A resolution is not a cancellation. In Binghamton the authority sits with the mayor, the mayor has said no, and one of the contracts renews automatically this month.
Reported by a named outlet and not contradicted, but we have not obtained the underlying record. Specifics are presented as reported, not as established.
On August 6, 2026 the Binghamton City Council adopted a resolution calling on Mayor Jared Kraham to terminate the city's contracts with Flock Safety, to refrain from new agreements until local policies are adopted, and supporting statewide privacy standards. Reporting on July 31 established that cancellation authority in Binghamton rests with the mayor rather than the council; Council Chair Michael Dundon said the council had no power over the renewal. Mayor Kraham has said the cameras are not going anywhere, and Deputy Mayor Megan Heiman described the technology as an indispensable resource. One Binghamton contract was reported as renewing automatically in August 2026, with a second up for possible renewal in January 2027.
This is the most useful failure case in the batch, and organisers everywhere should read it before their own council vote rather than after. Binghamton did everything that looks like winning. Committee discussion, public comment, a majority vote, a resolution that carefully concedes ALPRs can serve legitimate purposes and asks for transparency and safeguards rather than abolition. And the cameras will still be there next month, because in this city the power to sign and unsign a contract belongs to the executive, and no amount of legislative sentiment moves it. Worse, one of the contracts renews by itself. Nobody has to defend it, schedule it, or vote for it — the default is continuation, and the effort required to keep the cameras is zero while the effort required to remove them is a charter fight. That asymmetry is the actual mechanism by which surveillance infrastructure becomes permanent, and it is almost never what a campaign is aimed at. The lesson is not that resolutions are worthless. It is that the first question in any local ALPR campaign is who holds the pen, and the second is when the contract renews itself.
On August 6, 2026 the Binghamton City Council adopted a resolution calling on Mayor Jared Kraham to terminate the city's Flock Safety contracts and to refrain from new agreements until comprehensive local policies are adopted.
The resolution acknowledges that automated license plate readers can serve legitimate public-safety purposes, and asks for transparency, accountability and safeguards rather than prohibition.
Authority to cancel the Flock contracts rests with the mayor rather than the city council.
Council Chair Michael Dundon said the council was looking for any option it had on the renewal but had no power over it.
Deputy Mayor Megan Heiman said the city's ALPR technology has proven to be an indispensable resource for the Binghamton Police.
One Binghamton Flock contract was reported as renewing automatically in August 2026, with a second up for possible renewal in January 2027.
Mayor Kraham has stated he does not intend to terminate the contracts, and has said the technology contributed to a reduction in crime in Binghamton.
Council Majority Leader Rebecca Rathmell stated at the meeting that over 80 municipalities across 28 states have terminated automated license plate reader contracts. That is a claim made by an elected official in a council setting, not a figure Unsurveilled has verified. Our own Decision Record holds fewer, because it holds only what we have confirmed to a source. We cite her statement as her statement.
The mayor's statement that the technology contributed to a reduction in crime in Binghamton is an official claim about program effectiveness. No audit, study, or dataset supporting it has been published that we have seen, and no evaluation of a city ALPR program should be accepted or dismissed on an official's assertion alone.
The reported vote was 4–2 with one member absent. We cite the adoption of the resolution as established and treat the precise tally as pending the council's own minutes.
On August 6, 2026 the Binghamton City Council adopted a resolution calling on Mayor Jared Kraham to terminate the city’s contracts with Flock Safety, to enter no new agreements until the city adopts comprehensive local policies, and supporting statewide privacy standards proposed in Albany.
The resolution is a moderate document. It explicitly recognises that automated license plate readers can serve legitimate public-safety purposes, and asks that they be accompanied by transparency, accountability, and established safeguards. It is not an abolition demand.
The cameras are staying.
Six days before the vote, WSKG reported the thing that decides this story: cancellation authority in Binghamton belongs to the mayor, not the council.
Council Chair Michael Dundon put it plainly — the council was looking for any option it had, and did not have any power on this. Mayor Kraham has since said the cameras are not going anywhere, citing crime reduction. Deputy Mayor Megan Heiman called the technology an indispensable resource for the police.
So the council’s resolution is a formal expression of the legislative body’s position, and it is a real political fact. It is not a cancellation, and nobody involved is pretending otherwise.
One of Binghamton’s Flock contracts was reported as renewing automatically in August 2026. A second comes up in January 2027.
Sit with the first one. Nobody has to vote for it. Nobody has to defend it at a podium. Nobody has to put it on an agenda where a resident could sign up to speak. The contract continues because a date passed.
That is the mechanism by which surveillance infrastructure stops being a decision and becomes a fixture. It is not conspiracy and it is not unusual — it is ordinary municipal contracting, and it is applied to a citywide vehicle tracking system the same way it is applied to photocopier leases.
The effort required to keep the cameras is zero. The effort required to remove them, in this city, is a charter question. Every campaign should know which side of that asymmetry it is standing on before it starts.
We are not saying the mayor is wrong that crime fell, and we are not saying he is right.
He has asserted that the technology contributed to a reduction in crime. That is an official claim — authoritative as to the city’s position and nothing else. We have not seen an audit, an evaluation, or a dataset supporting it, and we are not going to pretend that an official’s assertion settles a question that criminologists genuinely disagree about. It is on the open-questions list above, where it belongs.
The same discipline applies in the other direction. Council Majority Leader Rebecca Rathmell told the meeting that more than 80 municipalities across 28 states have terminated ALPR contracts. That is a claim by an elected official advocating a position. Our own Decision Record holds fewer, because it holds only decisions we have confirmed to a source. We cite her statement as her statement, and we would rather publish a smaller number we can stand behind.
Two questions, before your campaign picks a target:
The track a contract renewal guide covers both, and the records request generator will produce the letter that gets you the contract.
Reported by a named outlet and not contradicted, but we have not obtained the underlying record. Specifics are presented as reported, not as established.
Not yet obtained
Verified as of
Use the lawful route
Public opposition matters most when it arrives as a records request, a public comment, and a council vote. Those are slower than the alternatives and they are the ones that hold.
Questions this story leaves open
This Unsurveilled record is licensed CC BY 4.0. Linked source material remains the property of its publishers. Spotted an error? Tell us — corrections are logged in public, not quietly edited away.
