Pine Plains Town Supervisor Brian Walsh reads a prepared statement during a Town Board meeting on Feb. 19 addressing his role in the proposed installation of Flock Safety surveillance cameras in the town. Records released this week through a Freedom of Information request support the chronology described in his statement. Patrick Grego / The New Pine Plains Herald

Records released this week by the Pine Plains Town Clerk show that Town Supervisor Brian Walsh gave written approval in July 2025 for Flock Safety to move forward with installing surveillance cameras in Pine Plains under a proposed 60-day trial agreement.

The documents, released to the Herald on Tuesday, March 10, in response to multiple Freedom of Information Law requests filed in early February, include emails among Walsh, Flock Safety and members of the Pine Plains Police Department; audio of a phone call between Walsh and Flock representatives; a signed contract; and a deployment plan for surveillance equipment across town.

Together, the records show that by mid-2025 Flock had mapped 11 proposed camera locations, developed pricing, and begun permitting work with Walsh’s written approval. The documents also raise new questions about Walsh’s public account of the project, which he initially denied knowing about and later described as “a mistake.” Walsh did not immediately respond to the Herald’s request for comment on the newly released records.

The arrangement called for a 60-day trial deployment, after which the town agreed to pay $80,000 over two years. Only after the plan became public did Walsh tell Flock he wanted “everything stopped,” though he later told company representatives he believed the project would eventually move forward.

The Town Board also obtained the records this week from the Supervisor’s office. Jeanine Sisco, a board member, said the newly released materials clarified the sequence of events.

“We were pretty much in the dark,” Sisco said of herself and her fellow Town Board members. “So now we’re in possession of all the information. I’ve created a timeline. And so it is quite clear to us where things went askew.”

Sisco stressed the importance of proper protocol in town governance.

“Everything needs to be presented in a public forum to the Town Board, and to the community, and feedback gathered, and then a vote,” she said. “That’s just what protocol is, and we need to make sure that protocol is followed for everything. Not just for Flock cameras, for everything.”

Fellow board member Kevin Walsh said the records showed that the board had been misled about when the supervisor first learned of the project.

“Brian Walsh gave approval to install Flock systems without board consent or knowledge,” he said. “It’s an evolving lie.”

“We are investigating it with all the information that we’ve collected so far and are trying to collect more to decide how to proceed,” he added. “The board will speak on this issue at the next board meeting.”

According to the records obtained by the Herald, Ashley Fernandez, a regional account executive for Atlanta-based Flock Safety, emailed Brian Walsh on Nov. 25, 2024, saying she was already working with members of the Pine Plains Police Department and had “been able to get a trial conditionally approved.” She asked to discuss “next steps to get us all on one accord” and later scheduled a Zoom call with Walsh for Dec. 12.

In the 31-minute call, Fernandez pitched what Flock called Project Prove It, a no-cost pilot program that would allow cameras to be installed for 60 days while the town evaluated their use and benefit. She described the program as a way to generate results first and identify funding later.

During the call, Walsh said he was primarily concerned about privacy and cost. But after Fernandez described the technology and the program, Walsh said, “I don’t have a problem as far as doing the trial and then moving from there.”

Later in the call, Fernandez noted that one community was considering taking money from its library budget to put toward Flock devices. Walsh replied, “I would love to do that, but their [the library’s] budget actually goes out to vote. Now, we have no say over their budget.”

On Feb. 20, 2025, Fernandez emailed Walsh that the police department had been “working hard at knocking out a deployment plan for the 60 day pilot” and said Flock was “one week away from getting this off the ground.” She told Walsh that the company was “installing Flock LPRs and PTZ Surveillance cams across the town at no cost to you, the PD, or the town” and that “once the cameras are in the ground, that is when the 60 day trial begins.”

An Flock Safety engineering packet obtained by the Herald identifies 11 proposed camera locations and maps their installation around Pine Plains.

Four of those sites were physically marked on Feb. 3, when residents first noticed spray-painted installation points across the town’s business district.

A map based on records obtained by the Herald shows proposed Flock Safety camera locations across Pine Plains. Town Supervisor Brian Walsh wrote “Yes move forward” on July 28, 2025, approving installation at multiple sites that were later marked on Feb. 3. Patrick Grego / DataWrapper

The records indicate that by then, the proposal had already progressed through planning, pricing and permitting discussions.

Contract records show a package including nine Falcon license plate reader cameras, two Condor solar-powered video cameras and related equipment. The paperwork describes a 60-day opt-out pilot followed by a 24-month term, with a first-year price of $40,000 and a total contract value of $80,000.

A contract with Flock executed on Feb. 25, 2025, and also obtained by the Herald, was signed by Sgt. Michael Beliveau of the Pine Plains Police Department, who later retired. He told the Herald he did not have authority to approve such an agreement on his own.

In an April 7, 2025, email to Walsh, a Flock representative wrote, “I was directed by Ed (building inspector) and Carl (highway) to reach out to you regarding this proposal in the Town’s ROW.”

On July 23, 2025, a Flock permitting manager emailed Walsh asking whether the company could proceed with installation at three locations while a revised site was worked out for a camera that had originally been proposed near Stissing Mountain High School.

After several follow-up emails, Brian Walsh responded on July 28, 2025, “Yes move forward.”

In an email from Walsh in the FOIL release dated Feb. 4, he told Flock that he wanted “everything stopped,” that Pine Plains would not be moving forward with the cameras, and that any equipment or markings already in place should be removed.

A Flock Safety representative called Walsh following his emails seeking clarity. During that call, Walsh told the representative to “press pause” but said the installation would eventually get done.

In a Feb. 5 phone call with Flock previously reported by the Herald, Walsh described trying to contain the backlash after residents noticed the site markings.

“So basically, I pushed it off like it was an accidental thing,” he said.

At an emergency Town Board meeting on Feb. 9, Walsh acknowledged that a contract existed and said it was “null and void” as of Feb. 3, 2026, adding that it “was not discussed or approved by the Town Supervisor or the Town Board, which would have been proper protocol.”

At a packed Town Board meeting on Feb. 19, Walsh read a prepared statement in which he said he believed Flock was offering only a trial program and that he did not know a contract had been executed.

“I agreed to move forward with a demonstration,” Walsh said.

Walsh added, “Ultimately, the buck stops at the Supervisor’s office. It ultimately comes back to me, so I take full responsibility regardless.”

Under Pine Plains town law, police equipment and public expenditures are subject to Town Board oversight and procurement procedures. The records released this week raise further questions about both the proposed surveillance system and how far the project progressed outside public discussion.

Residents have also raised concerns about privacy and data access. In its initial Feb. 6 report, the Herald noted that if cameras were installed at the marked locations, much of the vehicular traffic entering and exiting the central business district could potentially be recorded.

The Herald also reported that Flock systems elsewhere have drawn scrutiny over whether data collected by local departments could be accessed by outside agencies without local consent. Flock says it operates in more than 5,000 communities across 49 states and conducts more than 20 billion vehicle scans each month in the United States.

The next Pine Plains Town Board meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. on March 19.

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

  1. So the building inspector and Carl Baden knew about it in July and still haven’t said anything? And what does “members” of the police mean beyond the guy that retired? And what pressure have the democrats brought to their County Attorney or the republicans on the county sheriff to end an un-American spy program. Compliance is complicity.
    That’s why I like these reports. They quietly expose the fact that this is much larger than some small town patsy who has no clue what patriotism is.

  2. This is really sad. We cant even trust our own elected official? He can remain in office and deny this/not take questions on it? Is anybody going to step in and help this small town or is this town supervisor going to continue doing what he thinks is best for himself?! Shame on you Brian Walsh! Invasion of privacy and a BIG WASTE of our tax money!!!!

  3. Walsh would “love to” take money from our library to do this… So not only was this something that he lied about, that should have gone through proper protocols, no matter how you feel about how insidious it is to have cameras up etc. that’s just evil!

  4. Pine Plains was lucky someone spoke up about what they saw. Otherwise Mr. Walsh would have gotten away with his Secret effort to Spy on residents and visitors to Pine Plains. His claims of ignorence have been exposed as a Lie. Elected officials that Lie to the public should not be allowed to hold their office. I also worry about possible inducements promised to those that “cooperated” with Flock.
    But at the same time Flock is in Dutchess County, where I don’t recall much public discussion about it’s cost and implementation.
    I contacted Sue Serino with 2 questions about Flock’s implementation.
    1. Who reviews the access logs to verify that only individuals with appropriate reason accessed LPR data. And the results of the reviews are released Monthly.
    2. How much is it costing per year in total, equipment, software, police time, etc. Are the “gun shot monitors” really better than citizens calling in. Certainly cheaper.
    Perhaps Sue can come to a Pine Plains Town meeting to let us know where she stands and be open to answering questions like the ones above.
    Manuel Gonzalez
    Stanfordville

  5. So grateful for the New Pine Plains Herald! I think I saw two of these devices set up on 199 on my way home from work today–not sure if they’re newly set up or if I missed them before, but this whole thing is so creepy!

  6. Since people can be easily tarnished by innuendo, I wish to emphasize that the only mention I have seen in the reporting regarding our building inspector and highway superintendent is that “In an April 7, 2025, email to Walsh, a Flock representative wrote, ‘I was directed by Ed (building inspector) and Carl (highway) to reach out to you regarding this proposal in the Town’s ROW.’” We do not know what Flock said to Ed and Carl, or what they said, other than the Flock representative’s characterization of those communications as set forth in this email. This tells us hardly anything. It certainly does not tell us that either of them had any reason to believe that something nefarious was going on. As of mid-day March 13, 2026 they may know that someone thinks they did. This thing is serious enough that there should be a thorough investigation. Such a person will talk to everyone remotely touched by it. The New Pine Plains Herald is doing a fantastic job, but I’m not sure it’s fair to expect them (him?) to carry all the water on this.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *