After Houlton officials announced on Feb. 8 that they were suspending the town’s surveillance camera program so that they could verify its legality, some residents are questioning why officials ever felt the need to invest in the controversial security system to begin with.
Among their arguments are that the money that paid for the cameras could have been better spent on other things, and also that their installation amounted to an invasion of privacy of area residents. In their view, a town of 6,000 people didn’t need that type of surveillance.
The surveillance camera saga began in January 2024, when Houlton Police Chief Tim DeLuca first announced to the town council that the department was preparing to install 50 Verkada cameras purchased in 2022 with American Rescue Plan Act funds for $130,000.
But the town ultimately decided to disable the cameras after one resident, Patrick Bruce, publicly questioned whether it violated a state law passed in 2021 that sharply limited the ability of officials to use facial recognition technology. The cameras purchased by the town include that capability, but while DeLuca has said the town used the cameras, he has not directly said whether it ever activated the facial recognition technology.
In an interview this week, Bruce reiterated his view that the cameras were not necessary in a town the size of Houlton and that he has been concerned about their use.
“To have so much surveillance with the abilities the camera system has, for such a small community, is rather Orwellian,” Bruce said.
The decision to buy them was wasteful, Bruce said, especially given the very strict requirements Maine has established for using facial recognition technology.
Under the law that passed in 2021, it is illegal for officials or departments to access or retain footage from a facial recognition surveillance system unless the use meets one of a few exceptions — such as for the investigation of a serious crime or to locate missing people — and they get permission to do so from the state.
Bruce — a local entrepreneur who works with Farr and Associates Security and is familiar with the Verkada cameras — said the ARPA funds used to purchase the technology could have instead been spent on things that directly help officers in their daily jobs.
“For $130,000 they could have had ballistic helmets, hybrid night vision-thermal monoculars, new patrol rifles and training in both,” Bruce said. “Many more examples of new equipment and training as well. It just doesn’t make sense.”
The town has some crime problems driven by drugs, mental health issues and a poor economy, as most rural communities do, Bruce said. He argued that there are other measures the town could take to address those issues, including crime prevention and simply acknowledging them.
Houlton resident Bev Chapman said she supports law enforcement, but is not sure that the crime rate in Houlton justified such overreach in surveillance technology.
Houlton’s 2023 crime rate of 36.73 per 1,000 was slightly higher than the statewide rate of 29.65 per 1,000, but significantly lower than that of other bigger communities in the region, according to the state crime report. Presque Isle’s crime rate was 69.07 per 1,000 that year, while Bangor’s was 96.8 per 1,000.
Small towns like Houlton don’t often have the means to spend that kind of money on anything, let alone surveillance, Chapman argued.
“My only thought is, there was a small windfall from the federal government, and the powers that be at the time simply took advantage of those funds for their own self-serving purposes,” Chapman said. “But this is who you nominated to be in charge, and this was the decision they made, and I think the Town Council supported it.”
Chapman believes the money would have been better invested in something more meaningful for residents.
“Personally, I would love to see a dog park,” she said. “But not everyone has dogs.”
Not everyone in Houlton opposes the decision to buy the surveillance cameras and put them on municipal properties.
Jane Putnam, who moved to Houlton in October 2023 with her husband, didn’t even know about the town’s surveillance cameras until a reporter asked her about them. She noted that residents on her block have put up their own security cameras due to vandalism in the last few weeks.
“We had a huge rock thrown through one of our living room windows, and the entire window had to be replaced, and we had a theft when we first came,” Putnam said, adding that police said it was probably teens. “It’s unusual to me that property crime is so high in so many towns in Maine, including Houlton.”
As far as the town using cameras to assist with law enforcement, Putnam said she personally does not mind being photographed. She said the cameras may be a deterrent if teens are responsible for downtown vandalism.
Given the limits Maine has placed on facial recognition technology, Houlton would not be able to use that feature of the cameras to investigate petty crimes such as vandalism.
However, it has been hard getting any information from local officials about how they’ve used the surveillance cameras.
That lack of transparency prompted Houlton resident Craig Harriman to file multiple Freedom of Access Act requests for information related to their costs, location, technology, data storage, monitoring, initial approvals and purchase.
Subsequently, Harriman filed a lawsuit against the town for an alleged violation of the FOAA law. On Monday, in Aroostook County Superior Court, District Court Judge Rob A. Langner ruled that the town did not intentionally withhold information.
During his testimony in that trial, Police Chief DeLuca said he had been aware that the cameras were equipped with facial surveillance technology and that while interim town manager last year, he was responsible for granting permission to use the cameras.
Other residents have also gotten invested in the matter. One local business owner, Danielle Bondanza, has kept notes on how much the town has appeared to spend on the program. Beyond the $130,000 purchase of the cameras, she worries that the town may have spent thousands more on related costs including personnel time, IT support and licensing fees.
“It’s ridiculous,” she said. “That’s overextension. That is an ego, a power trip that is running free with taxpayer’s money.”
Local musician Bertrand Laurence just started reading about the cameras, and he said he was shocked to learn about them, although he does see both sides of the issue.
“This is the age of Big Brother,” he said, adding that much of this is predicated on basic fear. “But out of fear, you are letting the biggest government intrusion exist.”
Laurence said that when he moved to Houlton from Boston several years ago, what he loved was that there were no stop signs, and the way people trusted each other.
“These cameras fly against the grain of the Aroostook County and Maine credo,” Laurence said. “No government intrusion, and we want to be left alone.”
