SOUTH HADLEY — Town Meeting voters this week rejected a proposal to install cameras on school bus stop arms to catch drivers who illegally pass stopped buses, with many residents citing concerns about surveillance and data breaches.
The article failed 70-24, with two abstentions.
In January 2025, Gov. Maura Healey signed a law allowing cameras mounted on school bus stop arms to record vehicles that illegally pass buses. Municipalities that adopt the law can contract with a third-party company that uses artificial intelligence to review footage and issue citations.
Student safety at bus stops is a concern across the region, including in South Hadley. Police Chief Jennifer Gundersen previously told the Gazette that with six or seven buses carrying children each day, one violation per bus per day over a 180-day school year would total 1,080 to 1,260 violations.
“I do think there’s a serious safety concern on certain routes around the town, especially with how bad [Route] 202 traffic has gotten,” said Nicholas Gingras, a Town Meeting member and parent who said passing vehicles have nearly hit him at least three times as he walked his son across Route 202 from the bus stop.
Speakers at the Nov. 9 special Town Meeting, however, saw the cameras as more of a liability than a safety measure.
Lisa Marie Longpre, a Town Meeting member and Springfield teacher, worried the video could be hacked, noting that Springfield Public Schools experienced a data breach in September.
David Sullivan Clark objected to “betting on bad behavior” as part of the town’s financial plan. Some third-party camera companies take the first citation of each month as payment.
Hector Lowell and Adam Reed questioned the purpose of the cameras, which use artificial intelligence to identify license plates. Lowell called the program a “data grab” to train AI models, while Reed said similar technology, such as Flock cameras, has shared data with federal agencies.
“I think we need to be looking in other ways to create safety for the children and our neighbors in this community, ones that don’t involve this type of really dangerous surveillance,” Reed said.
Other votes
Most of the other warrant articles presented at Monday’s meeting were approved by the 99 Town Meeting members in attendance.
Among them were requests to add two police officer positions and an animal control officer, remove a 14-day limit on food truck operations and clarify agriculture regulations.
Voters also rejected a citizen petition to transfer $143,000 of state aid to the school budget, and referred another petition to create a bylaw to recall elected officials0 to the Bylaw Review Committee.
The most discussion of the night centered on whether non-Town Meeting members should be allowed to speak at Town Meeting, an idea that was rejected at annual Town Meeting in May.
South Hadley is one of 31 Massachusetts municipalities that have representative Town Meetings, which limits involvement of non-elected members. Non-Town Meeting members can speak at the meeting at the town moderator’s discretion or by Town Meeting majority vote.
The article approved on Monday requires the town moderator to list criteria for comment from a non-Town Meeting member at least 30 days prior to Town Meeting.
“I have to feel that someone from the public is going to be offering something to Town Meeting members that will help them make their decision,” Town Moderator John Hine said. “Simply reiterating a stance, a position (or) an argument that town meeting members have been making doesn’t really do that.”
Select Board member Carol Constant noted that non-Town Meeting members’ input does not always lead to a clearer picture on resident opinion.
“The idea of putting out a notice in advance that if there was going to be an opportunity for other people to speak … that could arguably provide more divergent thought and opportunity to get more issues on the table that way,” said Mark Adams.
Similarly, the recall petition of elected officials elicited many questions and comments from members. The legislative body could not back the bylaw in its current iteration.
David White, who presented the petition, said recall would establish a voter-dependent mechanism to remove elected officials who are convicted of a felony, unable to serve, abuse authority or fail to disclose conflicts of interest.
“This article is simply a tool with no hidden agenda,” White said. “More importantly, it is self-regulating … South Hadley voters alone have full control.”
To trigger a recall, the petition would have required signatures from 5% of registered voters, or 75% of the average voter turnout in local elections over three years.
Susan Newton said the Bylaw Review Committee found that most municipalities with representative Town Meetings require a minimum of 10% of registered voters for a recall.
“At 5%, any disgruntled person in town can sit in front of Tandem Bagel on a Saturday morning and get enough signatures,” Town Meeting member Billy Foley said.
Emily Young also noted that there would be no legal measure for any of the alleged reasons for a recall. White confirmed the decision is based on each side making their case and does not involve any oversight from a public official or judge.
“Anybody can say whatever they want. There can be a defense. There cannot be a defense. But it’s all essentially the court of public opinion,” Town Meeting member Ira Brezinsky said.
The petition was forwarded to the Bylaw Review Committee for review to iron out any confusion and strengthen the bylaw.
