The debate over Flock Safety cameras is playing out across the South Shore. In Norwell, officials announced Sept. 30 that the town would discontinue its license plate reader program following resident feedback and Select Board discussions. The town ordered cameras on municipal property shut off, with the equipment to be removed and collected data destroyed. Now, Cohasset voters will consider a different approach on Oct. 26, deciding whether to adopt a surveillance oversight bylaw that would establish public review and approval requirements for technologies including the town's Flock cameras. The proposal has been amended after both the Select Board and Advisory Committee voted against recommending its original version.
Residents seeking greater oversight of surveillance technology in Cohasset have revised their proposed town bylaw ahead of the Oct. 26 Town Meeting, addressing several concerns raised by officials who previously voted against recommending the measure.
The amended citizen petition would still require public disclosure and Select Board approval before town departments acquire or use surveillance technology, including automatic license plate readers such as the four Flock Safety cameras operating in Cohasset. But the revised language makes several changes intended to address objections raised during the board's earlier discussions.
The Select Board voted 4-1 not to recommend the original proposal, while the Advisory Committee voted 6-1-1 against recommending it, with one member abstaining. Both votes were advisory, leaving the final decision to Town Meeting voters.
One of the most significant revisions excludes Cohasset Public Schools and the School Committee, along with employees and contractors acting on their behalf, from the bylaw's requirements.
During the September discussions, Select Board member Ellen Maher expressed concern that the original language could affect school security operations. The new exclusion would leave school surveillance decisions outside the proposed municipal oversight process.
The petitioners also revised how the bylaw would apply to grants and other funding opportunities. Under the original proposal, departments would have needed Select Board approval before seeking funding for new surveillance technology. The amended version allows departments to apply for grants or solicit funding without prior approval, although they would still need authorization before accepting the money or deploying the technology.
That change addresses a concern raised by Select Board member Will Ashton, who opposed the board's recommendation against the petition.
A third revision removes language that would have required courts to award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to plaintiffs who successfully brought enforcement actions. The amended proposal continues to allow individuals to seek court orders enforcing the bylaw, but no longer mandates those awards.
The revisions do not eliminate every concern raised during the September discussions. The proposal still includes significant property damage or loss among the emergency circumstances under which the police chief could temporarily use surveillance technology without prior authorization.
At its Sept. 22 meeting, the Select Board voted 4-1 not to recommend Article 14, the citizen petition establishing a Surveillance Technology Oversight Bylaw.
Board members Greg Watts, Ellen Maher, Paul Grady and David Farrag supported the motion against recommending the measure. Ashton cast the dissenting vote.
Watts questioned whether the proposed requirements belonged in a town bylaw rather than a policy developed by municipal officials.
"My issue with the bylaw is that it's just, for me, overly prescriptive of a nuanced policy," Watts said. "If this petition was to direct the select board in conjunction with various committees to develop a policy, I'd be supportive of it."
Grady expressed confidence in the Police Department's existing practices, while Farrag raised concerns about administrative costs, legal exposure and the demands the proposal could place on a department with limited staffing.
Ashton drew a distinction between concerns about improper police conduct and the public's ability to understand how surveillance information is collected and shared.
"The next one was about misuse, but this bylaw isn't about misuse. It's about knowing what's collected and who gets it," Ashton said.
The revised proposal would establish a public review process for covered surveillance technology, including license plate readers, facial recognition systems and other technologies capable of collecting information about identifiable individuals.
Departments would be required to disclose how equipment works, where it would be deployed, what information it collects and which outside agencies could access that information. The proposal also calls for public hearings, annual reporting and Select Board authorizations lasting no more than one year.
Surveillance data generally could not be retained longer than 14 days, except when a court order requires preservation of information relevant to an investigation.
During the Sept. 8 discussion, Cohasset's police chief William Quigley said the department already had a written license plate reader policy, access controls and monthly audits. He also raised concerns about how additional restrictions could affect information sharing with other law enforcement agencies.
Supporters of the petition have argued that existing departmental policies are not a substitute for public oversight of surveillance decisions, particularly when information can be shared beyond the community.
Cohasset voters will consider the amended Surveillance Technology Oversight Bylaw at Town Meeting on Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, at 7 p.m. The proposal would give residents an opportunity to decide whether the town should establish additional public oversight of surveillance technology, including its existing Flock Safety license plate readers.
The Select Board's 4-1 vote and the Advisory Committee's 6-1-1 vote were recommendations against the original proposal, not final decisions on whether Cohasset should adopt the bylaw. Although the petitioners have revised several provisions in response to concerns raised during the review process, the available records do not establish that either committee has reconsidered its recommendation.