It was revealed during an Ulster Town Board discussion last week about creating a policy limiting access to all municipal video surveillance to the police department that two cameras in the office of Supervisor James E. Quigley, III had been disabled that afternoon.
“Just for the residents and the board’s information, the two cameras in the town supervisor’s office have been disabled,” said Quigley during a meeting held on Thursday, September 5. “All access to the town supervisor’s office of the security cameras have been removed.”
The discussion about a potential policy was last among six items under a heading reading: “The following items requested in an e-mail from Mr. VanKleeck (sic) on 8/27/24.” Clayton Van Kleeck is the town’s deputy supervisor, and he and Quigley have operated under an uneasy alliance since mid-summer following the supervisor’s decision to complete his current term through 2025 rather than retire at the start of this month, as he announced in March.
In last week’s meeting documents, the discussion on creating the policy suggested that any requests to view security footage must be directed to town police chief Kyle Berardi and be authorized by the town board. In the case of an emergency, the policy would allow immediate authorization to be granted to Berardi and/or Supervisor Quigley, with the stipulation that the town board be notified as soon as possible. Further, the suggested policy would have disconnected access to all outside of the police department, as well as eliminating any private surveillance cameras or other devices on town property.
During the meeting, Quigley said that removing the two cameras in his office brought the total down to 22, which he said was a requirement of municipal security accreditation. The now-removed pair of cameras in the supervisor’s office and an unspecified number of cameras in the Russell Brott Senior Center were purchased using town funds. The supervisor added that the cameras dispersed throughout the main floor of town hall had been purchased using funding through the Justice Court Assistance Program (JCAP).
Quigley referred to an e-mail he’d received earlier in the day from town justice Susan Kesick which followed a conversation between Kesick and the Office of Court Administration, which stated a legal opinion that property purchased with JCAP funds “must be used specifically for the enhancement of the court’s ability to provide suitable and sufficient services to their respective communities.”
“And then I was further provided two opinions from, I believe, the OCA’s counsel’s office that indicated that the property, specifically in this instance, were relating to cameras, were under the control of the two judges and not the town board,” Quigley said. “The police department’s cameras are solely monitored downstairs and are inaccessible to anybody else. The cameras upstairs excluding the supervisor’s office and including the senior center, were monitored both by the supervisor’s office and the main console in the police department.”
Quigley concluded that the police department already has sole control of cameras in and around the police department, as well as serving as backup monitoring for cameras controlled by the town justices. There are restrictions on where cameras and other surveillance equipment can be placed. They are forbidden in both the judges’ chambers and justice court offices because, Quigley said, “counsel for the people who appear in this court sometimes go into the office to have discussions with the clerks over the matter being adjudicated or the people show up at the court windows to address their fine issues and end up talking to the clerks through the windows over their court issues.”
As for police-related cameras, Quigley said due to requirements, they are on the exterior of the building focusing on where the Ulster County Sheriff’s Office parks, on the ramp where prisoners are led into the police department, and in other places so prisoners are under continuous surveillance.
The cameras that until last week were in the supervisor’s office have been there for some time, Quigley said.
“Just to be clear, the cameras were put in the town supervisor’s office because documents were disappearing out of file cabinets,” Quigley said. “And this was years ago. And we just put the cameras in and we started locking up things very securely. The problem was addressed.”
Quigley added that the cameras — which also recorded audio — were also able to disprove a constituent’s accusation against the supervisor as having taken place in his office. Quigley did not specify what he’d been accused of.
Van Kleeck said he felt Quigley had pulled the discussion off topic.
“My question had nothing to do with how many cameras are in this building, it had to do with who was watching them,” he said. “And the policy had to do with who would be watching the cameras. When I put this on here, all of a sudden, cameras were taken out. All I did was put this on here to discuss. And you chose to take the cameras out of your office, and you chose to disconnect your office from viewing the cameras.”
Quigley agreed that he had, but added that the town could not do as Van Kleeck suggested anyway.
“That was prior to my knowledge, based upon the email that we received today, indicating to us that we have no rights as a town board to establish the policy for the items that were purchased under the JCAP,” he said, adding that whoever has access to monitor those cameras would have to get permission from the town justices.
“If the judges make the determination that they would like the supervisor’s office to participate, we will have a discussion,” Quigley said. “I’m not necessarily agreeing to it, because I believe after this whole process that produces a burden on our office that might be better avoided.”
Join the family! 
