EAST PROVIDENCE — When and if, and it remains an “if,” more speed control/license plate cameras are installed around the city, the guiding principles of how the East Providence Police Department uses the technology will remain policy, not set by ordinance as some on the council and in the community would have wanted.

The matter, talked about often at gatherings of the body in recent months, appears to have been settled for the moment at least after a revised piece of legislation submitted by Ward 4 Councilor Ricardo Mourato was defeated by a narrow 3-2 vote at the March 15 meeting.

Ward 2 Councilor Anna Sousa also supported codifying aspects of camera usage in ordinance form. Council president and Ward 1 member Bob Britto, At-Large member Bob Rodericks and Ward 3 Councilor Nate Cahoon voted against the proposal.

Mourato, himself a police officer in Bristol who said he was not necessarily against use of such technology from a professional standpoint, said he was submitting the legislation in response to constituents, many of whom he claims are suffering from “camera fatigue” after several devices were previously installed on state roads in front of schools across the city.

Most of the cameras, on Pawtucket Avenue and Forbes Street, became active in early January when schools re-opened following the holiday recess. Two other cameras, on Broadway intersections at Roger Williams and Grovesnor Avenue, came on-line in the last few weeks. Several more could be installed at some point, though East Providence Police Chief Chris Francesconi went on record saying there is no set timetable.

Mourato said the feedback he received from a community meeting, phone calls and a social media poll showed resounding opposition to anymore cameras being installed at this point. He said it was important for the city to “balance the benefit of the camera system against the public being against the plan.”

His bill, which had significant input from the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, would, among other things, limit what type of data police could collect, how it was used and stored. It would also insure a public hearing and/or public engagement to any changes pertaining to cameras in the future.

Mourato claimed his proposed ordinance would be “good public policy and good public piece of mind.” Sousa agreed, adding it would make matters around cameras “open and transparent.”

Francesconi, during at least two recent meetings, expressed his “strong objections to any ordinance,” adding it was not “appropriate” in this instance. He said there are already very strict federal, state and local law enforcement guidelines his department must follow.

Rodericks voted against the legislation because he said the council could potentially be seen as “micro-managing” the police department. Britto said it was an “administrative function,” not something to be controlled by the council. Cahoon said, among other reasons, he was concerned the bill was written by an outside organization, ACLU, “which may not have the best interest” of the city and/or its police department in mind.