Residents press Monroe County commissioners on student survey privacy and public surveillance cameras

At the Monroe County commissioners meeting on June 17, several public commenters pressed county officials for more transparency about two privacy issues: a youth survey distributed through a local gun‑safety partnership and the presence and procurement of public surveillance cameras.

Teresa Bash, identifying herself as a Monroe County resident, urged greater transparency about the Monroe County Partnership for Gun Safety youth survey administered in high schools. Bash said the 38‑item instrument asked demographic details—age, grade, race/ethnicity and school district—that she believes could make responses identifiable in small student populations. "If this is supposed to be confidential, those are very specific questions ... somebody could easily trace which student it is," she said, and stated that she had appealed to the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) and provided a docket number on the record.

Officials responded on the record that, according to PCCD, the district attorney’s office did not have the requested records and that the county’s agreement with the third‑party vendor (identified in the record as the 'carry group') may be consistent with PCCD not holding the records. The transcript does not show the county producing or locating the underlying survey data during the meeting; the status of Bash’s request was not resolved in the session.

A second commenter, Susan Dedrickson of Stroudsburg, asked how many 'Flock' or other surveillance cameras are operating in Monroe County, whether the county holds procurement contracts for them, and where to get contract details. County representatives and other speakers said county‑owned cameras are located inside county facilities (the courthouse and correctional facility) and that outdoor or municipal cameras typically are procured and operated by individual boroughs, townships or organizations. "We don't have cameras that are lurking on 7th and Main to see whether Todd is at his office," a county official said, adding that questions about municipal or third‑party cameras should be directed to those local jurisdictions.

The exchange clarified that recording audio can raise legal consent issues and that there is no single county clearinghouse for camera contracts; residents were advised to contact their municipal governments for procurement records.

Other public comments included a long statement about constitutional rights and a resident’s disappointment that the administration did not display a Pride flag during a recent Pocono Pride Festival. Those remarks were presented as opinion and request for symbolic action rather than policy decisions by the commissioners.

What’s next: The meeting record does not show the county producing the specific survey records or a central inventory of external surveillance contracts; residents were directed to municipal clerks and websites to pursue contract records or agenda items for local jurisdictions.