Framingham Rules Committee Meeting - June 22, 2026: Continued Discussion on Flock Cameras and ALPR Ordinance
Framingham Rules Committee Meeting - June 22, 2026: Continued Discussion on Flock Cameras and ALPR Ordinance
The Framingham Rules Committee met on June 22, 2026, at 4:00 PM (UTC) to continue discussions on the trust and local law enforcement ordinance, focusing on the use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and the Flock camera system. The meeting included public testimony, council deliberation, and decisions on next steps. The committee also approved minutes from a previous meeting and outlined the summer work plan.
Consent Calendar
- Motion to approve the minutes from March 30, 2026, passed unanimously (Councilors Bryant, Feeney, and Stefanini voting in favor).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Brian Schneider (Framingham resident): Expressed concern that the cameras were installed without public debate, called for an immediate moratorium on Flock, independent civilian oversight of audits, and an ordinance requiring council approval for any future surveillance system. He stated trust had been violated.
- Pat Krysac (Framingham resident): Echoed concerns about data misuse and questioned funding sources. Asked for assurance that Flock would not share data.
- Samantha McGarry (Framingham resident): Thanked the committee for listening. Raised issues with the Master Services Agreement (MSA) governed by Georgia law, a perpetual license for Flock to use Framingham's data, and asked for clarification on case-by-case opt-in sharing.
- Ladybug (Framingham resident): Highlighted security breaches and the court case McCarthy v. Commonwealth (2020), arguing that continuous surveillance invades privacy and lacks evidence of crime reduction. Urged bagging cameras if not removed.
- Cassandra Frisch (Framingham resident): Thanked Councilor Stefanini for communication. Expressed concern over the lack of independent audits, noting internal police audits are insufficient.
- Ann Rookie (Framingham resident): Questioned what legal remedy the city would have if Flock or another vendor sold data, especially to federal agencies.
- Laura Beck (Framingham resident): Asked about data storage (cloud vs. local) and raised concerns about oversight and the need for council approval.
- Kate Merritt O'Toole (resident, via Zoom): Supported bagging cameras. Cited Flock's shifting data-sharing policies and the FBI's potential access. Called for citizen involvement in oversight.
- Andrew MacKassav (District 2 resident, via Zoom): Detailed concerns about Flock's nationwide surveillance network, technical capabilities (facial recognition, pedestrian tracking), and lack of integrity in audits. Questioned the audit log's transparency and Flock's sales practices.
- Bobby Isley (Framingham resident): Software engineer who argued the police may not fully understand the technology. Discussed Fourth Amendment implications and questioned the oversight of other police departments sharing data.
- Carl Rookie (Framingham resident): Raised the issue of what happens to cameras after contract expiration. Suggested future contracts should include removal provisions.
- Phoebe Rodersman (Framingham resident): Doubted audits could catch all misconduct, citing the "good old boy" system and recent local misconduct cases.
- Ladybug (additional comments): Highlighted Flock's other products (Condor, Raven, Signal Trace) that expand surveillance beyond license plates. Stated opposition to any similar technology.
- Representative Priscilla Sousa (via Zoom): Thanked everyone for the nuanced discussion, recognizing the balance between civil liberties and public safety.
Discussion Items
- Continuation of Trust and Local Law Enforcement Ordinance: Councilor Stefanini summarized the police chief's work on safeguards and protections for ALPR data. He noted the Flock contract will expire on June 30, 2026, and the chief supports a policy that prohibits facial recognition, requires 30-day automatic deletion, strict access controls, and quarterly reports to the mayor and council. Councilors Bryant and Feeney asked about reporting on arrests, oversight authority, and the timeline. Councilor Stefanini confirmed the contract lapse and a minimum two-month period before any new system could be operational.
- Public Feedback Integration: After public testimony, Councilor Stefanini identified seven areas for improvement in the draft ordinance: (1) inclusion of arrest data in reports, (2) oversight by the city council rather than police alone, (3) requiring council approval for any contract, (4) governing law to be Massachusetts, (5) specifications for current technology standards, (6) removal of cameras after contract expiration, and (7) limiting data collection to license plates only. Councilor Bryant suggested adding performance clauses with penalties in any future contract.
- Audit and Oversight: Councilors debated who should conduct audits. Councilor Stefanini proposed that audits be performed by the police chief but reviewed by the city council under open meeting laws, ensuring transparency. Public speakers emphasized the need for independent, civilian oversight.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to Adjourn: Passed unanimously.
- Next Subcommittee Meeting: Scheduled for July 1, 2026, to continue refining the ALPR ordinance and address outstanding concerns.
- Future Schedule: The committee plans to work on the ALPR ordinance, sign bylaw, and charter amendments over the summer, aiming to present to the full council in September.
- Flock Contract Status: The contract with Flock expires June 30, 2026. Cameras will be deactivated (likely bagged or removed) by that date. The police chief will provide confirmation.
- Ordinance Amendments: The draft ordinance will be updated to include the seven points identified by Councilor Stefanini, with additional language on contract enforcement and performance penalties per Councilor Bryant's suggestion.
Meeting Transcript
For those folks here in person and on Zoom land, um we're about to join we're uh starting the rules meeting of um June 22nd. We are both here and online. It is there are just two of us present at the moment, Council Mary Kate Feeney and myself, John Stefanini. Counselor Bryant is signing online right now. And Councillor Bryant is joining us electronically. So all three of us will be here. Um we have public participation at the beginning of our meeting for anybody who'd like to participate on something that is not on our agenda, but as is our practice, we'll have an ongoing dialogue with people uh during the meeting on whatever topic we're on. So if you want to speak on, say, flock cameras, for example. You can wait and talk on flock cameras. Um, but if there's something that's not on the agenda you'd like to speak about, this is the time to do so. Anyone anyone in Zoom lands? First item on our agenda is minutes from March 30th, 26. I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second it. Second, any discussion? Seeing none. Uh Miss Bryant. Yes. Miss Feeney? Yes. And myself, yes. Passes unanimously. First item on the agenda is continuation of discussion of uh trust and local law enforcement ordinance, which is uh we've been using as an opportunity to look at our welcoming ordinance for updates. We have a bunch of materials that are online. If folks have not looked at them, it would be good to look at them. We've been looking at this now for a few months. Um I'd like to start with just a brief history of how we've gotten to where we are. The police chief and deputy police chief had something come up late this afternoon and are unable to join us. They've been for all of our other meetings, and I feel like I can answer most of the questions that they might be asked. Um the chief asked us for time over the last few months so they could further define how to first answer each and every question that's been asked about how something is deleted, how something is stored, who has access to it, under what circumstances they have access to it. And over a period of time with the city solicitor and the chief, they've gone through and they've made what is the list of things that you see online there. Those are the um safeguards and protections that were not in the master service agreement with Flock, and that we the chief is looking at in terms of putting in parameters or bumpers to ensure that there are the issues that have been raised relative to balancing local public safety versus civil rights is uh addressed. And we'll get into some of those issues on a case-by-case basis as we move forward. In addition to that, the chief has decided to allow the city's contract with Flock to expire. It expires on June 30th of this year. So no matter what happens, it will expire pending what happens with the city. That means in any case, anything that would be looked at would be subject to whatever it is the council does relative to this. And it would be subject to some sort of competitive bid process. So it may end up being that flock does not meet the requirements. But there are several other vendors that provide similar kinds of um services. And lastly, I should probably mention the bumpers that they've looked at, if folks have not looked at them, should take a look. They have a series of requirements. It starts off with a policy. And I'll just read this quickly just because it was posted later today. And the chief is in support of this. First, the policy. The city recognized the importance of balancing local public safety with individual privacy rights, automated license plate readers, ALPR, and facial recognition technologies. By the way, I inserted that in because it's going to be an issue that's going to come up so that and it is prohibited outright. So that's not an issue for purposes of this conversation, but the city has been silent on that point, which is why I included it.
openpublica.com