In September, the Lowell City Council voted to stop using Flock Safety’s license plate reader cameras. Two weeks later, behind closed doors, it voted to turn them back on. The public found out this week, when the minutes of that October 6 executive session were released, Boston.com and NBC10 Boston reported.
A group opposed to the cameras, DeFlock Lowell, says the closed-door vote violated the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law and has filed a complaint, NBC10 reported. Whether it did is a question for the Attorney General or a court, and no one has ruled. Here is what happened, what the law allows a council to do in private, and what happens if a vote was taken improperly.
What happened
- September 22. The council voted 6-5 to suspend the cameras and called for a review of the technology and the police department’s data-auditing procedures, Boston.com reported.
- October 6. In executive session, the council voted 8-1 to let police resume using the cameras without sharing data with other agencies, according to the minutes, Boston.com reported.
- The lone no vote. Councilor Sean McDonough voted against reinstating the cameras and argued the vote should have taken place in public, according to the minutes. “I truly don’t understand why my colleagues felt that was the right thing to do,” he told NBC10.
- Why it was private. Asked why the vote was taken behind closed doors, Councilor Rita Mercier told NBC10: “It was on the agenda. That’s why we went in there. The rest, you’ll have to ask the city manager, and that is not me.” NBC10 said City Manager Thomas Golden Jr. and the Lowell Police Department did not respond.
- The cameras are running. The minutes do not say when the cameras were turned back on, but the police department’s public search audit shows nearly 500 searches over the past 30 days, about 180 of them categorized as “Wanted Person (Arrest Warrant/Fugitive),” Boston.com reported. The department’s Flock “Transparency Portal” lists 37 cameras with a 30-day retention period, according to Boston.com. NBC10 reported more than 40.
What the council discussed
- Police. Deputy Superintendent Mark LeBlanc called the cameras a “great investigative tool” the city has used for 15 years and described “regular system audits,” according to the minutes as reported by Boston.com.
- Concerns. Councilor Vesna Nuon said the “problem is with the company running the system” and raised concerns about information being shared with ICE, the minutes state. Councilor Kim Scott pointed to Boston: “Flock was sharing data with outside law enforcements against the wishes of Boston.”
- Supporters. “The value of good outweighs the bad, so I support the Flock cameras,” Mercier told NBC10.
When can a Massachusetts council meet in private?
We read the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §§ 18 to 25, at malegislature.gov.
- Only for listed reasons. Under § 21(a), a public body “may meet in executive session only for the following purposes,” and the law lists ten. They include discussing discipline of an employee, strategy for collective bargaining or litigation, real estate negotiations, investigating criminal misconduct, and, in clause 4, “the deployment of security personnel or devices, or strategies with respect thereto.”
- Procedure first. Under § 21(b), the body must first convene in open session, a majority must vote by roll call to go into executive session, and “before the executive session, the chair shall state the purpose for the executive session, stating all subjects that may be revealed without compromising the purpose.”
- Which reason Lowell cited. Neither outlet reported which of the ten purposes the council cited for the October 6 session. That stated purpose, and whether the vote fit within it, is what a review would look at.
How an Open Meeting Law complaint works
| Step | What G.L. c. 30A, § 23 says |
|---|---|
| File with the council | The complainant first files a written complaint with the public body, “within 30 days of the date of the alleged violation,” giving it a chance to fix the problem. |
| Council responds | Within 14 business days, the body must send the complaint to the Attorney General and report any remedial action. |
| Attorney General | At least 30 days after filing with the body, the complaint can go to the Attorney General, who decides whether a violation occurred and whether it was intentional. |
| Court instead | As an alternative, the Attorney General “or 3 or more registered voters” can sue in Superior Court. The public body then has the burden to show its action complied with the law. |
Neither outlet reported the date DeFlock Lowell filed or whether the council has responded.
What happens if the vote broke the law
If the Attorney General finds a violation, § 23(c) allows an order to:
- “nullify in whole or in part any action taken at the meeting”;
- compel immediate and future compliance and attendance at training;
- impose a civil penalty on the public body of “not more than $1,000 for each intentional violation”; and
- “compel that minutes, records or other materials be made public.”
Nullifying the October 6 vote would not by itself ban the cameras. The council could vote again in public. A body that relied in good faith on its lawyer’s advice after full disclosure has a defense to a penalty under § 23(g).
The bigger picture
“Ideally, we’d like to see what I believe 20 other communities in Massachusetts have done, and that would be to eliminate Flock and any other service providers from the city of Lowell,” Matthew Lucas of DeFlock Lowell told NBC10. Boston dropped Flock after a trial period when officials disclosed drivers’ data had been unsecured because of a vendor error, and New Bedford did not renew its contract after firing two officers accused of misusing the system, Boston.com reported. Lynn is tightening its policies after an investigation into alleged misuse by an officer, according to Boston.com.
Frequently asked questions
Did Lowell turn its Flock cameras back on?
Yes. The City Council voted 8-1 in an October 6 executive session to let police resume using them, according to minutes released this week, Boston.com and NBC10 Boston reported.
Can a city council vote in executive session in Massachusetts?
Only for one of the ten purposes listed in G.L. c. 30A, § 21(a), and only after following the steps in § 21(b), including a roll call vote and a public statement of the purpose.
How do I file an Open Meeting Law complaint?
File a written complaint with the public body within 30 days of the alleged violation. After 30 days, it can go to the Attorney General. Three or more registered voters can also sue in Superior Court.
What happens if a council violates the Open Meeting Law?
The Attorney General can order compliance and training, nullify the action, release records, and fine the body up to $1,000 for each intentional violation.
Sources: NBC10 Boston and Boston.com, November 12, 2026. G.L. c. 30A, §§ 18, 21 and 23, read at malegislature.gov. General information, not legal advice.