Dutchess County Executive Sue Serino said Thursday she intends to return unsigned a measure unanimously approved by the County Legislature requiring the covering of deactivated Flock Safety surveillance cameras, arguing that the action could expose the county to liability as officials work to have the equipment removed.
“I intend to return the resolution unsigned as the proper steps to remove these cameras are already underway,” Serino told the Herald in a statement Thursday, Oct. 15.
The resolution, introduced by Legislator Chris Drago (D-19) and approved in a unanimous vote Tuesday, Oct. 13, would require the county to cover any remaining Flock license plate readers if they are not removed by Oct. 25, the deadline previously cited by county officials.
Serino, however, said the county attorney issued a formal demand to Flock on Sept. 30 requiring the company to remove all equipment by Oct. 30, five days later than the deadline underpinning the Legislature’s action.
The distinction is significant, though the two timelines do not necessarily conflict. The resolution gives the county seven calendar days after Oct. 25, or its adoption, whichever is later, to cover any remaining cameras with opaque, non-damaging materials. That would put the earliest covering deadline at Nov. 1, two days after the removal date cited by Serino.
“This resolution unnecessarily exposes the County to potential liability resulting from equipment damage or other issues that could occur during removal,” Serino said.
She added that District Attorney Anthony Parisi, after consulting with the county attorney, had advised lawmakers of the potential liability before Tuesday’s vote.
Under the Dutchess County Charter, the county executive can reject a resolution by returning it to the Legislature with written objections within 10 days of receiving it. Lawmakers can override a veto with a two-thirds majority. If the executive takes no formal action within that period, the resolution is automatically approved. Serino’s statement did not establish that she had formally returned the measure.
Despite her intention not to sign it, Serino said the county would take additional steps if Flock failed to meet the Oct. 30 deadline.
“Flock must be held responsible for the removal of this equipment,” she said. “They have been directed to do so within a reasonable timeframe and have agreed to work expeditiously to meet the October 30th deadline.”
“Should they fail to comply within the stated time frame, we will work with the District Attorney and the Sheriff’s Office to ensure the proper steps are taken in accordance with the resolution,” she added.
The county’s 65 Flock cameras were deactivated Sept. 25, after Parisi and Sheriff Kirk Imperati announced they were abandoning the technology following months of public opposition over privacy and surveillance concerns. The cameras have remained physically installed pending removal.
In a separate statement to the Herald, Parisi acknowledged the Legislature’s concerns but urged officials to remain focused on the public safety implications of losing the technology.
“I understand that the Legislature’s resolution is intended to provide additional public assurance that cameras remaining in place after the October 25 removal deadline are not operational,” Parisi said.
“My primary concern, however, extends beyond whether the cameras are physically covered or removed,” he continued. “It is ensuring that we do not lose sight of the underlying public safety challenges that prompted the use of this technology in the first place and the investigative gap that must now be thoughtfully addressed.”
Imperati was more critical of further restrictions.
“As Sheriff my responsibility is to provide public safety to all residents of Dutchess County, and not having this technology would certainly make that task much more difficult,” Imperati told the Herald.
Although the county had already taken steps to discontinue the technology in response to public concerns, Imperati said, “any further steps beyond that are not necessary at this time.”
The resolution advanced unanimously through the Legislature’s Public Safety Committee on Oct. 8 before receiving unanimous approval from the full Legislature Tuesday.
During the meeting, lawmakers framed the measure as part of a broader effort to restore public confidence and establish stronger oversight of surveillance technology.
“This resolution is to make sure that happens,” Drago said, referring to the promised removal of the cameras. “This is not a partisan issue. This is about privacy and freedom and democracy.”
Legislator Lisa Kaul (D-6) warned that public safety should not come at the expense of individual liberties.
“The pursuit of safety should never become an excuse for tracking the movements of ordinary people,” Kaul said. “When it does, we have a duty to stop it.”
Legislator Brendan Lawler (D-4) raised concerns about the potential misuse of surveillance data and cautioned against simply replacing Flock with another company offering similar technology.
Assistant Majority Leader Kristofer Munn (D-20) called for additional legislation to give residents a greater voice in decisions about surveillance.
“I’d like to see Dutchess County become a pioneer in privacy,” Munn said.
The county’s decision to abandon the Flock program followed months of scrutiny, including the Herald’s reporting on an unauthorized $80,000 agreement for 11 surveillance devices in Pine Plains and two county cameras installed without state permits in Milan.
Both towns subsequently adopted measures requiring greater local oversight of surveillance technology.
Drago, who first called for the county’s cameras to be covered on Sept. 25, has said the continued presence of the equipment could leave residents uncertain about whether their movements are still being recorded.
“The reality is that no one feels safe in a surveillance state,” he said Tuesday.
The resolution, No. 2026160, applies to cameras owned, leased, operated, or funded by Dutchess County. It does not automatically extend to cameras controlled independently by municipalities or private entities.