The School Committee voted unanimously Monday night to approve a policy dealing with what school officials call security cameras, but which a letter from the Massachusetts ACLU calls surveillance cameras. Resident Paul Richards of Westcott Road, who opposes the use of such cameras at the Bromfield School, suggested a more neutral term, “closed-circuit TV cameras.”
ACLU asks for more detailed policy
Richards called the cameras “an overreaction” at a previous meeting and subsequently sent a draft of the proposed school policy to the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. The Boston office of the ACLU responded in a letter that was highly critical of the draft policy, asking for—among other things—bans on certain types of cameras and “an independent authority” to audit the use of the cameras “on at least an annual basis.”
School Committee Chairwoman SusanMary Redinger said Monday night that many of the ACLU’s objections have been met by revisions to the first draft. For example, the policy now provides for signs to be posted in all the areas where the cameras will be used. It also states explicitly that cameras will not be used in classrooms, although they were never intended to be placed there, nor in offices, locker rooms, or restrooms. Recordings cannot be released to persons or agencies outside the Harvard Schools District except by court order or subpoena. And the video recordings will be kept for no more than 30 days. (A typo in the original draft specified “no less than 30 days.”)
Speaking of the new draft, Richards said, “It’s an improvement, but I don’t think it goes far enough.” He pointed out that the ACLU offered its help in drafting a different policy and said that he plans to send the revision back to the organization for comment.
Comparable to policies at Newton and Wellesley
Superintendent Linda Dwight said that Harvard’s policy had been written after looking at the policies developed for such cameras in other school districts, particularly Newton and Wellesley, where cameras have been in use for several years.
Many schools have installed cameras without developing a policy on their use. The Massachusetts Association of School Committees provides a generic policy for security cameras on its website, but it offers fewer specific protections than the revised draft the School Committee approved.
Committee member Mary Traphagen said that if the cameras had been in place last fall when fires were set in Bromfield, school officials would not have needed to question nearly as many students as they did. Some parents considered the questioning itself intrusive; to that extent cameras would have protected some students by narrowing the investigation.
Because the cameras are already in position and in operation, Redinger urged the committee to approve the policy in its present form. The school district needs a policy in place because “the cameras are rolling right now,” she said, adding that the policy can be modified if it proves necessary.
“I hope we never need the cameras,” Redinger said, referring to emergency situations such as armed intruders or further arson incidents.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 75 percent of public schools in the United States, including 89 percent of high schools, had at least one security camera during the 2013–2014 school year.
But Richards was not swayed by the number of schools that have installed cameras. The cameras are still an infringement and an overreaction, he said after the meeting, even if everyone is doing it.
