at-large Shane Burgo introduced draft legislation on Monday that would require both council approval and public input before the adoption, renewal or expansion of automated license plate reader technology. It would also bar the city from renewing its current contract with Flock, which expires on Nov. 12.
Burgo said in a statement that the ordinance would not ban the technology: “This is not saying ‘never.’ It is saying, ‘not now,’ or at least not in the way this technology currently operates and was implemented.”
The drafted ordinance would also require a privacy and civil liberties impact assessment, independent audits, public reporting and disclosure of device locations.
If passed, the ordinance would mandate a public process in stark contrast with the Police Department’s quiet adoption of the technology under then-Police Chief Paul Oliveira in late 2024, for which no announcement was made. That same fall, the department issued a press release on its adoption of another technology: body-worn cameras. In 2011, the city held a press conference to announce its deployment of an acoustic gunshot detection system, ShotSpotter.
Police Chief Jason Thody, who inherited the system when he was appointed in July 2025, expressed his own concerns about the existing Flock contract and the lack of system restrictions at two council meetings.
“The reality is it was implemented without adequate safeguards,” Thody said at the Wednesday meeting. “I don’t think there is any question that we cannot have Flock in the way that it’s sitting now … We’ve got to look at this technology differently … we’ve got to pretty much start from scratch.”
The Light previously reported that city councilors did not know until this summer that the city deployed the cameras nearly two years ago. They approved a budget line item for the cameras this year, which was listed as an “annual subscription” for a third-party vendor, Insight Public Sector. The Police Department purchased the equipment and initial subscription in 2024 with state grant funding.
In Fairhaven and Acushnet, police departments also used grant funding to adopt the systems, according to police chiefs’ statements at public meetings.
The ordinance language is a departure from how the city has deployed and shared information about the technology. The city, for example, has withheld information on Flock camera locations in response to a public records request from The Light, and has done so with other technology, such as ShotSpotter, citing public safety and security risks. But a state judge ruled last week that the Massachusetts State Police did not meet its legal burden for withholding plate-reader location information in response to a public records request from the ACLU of Massachusetts.
Last week, the New Bedford Police Department removed two cameras. Thody said one was too close to homes; the other was on private property.
Thody ordered an audit of the system on July 31 after attending a public meeting in which more than a dozen residents shared their concerns about Flock. The department was not conducting audits before that, though the policy says audits “should” be conducted on a “regular basis.”
He acknowledged that the department policy in place was boilerplate and did not sufficiently require oversight or even mandate training to use the system. He is proposing restricting who has access to it, which he said would make auditing easier, but has not finalized details. Before the suspension, dozens of officers, including those in patrol, were using it.
Despite Thody’s expressed caution, some councilors questioned whether Mayor Jon Mitchell could still renew the contract, given his office has the authority to do so. Thody said he and Mitchell are on the same page, and that Mitchell has been receptive to and in agreement with his views on the issue.
“In its current form, I would never renew [the contract],” Thody said.
If the council reaches a consensus and passes an ordinance, Mitchell can veto it. The council can then overrule it. Burgo said in the best case scenario, the council could vote to override a possible veto by Nov. 12, the date of the contract expiration.
However, the process of passing an ordinance requires notice in a newspaper. If the paper does not publish it immediately, Burgo said, that can delay every other step such that an ordinance could not take effect until after the contract is up for renewal.
Mitchell administration says council is moving too fast
The Light requested comment from Mitchell on the draft ordinance and whether there are aspects with which he agrees and disagrees.
In response, public information officer Jonathan Darling in a statement criticized Burgo’s filing of the draft ordinance with little time to review ahead of the committee meeting.
“The City Council apparently crafted and circulated this proposed ordinance behind closed doors, choosing not to put the ordinance on the meeting agenda so the public had time to view it beforehand,” Darling wrote.
Darling said the council provided copies to the police chief and city solicitor “minutes” before Tuesday night’s public hearing. Burgo said he emailed a copy to the chief about five hours before the meeting.
The statement said the council should give Thody more time. “With the technology turned off and Chief Thody currently engaging with the public to develop safeguards that balance privacy concerns with public safety needs, there is little rationale for the way the Council is proceeding,” Darling’s statement continued. “Instead of unilaterally rushing to pass an ordinance, the Council ought to be giving the Police Chief the time he needs to complete his work and propose reforms that the public and the Council can then consider.”
In comments during his appearance this week on WBSM, Mitchell said the council was rushing the process.
Burgo acknowledged he did not give city councilors and officials enough time to review the ordinance before committee discussion this week — sharing the language the day before and the day of the meeting. But he said there is urgency to act in order to ensure accountability from the administration.
Police Department wants to keep the technology with safeguards
Last month, the council unanimously passed a motion to cover or remove Flock cameras during the suspension. Thody said Wednesday that Flock has given the department permission to do so. He said he has to coordinate with the Department of Public Infrastructure to cover them. Internal affairs has periodically checked the system to see if any new photos have been taken by the cameras during suspension, and there haven’t been any, Thody also said.
At the Ordinance Committee meeting Tuesday, Councilor Joe Lopes proposed adding a requirement that Flock data be deleted after seven days if it is not part of an investigation. The department was maintaining the Flock images for 30 days. Thody proposed 14 days, but also suggested he would be amenable to seven, which is what Flock recently suggested. The amendment failed, as did others, with councilors saying they needed more time to discuss and review.
Burgo cautioned against prescribing a specific data retention limit, so as to not limit the city’s vendor options for future contracts.
The City Council will discuss the ordinance again on Sept. 24. In the interim, Burgo said he hopes councilors can reach a consensus on final ordinance language. Councilors have also asked for feedback from Thody, who said he would provide suggestions by next week.
Meanwhile, the Police Department is organizing a working group to develop policies for the technology use. Public Safety Committee Chair Brian Gomes asked that the group include a few city councilors. Thody also plans to involve residents and business owners, and said he hopes the group can issue final recommendations in one to two months.
Thody said he believes license plate readers can be very useful, but said he would not turn the system back on until safeguards are in place. He said the department is also looking into options if it chooses to cancel or not renew its contract with Flock.
“Residents have a right to know what information is collected, how long it’s retained, who can access it, how it’s used and what happens when someone violates the rules,” Thody said at the second committee meeting on Wednesday. “It’s important to acknowledge that misuse of an ALPR system is not a hypothetical here anymore.”
“I will not minimize those incidents or ask the council or the public to ignore them, but the discovery of misconduct and our response to it should demonstrate my commitment to meaningful consequences and lead us to stronger controls,” he said. “It should not automatically lead us to eliminate every legitimate use of a valuable public safety tool.”
Thody cited a recent spate of shootings in the city, saying detectives are “already noticing a difference” without having Flock as a tool to investigate. Keeping this technology, with privacy and transparency standards, he said, is the “reasonably responsible” choice.
To date, more than 25 municipalities in Massachusetts have canceled, suspended or opted not to renew their contracts with Flock, according to the ACLU of Massachusetts. At least one, Boston, has pivoted to another vendor of license plate readers.
The list includes Acushnet, whose Select Board voted to discontinue the Police Department’s use of Flock pending a review for contract termination, and Dartmouth, whose police chief decided not to renew the contract.
The council invited a representative from Flock to Wednesday’s meeting, but one did not appear. Gomes said he’s intent on getting one in council chambers to answer questions.
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
