WOONSOCKET — The mayor has a concealed audio/video recording system installed in a credenza behind her desk in her City Hall office.

The device recently came to light during a work session regarding the latest in the battle between the City Council and the mayor over the council’s investigation of whether city employees have misused city resources. The mayor has filed an injunction to prevent the council from conducting its investigation. In the latest twist, the mayor has asked that three council members be deposed regarding the investigation.

The council’s lawyer, Raymond Marcaccio, sent a letter to Glen Whitehead, the lawyer representing the mayor and the city, stating that neither she nor other city employees should conceal, destroy or alter any paper, electronic files and any other data generated and or stored on workers’ computers and storage media. Marcaccio includes the mayor’s private recording system in the letter.

“It has recently come to light that there exists within the Mayor’s office a concealed audio/visual recording system, this notice shall also include any and all audio and video recording made with said system,” Marcaccio says in the letter.

Mayor Susan D. Menard did not return a call for an explanation of the recording device.

Councilman Leo Fontaine said that Menard showed him the audio/visual device a couple of weeks ago when he was in her office.

Councilman William Schneck said the discovery of the device did not surprise him given all the things that have transpired in the city with the mayor and some of her employees.

He said all recordings from the device should be made public. “The public should be able to hear and see the tapes if there is anything on them. They are public. It is a city government building,” Schneck said.

Councilman John Ward said he was a bit surprised by the revelation. He said that while it is not illegal there is no need for such a device. “I don’t know that there would be a need for such a device if it’s done in such a way where it’s hidden from view, which takes on characteristics of something done in secret. I don’t think it’s necessary for a public official to do that,” Ward said.

Ward said that knowledge of such a device might make people nervous about visiting the mayor. “Business people may hesitate to go in there. If there is a feeling that somehow there is a need to have monitoring, you do what a prudent person does: make sure you have a third person when you have a meeting. That would eliminate the need for that kind of surveillance.”

Ward questioned how people who thought they were having a private meeting with the mayor might feel when they found out such a system exists in her office.

Rhode Island has a one-party consent law where if one party to the conversation consents to the taping, it’s allowable, said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. Brown said that depending how the device is activated it could be used without the consent of anyone. If two people, for instance, were in the mayor’s office waiting for her and the device is voice-activated, they are being recorded without anyone’s consent, Brown said.

“This is what got Richard Nixon into a lot of trouble for. It is legitimate to ask why the mayor would install a recording device in her office. I’m sure that many people who had what they thought were private and candid conversations with her would be shocked and quite troubled to find out those conversations were recorded,” Brown said.

“Who installed this? What is the purpose? Why keep it secret? If the point is to make sure people are being honest with her, then there is no reason not to have it out in the open,” Brown said.

tpina@projo.com