HOULTON, Maine — During the Houlton Town Council public comment period Monday night, two speakers alleged that the town has again failed to comply with both the Maine Freedom of Access Act and the terms of a settlement agreement regarding the removal of surveillance cameras and the release of public documents.
Houlton resident Craig Harriman, who has twice sued the town regarding the release of public documents, said he was feeling frustrated that again he has not received documents requested last October.
“I feel we are at a crossroads again,” Harriman said.
Houlton-area entrepreneur Patrick Bruce also addressed the council alleging that the town did not comply with a settlement agreement the council signed with Bruce, Harriman and Mark Lipscombe, regarding the release of public records and the removal of the cameras.
The allegations come on the heels of months of public unrest late last year, in the wake of the Sept. 25 felony arrest of Town Manager Cameron Clark and the release of data indicating that the town used Verkada surveillance cameras equipped with people analytics to track and create files on people through facial, body and vehicle recognition thousands of times.
Harriman and the Bangor Daily News began requesting public documents through the FOAA, the state’s public records law, when Police Chief Tim DeLuca first told the town in 2024 that the cameras were being installed.
The town’s slow response to Harriman’s requests led him to sue the town twice for alleged non-compliance.
In January 2025, Bruce, whose job involves working with Verkada cameras, told the Town Council that the cameras violated Maine’s facial surveillance law. The next month Clark, then the interim town manager, decided to turn the cameras off to determine legality, although they were turned back on in June.
Last summer, Harriman and the BDN received detailed camera use audit logs from the town’s Portland-based attorneys. The logs revealed that town employees used the cameras and people analytics thousands of times from January to December 2024.
The town’s lack of transparency and the alleged use of facial recognition surveillance led to the settlement agreement prepared by Clark before his December ouster.
Lipscombe also sued the town for not complying with the FOAA.
Lipscombe, Harriman and Bruce had each alleged that Houlton unlawfully possessed and used facial-recognition technology in violation of Maine law. They were prepared to sue the town, seeking legal restraints on the town’s use of the technology, according to the settlement.
In exchange for getting rid of the cameras and the data, the men agreed to not sue the town.
According to the settlement, the town was mandated to relinquish control of the cameras and physically remove them within 60 days; delete all recordings, facial-recognition data, biometric identifiers and any other data collected by the system within 90 days; secure a third party to audit and report on the data removal; and produce any remaining FOAA requests for public documents by the three men within 30 days.
On Monday night Harriman detailed his ongoing attempt to receive documents from the town. His October FOAA asked for the names of the people involved in the camera purchase decision and was told he had all the documents.
“I knew that wasn’t correct because of documents I had received from the town manager,” he told the council. “So in December I came to the town council to say there could be some illegal or unethical behavior happening within the municipality.”
Harriman again asked for the missing documents in January and was told he would have them, he said.
In late March, he emailed the town manager but did not get a reply. Two days later, he tried again, to no avail, he said.
“I don’t know exactly what to do before going to court,” Harriman told the council. “I’d just like someone to get back to me. When no one replies it makes me want to peel the onion back even further.”
Interim Town Manager Nancy Ketch said Monday that she did not have any comment regarding the matter at this time.
Bruce spoke to the council immediately following Harriman.
“Unfortunately, I can’t believe I’m having to be here tonight,” Bruce said. “This council and I had business together that I thought was through.”
Bruce then detailed the terms of the settlement agreement and how the town has allegedly not complied.
On Feb. 10, Bruce said he got an email from Ketch stating the cameras had been taken down, although it was a day after the date agreed to in the settlement. On Feb. 27, he got another email Ketch informing him they missed taking down three cameras, he said.
On March 20, Bruce emailed Ketch asking her to tell him what settlement requirements had been completed.
“The requirements state that the town shall provide written notice of completion of each requirement,” Bruce said. “There are many requirements listed in this agreement and as of today I have not received a follow-up.”
Bruce also hand-delivered “a notice of breach of contract and a demand to cure” to the town office last week, asking for a list of the settlement agreement requirements that had been completed, he said.
“You guys are in material breach. I have been more than patient,” he said.
During councilor comments, Councilor Jantzen Craine berated Bruce for not talking to him privately before coming public with his accusations.
“The nature of the accusation and the tone was very uncalled for,” Craine said. “Before being accused of something in a public forum, I would really like to see trust put in us enough to reach out to the people [you are] making accusations against.”
Conversely, Councilor Fred Grant and Council Chair Ed Lake thanked Bruce for bringing the matter to the council and said that follow-up is needed.
“I get their frustrations, they clearly have an expectation of an outcome that hasn’t happened. It’s our responsibility to follow those frustrations through and try to resolve the issues that are there,” Grant said, also suggesting the town develop standard operating procedures to make sure deadlines in such matters are met.
