Supervisor Walsh Explains ‘Demo’ Talks as Residents Press for Answers on Flock Cameras

With the Town Hall parking lot filled to capacity and cars stretching along Route 199, approximately 50 residents packed the Pine Plains Town Board meeting on Feb. 19 — less than 24 hours after the Herald reported that Supervisor Brian Walsh had told Flock Safety in a recorded Feb. 5 phone call that the installation of the company’s license-plate reader cameras in Pine Plains is “gonna get done.”

At the meeting, Walsh said he had not known a formal contract had been executed but had been pursuing what he described as a free “demo” program with the company since December 2024. Such a trial would have involved multiple pole-mounted cameras operating in town for up to 60 days, capturing and storing vehicle data.

A review of the Town of Pine Plains Code shows no provision authorizing the supervisor or any individual board member to initiate a trial or demonstration of equipment without prior Town Board approval. Town contracts and expenditures are subject to board oversight and established procurement procedures.

Before opening the floor for public comment, Walsh read a prepared statement addressing his involvement with the proposed installation.

“Discussion between Flock and the Town of Pine Plains Police Department began in 2024 regarding the possibility of installing cameras within the Town of Pine Plains,” Walsh said.

Walsh said that on Dec. 12, 2024, he “participated in a meet and greet with Flock representatives.” During that meeting, he said, “a presentation was provided outlining the system. It was discussed how Flock could serve the police department costs and maintenance. However, it was clearly stated that the town of Pine Plains could not afford the cost of such systems.”

Walsh said he inquired about grant funding and financing options. “Flock then offered a 30 day free pilot demo program, initially proposed as a nine camera system set up in consultation with the police department. It was determined that a four camera system would be more than sufficient. I agreed to move forward with a demonstration,” he said.

He described a July 23, 2025 email from Flock asking whether the company could proceed with the installation of three cameras while awaiting a fourth location. On July 28, he responded “okay,” he said, “still under the impression that we were in a demonstration phase only.”

“This was my last communication with Flock, until Flock representatives started marking out for camera installation,” Walsh said.

He said he was alerted on Feb. 5, 2026, after Town Board member Jeanine Sisco called to say Flock representatives were marking areas on her property.

“I contacted Flock and instructed them to halt all activities, and stated I had no idea that markouts were being performed, nor did I know this process, even how this process even worked. The townspeople are not happy and are flipping a lid,” Walsh said.

In the Herald’s Feb. 18 report, based on an audio recording obtained by the newspaper, Walsh is heard telling a Flock representative that public reaction was “extremely bad” and saying, “So, basically, I pushed it off like it was an accidental thing.” In the same call, he said, “It’s gonna get done.”

In that exchange, a Flock representative asked whether the disruption of the installation was due to public opposition.“Okay. So, for my team, just to make sure I update things on my side. That’s the reason for it, just folks are not happy?” the representative said.

“Folks are not happy in regards to the, basically, older brother looking over the shoulder kind of thing. Especially the way the, uh… nationally, we are right now. I think that we’re a heavy, well, we’re a decent blue area right now, unfortunately. So they’re just not, they’re not in favor of this at this time,” Walsh replied.

“Now, if, when Stevie, sorry, Sgt. Camburn, gets uh, together with the D.A. and the Sheriff’s office and everything, and when that works out, it’s not gonna be a — well, you can’t do this kind of stuff — but it’s, it’s, it’s gonna get done, because the county will be behind it, too. So, just, as of right now, it’s not… It’s not the greatest time to do it.”

On Thursday, Walsh addressed those remarks directly.

“Referring to comments of ‘it’s gonna get done,’ I was referring to, if the county wanted to place cameras in the Town of Pine Plains it would get done, but the town is not,” he said. “All activity was halted at this time.”

“As far as comments ‘older brother looking over the shoulder’ and ‘the way nationally we are right now,’ I was referring to the federal government gaining access based upon feedback I was receiving in a short period of time,” he said.

Walsh said he later learned that a contract had been executed.

“It was later brought to my attention that on February 25, 2025, a contract had been signed without my knowledge or my secretary’s knowledge,” he said.

“Any contract or agreement must be reviewed by the town attorney and approved by the town board before final execution,” Walsh added.

He said that on Feb. 9, 2026, he received a copy of the contract from Flock and believed prior discussions had been limited to a demonstration.

“At no time, am I denying communication with Flock, I was conducting my due diligence and gathering information about Flock camera systems before bringing a matter to the town board for public discussion,” Walsh said.

“As previously stated, the town of Pine Plains could not afford a project of this magnitude at this time,” Walsh said. “No funds have been exchanged between Flock and the town of Pine Plain, nor will any point be exchanged. I apologize for any problems this has created. It was simply an exploring opportunity for the town to demo a small system at no cost to the town. I take full responsibility for the issue as everything stops at the supervisor’s office. Um, I’m not gonna take any questions in regards to this issue tonight.”

Under the contract obtained by the Herald, the agreement authorized installation of 11 cameras across Pine Plains at a two-year cost totaling $80,000. The contract includes the following cancellation clause: “Customer will have a 60 day opt-out period (‘Opt-Out Period’) after implementation of the first Flock Hardware to terminate this Agreement without penalty or fees. After the Opt-Out Period, Customer may not terminate the Agreement, and Customer will pay any invoice(s) for the remainder of the Term, Net 30.”

When public comment opened, residents focused largely on governance and public process.

Pine Plains resident Matthew Lebaron said, “While I appreciate the statement that you just gave us, a number of questions are still unanswered.”

“My concern is not about technology. My concern is about governance,” he said, asking whether the town board voted on a demonstration, whether the town attorney was consulted, and whether procurement policies were followed.

“If equipment was installed, marked, tested, or contracted without a formal public vote, or proper procurement process, that raises serious questions about compliance with town law and fiduciary responsibilities,” Lebaron said.

“My request is simple,” he added. “Any agreements, any communications made to the public about these agreements, all be given to us with good warning… and that no surveillance system be pursued without recorded town board vote and a hearing.”

Keary Hanan (a board member of the Pine Plains Local Journalism Project Inc., the nonprofit that governs The New Pine Plains Herald and does not influence its editorial coverage or decision-making) cited the town’s ethics law and questioned whether an ethics board currently exists.

“My question is, does an Ethics Board currently exist? If not, why not?” Hanan asked. “In light of the current situation, will the town board now comply with the town code, and appoint three members to the ethics board?”

Turning to the contract review process, she said: “In my professional career, I have signed hundreds of contracts, some for less than $80,000 and some for more than $800,000. I have never, not once, signed a contract without having it reviewed by an attorney, it in fact it was required by the organizations that I worked for.”

Hanan asked: “Was the town attorney shown this contract before it was signed? If so, did the attorney advise that proper protocol was not being followed? Is there a policy requiring all contracts to be reviewed by counsel? If not will one be implemented immediately?”

She also asked: “What was the purpose of the cameras? What was the information going to be used for and who was it going to be shared with?”

“Lastly, how does this Town Board plan on restoring the trust of this community after this egregious breach of honesty and trust with its constituents?” Hanan said.

In response, Town Board member Kevin Walsh said that an ethics board does exist and acknowledged that the town website is “sometimes not easy to navigate,” but maintained that the information is publicly available online. As of Feb. 19, the ethics board was not listed among the town’s boards on the main webpage but instead appeared on a separate page accessible through the website’s search function. The board consists of Doug Hart, Hollis Bart, and Frank Volz.

“I am not in support of any sort of surveillance system being used in our town,” said Pine Plains resident Michael Cooper, who serves with Brian Walsh in the Pine Plains Volunteer Fire Company. “Especially after learning in recent months about how such technology can be abused. I am grateful for the swift action of both the board and Supervisor Walsh for putting a stop to it once the full details were revealed. I have personally known Brian for ten years since joining the fire company. In that time I have not met a single resident more dedicated to serving this community. He is constantly trying to find ways to make our community safer and more resilient. Knowing Brian, and how he communicates, I believe his words are being misinterpreted and I would encourage anyone who has problems with what he has to say, to examine what he has in fact done, which as of now includes cancelling the supposed Flock contract. I hope the town board and community can move past this and continue to maintain Pine Plains as a wonderful place to live.”

Pine Plains resident Alice Nuccio objected to the political language heard on the recorded call.

“Just one other quick little thing with comment Brian, about the ‘blue in the area,’ I took great offense to that,” she said. “This is not a red or a blue issue, this is a humanitarian issue, this is a human issue. We need to stop dividing everyone between this and that and really try to do what’s best for the town.”

Aside from Supervisor Walsh’s reading of his prepared statement, no other Town Board members addressed the matter during the meeting.

Town Board member Jeanine Sisco said in a statement to the Herald after the meeting: “My priority is to ensure that the Town Board follows proper protocol and law, and to insist that the communication between the Supervisor and the town council members is open and honest. Our community deserves to be informed.”

Board members Murphy Birdsall, Trevor Roush, and Kevin Walsh did not immediately respond to the Herald’s request for comment.

After public comment, the board moved on to routine business, unanimously adopting a local law amending Chapter 235 related to tax exceptions for accessory dwelling units and approving an annual shared-services agreement for highway operations. The board also approved travel for Planning Board Chair Michael Stabile to attend two conferences and voted to grant a $1-an-hour raise for officer Mark Perrotta before entering executive session to discuss a tax matter.

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