Public Safety & Neighborhoods Committee — September 9, 2026

Right, right.

But you are going to be able to record it.

Okay, that's okay.

All right.

Yeah, so just let me know when you're ready.

A mic check just in case.

Testing, 1, 2, testing.

7 o'clock.

You ready?

Yes.

Yeah, of course.

Thank you.

Welcome.

They're for the city councilors, right?

We don't have any extra.

No, I didn't actually.

You didn't get one?

Yeah, okay.

No worries.

I'd like to call this meeting of Public Safety and Neighborhoods for September 9th, 2026, meeting at 7:03 in City Council Chambers.

We will not be live streaming tonight due to technical difficulties with MIS.

So we're not going to read that into the record tonight.

In the chambers is, uh, Councilor-at-Large Ian Abreu, Scott Pemberton, Ward 2, Leo Chiquette, Ward 1, James Roy, Councilor-at-Large, Naomi Connie, Councilor-at-Large, and Shane Bergel, Councilor-at-Large.

Um, we did have a message from, um, Councilor Baptiste.

He's going to be about 20 minutes late, and so is, um, Councilor Oliver.

And I did have a message from last night from, um, Ryan that he would also be a few minutes late tonight for tonight's meeting.

I have one letter.

With that said, any letters to be read into the record?

This one's from Councilor Lopes.

I'm writing this letter to inform you that I'm unable to attend tonight's committee meeting on public safety and neighbors United, um, excuse me, Neighborhoods meeting on Wednesday, September 9th, 2026 at 7 PM due to a prior commitment.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and those in attendance and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

Motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Abrams, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read, um, if there's no objection, we'll take both items up all at the same time.

Is there an objection from Councilor Bergl?

Item number 1, written motion, Councilor Gomes requesting that the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods immediately meet with Police Chief Jason Thode, a representative from the mayor's office, and a representative from Flock Safety.

This meeting is to bring all parties together for the purpose of enhancing policies and procedures and strengthening community trust around the use of these cameras.

The policy is transparent, with every search being logged and additional safeguards in place, not only to protect the civil rights of citizens but for the police department as well.

It was referred here on August 25th, 2026.

Number 2, written motion, Councilors Burgos, Lopes, and Abrams requesting that the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods meet with representatives of the New Bedford Police Department, the city solicitor, the Information Technology Department, and any other appropriate officials to discuss the city's use of law enforcement surveillance technology including but not limited to automated license plate readings, also known as ALPR systems, flock safety cameras, public safety camera networks, and all other technologies capable of collecting or retaining data on movement of vehicles or individuals.

And further, that the committee review the city's policies governing the collection, retention, sharing, security, and deletion of data generated by such technologies, the circumstances under which such data may be accessed or shared with outside law enforcement agencies, safeguards in place to protect residents' constitutional rights and privacy, and whether an additional local policies and public confidence while preserving the legitimate public safety benefits these technologies provide.

1 and 2 are now before you.

Motion to receive in place on file.

A motion to receive in place on file by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Carney.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Um, the chief is here.

Um, I did invite FLOC to this meeting.

I don't see anyone here from FLOC.

It's, uh, very interesting.

We did have, um, Justine Kagan from the police department along with Jason Doherty, the chief, and a representative from the mayor's office.

I don't know who is representing the mayor's office.

I don't see anybody Um, Eric Jakes is here, the city solicitor.

With that said, with your pleasure, Councilor Berger, hear from the chief.

Yes, it looks like he may have a presentation from us.

Yes, he does.

Chief, welcome.

Thank you.

So we did, um, we did hear from Flock today.

Uh, they have, uh, apparently they have quite a few requests to come to places like this and to speak.

So they, they were not able to, to send somebody today, and they're basically on an 8-week notification schedule.

So I think that's pretty far out.

But if we're interested in seeing them in 8 weeks, we can, we can certainly explore that.

But I will— I can take any technical questions that are that we would need answered by them, and I can relay them and get an answer back much quicker than that.

So I appreciate them getting in touch with you, Chief, and letting us know.

We didn't receive anything on record.

Okay, do you have a brief— you have a presentation you would like to— yeah, so I, I gave handouts.

I'll reference them, um, in just a— I'll go through this for, for a few minutes here that could answer some questions and give some context, and then happy to obviously answer any specific Second.

Motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Abrams, seconded by Councilor Connie, and receive and place on file the presentation about to be given by the chief.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Okay, uh, good evening, councilors.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak again on this important issue.

I want to begin by acknowledging that the concerns underlying this technology have legitimacy.

Any technology that collects information for law enforcement purposes must be used lawfully, appropriately, and with meaningful safeguards.

Residents have a right to know what information is collected, how long it's retained, who can access it, how it's used, and what happens when someone violates the rules.

It's important to acknowledge that— acknowledge that misuse of an ALPR system is not hypothetical here anymore.

Our own audit identified improper use of the FLOC system.

We investigated that conduct, took it seriously, and are pursuing accountability.

I will not minimize those incidents or ask the council or the public— Chief, I don't mean to interrupt you for a minute.

You got to come down from there, Gilly, please.

Okay, maybe a technical with the MIS.

Thank you.

Gus, how are we doing up there?

And we're live streaming.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, he's just notifying us that we are live, that there was no issues with the live stream.

So we are currently live streaming.

Okay.

So before I let you continue, I apologize, Chief.

We just didn't know what was going on here.

Let me just note that this meeting is being live streamed and recorded, and the City Council's committee meetings can be viewed on City's New Bedford homepage under the quick link, then meetings.

With that said, I apologize for the interruption.

Good.

That's what happens on live TV, right?

That's what happens.

That's it.

All right, so, so it's important to acknowledge that misuse of the ALPR system is not a hypothetical.

We investigated that conduct, took it seriously, and are pursuing accountability.

I'll not minimize those incidents or ask the council or the public to ignore them.

But the discovery of misconduct and our response to it should demonstrate my commitment to meaningful consequences and lead us to stronger controls.

It should not automatically lead us to eliminate any every legitimate use of a valuable public safety tool.

Some context on how FLOC ended up here.

It's important to distinguish ALPR from a new or experimental technology being introduced before its benefits and risks are understood.

Automated license plate reader technology has been used in law enforcement for more than 2 decades.

In fact, the International Association of Chiefs of Police survey conducted in 2009 found that approximately 23% of responding law enforcement agencies were using ALPR technology back then.

By the time New Bedford acquired this system in late 2024, ALPR was not an untested or emerging concept.

It was an established investigative tool already being used by many communities across the country, including most of the cities and towns surrounding New Bedford.

Flock itself had also been operating since 2017.

Therefore, New Bedford was relatively late— was a relatively late adopter of both the underlying technology and this particular platform.

If we were considering a newly developed technology with little operational history, I would expect a more extensive testing and evaluation period, a limited pilot program, additional vetting, and a broader, more interactive process before full deployment.

That type of process is particularly important when the capabilities, risks, accuracy, and legal implications of a technology have not yet been established through widespread, widespread use.

That was not how ALPR would reasonably have been viewed in 2024.

By then, departments had years of experience using it to locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles connected to serious crimes, find missing and endangered people, and develop investigative leads.

Courts, law enforcement organizations, municipalities, and privacy advocates had also been examining the technology for years by then.

It was not in New Bedford.

I was not in New Bedford when the Flock system was acquired, so I cannot speak to every decision made during its implementation.

I'm also not defending the fact that the system was introduced with controls that in hindsight were insufficient.

The policies, access restrictions, documentation requirements, training, and auditing should have been stronger.

However, the failure was not the decision to obtain LPR technology.

The failure was not establishing a governance structure equal to the power and sensitivity of that technology.

It is evident that many police departments across the country failed to predict the potential for misuse.

I would argue that we haven't given meaningful controls a chance here.

It is important to understand what this technology actually does and what it does not do.

The intent— the internet is a valuable but sometimes dangerous research tool, and misinformation is running rampant around this technology right now.

A fixed ALPR camera captures a point-in-time image of a vehicle passing a particular location on a public roadway.

It records the publicly displayed, displayed license plate, the date, time, camera location, direction of travel, and visible characteristics, characteristics such as the vehicle's color, make, body style, roof rack damage, or other distinguishing features.

You have a screenshot of this in your packet.

It does not continuously follow a vehicle.

It does not show where the vehicle goes between cameras.

It does not record conversations or look inside homes.

It does not have facial recognition.

It does not contain someone's telephone communications, financial information, medical history, Social Security number, fingerprints, DNA.

A plate image does not establish who was driving the vehicle or prove that anyone committed a crime.

What we are able to search for in the system is shown in the handout as well.

There are 2 search functions: a lookup screen and a more comprehensive search screen, which is where we can look for vehicle characteristics like body style, color, damage, etc.

An ALPR result is an investigative lead.

It must be independently reviewed and validated.

It's not automatic probable cause, and it should never be treated as automatic proof of guilt.

License plates are also different from information taken from a private telephone or the interior of a home.

There is a different expectation of privacy on public streets with intentionally public-facing registration plates.

A license plate is issued by the government connected to a government registration system and legally required to be conspicuously displayed when a vehicle is operated on public ways.

Every officer and every member of the public can observe it from the street.

And in fact, if your registration can't be publicly viewed, you're violating the law.

That does not mean there can never be a privacy concern.

When public observations are aggregated over a sufficiently long period or across a sufficiently extensive network, they may reveal a detailed picture of someone's movements, associations, and private life.

This is why the number of cameras, camera placement, retention periods, search limitations, sharing restrictions, and audits are so important.

Massachusetts courts have recognized this distinction.

In Commonwealth v. McCarthy, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the limited use of fixed ALPR cameras in this case did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment or Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

The court did not authorize unlimited tracking.

It explained that the constitutional question depends on the actual scope of the surveillance and whether it reveals a substantial picture of someone's public movements or exposes the privacies of life.

We also now have a very recent decision from our own region.

On August 18th, 2026, a Bristol County Superior Court judge denied motions to suppress evidence obtained through Fall River's Flock system in a murder investigation.

I've attached that ruling in your packet.

It's very detailed, and it goes through the facts and reasonings for the decision.

Detectives had images and descriptions of a gray Chevrolet SUV used in the shooting, but they did not have the license plate.

They searched stored Flock images, identified the plate, and then reviewed additional images on that vehicle.

The court found that 7 cameras captured the vehicle on 96 occasions over 19 days.

Nevertheless, those point-in-time images did not reveal the occupant's employment, associations, hobbies, schedules, visits to constitutionally sensitive locations, or even their progress along one complete journey.

The court concluded that the actual use of the system did not amount to pervasive surveillance and did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment or Article 14.

That is a superior court ruling, not a statewide appellate decision, but it is recent, local fact-specific application of the controlling legal principles to the same type of FLOC technology we are discussing tonight.

Under the safeguards I proposed, ordinary data retention would be reduced from 34— from 30 to 14 days.

Some, including FLOC, as I mentioned earlier, are recommending 7 days.

After that period, the data would be deleted unless it had been properly preserved as evidence or pursuant to lawfully lawful authority.

I believe the safest unnecessary record is one that no longer exists.

We must also consider what policing looks like without this technology.

Without ALPR, officers may have to stop several white SUVs matching that general description.

If we reasonably believe the vehicle may contain an armed suspect, Innocent occupants could be detained and, under appropriate circumstances, ordered out at gunpoint while officers determine whether they have stopped the correct vehicle.

That police response may be lawful and necessary, but it is also very personal and traumatic.

An ALPR search may allow investigators to narrow dozens or hundreds of possible vehicles to one or two.

Detectives can compare those vehicles against witness accounts, private video, travel time, distinctive vehicle characteristics and other evidence before stopping anyone.

Properly governed technology can therefore reduce unnecessary police encounters and intrusions.

It can make us more precise.

It can eliminate an innocent vehicle just as readily as it can identify a suspect vehicle.

The independent assessment of the Brown University mass shooting provides a compelling real-world example.

That assessment was concluded by the Police Executive Research Forum, or PERF, PERF is an independent national nonprofit research organization founded in 1976.

It's widely recognized for its research, management studies, policy development, and executive education involving constitutional policing, violent crime, police technology, accountability, and best practices.

PERF found that once investigators developed a description of the suspect vehicle, FLOCK reduced an investigative universe of thousands of vehicles to 2 candidates in a matter of minutes.

Detectives did not treat those results as proof.

They independently evaluated both vehicles, eliminated one, and traced the other to a rental agency in Boston, helping identify the assailant.

PERF called the LPR information in this case indispensable.

Its recommendation, however, was not unrestricted use.

PERF recommended that Providence maintain its LPR system while continuing to comply with validation, auditing, and accountability recommendations.

This is essentially the balanced approach I'm asking New Bedford to adopt.

The public now expects police to solve serious crimes at a speed that is possibly only through the responsible use of technology.

We saw that expectation following the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, during the Brown University shooting, and in the— in the continuing investigation into the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie.

In cases like these, the public expects investigators to quickly examine video, identify vehicles, reconstruct movements, locate witnesses, analyze digital evidence, and share accurate information across jurisdictional lines.

Those expectations will not disappear if New Bedford prohibits its police department from using the tools needed to meet those requirements.

We must also consider the message we're sending to people who intend to commit crimes.

Last Wednesday the 2nd at 5:30 PM at Van Buren Street and Beacon Street, we had a shots fired incident where 6 9mm casings and a part of a firearm were recovered.

This last Sunday the 6th at 1:40 AM on Princeton Street and Ashley Boulevard, we had a shots fired incident where more than 20 rounds were fired.

Detectives collected 17 9mm casings and 2.45 caliber casings from the scene.

Today at 3:30 PM, we had a shots fired on Chestnut Street.

Casings have been located and the investigation is currently ongoing.

Detectives are investigating these incidents without ALPR technology and are already noticing a difference.

I do not suggest that removing ALPR cameras would automatically cause crime to increase, or that every offender carefully researches municipal technology policies, but this is 3 shots fired incidents in 1 week, which is not normal for us.

Offenders do assess risk.

Most use stolen vehicles, rental cars, counterfeit plates, converted plates, masks, and indirect routes specifically because they are trying to avoid identification.

The perceived likelihood of being identified and apprehended does matter.

Publicly announcing that New Bedford has eliminated technology capable of identifying vehicles connected to shootings, robberies, burglaries, stolen cars, and abductions may reduce that perceived risk.

It may also encourage offenders from outside the city to believe they can enter, commit a crime and leave New Bedford with less chances of being identified.

Decisions like these also carry accountability in both directions.

Seattle's mayor faced significant public backlash at the recent effort that specifically cited— at the recent recall effort that specifically cited her decisions concerning the deactivation of public safety cameras in the name of privacy concerns.

After the Bite of Seattle shooting, the chief was forced to resign, and the mayor continues to face public pressure and scrutiny.

This past weekend, there were several additional shootings in the city that leaders are answering questions about as we speak.

This demonstrates that elected officials may ultimately be asked to explain not only why technology was used, but why potentially useful evidence was deliberately made unavailable by removing a tool that could have been useful in solving a crime.

If New Bedford completely eliminates ALPR, we should be prepared to look at the family of a murder victim, an abducted child, or a missing vulnerable adult and explain that the city once possessed the lawful investigative capacity— capability, but chose to give it up.

I cannot— I cannot promise that ALPR will solve every crime or locate every missing person, but I also do not want to tell a grieving family that evidence that might have helped was unavailable because we rejected regulation in favor of abolition.

I have proposed a shorter retention period Documented reasonable suspicion standard for investigative searches, a written legitimate law enforcement purpose requirement, mandatory training, monthly professional standards audits, public transparency reports, daily review of locally mandated hot lists, restrictions on outside access, clear prohibited uses, contractual data prohibitions, and serious disciplinary consequences up to termination and referral to POST, prosecutors, or other appropriate authorities.

I also initiated a public feedback process because decisions of this important— importance should consider as many voices as possible.

Residents who support the technology, oppose it, or support it only with additional restrictions should all have the opportunity to be heard.

The choice before the council should not be characterized as privacy versus public safety.

We have an obligation to provide both.

This technology should not be accepted on blind trust, but neither should it be rejected out of fear.

It should be governed.

The reality is that it was implemented without adequate safeguards.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask that we work together to establish enforceable municipal automated license plate reader privacy and transparency standards that preserve an important public safety tool while placing clear, meaningful, and transparent limits on its use.

While that may not be the easiest course, I do believe it is the responsible one.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chief.

Any questions of the Chief?

Councilor Chiquette.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief, I know you walked into this situation and this was not of your own doing, so please realize I have nothing but the utmost respect for you.

You're a stand-up guy, and in my opinion, you went out of your way to do what you said you were going to do.

Which was to do an audit after we had that initial meeting.

So again, being that you walked into this, my question is, how long ago, to your knowledge, was FLOC instituted in the city of New Bedford?

How long ago?

So late 2024 is when it— is when it was start— it started being used here.

Okay.

Are there any operating procedures or regulatory manuals for the department that were instituted and put on file at the time it was put in?

So there was a policy.

Um, it look— it looks to me like, uh, you know, that it's like a boilerplate policy for ALPR.

A lot of times vendors will give that to you.

Axon gives it for body-worn cameras.

Uh, and there was actually an additional step of an MOU that each person that has a login had to sign.

And it was pretty clear.

It did have prohibitions in it.

And it was signed.

But the audits weren't being conducted in a way that— it was more of supervisory review, I would call it, than an audit.

There was not any kind of full auditing of the system.

The training, although Flock as a company provides training, when you get a login, they send you links to training.

The training wasn't mandatory.

So while there are— there is a policy, you know, the policy, like for example on audits, just says this technology should routinely be audited.

That's the whole section on auditing.

So there is a policy, but it doesn't go far enough.

Sure.

I agree.

In your prior capacity as the chief of the Hartford, Connecticut Police Department, Did you guys have similar technology?

Yeah.

I mean, so I remember as a patrolman, we got LPR technology.

I believe the vendor was Ricor at the time.

And what it was initially used for is they would load all of the people with that owed taxes and had like excess parking tickets that were not paid into a system.

And as the cars would drive around, they weren't mounted up on poles.

They were actually— you would drive around and it was these, these big mailbox-looking ugly cameras that were on cruisers.

You can Google them.

And as you drove around, if an alert popped up that someone had, you know, an excess amount of unpaid parking tickets or whatever, they would call in a boot and they would boot the car.

The car.

Yeah.

Um, that was my first introduction to the technology, probably close to 20 years ago, uh, 15 years ago, I'd say.

Um, we evolved it from there.

We did use— we did use— we did not use Flock.

We used Record there.

Um, but there are, uh, ALPR readers in Hartford.

We have a real-time crime center there that's pretty advanced.

So there's, there's more of them than there are here.

Different vendor, though.

And when you were over there, when you were running Hartford Police Department, did you have regulations in place?

And I'm assuming that when you were running it over there, you had control of what was going on and you had better tighter restrictions and regulations than what is currently here?

Yeah, short answer is yes.

I mean, but with, like I said, if you ever were to go or Google the Real-Time Crime Center in Hartford, there was a lot of technology at use there, and we had experts that just dealt in that technology.

You know, here it's not as big and it's not as prevalent, that technology, so you don't have, you know, kind of experts that deal in that technology.

It's That's one of the reasons I brought in Deb Peel, was to be somebody, a civilian, that has better experience with technologies and oversight and things like that.

We had civilians in Hartford as well.

But that was like a bigger system of technology that was maintained, I think, out of necessity, with a lot closer eye.

Okay.

Well, thank you for being, you know, curt on that.

I guess that, that's all for me for now.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilor.

Councilor Bergl.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief Doty, thank you for being here again tonight.

I just wanted to clarify, I don't know if I wasn't— when you were talking about trainings, was that just on the audit tool that there were trainings on?

No.

When you— so when you The process was, if an officer was interested in being a FLOC user, there was a process where they went to a lieutenant in Major Crimes, and they had to meet with that lieutenant, get the policy, sign the MOU, and when they signed the MOU, that lieutenant would create a username and password, and they would get that by email.

When you logged on to that as a user, you would get access to— I think it's called FLOC Academy, which is the training tool.

There's, I think, 3 videos in there that show you how to use the tool.

But for whatever reason, you know, the policy says that you have to do the training, but the MOU doesn't.

So there was a disconnect there of whether you had to take the training.

Whose policy though?

FLOC's policy or— The police department's policy.

Okay.

So there was an actual policy.

Yes.

And that wasn't related to the audit tool.

That was related to the use of FLOC.

Flock by our police officers.

And you stated— I did hear you say it wasn't mandatory, correct?

Okay, so essentially they got their username, they logged in, they would get an email just saying, hey, if you want to use this, you can get this education at Flock Academy.

Didn't have to actually go get educated on it.

They could go run wild and free on there doing searches without actually doing this academy.

Yes, they could.

Okay.

So the only training tool was a self-guided training tool from this Flock Academy?

Yes.

Okay.

And I'm assuming this training— it wasn't mandatory, so it's probably not something that would come up as a reminder to, to redo every time.

Okay.

Who, I guess, You're saying the police department had a policy, and I— this is challenging because you've already said you weren't here when it was implemented.

Was it the chief that prior to you that implemented it, or was it the mayor?

Technically, the chief did.

Okay.

Like I said, it looks to me like, you know, when you get some of this, this technology that's been around for a long time, there are like vetted policies out there that they do provide a useful groundwork for foundation for the policy, but I always find it's important to go in there and make it, you know, New Bedford specific, or back in the day Hartford specific.

So I don't know where this policy came from.

It was issued by the chief at the time, you know, and I think it definitely, you know, whether, whether the, the progression of the technology has mandated that policy to get better or whether it should have been better at the time, the bottom line is it needs to be better.

It needs to be better now.

We need a stronger policy.

We need training that's specific to not just how to conduct a search, but, but what happens when you misuse it and all the elements around the safeguards that I'm proposing that training should be.

And it should be annual training.

You shouldn't just get it once and then be done.

It should be— it should— for you to get a new username and password, you should have to go through the training again.

Should be mandatory.

Correct.

I like that word.

Was the police department the sole department in charge of implementation and administration.

It looks— again, I wasn't here, but it certainly looks that way.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, so I would say that IT had no, um, involvement whatsoever.

No, I think we heard from IT last night.

Yeah, as far as I know, they had no involvement.

So yeah, that's my segue here.

So I asked, uh, obviously Director John Costigan, because stupidly, I guess, I would assume it made sense to me.

Our information technology department would be involved.

I asked him, Mr. Chairman, not to be here tonight because I didn't want to waste his time.

So I do apologize to any of my colleagues if they had questions for him, but he wouldn't have been able to answer any questions for us other than he wasn't involved in it.

I guess that brings my question to, would you think that IT should be consulted in this?

Yes.

Yeah, I mean, IT as a broader, you know, citywide IT really is responsible for the security Making sure people can't breach the system and things like that.

So you should at the very least have the technology vetted through them to make sure that— now I will say that generally law enforcement technology has to meet some pretty strict regulations when it comes to security and especially cybersecurity protections.

But you should still have somebody from here have an eye on it for sure.

So I assume there was no actual cybersecurity assessment done?

As far as I know.

Again, I wasn't here for the whole process, but as far as I know and listening, if he was here in 2024, he'd be the best person to ask that.

I think he said he had nothing to do with it.

So one thing you'll learn about me, I never ask a question that I don't know the answer to already.

And so I'll tell you right now that that didn't happen.

So I just want to point out the fact that all these policies or lack thereof that the administration has put forward didn't happen.

It's not happening.

I'm glad that it is happening now, and I want to thank you for that.

And I appreciate the work that you've put in being forced to have to do this work.

But I mention all this now publicly because obviously, as you were here last night, we're doing the work of trying to put an ordinance together to make sure that something like this never happens again.

And we're obviously being criticized, as I knew we would, from the administration because he thinks that we're rushing this.

But this policy, or not, again, lack thereof, I think the implementation of this was rushed.

And that's why I'm thankful and hopeful that this body will recognize that that's why we need to put these safeguards in to make sure the work that you're doing, which again, I'm appreciative of, happens and make sure that the administration sticks to their word that they will follow through.

And I believe that you will do that work.

Other— I don't have any other questions for you because I really don't want to put you through having to answer for the failures of the Mitchell administration when you weren't here for that.

But I hope that you don't get any pushback from them, and I hope they continue doing the work that you're doing.

And that's all, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Bergl.

Councilor Ian Abram.

Thank you, Chairman.

Good evening, Chief.

Good to see you.

I'm just wondering, have you had— maybe you haven't— have you had any conversations with your local colleagues in your industry?

The chief in Acushnet, the chief in Dartmouth, both have suspended FLOCK or have canceled FLOCK outright.

This seems to have— this issue seems to be transcending political lines.

I mean, you have in Acushnet a pretty much all-Republican select board that said take them down.

In Dartmouth, you have more of a left-leaning Democrat board.

They said take them down.

Just curious, have you spoken with your colleagues as to their rationale after talking to townspeople, the select boards?

And I'm just curious what those conversations were, if you had them.

Yes.

And I'm not going to speak for them, but I think a lot of it is, is, is just kind of what we're doing in different variations.

Their contract was up and our contract does end on November 12th.

As well.

I wasn't— I was transposing numbers, 11-12 or 12-11 last night, but ours ends on November 12th.

And, you know, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these folks, you know, either engaging with different vendors, the same vendor with different contracts, but I won't speak for them.

But yes, there's a much broader conversation not just going on in Bristol County or Massachusetts, but even across the country about how we can use this technology.

I mean, there's just If it was not— if it wasn't a vital tool in the work that law enforcement does, I think people would have a much easier time just kind of walking away from it.

But it has a lot of legitimate uses.

I think it might have been a little bit more than the contract expiring.

I heard the comments from the chairman of the Akushnet Select Board and one of his colleagues.

It's a lot of questions surrounding this and what what the townspeople feel.

But, and I know, listen, I'm sure, you know, I don't want you to divulge a private conversation.

I just wanted you to see it at a 30,000-foot view, kind of what the rationale was or what was going on.

Because I've heard the narrative that, well, if the surrounding towns have it and New Bedford has them down, it's a green light to commit crimes in New Bedford.

But if all the towns around don't have it either, I don't know if that argument holds water.

I don't know, because the, the What we're hearing too is the town of Fair Haven has a town meeting coming up soon.

It looks like the townspeople are going to vote to take them down in Fair Haven as well.

So I don't know what's going on.

I just— I, you know, you're in contact with law enforcement professionals every single day, not just locally but regionally and nationally.

So I'm just curious what, you know, other colleagues are saying nationally besides even locally, the, you know, the Chiefs Association, how you're all grappling around this.

Um, and you alluded to it, right?

The FLOC representative couldn't come here tonight because there's several other meetings that they're pulled from.

Oh yeah, well, that's a— that tells me there's a problem if, if they're in such high demand, if there's so much controversy for all these meetings.

So obviously people have questions and concerns.

Yeah, I don't think there's any question that, you know, that, that we, we cannot have FLOC in the way that it's sitting now.

Like I said, that contract expires in November.

You know, one way or another, you know, regardless of what we decide here as a community, you know, we've got to look at this technology differently and we have to implement it the correct way.

We've got to pretty much start from scratch, which is why I shut it down so we can do that.

The other thing that I will say was interesting because one of the first kind of national news stories that I saw about, about flock technology was from Killingly, Connecticut, which I have some experience with.

It doesn't have a police department.

It's covered by the state police.

I don't know why they got Flock in the first place, but a small town like that may not get as much use out of a system like Flock than, you know, a medium to larger size city where your, you know, your throughways are traveled differently and it may be more useful.

So I think each community really has to look at this independently to see if the juice is worth the squeeze and can you regulate it properly and all those.

So what, you know, kind of what Dartmouth and Fair Haven— I mean, if no one around us have it, Um, you know, that's a consideration, right?

But, um, I, I'm more concerned with here and how we use it and, and what, what the benefits are of it and what the risks are of it here in New Bedford.

Well, similar to what the Ward 1 councilor said, I do appreciate you coming here.

It was a late night last night.

You've been fully transparent and open with me and all of us, whether through phone, email, these meetings.

Um, and, and, you know, your suspension right now while we figure this out, whether it's through this ordinance or through other regulatory processes.

I just want to praise your stewardship on this because you could have said, hey, look, we're going to keep them up, we have a problem, we'll, we'll, we'll deal with some of the people who may have caused infractions or violated, but we're still going to keep them up.

You didn't do that, so I give you credit for taking a pause.

So I just wanted to praise you for that and thank you for, for working with us in the community.

It is important.

And you were at that meeting, uh, in Pulaski, and I know it was a little So it was loud, but people were, were concerned.

And, you know, you heard the concerns, and that's— that kind of led us to all of this.

So I appreciate you being here, you know, uh, again for maybe another late night.

So I'm sure I may have other questions, but thank you, Chief.

Chairman, I'll yield.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilor.

Let, let the record show that Councilor of Ward 3, Councilor Oliver, and City Council President Ferreira has joined us.

Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Chief.

Um, just to reiterate some things, uh, the, the free rein that a colleague of mine, uh, alluded to, that was— that is no longer— it's suspended, but that's no longer a practice, right?

Yeah, I mean, even, you know, like I said, I think, um, you know, I could have put out my version of a, of a policy with the changes that I thought were a good idea, but I don't know if that's not just kind of repeating, you know, what, what we did initially.

So the, the ideas that I put out there are suggestions, and this is the time for people to make additional suggestions.

I'm getting some from internal, from the police department, getting some from, you know, the, from the public.

But there is no chance that, that this technology would ever come back here under the same conditions as it left.

You know, from restricting the number of people, I don't think we need 100 officers out there.

With usernames and passwords to access this system when, like I said last night, we have a 24/7 dispatch system where we can kind of access that, right?

So limiting the number of people makes the audits easier and, and, and makes the chances for misuse much less.

So there's a lot of changes that have to be made.

Hopefully the ones I suggested and hopefully some additional ones.

Yeah.

Okay, good.

So there's no intention of ever going back to everybody gets a username and password.

Correct.

That's good.

How restrictive are you really looking to make it?

I know that we were talking about sergeants and lieutenants maybe, or— Yeah, I mean, listen, I think it's a good tool for detectives.

Again, the, the, you know, the average, you know, patrol officer out there, it's a tool for them too.

But, but they can access those searches through dispatch, through the supervisor.

That's it.

We constantly have a supervisor in dispatch that could kind of manage that.

You know, again, it's, it's an important tool that, that I have to be, and I think we as a law enforcement community have to be flexible with about what restrictions go into place.

You know, it's— we're not really in a position to draw a line in the sand and take a hardline stance here.

This system's been abused here and other places.

So, I mean, my recommendation is, is reasonable suspicion, because I think, you know, if you can stop somebody and do, you know, do a pat-down, do a Terry stop, Um, that that'd be a good standard to be able to use this technology based on how intrusive or non-intrusive it is.

If we have to raise that to a probable cause standard because that's where we find common ground, then we do that.

Um, but the bottom line is that, you know, when we need to break the glass and we really need to find a car, uh, what's important to me is that we have this resource.

And also what's important to me is that the public believes that their information is is safe.

How, um, with the misuse, you talked about that.

We, we know that there has been some documented misuse.

How does the, the department, your department, look to continue to handle misuse?

Is it a no tolerance?

What are we, what are we looking at as far as disciplinary action?

I mean, every, every specific case, uh, you know, has facts behind, behind the case, right?

So in, in the, in the era of like using law enforcement information for public or for private gain, my policy is zero tolerance.

I'm a recommender here.

It's a term I wish I knew before I signed on.

A weak chief.

I don't necessarily like that term.

I wasn't that in Connecticut.

In Connecticut, I hired, I fired, like I had that control.

And obviously I answered to a mayor.

But, but here, anything over a 5-day suspension suspension goes, my recommendation goes to the mayor, right?

But when it comes to using law enforcement technology that we exclusively have access to to do this public safety job, that's a big trust issue for me.

Violations of that, if you're using it for personal gain, that is a zero tolerance for me.

That's just how I see it.

And vendors like Flock and others, they— I mean, we might have like retention Do they have retention, um, guidelines in place, or do they keep that information forever?

Do you know?

Well, so that's something that we have to look at in the contract.

Like, my question is, like, okay, if we say it deletes after 7 days or 14 days, right?

Um, from everything that I can, that I can tell, that's what happens, right?

Um, but I think we have to make sure of that in the con— in the legal contract that we have with them.

And that's going to be a matter of— and that's where this working group would come in handy would be to sit down and go through those contracts and the different vendors and what they promise and what they don't and what they say about where the data goes and who gets to see it.

I think that's all really important.

I'm kind of intentionally not going out and doing that on my own because I think, you know, that we should have an inclusive process to do that.

And you have— you've said here in multiple places that you think you feel that this is a technology that is beneficial, but with great, you know, power comes great responsibility.

And I, I, I just don't— yeah, I just don't want to just throw it all away.

I think we can operate in a manner in which we can find an operable middle ground.

Where we are respecting the privacy of our residents and making our city safer.

Do you agree?

Yeah.

Like I said, I mean, that's my goal.

You know, I do see this as a tool that, that is, that is solving significant crimes and finding endangered people and doing things that are great.

It is also a privacy concern.

So as, as much as I can, that's my goal, is to strike that balance.

But as in the position that I'm in, Ensuring public safety when it comes to crime and disorder and things like that is one of my key responsibilities.

Right.

So also civil liberties and protecting constitutional rights.

So I'm right there in the middle.

If I didn't think that we could implement this with checks and balances that would work, I wouldn't— I wouldn't recommend implementing it.

I don't think we have explored that either here or even nationally.

To look at what those kind of restrictions would do.

Um, there are other technologies that have far more vital information, CJIS and things like that, um, that have safeguards that have worked for many years that have not seen abuse like this because there is better guidelines, better guardrails, more, you know, more, more, uh, stricter, uh, punishments, I guess, for lack of a better term.

Um, so I, I do think that it's, it's at least worth us trying to do that.

Okay, well, thank you for your, your willingness to continue to, uh, workshop what, if any, um, this technology is going to look like in the city of New Bedford.

Uh, right now I yield, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilor.

Let the record show that Councilor Baptiste from Ward 4 has joined us here.

I'm looking at, um, Councilor Pereira.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief, So I apologize.

I was listening on my way in, but I apologize for my lateness.

A few questions that I don't believe were asked yet from what I was listening to.

So you kind of alluded to part of it, but— and this might be a question that we have to continue to investigate, but how do we monitor Flock or another company to make sure that they're holding their end of the contract?

And there isn't, um, any— anything on their end behind the scenes, uh, not fulfilling their part?

It's a difficult question because it's their system.

I get that.

It is, because I think we've got to really sit down, you know, if— again, if, if that's the direction that we're looking to go, I think we have to sit down with them.

And that's a, that's a good opportunity to, to Councilor Burgos' point, to bring in IT to find out, like, what, what What does auditing the company look like?

And, you know, they have said that, you know, and they did design a public-facing reporting tool, you know, but this is a technology company.

And I know there's a lot of distrust in technology companies.

And there's, you know, there is risks associated with gathering information and having it in a cloud or in a technology format.

But I think we have to look into what that looks like.

How do we audit them to make sure they're doing what they say they're going to do and make sure that data is not going Um, anywhere else.

The other thing too is that, you know, if your data is going other places and suddenly you have, you know, for example, I know one of the concerns is federal agencies, right?

If you suddenly have federal agencies that are knocking on your door looking for certain license plates, you know, that might be a clue.

Um, so I think we've just got to be really, you know, uh, really diligent about keeping our eyes on that and making sure that we're contracting with companies that over time have shown that they can be trusted, you know, with what's going on right now.

I'm not convinced that Flock is that company, but I'm certainly willing to, you know, sit down and look at it.

Yeah, I definitely have concerns.

You know, obviously, I think most people would have concerns with the selling of data to other companies.

That happens, you know, with any technology.

And I think from social media, Facebook and Meta, and to iPhone, to Apple products, or Samsung products and the reselling of our private data, I think, is a concern we share across the board with every data that— with every technology that we have.

So I think in this case, you know, it's very important to ensure that, you know, they're being used properly.

And I think you share that with me.

What do you see as a timeline for developing a working group, create— starting to create policy, and implementation of any of these policies?

Outside of any, any ordinance that might get passed.

But what is your timeline going into the original plans that you shared?

So the, so the forward-facing questions to get public input were intended to be left up until Friday, until this Friday, for so— for a full week.

We'll see what those responses look like, may extend that.

Already started to think about and discuss, you know, who we might want to see on the working group, members of council, you know, representatives from both the business community, residents, members of the police department.

I think it's important that they have a voice in this too.

They're the ones that, you know, are using this technology and have experience in the use of it.

I don't use FLOC.

I've never run a search on it.

It's just not— I don't have time to do that.

But, you know, I think that there's got to be some conversations about that too and who's on this.

You know, you don't want to make such a cumbersome working group that we don't get anything done, but you want a good— you want a good representation.

Yeah.

So, oh, so, so like, you know, I would say, you know, there's— this is also a process that's going on too that's kind of key to like what we do.

So, you know, part of it is, is kind of this evolution and seeing what, you know, last night was for me good information to see the, you know, the back and forth and who's for it and why.

And like listening to that is important too.

So, you know, I'm hoping— I mean, like I said, I'm hoping that we can figure this out within, you know, 1 to 2 months, I think, is reasonable.

Um, you know, again, we have, um, you know, it is a tool that is suspended.

Um, and, you know, my goal would be to get it useful as soon as I can, but not rush it.

As has already been mentioned by several people here, we don't want to get it wrong again either.

Um, so I would say 1 to 2 months is a reasonable time— time frame.

Okay.

In, in Right now, let's just use right now as an example.

Things might change as you develop policy internally and ordinances that might get drafted.

But right now, who would conduct or who did conduct the audit of the system previously?

Who would— what is there a division in the department that would conduct that?

Professional Standards Unit is the one that's doing the current audit.

And I think they're really doing an impressive job, you know, from When you look at a 110-page internal affairs investigation, the fact that they had to find that misconduct in an audit, and I think it was 31 or 32 days from the day I ordered the audit till the day we announced, you know, discipline, recommended discipline.

I mean, that's a pretty, that's a pretty aggressive timeline.

They've really been doing an incredible job of the business that, you know, and I think they recognize it's important.

So I think that's why they're, I think that's why they're, they're they're so, they're so dedicated to it.

But they're the ones that do it.

Okay.

Do you believe that the Professional Standards Division has the capacity to continuously audit moving forward?

Yes, with all the restrictions that I said.

Minimal— without 100 people running plates, without, you know, without— with, with a reasonable standard threshold, right?

So you're not gonna get your— somebody pulls a car over and just runs it as a matter of course.

You know, was that lawful up to the point when I, when I shut it off, it was.

Is that the best use of the system?

It's not.

So I definitely think that they will be able to do the audits on a monthly basis once we restrict the use of the technology.

Okay.

And then another question I have is, do you know, is there any precedent to having an outside organization like the District Attorney's Office also assisting in quarterly audits or or something to further— a civilian organization like the DA's office to assist the department in further investigations?

I don't know of that ever happening on a technology audit like this.

I've brought them in for property room audits to audit your evidence to make sure that there's nothing missing and that everything's there.

So there is precedent to have outside entities come in and audit, whether those be other law enforcement agencies.

Again, I've seen the DA, I've seen the state police, I've seen those.

Or if there's, you know, an independent auditor, um, you know, and I think that, again, I think that using, looking, having them come in and look at the monthly audits done by professional standards units and then having them maybe do like, you know, an arbitrary pull of 50 or 25 searches would be a good yearly or even maybe biannually, uh, thing to do.

We just got to identify who we have trust in to do that.

Exactly, exactly.

But so Maybe not technology-specific, but stuff like that has occurred with state police or DA or something?

Yes.

Okay.

And then, um, in regards to your results from the questions that you're receiving, um, from the public that you might extend, but the deadline right now is Friday, are you planning on compiling that and making those results public?

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

All right, very good.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Um, I want to remind everyone there is no hats worn in the chambers, so I'm going to ask you to remove your hat.

Or you can leave the chambers.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Roy.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, Chief.

Good evening.

How you doing?

Um, we, I, we had asked as a full council, I think it was a motion by the council from Ward 1, for you, for the city or for the police department to wrap black bags around the flog cameras because there's a public trust issue with the vendor.

Has that hasn't occurred?

No, we, we reached out to Flock again.

This is a company that's being inundated with a lot of questions and issues about covering the technology.

It's leased, but they have not been able to kind of get out there and do anything like that.

They have given us permission to do it, and we have subsequently taken 2 of the Flock stationary ALPR cameras down and Oh yeah, and those 2 were cameras that we had— even if we reimplement the system, those are cameras that we would not put back up in the same place.

One was just far too close to a residence, and one was on private property.

I don't think they should be on private property either.

So 2 of them have been taken down.

Flock has given us the permission to wrap them in bags.

I also have Professional Standards Unit— remember, the entire system is shut down.

However, Professional Standards has access to the system.

Not— it's not running any plates, not doing anything, so that they can conduct their audit.

They have to be able to see the data to conduct the audit.

So we have had them intermittently check to see if they can see anything.

If they can— if the plate is pulling anything in, you can see that, and there's nothing there.

So that's why— so that's why you're not covering up, because the auditors need to, and the investigators?

No, no.

That's not what I said.

Nope, that's not what I said.

We reached out to Flock about covering them up.

Yep.

Flock is not going to be able to come and do that in a timely manner.

So we did get permission that we can cover them up ourselves, which, which we can do.

But we've got to coordinate that.

Like, do I have a, you know, deputy chief climb up on a ladder?

I mean, we've got to coordinate with DPI and, and things like that.

So that's not something I have a problem doing.

You know, but again, you mentioned you took 2 cameras down as well.

Yes.

Um, one of the cameras you took down was on Rockdale.

Yes, near Allen Street.

Just a coincidence that's in— that it's in front of the lead organizer for all the folks here that have been rallying?

It's not a coincidence.

It was this— one of the spear— one of the initial complaints I got was from that individual about that house and how close the camera was.

To that house.

I went out there and it is, it is obnoxiously close to the front door of the house.

Whether this technology looks at the house, it doesn't.

It's pointed out into the street because that's where it gets the license plate information from.

But I think it was a valid concern.

So that was a camera that was going to be moved regardless of how this shakes out.

If the camera goes back up, it'll go back up somewhere else.

We looked at the other stationary FLIR cameras and one was on private property.

That one was also taken down because it won't remain on private property even if we were to reinstitute it.

None of our cameras are on private property besides that one.

That was the only camera— the flock cameras?

No, I've seen flock cameras on like in big box, uh, you know, parking.

Those aren't ours.

Not obviously, we don't have any big really big box stores, but outside of New Bedford, and I was just curious if we have any, um, arrangements with private property owners.

Okay.

Um, How did we find the anomalies in the anomalous searches?

How did we find, you know, some of these— that some of these searches, you know, were irregular?

So for the 2026 data, we had the audit assistance tool that pointed us to any anomalies that it detected.

And it was very good.

It was very accurate.

It's the one that pointed us to the 2 areas of misconduct.

It's the Flock.

It's the Flock tool.

It's correct.

It's an audit assistance tool within Flock, and it has all kinds of ways, whether it's, you know, a detective that's running, you know, motor vehicle searches, which would normally be done by a patrol officer, whether it's a patrol officer running a, you know, a robbery homicide search, which would normally be done by a detective, whether it's repeated searches of the same plate.

I don't, I don't pretend to understand the technology.

What I know is it gave us 83 anomalies just for the 2026 data that we then went in and individually looked at.

And we're, and we're still doing that audit because prior to 2026 and 2025 and the end of 2024, it is a fully manual audit.

We are looking at every search.

So we're not going to rely strictly on the company to— No, no.

But that, but that tool was very helpful, I will say.

Um, I'm fine for now.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Carney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, thank you, Chief, for coming again tonight.

Um, uh, I just want to say that, um, our council president asked the questions that I wanted to ask him— ask you about, which was the policy and how far in the working group, and you answered all those questions.

So, um, I think that's it.

Um, and I just want to thank you for the due diligence that you're doing with the working group and with the community and getting this together.

You've already given me the timeline, which I was looking for.

And also, you did state that this is a valuable tool to the police department.

Yes, once we vet it and make sure everything's right.

And also that on the 12th, after the 12th, when Flock's gone, the contract, then you're going to put this working group together and look at other license plate reader technology companies?

Yeah, I hope to put the working group together ahead of that and just start looking at what's out there.

You know, we, by then, we will, I will have the, you know, the, all of the concerns that we've gathered, all the information that I've gathered from the the public meeting, from, you know, listening here, from talking to people in the community.

You know, it's like this is a pretty small city.

I run into a lot of people and the first thing I get asked is like, hey, what about that flock camera?

You know, my neighbors, my neighbors come over and I have, I have a doorbell camera.

So, you know, my neighbor who's an elderly gentleman said, is that one of those flock cameras?

No, it's just a doorbell camera.

But so I think, you know, bringing all that information to the working group is going to be important.

But I think we can start doing that work before the contract expires.

Yeah.

How many such companies do you know are out there?

I mean, the— like I said, in Hartford we had ReCore.

That one I'm familiar with.

I know Motorola does LPR.

I know Axon does LPR.

Obviously Flock.

You know, Flock was one of these kind of up-and-coming companies I do kind of vaguely remember because we were building up our real-time crime center in Hartford when they kind of came around and they were They were a company that kind of went out there and said, hey, if you test our system, we'll give it to you for free for a year.

That's how they ended up a pretty big company in a pretty short period of time.

And that's how a lot of companies do it.

Like, hey, if you're willing to take a risk, and then if you like it, just pay us the subscription fee.

And that's how a lot of these technology companies get in the door.

And like I said in the opening, if it's an emerging technology, if it's a technology you don't know much about, I don't know if you know about BolaWrap, right?

BolaWrap was this like Spider-Man-like thing that you, you, if somebody was running away from you, it was almost like a taser and you'd shoot it at their leg and it fired out this like wire that would wrap around their legs and trip them and knock them on the ground.

And they came to the Hartford Police Department.

I was the chief at the time and they showed us this thing and I'm like, there's just no way.

Like, and sure enough, that's a technology that didn't really take off.

There's tech and, and though it It takes police departments, though, to look at it and say, you know what, we'll test and evaluate it and then no thanks.

Or we'll test and evaluate it and we see a usefulness but change it.

Or we'll test and evaluate it and, and it's great.

You know, there's those ones that kind of shoot out things to stop pursuit, stop vehicle pursuits, right?

It goes in and like grabs a hold of the tires.

You know, there's a lot of people out there, entrepreneurs that are trying to, you know, they're trying to make money.

You know, making either law enforcement safer.

I mean, look at Axon, from, from there and invent— inventing the taser to now the body cameras.

So I don't know every company out there, but I think it's a good— it's a good thing for us to explore.

Right.

So you will be inviting IT into this so they can review the technology, whatever?

That's great.

So I know that all of us are here for public safety and the safety of our residents, and we also want to maintain the privacy of So thank you again for the due diligence.

My questions have been answered, and I'll yield.

Thank you very much, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Baptiste.

Thank you.

Part of my tardiness, had some other things that was personal stuff I had to do today.

Sorry.

11/12, the ordinance is up.

Do you plan on renewing it before then?

No.

I mean, not the ordinance, the contract.

I know what you mean.

The contract.

Are you?

No.

No.

All right.

So, and the audit company, who was the audit company again that you said that did the previous audit that you had?

So the audit assistance tool that's helping with the current audit is within the FLOC infrastructure.

So it is from FLOC.

If the audit from the outside that I referenced before was like the district attorney's office and like the state police that could come in and do like an independent audit, I don't know of a company that But you said you had an ongoing audit right now.

Professional standards within the department is doing that audit.

All right.

And who ordered that?

Me.

All right.

I just wanted to make sure who's doing that.

So, and you don't have no plan on renewing the contract with Flock as of right now?

No.

And like I said, even if we did come to a consensus that this is the right technology and that, you know, that we would, we would need to put more safeguards in that contract.

So in its current form, I would never renew it.

No.

So just because you wouldn't renew it, could the mayor renew it?

Oh, I don't know.

That's a legal question.

I don't want to throw Eric Jakes under the bus, but usually most of those contracts I have to sign and then the mayor has to sign.

So I don't have an answer to that one.

I just— because I know that he can, you know what I'm saying?

He has a little bit of— I can tell you, I guess he has a little bit of power, right, in the city?

I mean, he is my boss, but I can tell you that in all my conversations with him, you know, we're We're on the same page.

He's, he's been, uh, you know, receptive to everything from me shutting it down to me putting out the, you know, the, the public working group to all those things.

Um, you know, he hired me to do a job and, and I've had nothing but, but support from him at this point.

So I don't know what he can and can't do.

I just, I don't see that happening.

Well, at least he sees eye to eye with somebody because he don't work with anybody in this room.

So that— I yield.

Thank you very much, Councilor.

Anyone else on there first?

Seeing none, Councilor Bergl.

Thank you.

Uh, we don't need to call up Solicitor Jakes.

I'll answer for you, and I'll answer for him.

Um, the mayor signs the contracts.

He, he's the mayor.

And as you pointed out, a new term that you learned, just like strong mayor, weak council format, strong mayor, weak chief format.

So I will answer for you.

You will not sign that contract.

He can and will do that if he sees fit and he chooses to do so.

And that's why I want to bring that up and mention that publicly for my colleagues who keep mentioning that this— there's no urgency for why we need to put these safeguards in place for an administration that will tell you that this is a weak chief when we know he's not a weak chief, just like we know this is not a weak council.

And I know that, you know, you're not a weak chief.

And again, I'll reiterate, you're doing great work.

And I want to make sure that this is why we need to make sure that these safeguards are not just something we talk about, but is in writing.

Because someone who likes to talk about how strong they are, they have to prove how strong they are unless they're held accountable.

And that's why we need to put something in writing.

I just want to reiterate that.

That's all.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Abramowicz, second.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chief, does Flock know they're in trouble with us?

That's an interesting way of putting it.

They're on notice, you know, from us asking to cover them, to asking it from us, asking them to take them down.

They— and they up to this point, with the exception of not being able to get here, they did come to the, you know, the public forum that was a little bit earlier.

You know, I listen, it's not hard to see that they're taking a lot of— they have to deal with a lot right now.

And they're not any bigger a company today as they were before.

Um, so I would say that they, they know that, they know that they've got issues in a lot of places, including here.

Yeah.

I would assume they have retention specialists on the case, right?

Hey, what can we do to keep you around?

And we'll give you a special deal on the contract and we'll hook you up and special pricing, right?

Things like that.

I mean, I, I've dealt with a lot of vendors and I will only say that, you know, they are not, um, they have really never been a pain in the neck vendor to deal with.

Um, they're fairly, they're fairly open.

This audit tool they didn't develop overnight.

Um, they had— they were— they had that, you know, it was already developed in June.

They showed us how to use it, you know, to a degree.

You know, they've certainly been helpful in, in some of— in all the questions that we've had anyway.

All right, Chief, thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on this second?

Any objection?

Uh, sorry, Councilor Oliver.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh, Chief Doty, I think it was mentioned last night night, uh, but I don't think there was a direct ask.

It was, um, it was you were going to look over the ordinance.

Um, is, is there a way that you could provide this body with kind of like your synopsis of that?

Yeah, that was my plan.

I've sent, I've sent you folks a few emails.

I just wanted to put that on the record because it wasn't a direct ask.

No, but that was my plan, was to kind of go through it and, you know, um, you know, give you, give you kind of what I thought.

And you're still good with 7 days or 6 days now or whatever it is?

Yeah, I think I said a week, but I think Council President said the 24th, so I may take advantage of an extension.

We'll see, it depends on the weekend goes.

Well, there's, there's some folks that think that there's this burning urgency, so if you could get it as soon as possible.

I, I will.

Thank you.

It is unfortunately, it is tops on my list.

Thank you, that's all.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on this second?

Seeing none, any objection from the chair?

Thank you, Chief.

Again, thank you for being here.

You've taken some intense questioning from my colleagues.

My intention was to bring you in here to address this issue.

You weren't here when FLOC was instituted, but I also knew that this was a tool that was used by the department and by many departments in solving crime.

And as Public Safety Chair, I had to take that— I didn't have to, but I took the position of I wanted to hear about what was going to be put in place, how we were going to protect the civil rights of everyone that had concerns, how we were going to protect this department so that we could use this tool as a tool to solve crime.

Can you tell me, um, at this point you have not put together a rank and file that would be followed to use this at this point?

At this point, if I was in one of your offices and I needed to use that FLOCK system because of some crime or whatever, who do I go through at this point?

Right now?

Right now, the FLOCK system is not active.

So if it was, who would you have going through?

So again, I think that's something that this working group would look at and that we would look at.

But my, you know, my initial thoughts are on a 24/7 basis, something out of our communications division, whether those are the supervisors.

We always have a supervisor in communications that would have access to that.

Our investigative team, our sergeants, lieutenant in, in the detective division.

Um, but, you know, but I think it would be significantly limited.

How big of a working group are you looking to put together, sir?

I mean, it's, it's not exact.

I mean, we're— I'm bouncing ideas off of people of, of who might be good to have on there that we'd want to hear.

Again, I'd like to see, uh, some, some, you know, just members of the community.

I'd like to see business owner.

I'd like to see members of the department.

I'd like to see somebody or a couple of people from council.

I would like— as public safety chair, I would like to see at least a couple of my colleagues on there.

Yeah.

I mean, I think, I think the, you know, the working group they put together for the chiefs process was, was representative of a lot of different folks.

I mean, something similar to that, I guess, if I was going to put a comparison to it.

I guess it's premature to ask what I'm— I was looking for.

Seeing that you're going to put this working group together, because basically I was calling you in here to put a policy and procedure together to address this issue.

So the concerns that were coming from the general public, the concerns that may be coming from my colleagues or whatever, was to put something together that we could go to the books and, and this would be controlled.

Again, I don't— I believe that technology has to be recognized in this day and age.

As far as police work and public safety.

At the same time, we want to protect the people, but people also have to know that once you leave the front door, that is a public view anywhere.

I had a situation back— God bless his soul— Sergeant Silva was taking pictures on the corner of Grinnell and Purchase Street, and I had a mom call me up and tell me, what is that officer doing, and he has no right to do that.

And I had to tell her, yes, he does have the right to do that.

Your son is in public view.

Once you step out your front door, you're in public view.

Any camera can pick you up, just as it picks us up in the shopping centers or whatever.

So I think that at this point, it'd be premature to ask you.

My intentions were to do exactly what you're doing, exactly what you're doing, putting it together, putting rules and regulations, policies and procedures together.

That would be followed throughout the department.

And I appreciate that.

And what we'll do, if there is no further questions from my colleagues, if there's no questions from Attorney Jake, I will yield the floor at the moment and, um, and take any questions from— if you have any questions from legal counsel.

But I, I feel that there's no further we could go tonight because we don't have a plan of action, exactly what I was looking looking for, yet you haven't done that.

And thank you for not rushing that.

You could have rushed that and put something together that could appease some people and not the others.

I appreciate what you're doing, and what I'll look to do is table this evening and bring you back when we're ready to address the issue again and give the information that at least I was looking for.

Is there any questions further of the chief?

Seeing none, do you have any questions of legal counsel from the city?

Councilor Abril, you had your hand up.

Yeah, yes, Mr. Chairman, not of legal counsel but of someone from the New Bedford Police Union leadership.

But I'll yield if someone has a question for Mr. Jakes first.

But is there any questions for Attorney Jake?

Seeing none, Councilor Abril.

Lorenzo or Tony or somebody?

Thank you, Chief.

Good evening, sir.

Just for the record, your name?

Yes, sir.

Lorenzo Gonzalez.

Councilor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Officer Gonzalez.

Good to see you again.

Um, I had, I had raised this point on the council floor a few weeks ago.

I had asked it of the chief last night, but I wanted to get your response as the head of the New Bedford Police Union.

With the increase in technology and cameras and everything of the sort, do you from a labor perspective have concerns of what that's going to do?

Maybe not today, but maybe 10, 15, 20 years from now as technology gets better and better and better and increases more and more and more.

What does that do to manpower for the rank and file of the men and women that you represent?

I mean, because Let's face it, you don't pay health benefits for a robot or for a camera or machine.

You don't pay pension credits to a pension system for a robot or machine.

You don't pay salaries and wages for a robot or machine.

So I'd like to get your thought on that.

I would think you would have some concerns.

Okay, that's a valid point, but I will allude to what Chief Soto said earlier, where, for example, the flock camera system utilizes photographs of vehicles, photographs license plate, things of that nature.

At the end of the day, you still are going to need that human element in order to further investigate whether that vehicle was involved, whether the person in the photo was involved in that incident.

You know, we can't just simply rely on the cameras per se.

You still have to follow up with an investigative follow-through where that would require the human element to further on that investigation to determine whether that vehicle or person was or was not in fact involved in the incident.

I get the investigative piece, that makes total sense.

I'm referring to, alluding to the patrolling aspect, community policing, being in the neighborhoods.

Do you see any concerns about that?

Maybe not today, but let's— I mean, you might not be here at that point, I might not be in this room at that point, but let's think 15, 20, 25 years from now as technology gets better and better.

This could just be the tip of the iceberg, maybe.

I don't know.

I I'm asking you for a little bit of a crystal ball here, and I know that's unfair, but I'd like to get your thoughts on, on the patrolling aspect, maybe, or what that could mean.

As far as the patrolling aspect of it, I don't know.

You know, obviously I don't want to speak to 20 years from now.

I know we've all seen various different sci-fi movies where in the future now you've got robotics taking care of policing, things of that nature.

I don't— well, there are prototypes out there now because Again, at the end of the day, a computer cannot think, cannot react, cannot process the way a human being does.

You know, computers are not going to be able to process emotions, process different things.

To reach out to the community, you still need that person-to-person contact.

You still have to have that element.

If you lose that, I think that is where you could begin to lose the trust of the community, the trust of the department, and that relationship.

That, you know, has been built over the course of many years.

Well, I agree with you.

You know how I feel and we feel about what's going on with the minimum manning and the staffing, and you're losing men and women literally by the week.

And that's for another day.

But obviously you can't beat an actual human being.

And we agree on that.

And I agree on that.

And that was all I wanted to ask you about, to see what your thoughts were, because I had my, my thoughts.

I've spoken with some folks.

I asked the chief his opinion, but I wanted to get your thought as the leader of the union.

So, but keep up the great work, Lorenzo.

Thank you for all that you do.

I appreciate it, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Abreu.

Any other questions of the union?

Seeing none, thank you.

A motion is tabled, but before I do that, I would like to, um, remind you that, um, We'll do this as soon as, um, the chief has his plan all put together, and I'll bring him back.

Um, Councilor Bergl, do you have a problem with that?

We took both issues up together.

When I do call another public safety meeting, I will put both items on the agenda again and look more importantly to get FLOC in here.

I still have some questions for FLOC, and they're not here tonight, and we get an explanation why they're not here.

Um, wish they were here so we could ask some of them questions, but they're not here.

So that, that being said, I would look for a motion to table at this time.

So moved by Councilor Bergl, seconded by Councilor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the police department, Deputy Chief, Chief, City Solicitor, thank you very much.

The general public Thank you for your kind patience.

Motion to adjourn.

I'm in a hurry.

Motion to adjourn, Councilor Avril, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

This meeting is adjourned at 8:21.