The Select Board on Tuesday held a public forum to discuss the town’s recent decision to terminate its contract with Flock Safety after resident outcry about privacy concerns. It also focused more broadly on using surveillance technology responsibly in a way that balances safety concerns with civil liberty protections.

The use of Flock cameras has been under scrutiny nationwide in recent months. Hopkinton on Aug. 20 became one of several Massachusetts towns to cancel contracts with Flock Safety after town counsel found “statutory deficiencies” that violated state law.

Other towns making similar moves include Douglas, Bellingham and Auburn. The Stoughton Select Board voted on Sept. 8 to terminate its contract with Flock Safety.

Two Flock cameras were installed by the Hopkinton Police Department about five months ago  — one on Hayden Rowe Street and the other on West Main Street near Interstate 495. Two more were planned, interim Police Chief Scott van Raalten told the Select Board at its July 21 meeting. The cameras use artificial intelligence to track license plate numbers. Van Raalten stressed then that the cameras can be useful tools, shaving countless hours off investigations.

But they also can be used for unlawful searches. For example, a New Bedford police officer in August was suspended for using Flock camera data to track an ex-girlfriend.

Residents voice concerns

“I want to emphasize that tonight’s discussion is not simply about one vendor or one technology,” said chair Shahidul Mannan at the forum’s start. “It’s about how, as a community, we evaluate public safety and surveillance technologies responsibly.”

The resounding concern expressed by residents and board members was that the Select Board did not receive information from the HPD before the Flock cameras were installed. Some residents questioned the procurement process.

In July, van Raalten explained that the cameras were purchased with money returned to the department’s asset forfeiture fund. Therefore, the purchase did not use town money and did not have to be approved by the Select Board, he said.

“Again, the town faces issues with the Hopkinton Police Department, installing Flock cameras without town approval, signing contracts with Flock and telling no one,” charged resident Beth Malloy.

She added: “Please explain to me what right [van Raalten] had in signing this contract for the town.”

Resident Darlene Hayes questioned whether the HPD solicited bids from other surveillance companies before choosing Flock as part of its procurement process.

Amy Groves, a resident who spoke out against the cameras previously, said she researched Flock Safety’s competitors and, “They’re not looking so hot either.”

The public “should not confuse the term Flock with ALPR,” or automatic license plate readers, she said. Groves requested that a complete review of privacy and cybersecurity issues be undertaken if and when the town looks at another vendor.

The fact that Select Board members did not know about the Flock camera installation concerned resident Karen Crum. But she did praise members for acting quickly to get a review and eventual termination of the contract.

“Public safety cannot exist without public trust,” she stressed, later adding, “It’s common sense to let you know.”

No one from HPD attended the hearing.

“It screams to me that the police didn’t show up tonight,” said Malloy.

Mannan said the forum was a public listening session.

Board members respond

Member Amy Ritterbusch said it would be helpful for the board to receive information about how the seized asset forfeiture program works. She agreed with residents that the board should have been notified about the Flock contract. The town manager and town counsel should review any contract before it is signed, she added.

Vice chair Matthew Kizner stressed that residents should have “the expectation of privacy.” He stressed that the asset forfeiture fund was “used in a way in which we are absolutely not happy about.”

Kizner noted that Kyla LaPierre, the town’s chief financial officer, now will be able to better track transactions, thanks to the implementation of new integrated financial software purchased through a grant. He added that getting the cameras removed within 6-8 weeks is “like light-speed” in government.

Member Joe Clark echoed Kizner’s statement about the contract being terminated quickly. He indicated that not every town contract can come before the board. But he said the town is working toward a new “standard operating procedure.”

Town Manager Elaine Lazarus noted that private entities can put up surveillance cameras. She said the Flock cameras should be removed “by the end of the month.”

Member Brian Herr said there are circumstances where the police should not share everything with the public. He pointed out the massive use of town, state and federal law enforcement agencies during the Boston Marathon and the week before it.

Mannan stressed the importance of transparency moving forward as well as continued public engagement.