The forecast may not show much sunshine but the spirits will be high around town this Saturday for the annual home for the holidays celebration.
Check out the event’s facebook page for more details:
Happy holidays!
Catch me at Happy Valley
Updated: Dec 9
UPDATE:
I sent an email inquiry to the Town to see if they had any current or future intentions to utilize this type of technology. There is not. Here is my inquiry and their responses:
ORIGINAL POST:
Over the past year, more towns in Maine (and around the country) have begun installing AI-enabled license-plate cameras and other automated surveillance systems. These tools are often marketed as simple public-safety upgrades. The companies behind them promise the data won’t be misused, and police departments and IT departments say they won’t share the information collected.
Recently the Portland Press Herald reported that several Maine communities have already deployed these systems despite major privacy concerns. More locally, York has implemented and continues to use these systems.
Despite these communities’ promises not to share the data from these systems, just this month in Washington State, a judge ordered that the information collected by Flock Safety’s cameras qualified as a public record and ruled it must be released. In response to this order, both Washington departments immediately shut the systems off.
This ruling confirms what many residents have worried about: once a surveillance system is installed and begins logging data on everyone, the Town no longer fully controls where that information goes, how long it exists, or who can legally request it.
These systems don’t just capture “the bad guys.” They capture everyone. That means ordinary residents’ daily routines, work schedules, school drop-offs, and personal errands all end up recorded, timestamped, and stored.
The companies involved may promise that data won’t be shared. Local departments may promise to use it responsibly. But as the Washington case showed, once the data exists, courts can compel its release, systems can be hacked, and future leadership can make different decisions than the ones promised today.
It is not worth creating a permanent surveillance system that tracks all of us, when we have no way of fully guaranteeing how the data will be used down the road. Period.
Public safety is essential, but it does not require building a database of residents’ movements. Mass surveillance does not build trust, it erodes it.
As a Councilor, I will not support the implementation of mass surveillance infrastructure. I believe the risks (long-term data storage, future misuse, legal exposure, and the loss of privacy) far outweigh the promised benefits.
If residents have thoughts, concerns, or experiences with this type of technology, I welcome your input. You can email any public comment to the Council before any meeting – whether the topic is on the agenda or not. In your email, you should include the phrase “Public Comment” in the subject line and include your name and address in the body of the email.
Email public comments to: councilors@sbmaine.us
South Berwick works best when we build systems that strengthen trust and not ones that quietly chip away at it. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
--Sam Flinkstrom
More info:
At the November 25th Town Council meeting, the Council talked about holding a Special Town Meeting so residents can vote on whether to allocate $750,000 from the Town’s undesignated funds (our savings account) as a backup fund (Contingency) for the Town Hall renovation project. The presentation we saw that night showed the project running about $382,000 over budget.
After the meeting, I found out the Town had already signed a $7.083 million construction contract with Charter Brothers Construction. That contract amount alone is higher than the remaining funding the Town has allocated for the project.
This contract is what’s known as a Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract with Construction Manager at Risk. It includes a built-in contractor-controlled contingency and makes the contractor responsible if certain construction costs go over. This protects the Town on some things, but not on things the Town took out of the contractor’s responsibilities earlier in the process or items that were never included in the contract to begin with.
For example, the Town removed some site work from the contract and shifted it to our own Public Works Department, calling it a $152,000 “savings.” But that work still costs money in staff time, equipment, and materials, and Public Works is already stretched thin. Moving it outside the contract also means the Town loses the contractor’s coordination, cost control, and warranty coverage. So the so-called savings do not show the real cost.
Once I added the signed contract into the financial documents provided to the Council, it appears the project is at least $30,000 over-committed, possibly more depending on things that are still unclear, like the status of a window grant.
This raises a straightforward question:Why was the contract signed before the Town had officially approved enough funding to cover it?
Situations like this, scope changes, unclear accounting, and fuzzy responsibility, are exactly why large projects usually hire a professional Owner’s Representative to protect taxpayers and keep everything organized, and someone to hold responsible. South Berwick chose to undertake these responsibilities in house, unofficially designating the Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager and Councilor Cook to act as the Owner’s Rep.
On December 9th, the Council will hold a public workshop to go over the project. On December 16th, residents will vote at a Special Town Meeting on whether to approve the additional $750,000 and place it in a Town-controlled contingency account.
No matter how residents vote, I am committed to getting the project’s finances fully clarified, organized, and handled with a consistent process moving forward. I stepped into this partway through, and there is work to do. I would like to see some true value-engineering done to the design, to get a professional firm engaged as Owner’s Rep, and to develop Standard procedures for how to decide on scope changes that put the decisions in the public view prior to them being made. The systems can and will improve.
As we head toward the Special Town Meeting, residents deserve clear numbers and an honest explanation of how we got to this point.
On November 26th I asked for updates on the window grant, what the Town Attorney thinks of this overcommitment, and clarification that the intent of the $750,000 being voted on is not to backfill funds that were overcommitted. I am awaiting a response.
My goal is simple: transparency, accuracy, and responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
If you can’t make either of these upcoming meetings, please email your public comments to the Council prior to the meeting. The subject line should include the phrase “Public Comment” and the body of the email must include your name and address.
Email your comments to: councilors@sbmaine.us
I look forward to hearing your opinions on this.
Project information including the 11/2024 election warrant that funded the project, the GMP contract, and the 95% design documents and specs can be found here:
--Sam Flinkstrom