Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Flock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board discussion centers on proposed Flock camera at private commercial site
Summary
Town counsel described a gift-funded Flock camera for a commercial property; board members, police and residents debated privacy, data control and precedent for private entities funding devices that police would access. No decision was made; the camera remains inactive pending further policy work.
Town counsel Tom Harrington told the Select Board that a private donor, Sam Park, offered to fund Flock safety hardware at 812 Constitution Avenue and proposed a gift agreement of roughly $3,000 a year to cover the camera and associated fees. "My name is Tom Harrington. I'm town counsel for the town of Littleton," Harrington said, and explained that the police department would control the data and that the gift would require the Select Board to accept it before the town administrator could sign.
Board members, police leadership and members of the public raised detailed questions about oversight, privacy and precedent. Lieutenant Landry, the police liaison on the Appleman Triathlon planning team, said the camera is not being used and would not be activated without further board policy decisions. Residents and several board members expressed concern that accepting a privately funded Flock camera could bypass the public discussion the town previously had at town meeting and set a precedent for private businesses to rely on law enforcement access by funding surveillance hardware.
Several Select Board members described alternatives they want explored before approving any activation: local closed‑circuit television (CCTV) systems that the town would control, clearer limits on how and when plate‑reader data are queried, and written protocols for data sharing and retention. As one board member summarized, the central policy questions are who controls access to images and plate reads, what oversight the Select Board or town will have, and whether the town wants to create an expectation that private development can obtain police access by funding camera hardware.
Town counsel said Flock hardware and contracts are distinct from the unplugged multi-camera contract previously discussed at town meeting; the Sand Park camera under discussion is a standalone agreement that would be managed by the police department per state rules governing access to motor vehicle registry data. Harrington further noted there are municipal bylaws other Massachusetts communities have used to limit law enforcement access to private camera networks and that the town could consider similar local rules.
No motion was made to activate the Sand Park camera. The board agreed to continue deliberations, ask police and town counsel for more detail on CCTV versus Flock functionality, and pursue public engagement to weigh community preferences and possible bylaw language before any activation.
The board did not vote to accept the gift or to authorize activation; the camera remains inactive pending policy decisions and additional public discussion.
