Independent advocacy · Not a Town publication
21+22TEWKSBURY
Your town. Your information.Plan for Town Meeting
Tewksbury Articles 21 & 22 · Independent advocacy for Articles 21 and 22. Proposed amended text. Not a Town publication.

Know what information is collected about you, and limit its use.

Vote YES on Articles 21 & 22.

Two articles with two different roles:

21

RULES THAT OUTLAST THE CONTRACT

Put privacy protections into Town law so they carry forward when technology or suppliers change.

Learn more about Article 21 >
22

YOUR TRAVEL IS YOUR BUSINESS

Find the vehicle being sought. Delete the record of everyone else’s trip.

Learn more about Article 22 >
Special Town MeetingTuesday, October 6, 2026 · 7 p.m.Plan for Town Meeting →

What the articles do

  • Put surveillance decisions in public. Article 21 requires Select Board approval before covered acquisitions, new uses, locations and outside agreements. Residents get the supporting materials at least 14 days before the meeting.
  • Make the Town account for its systems. Require an inventory, public reports on use, cost and sharing, and independent examination of access records.
  • Protect your pattern of life. Information that reveals your movements, habits and associations over time must be owned by the Town, with strict limits on access, use and retention.
  • Keep the alert. Discard the nonmatch. Article 22 allows checks for specifically sought vehicles. Nonmatching images and data must be destroyed immediately, within three minutes at most.
Read how each article works →

What they do not do

  • They do not ban all cameras. Article 21 excludes cameras on Town property used solely for building security, along with ordinary office, cybersecurity and emergency systems within its stated limits.
  • They do not ban stolen-car or missing-person alerts. Article 22 permits alerts for vehicles on documented lookout lists. Officers must confirm a match before acting.
  • They do not prevent Police or Fire from responding to a school. Emergency response remains available; the articles set rules for the surveillance technology used.
  • The proposed school clarifications exclude the schools from Articles 21 and 22. The exclusions cover the School Committee, Public Schools and people acting for either in their school capacities.
Read the full answers and sources →

Proposed amendments: three clarifications

The proposed amendments clarify ordinary recording, evidence rules and exclusion of the schools.

These amendments are proposed for Town Meeting; they have not been adopted.

1. Ordinary recording stays ordinary recording

The proposed clarifications preserve Article 21’s exclusion when recording serves only an excluded purpose. Under Article 22, ordinary recording alone does not make a system a plate reader.

Read the recording clarification

Clarify that recording solely for an excluded purpose does not itself remove Article 21’s exclusion. Under Article 22, ordinary recording alone is not a plate-reader system. Software that turns plate numbers into computer-readable data, or extracts vehicle details to identify, match or search for vehicles, is covered. A person’s use of software to read a plate in a specific image obtained while investigating a particular incident is also excluded.

Article 21 §4.2 · Article 22 §2.1

2. Courts keep control of court evidence

The proposed wording clarifies that the evidence restriction applies to Town hearings, adjudications and disciplinary proceedings. State and federal court proceedings are outside that restriction.

Read the evidence clarification

Clarify that the restriction on using unlawfully collected data in a “Town proceeding” applies to Town hearings, adjudications and disciplinary proceedings, not state or federal court proceedings. The proposed text also permits use of that data to establish or remedy a bylaw violation.

Article 21 §11.2 · Article 22 §7.1

3. Clarify the school exclusion in both articles

The proposed clarifications exclude the Tewksbury School Committee, Tewksbury Public Schools and people acting for either in their school capacities from both Article 21 and Article 22.

Read the school clarifications

Article 21 was never intended to reach the schools. Section 3.3 was intended to protect the School Committee’s authority under state law. At the request of the School Committee chair, writing on the Committee’s behalf, proposed Article 21 §3.4 makes the school exclusion explicit and removes the need for a written assertion under §3.3. The proposed clarification to Article 22 adds the same school exclusion.

Article 21 §3.4 · Article 22 §3.4

Compare the printed warrant and proposed wording →

Questions worth asking

What surveillance technology is the Town currently using?

We know the Town used Flock plate readers. On September 25, the Police Department announced it would stop using them. We have not found a complete, current inventory in the public records cited here.

At the September 15 Select Board meeting, the Town Manager questioned the proposed definition and said that identifying which systems it covers, and reporting on their use, would take considerable time and resources.

The Town should know what systems it has watching its residents, and the residents paying for it should know as well. Article 21 would require the Town to file an inventory of every covered system in use with the Select Board within 90 days after the bylaw takes effect.

Approval, annual reports and sources

Within 180 days after the bylaw takes effect, the Town Manager or a named designee would also have to submit each covered system already in use for Select Board approval.

At least once a year, the Town would report publicly on how each covered system was used, who outside the Town received or accessed its data, what it cost, complaints and their outcomes, and any violations found in audits and the action taken. Those reports would appear in the Annual Town Report and be reviewed by the Select Board at a public hearing.

September 15 Select Board meeting videoSeptember 25 Police Department statementArticle 21: definition of Surveillance TechnologyArticle 21: inventory and approval deadlinesArticle 21: annual reportingEquipment inventory comparison

Is this just about Flock? Is this anti-police?

No. This is about who collects information about residents, who owns and controls it, and what third parties can do with it. Public safety should not require turning ordinary people’s lives into lasting histories and profiles. These articles set rules for covered Town surveillance, regardless of department or supplier.

Read the full answer →

If Flock is ending, why vote now?

Ending one supplier relationship does not set the rules for the next system. Articles 21 and 22 would. They set standards for Town surveillance regardless of which company supplies it.

Read the full answer →

Why put these protections in a bylaw?

Residents deserve protections that last beyond a vendor contract or a change in leadership. A bylaw sets standards the Town must follow and gives residents a way to enforce them. Articles 21 and 22 put public oversight and privacy limits into local law.

Read the full answer →

Why care about surveillance if I’m not doing anything wrong?

You do not have to be doing something wrong to want your daily life kept private. Trips to a doctor, a place of worship or a friend’s home are personal. Article 22 permits alerts for specifically sought vehicles without keeping everyone else’s plate captures for future searches.

Read the full answer →

Does this ban security cameras?

No. Article 21 excludes cameras on Town property used solely for building security. The proposed clarification makes clear that recording for that purpose does not itself remove the exclusion. Article 22 does not treat ordinary video alone as a plate-reader system. Added surveillance uses can bring a system under the rules.

Read the full answer →

Why is this so lengthy and difficult to read?

The articles are detailed because they spell out who must act, what systems are covered, what is excluded and how the rules can be enforced. Those details make the protections specific. The basic choice is straightforward: public approval for surveillance, limits on personal information and a way for residents to enforce the rules.

Read the full answer →
Browse all 73 questions →

MAKE YOUR VOICE PART OF THE DECISION

Support the amendments.
Vote yes on Articles 21 and 22.

Special Town Meeting
Tuesday, October 6, 2026 · 7 p.m.

These protections need your vote. Come to Special Town Meeting on October 6, support the proposed amendments and vote yes on Articles 21 and 22. Stay for both votes.

Plan for Town Meeting →

Tewksbury Memorial High School · 320 Pleasant Street. Your Town Meeting plan includes check-in, voter eligibility and the warrant.

Read further

THE CASE FOR YES

Your information.
Your Town’s responsibility.

Residents should be able to see how their tax dollars are spent, what information the Town collects about them and what anyone else is allowed to do with it. Articles 21 and 22 turn that expectation into public decisions, written limits and an account residents can check.

01 / A PUBLIC DECISION

Residents deserve a say
before surveillance expands.

Residents should know what surveillance technology the Town plans to use before it starts tracking them in their daily lives. Article 21 requires Select Board approval in an open meeting for covered acquisitions, new uses and outside agreements. The proposal and supporting materials must be public at least 14 days before the Board acts. Residents should not have to find out after the fact.

Article 21, Section 6
02 / CHECKABLE SAFEGUARDS

Know who gets access.
Make the safeguards checkable.

Information collected here can be handled and searched elsewhere. Article 21 requires complete access records, independently verifiable settings and a yearly examination by someone who does not operate or supply the system. The results belong in the public report, where residents can examine them.

How accountability works
03 / LESS INFORMATION KEPT

An ordinary trip
should stay an ordinary trip.

Article 22 permits alerts for specifically sought vehicles. A nonmatching image and its related data must be destroyed immediately—three minutes at most—so ordinary travel does not become a history for later searches.

Article 22, Section 3

UNDERSTAND THE TWO DECISIONS

Four problems.
Two articles that answer them.

An “article” is an item Town Meeting votes on. Article 21 makes the Town accountable for covered surveillance technology. Article 22 adds a firm rule for plate readers: compare against documented lookout lists, confirm matches before acting and destroy nonmatches.

21PUBLIC OVERSIGHT

Put residents’ rights
into the rules.

Article 21 sets standards for the Town and the suppliers handling its information. Four everyday problems become duties the Town must meet:

  • Someone else handles the data. Information revealing a person’s activities over time must be Town property. A supplier may use it only to provide its contracted service to the Town.
  • Records become a profile. That information gets stricter access, retention and deletion rules. Automated suspicion scoring and passive tracking of people’s wireless devices are prohibited.
  • A system is used for more than residents expected. Covered new uses, locations and outside agreements need public approval before they begin.
  • Residents need answers they can check. An inventory, annual public reports and independent examination make use, cost, sharing and compliance public responsibilities.
Explore Article 21 →

Article 21 lists ordinary-system exclusions and permits urgent use when an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury requires it. The proposed school amendment expressly excludes the School Committee, Public Schools and people acting in their school roles.

22PLATE-READER LIMITS

Find a sought vehicle.
Protect everyone else’s routine travel.

A stolen vehicle. A vehicle associated with a missing person. A vehicle relevant to a particular criminal investigation. Article 22 permits alerts based on individualized, documented reasons, with confirmation before an officer acts.

  • A documented reason for every vehicle on the lookout list; current entries
  • Nonmatching images and related data destroyed immediately, within three minutes at most
  • No standing or network-wide access to Town plate-reader data
  • Officer confirmation before acting; a match alone is not grounds for a stop
Explore Article 22 →

These are requirements for the technology the Town uses, whatever company supplies it. A qualifying match can be kept for its documented reason and a related ongoing investigation, subject to the article’s retention, discovery and preservation rules.

The wording we support: Articles 21 and 22 with the proposed clarifying amendments. Read the proposed wording and the printed warrant. Town Meeting decides the articles; proposed amendments remain subject to the Moderator’s ruling and the meeting’s vote.

SEPTEMBER 25 · LOOK BEYOND ONE CONTRACT

One vendor decision
does not settle the rules.

A decision about one supplier leaves the next surveillance decision ahead of us. Residents deserve lasting rules for that decision and the ones that follow.

On September 25, the Police Department announced its decision to end its Flock relationship and stop using the system “until the Massachusetts Legislature or the courts establish clearer guardrails.”

Residents can set local standards for the next decision now. Article 21 requires public approval and continuing oversight for covered systems; Article 22 limits what Town plate readers collect, keep and share. Support the amendments and both articles so these protections can become local law.

Read the Police Department’s statement
Explore the article requirements →

What happens when a plate is read?

  1. A license plate is read by a license-plate reader

  2. The system compares the plate with the police lookout list.

Scenario: No match

No match? Delete it.

The image and related data must be destroyed immediately—three minutes at most. They cannot be sent to a system outside Town control.

A boundary around everyday life

A vehicle identified in a particular criminal investigation can be added to the lookout list on a documented basis. The system looks for that vehicle without building a searchable history of every other car.

How this works when a crime is discovered later · Evidence-preservation questions

Read the plate-reader rules
About the lookout list

The police lookout list identifies specific vehicles for documented reasons, including a stolen-vehicle report, association with a missing or endangered person, or relevance to a particular criminal investigation.

Article 22’s rule: compare with a documented lookout list, confirm a match before acting and destroy nonmatching images and data.

GET THE FACTS

Questions about
the proposals.

ORDINARY RECORDING AND SURVEILLANCE

Will ordinary security footage fall under these rules?

Cameras on Town property used solely for building security are excluded under Article 21. The proposed clarification preserves that exclusion when footage is recorded or kept solely for that purpose. Under Article 22, ordinary video alone is not a plate-reader system. Its definition covers conversion of plates into computer-readable or searchable data, and separately covers vehicle-attribute analysis used to identify, match or search for particular vehicles.

Read the camera boundaries → PROPOSED SCHOOL CLARIFICATIONS

Does Article 21 put the Select Board in charge of schools?

No. The proposed clarifications exclude the schools from Articles 21 and 22. The exclusions cover the School Committee, Public Schools and people acting for either in their school capacities.

Read the school provisions → PROPOSED COURT-EVIDENCE CLARIFICATION

Would these rules throw evidence out of criminal court?

No. The proposed clarifications expressly leave state and federal courts outside these evidence restrictions. The restrictions apply to Town hearings, adjudications and disciplinary proceedings.

Read the court-evidence explanation → OUTSIDE LOOKOUT LISTS

Must the Town certify every entry on an outside list?

No. The Town reviews the rules for adding vehicles to an outside list, rather than certifying every entry separately. Every entry still needs an individualized, documented reason. The Town must oversee the lists it uses and stop using an outside list if it no longer meets Article 22’s requirements.

Read the list and alert requirements → POLICE, FIRE AND SCHOOL EMERGENCIES

Can Police and Fire respond to a school emergency?

Yes. The articles do not prevent Police or Fire from responding to a school emergency. Article 21 excludes ordinary emergency-operations systems within its stated limits. It also allows surveillance use when a department head or designee believes in good faith that danger of death or serious physical injury requires it. Article 22’s rules still apply to covered police plate-reader use.

Read the school-emergency scenario → A WAY TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE

What does “any violation constitutes an injury” mean?

The articles authorize any person to ask a court to enforce the rules. The injury clause supports that enforcement route. The articles themselves create no fines, damages awards or attorney-fee awards; rights under other laws remain in place.

Read what a court can be asked to do →

WHY THESE CHOICES ARE WORTH MAKING

Ordinary life deserves a boundary.

A trip to work, a medical appointment or a visit to a friend should not become an open-ended record of someone’s life. Article 22 draws the boundary at the lookout-list match. Nonmatching plate-reader images and data are destroyed; later searches cannot reconstruct those deleted captures. That is the privacy protection residents are being asked to choose.

How the privacy rule works →

Local information can have a wide reach.

From February 1 through March 2, 2026, Tewksbury’s network-audit export recorded 428,478 queries across 2,961 distinct organization names, including Tewksbury. These were queries that included Tewksbury’s network, not a count of confirmed retrievals of Tewksbury data.

Audit summary and method →

How the Town would put the rules to work · How responsibilities are divided

Browse all the questionsWhat these terms meanCheck the sources

WHY A BYLAW?

Residents set the standard.
The Town carries it out.

A supplier can change. A policy can be revised. Residents can adopt the boundaries those decisions must respect. Article 21 gives the Select Board the work of writing implementing regulations inside the standards Town Meeting sets.

The different roles of four approaches to surveillance governance
ApproachWhat it can doWhat residents should expect
Vendor contractSet enforceable terms for a particular supplier relationship.Does it cover other technology, future vendors and later uses?
Administrative policyGuide operations, access, training and everyday use.Who can change it, and what public process applies?
Technical adviceHelp turn adopted standards into workable procedures and implementing regulations.Public findings and recommendations that support the standards residents adopt.
These bylawsEstablish Town-level requirements with implementation and enforcement duties.Binding standards, public decisions and a way to require compliance.

Article 21 requires the Select Board to adopt implementing regulations after public notice and a public hearing. Technical and public input can help put the adopted standards into practice.

How would implementation work?Why not a policy alone?

COMPARE THE ACTUAL RULES

Public rules are
familiar Town business.

Tewksbury already uses bylaws to set standards, require written findings and leave operating details to regulations. Other communities also regulate surveillance and plate readers. Compare the particular protections—and the differences.

TEWKSBURY

Set standards.
Allow regulations.

Wetlands and stormwater rules show how a bylaw can leave implementation details to regulations.

Explore the example →MASSACHUSETTS

Public approval
of surveillance.

Amherst, a city under Massachusetts law, uses public approval for surveillance technology. Its process offers a concrete comparison, with a different form of government.

Explore the example →NEW HAMPSHIRE

A firm limit
on plate records.

New Hampshire law sets a three-minute purge limit with exceptions. See how its rule compares with Article 22.

Explore the example →
Explore all 35 comparisons →

A LOCAL CHOICE. A WIDER CONVERSATION.

Useful tools still need boundaries.

FEDERAL OVERSIGHT

A bipartisan call
for safeguards.

Senators Katie Britt and Raphael Warnock have asked the Justice Department for guidance on misuse, access controls, auditing and accountability for Flock cameras.

Read the September 22 announcement
LAW ENFORCEMENT

Public safety and
statutory limits.

Sheriff Ross Teeple’s Senate testimony recognizes plate readers’ public-safety uses while raising concerns about extensive tracking and calling for legal boundaries.

Read the written testimony

These national sources describe the wider debate about safeguards. They are context, not endorsements of Articles 21 and 22.

CHECK THE EXPLANATION

Read the words
that would become law.

PROPOSED AMENDED TEXT

Article 21

Surveillance Technology Oversight

Read the complete proposal →PROPOSED AMENDED TEXT

Article 22

Automatic License Plate Reader Configuration

Read the complete proposal →FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE

Source library

Town records, laws and comparisons

Browse the source library →

Special Town Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 2026 · 7 p.m.

Vote yes on Articles 21 and 22.

Support the proposed amendments. Stay for both votes.

Plan for Town Meeting →