After weeks of mounting backlash over Supervisor Brian Walsh’s handling of a proposed Flock Safety camera installation, the Pine Plains Town Board on Thursday, March 19, unanimously approved a resolution requiring board approval before any license plate reader or other public safety camera systems can be activated or operated on behalf of the town.
The resolution reinforces existing requirements in the town code governing Town Board oversight of police expenditures and procurement policies, which board members said should have applied to the proposed camera system.
The vote came at the end of a packed and at times emotional meeting at Town Hall, where about 60 residents filled the room and several called on Walsh to resign. They accused him of misleading the board and the public by initially denying any interaction with Flock before records and phone calls showed that he had approved a 60-day demo trial with the Atlanta-based surveillance company and a two-year, $80,000 contract.
The controversy began after board members said they learned in February that cameras were being installed in town without board approval or public discussion. On Thursday, four board members — Jeanine Sisco, Kevin Walsh, Murphy Birdsall and Trevor Roush —— read prepared statements or delivered remarks before the floor was opened to public comment. Brian Walsh did not directly address his involvement in the Flock matter during the meeting.
He did address the controversy in the town board’s March newsletter, released earlier this week.
“I have turned all my emails and any phone conversations over as per the FOIL requests that were received,” Walsh wrote. “Statements were made that should not have been made in the phone conversations that I truly regret making, and I take full responsibility for that and regret it.”
In the same statement, Walsh maintained that he was “completely unaware” of the contract despite having given the company written approval in July to install four cameras.
“At the same time, as I have been saying from the beginning, I was completely unaware of any contract,” he wrote. “I now regret not looking further into this with the board. We are not in a contract with Flock and not one cent has changed hands nor will it.”
Sisco framed the issue not as a referendum on surveillance technology itself, but as a matter of process and public accountability.
“To be clear, we are not focused on whether we, or you, believe that Flock Safety cameras are good or bad,” Sisco told the crowd. “Our focus is to ensure that the Town Board, Supervisor, and council members, town departments, and committees follow proper and legal protocol.”
She said the board’s review of emails and recorded phone calls showed that the proper process had not been followed and that key information had been withheld.
“The review of the emails and phone conversations answered some of our questions. We have enough information to know that proper protocol was not followed. Information was withheld, and that there were serious missteps.”
Sisco also sought to clarify the limits of the board’s authority under state law, saying the board could not discipline or remove Walsh from office even as it continued to examine what had happened.
“It is important for you to know that New York State public officers law, Article 2 17, section 36, states that a town board, supervisor, and or council members, do not have the authority to discipline or dismiss an elected official,” Sisco said. “Regardless of that fact, this is not our intent. Instead, we are committed to moving forward.”
“We will continue to ask questions. Review protocol, procedure, and seek out precedence regarding how other municipalities have addressed similar situations. This is why tonight, we are presenting this resolution that specifically addresses automated license plate readers, ALPR, and public safety camera technology.”
Sisco then pointed to the procurement rules she said made clear that anything related to the proposed Flock system should have come before the board.
“This issue, the issue that we are focused on, is the absolute necessity for protocol outlined by law. New York State Law, Article 10, section 4 44, and general municipal law, section 104B, requires goods and services that are not required to be competitively bid to be procured in a manner so as to assure the prudent and economical use of public monies,” Sisco said. “To reach that objective, town boards by resolution shall adopt internal policies and procedures, governing all procurements.”
The resolution approved Thursday states that no town-controlled automatic license plate reader or networked public safety camera system may be activated or operated unless the Town Board has reviewed and adopted a governing policy. It also requires that any contract related to such technology be executed by the supervisor only after authorization by the board.
Birdsall said the board had spent weeks trying to understand what happened and determine how to prevent it from happening again.
“We know that something was done wrong. We need to move on and find the way to make sure that this does not happen again. We need to communicate more.”
More than a dozen residents spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, most objecting to the proposed use of surveillance technology or expressing anger over what they described as a breakdown in trust at Town Hall.
“I think Brian Walsh betrayed our town,” said Gail Mellow, chair of the Pine Plains Conservation Advisory Council. “Walsh lied to our community, and I think, in doing so, smeared dirt on the honor of serving our town.”
Robert Lyons said voters should ultimately decide the supervisor’s fate at the ballot box in November, but called the episode a serious breach of trust.
“As a citizen of Pine Plains, I am against the installation of surveillance cameras in our town, period,” Lyons said. He added that the supervisor’s actions “could justify a reasonable call for the town supervisor’s resignation.”
Jill Hill told Walsh to “set aside your ego, resign your position, and allow the town to move forward without your bad-faith behavior.”
Judith Wolff / The New Pine Plains Herald
Matthew LeBaron said accountability had to come before the town could move on, advising Walsh that saying, “I’m sorry for lying to the public would be a great start.”
Not every speaker called for Walsh’s resignation. Some defended the broader value of license plate reader technology, while others urged restraint.
Jeff Galm argued that the technology can help solve serious crimes.
Lisa Zayas asked residents to show Walsh grace. “Stop asking for a resignation,” she said. “It’s cruel. He’s sitting right here. He’s a human being with a family.”
Roush then weighed in from the board table. “I really respect Brian for sitting here and taking all that,” said Roush. “But we are public servants, and this is what we signed up for.”
Later in the meeting, Police Captain John Hughes read a statement in support of former Sgt. Michael Beliveau, who had signed the contract for the Flock system before leaving the department. Under questioning from Kevin Walsh and Sisco, Hughes said Beliveau had not asked him for permission to sign anything and that he had no knowledge of the contract amount.
Ian Blau asked the board for written proof that the Flock contract had been voided. Town Attorney Warren Replansky responded: “I assure you, it’s null and void.”
Blau suggested the town create a technology-focused committee to address questions surrounding surveillance, the town website and related issues. Board members said no such committee currently exists, but added that volunteers would be needed to form one.
Jeanne Valentine Chase asked whether the town’s ethics committee had been convened in response to the Flock Safety matter.
“There is, and they have,” Kevin Walsh said.
Asked whether the public would receive a report, he replied, “Not necessarily.”
The board then moved on to other business, including approval of a petty cash resolution for the town justices, two appointments to the Beautification Committee and the acceptance of Jen Blackburn as beach director.
The next Pine Plains Town Board meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. on April 16.
Please explain how a town supervisor can still sit on this board after lying, smearing the residents of pine plains. Him trying to say he never saw a contract is absurd. There’s no free trials in this world these days that don’t automatically go into a paying contract. The fact that our own elected official doesn’t know that is SCARY. Who knows what else this guy has done? Why did the chief of police suddenly resign and leave the state? Shame on Brian Walsh and shame on nys for not getting involved to help this beautiful small town that we all love.
I read recently that traffic counting is now to be done with cameras instead of the old rubber tube on the road system. This sounds like the same thing as a Flock camera. This would track how many and at what times and days you passed a camera. Does the town board have the authorization to prevent these from being installed in our town? This all is beginning to sound like Big Brother is watching. One solution might be to cover any cameras installed without authorization, with black, plastic bags.
Excellent journalism. Thank you so much … but someone explain how Walsh can still be on the board?
Brian is the best choice for our town supervisor. It is embarrassing that their are people who are ripping him apart over 1 thing. Brian’s statement is honest about his actions and regret . Look in the mirror at yourselves and say you never made a mistake. It’s scary that people on the town board, through their comments, are dividing our town even more than it is. The atmosphere of the town was changed horrible by previous admin. It is time to fill Pine Plains real needs as a small town, not to make a mockery of it .
We need a grocery store, not a building covered in metal that only serves a few and out of towners. Someone recently said to me “look at all the good city people moving here has done” Nothing they named has improved Pine Plains…just their egos.
To clarify — I asked to know if there was written proof *from Flock* agreeing to the Board’s nullification of the contract, to which CM Walsh said there was no written response from Flock and the Town Attorney’s remark.
At this point, I agree with the understanding of the board to move forward. Brian has had what accounts to an unofficial censure. And after watching his call with Flock, it’s clear he was out of his element more so than being malicious in his intent.
I think this is a good learning experience for both Supervisor Walsh and the town as a whole. We have an amazing chance to use this misstep as learning opportunity to define Pine Plains’ place in the local, state, and national issue of AI & surveillance. Plus, the election in eight months will be here before we know it.
I applaud the reporting. In a time where local journalism – – quality journalism – – is a rare commodity, we are fortunate to have access to The New Pine Plains Herald. Thanks for your ongoing coverage of this story.
Why is Flock unable to confirm the contract was cancelled?
Does the town government have any mechanism, legal or otherwise, to help facilitate a new grocery store? What can be done to help or persuade the Peck family? It is clear they tried to help the town and perhaps they can be returned the help in some way.
What else does the town beautification committee do? Can we get continuous, nicely paved sidewalks downtown?
The board just submitted a grant proposal to the state for funding to fix sidewalks/drainage and add crosswalks.