EASTHAMPTON — After hearing concerns from city councilors and the public about a plan to install license plate reader technology at the Municipal Building downtown, interim Mayor Salem Derby said that he has brought the project to a halt.
Derby’s decision to cancel the installation, announced at last Wednesday’s council meeting, came about a month after he informed councilors at an Aug. 6 meeting that former mayor Nicole LaChapelle had initiated the installation of the security system in the wake of vandalism of the Municipal Building at 50 Payson Ave. LaChapelle initially signed a contract worth about $100,000 with Axis Communications in December of last year. The contract included installation of multiple cameras on the interior and exterior of the building, which is complete, and the license plate reader system, which has not been installed.
Since that meeting, several councilors and members of the public reached out to City Hall to voice privacy concerns with the idea.
“We don’t need a license plate reader. We don’t need more surveillance in Easthampton,” resident Karl Prahl said during public comment at the council’s Sept. 3 meeting. “We can see around us the surveillance state expanding and if the data’s there, somebody is going to get it. And what is the best case scenario we catch somebody doing some property crime?”
Derby said that the feedback led him to stop the installation of the license plate reader (LPR). The interim mayor sought to “set the record straight” about misinformation surrounding the LPR, reassuring residents that it had never been installed and that he was not the person who ordered it to be installed.
“Just to be super clear and I think I need to use really simple language here because I want everybody to really understand what has happened with this issue around the license plate reader camera,” Derby said at the council’s Sept. 3 meeting. “Again, this was ordered and paid for before my tenure … I did not approve that order. I did not know what was in that order.”
After LaChapelle resigned, the responsibility to oversee the installation of the security system fell to Derby. At that point, the security system as a whole did not have a formal policy detailing where footage would be taken. Derby went to IT Director Karin Camihort, and they created a policy for the security system, which Derby presented to the council.
The policy says that all footage from the system will be held in the IT department. Derby noted that he was happy to field questions about the policy and send it to committee and the council for approval, but didn’t feel it was necessary at the time since the information would be safeguarded in the IT department.
“My intention from the beginning was to be as transparent with the council as possible, which is why I brought the policy to the council and gave the introduction I did,” Derby said at the council’s Sept. 3 meeting. “When you (the council) gave concern, it was a hard stop and the camera is going to go away and not because people are telling mistruths about my actions, but because it’s the right thing to do and I recognize that.”
Derby said the LPR is going to be returned to the parent company and be replaced with a new security camera like the ones currently on the Municipal Building, to fulfill the contract.
Before Derby gave his mayoral update to talk about the LPR, councilors and community members voiced different opinions about the camera.
Councilor Brad Riley wanted to correct the “troubling trend” he had seen on social media about the LPR and Derby’s involvement with it. He said that the responsibility of the security system installation lies with LaChapelle.
“The first thing I wanted to clarify is that there is a misconception that Mayor Derby has put forward this as a policy proposal. He has not. This is a policy proposal that was put forward by former Mayor LaChapelle,” Riley said. “Mayor Derby informed us that this was something that was occurring so he did his due diligence by notifying the public that this was something that was under consideration and for that, I thank him.”
Councilor Koni Denham, however, asked for clarification about when the policy was written. She noted that when they voted to appropriate the money for the security system package six months ago, councilors including Derby, expressed privacy concerns and articulated that they did not want that camera up. She said LaChapelle was responsive to that, and that she believes the camera has been sitting in a closet since that time.
“When the mayor (Derby) stood up here two weeks ago (and said) that he had that policy produced, I don’t appreciate that blame being passed off,” Denham said. “If you made a choice and you made a decision then you should take responsibility for that.”
Resident Carolyn Cushing also expressed her concern at last week’s council meeting, before Derby gave his mayoral update.
“I’m disturbed that interim Mayor Derby has created a policy to allow for a new surveillance camera to be placed at the Payson, Cottage (street) intersection despite the public speaking against this camera six months ago when it was proposed to my understanding …,” she said. “Wherever possible we must resist surveillance that can be weaponized against vulnerable communities.”