The City Council committee overseeing Seattle’s parks will discuss a memo Thursday morning that documents a set of options for the future of the controversial Cal Anderson Park surveillance camera program. In a copy of the document reviewed by CHS, the memo prepared by Council staff lays out the major issues raised as the camera program has been examined by the City Auditor, discussed by the parks committee and debated in a public hearing on the cameras held on Capitol Hill earlier this month.
Philip Roewe, the staffer in Committee head Sally Bagshaw’s office charged with coordinating the creation of the document, told CHS that while the memo presents options and not recommendations, the plan is for the committee to emerge from Thursday’s meeting with a clear direction on new legislation that will either extend the program beyond its pilot phase — or end it.
“We haven’t had any kind of grand strategy session on this,” Roewe told CHS on Wednesday afternoon. “Tomorrow is a chance to get the big picture and discuss all the study and public comment. There will be a recommendation.”
On Wednesday, the ACLU‘s Washington wing posted a statement on the cameras calling for the program’s end : “By definition, a pilot project must reach an end, at which point the effectiveness of the project is evaluated. That time is now and the evaluation is simple; public surveillance cameras in Cal Anderson park have not been an effective law enforcement tool in any way whatsoever.”
Meanwhile, the Cal Anderson Park Alliance has also called for the removaldisabling of the technology from the grounds the organization is dedicated to.
One group who won’t have much to say is the contingent from the department that will actually have to live with the results of the committee’s effort — Seattle Parks. While the Thursday committee agenda lists interim superintendent Christopher Williams and Parks staff as presenters, spokesperson Dewey Potter told CHS this isn’t her department’s battle.
“It’s not in our hands at this point,” Potter said. “We don’t really have a position.”
We also contacted the Seattle Police Department’s head of investigations Assistant Chief Jim Pugel to find out what he would like to see emerge from the committee’s Thursday morning meeting but our calls were not returned. At the public hearing earlier this month, Pugel spoke in favor of utilizing the cameras, arguing that the October 2009 evaluation had been premature and that a longer period of study was warranted. He cited three recent instances where CCTVs had been crucial to police in identifying and arresting suspects: 1) London Tube Attacks in July 2005; 2) the South Park murder of Teresa Butz and the assault of her partner; and 3) the slaying of SPD Officer Tim Brenton.
The memo describes five main issues Council staff believe must be considered by the committee:
- Issue #1: Continuation of the surveillance program in Cal Anderson Park.
- Issue #2: Efficacy of cameras when used for passive monitoring.
- Issue #3: Future camera installations in other City parks.
- Issue #4: Limits on SPD personnel’s authority to engage in live monitoring.
- Issue #5: Future evaluations of the surveillance program.
Each issue includes a set of options and considerations for the committee members to weigh. Here are the options from the memo for the biggest question in the bunch: Should the Council continue the surveillance program in Cal Anderson Park? You’ll note that one potentially low-friction route could be the continuation of the pilot period so that a deeper evaluation of the technology can be made. We wrote about the City Auditor’s rather inconclusive report on the program to-date here.
The memo also contains suggested options for modifying how the cameras are used should the program continue. This option/consideration set raises the option of transitioning the cameras to a ‘panning’ mode so that they would capture a greater area of the park.
If the program is extended as a pilot or made permanent, there is also the question of increasing the ability for SPD to utilize the cameras for live monitoring of the area. The current rules for live monitoring are so restrictive that SPD says there have only been five requests for live monitoring since the cameras were installed in 2008 and not all of those could be filled. Meanwhile, there were six requests for reviews of footage as part of criminal investigations. SPD says that none of the evidence provided by the cameras was useful in the investigations.
We’ll update this post after Thursday’s committee meeting. The committee is expected to vote on the resulting legislation in June, followed by a full Council vote.
Interesting, the letter is by Kay Rood, who I believe is the woman who lived in one of the houses that was torn down.
Yup, Kay was a longtime Hill-er and continues to head the alliance. She also pops up in comments here from time to time :)
I attended Thursday’s committee meeting.
Video of the meeting is available streaming from the Seattle Channel, and I’ve made clips of the camera discussion available elsewhere. Links to my clips are included below.
Justin wrote:
During today’s meeting, when councilmember Bagshaw asked Christopher Williams what the Parks Department’s position is, Mr. Williams said that Parks wants whatever the Police Department wants.
SPD’s head of investigations Assistant Chief Jim Pugel, who attended the public hearing at Miller Community Center on May 4, 2010, seems not to be particularly familiar with this issue. He incorrectly stated at that meeting that there is only one surveillance camera operating in the park (there are three) and that the camera was no longer operational (all three are; I requested and received a copy of video each of them recorded on March 18, 2010, well after the pilot program ended).
The 15-minute discussion of the surveillance cameras was as follows (for each, elapsed time is linked to corresponding video clip):
0:00 – Bagshaw intro
Participants in the cameras discussion were:
Sally Bagshaw – City Council Parks Committee
Bruce Harrell – City Council Parks Committee
Tom Rasmussen – City Council Parks Committee
Sara Belz – City Council Central Staff
Paula Hoff – Seattle Parks & Recreation
Greg Schmidt – Seattle Police Department Director of Communications/9-1-1
1:28 – Schmidt SPD position
Bagshaw asked Schmidt if, from the Police Department standpoint, he has a position or preference on the cameras.
Schmidt replied:
they are “a fan of” any kind of tool that’s available that would help them solve crime
they believe the cameras could help them solve crime that could ocur in Bobby Morris Playfield or Cal Anderson Park
that they want to balance community interests, because they are community partners, too
they spoke to those who are interested in keeping the cameras: developers and some schools in the area
they spoke to those who “are not fans” of the cameras: some citizens using the park who are not fans of the cameras
their focus is on public safety
they have the position that they would like to keep the cameras for solving crime
they would like to discuss the live and active monitoring portion
discussion of live and active monitoring portion might be where they can balance the citizens’ interest in privacy
2:18 – Bagshaw May public meeting
Bagshaw: Held public meeting a few weeks ago.
2:38 – Williams Parks position
Bagshaw asked Williams if Parks has a position on the cameras.
Williams replied:
Parks generally supports the SPD recommendation
before Cal Anderson Park was developed, this recommendation for cameras grew out of the community; community wanted the cameras
level of complaints received prior to park redevelopment and camera installation was almost unmanageable
didn’t know how much of the lowering of complaint levels is attributable to cameras, but believes that there is some level of contribution from them
3:24 – Williams 3500 calls one weekend
This exchange between Bagshaw and Williams elicited a gasp of “what?” from someone on microphone (at Williams’ utterance of the word “3500”):
4:21 – Schmidt SPD reduced work in area
Schmidt, offering SPD’s “best way to compare apples to apples,” says SPD has seen 12% reduction in police work in the area, dispatched or on-viewed (in the area and saw something themselves). They looked at information for two years prior to installation and two years roughly since June, 2008, when they were enabled. He didn’t have data with him, but shared it with Sara in last couple days. He doesn’t have numbers. He got e-mail from Captain Dermody on the matter.
5:07 – Williams what behavior
Harrell asked what kind of behaviors Williams referred to.
Williams answered that it the following unlawful activities:
open sexual activity
prostitution
open drug use
open alcohol
camping
general harassment of park users
5:35 – Belz protocols
Belz: Review of camera protocols.
6:41 – Bagshaw are other cams in area
Bagshaw: Are there other cameras in the area? Schmidt: doesn’t know.
7:11 – Harrell whose decision to make
Harrell: What’s procedure? Whose decision is this to make? Council can legislate discontinuation of pilot through budget. Mayor can remove them right? Belz: Staff from City Budget Office has spoken with Mayor, and if Council were to move forward with continuing the program, Mayor would not be opposed. Doesn’t know Mayor’s position on discontinuing.
9:08 – Harrell what to compare against
Harrell: Police say this is a tool and any tool like this is helpful. Parks say a number of complaints have significantly decreased. What to compare against? No cameras in park, but with officers on foot patrol? Not much money “There’s not that much money, it doesn’t seem, involved in these cameras, and so I– it’s like a crapshoot, to be honest.”
9:53 – Rasmussen are cams active now
Rasmussen: Are cameras on now, passively monitoring and recording? Schmidt: Yes, on 14-day rotation. Belz: Pilot period is over. Cameras may be operating, but no one has the authority to look at the footage. [Actually, anyone can look at the footage. I received a copy from March 18 via public records request.] Schmidt: Police have not looked at footage since roughly January of February.
10:48 – Schmidt reviewed for investigation
Rasmussen: Have police reviewed footage to investigate any crimes? Schmidt: Has reviewed logs, and found that there have been two requests to review for investigation of crimes. They were in Fall, 2009. Similar crime patterns with roving individuals. Was not able to provide any information to help solve those crimes.
11:13 – Schmidt where focused
Rasmussen: What area are the cameras focused on now? Schmidt: Mostly at playfield and walkways between it and rest of park. Suggests Council considering what should be filmed if they decide to keep cameras. SPD was not involved in cameras’ placement and positioning in passive mode. Bagshaw: Can be put in pan mode instead of locked position. Schmidt: Correct.
11:57 – Schmidt no strategic analysis
Schmidt: No good strategic analysis was done. SPD would be happy to work with Parks on that, including advertising & marketing. Study clearly showed not much advertising was done, so where’s the crime deterrence? Better job could have been done. [Note: signs are posted in park]
12:18 – Williams Parks skipped required meeting
Williams: Parks was required to do a public meeting but did not. He thinks it was an executive decision “to apply some urgency to this, and we were supposed to come back to council and work out a plan, and that didn’t happen”. [Note: Mayor Nickels’ staff promised opportunity for community input, but never provided it. I had a long e-mail conversation with Christopher Williams about this in July, 2008. He was evasive then, but it seems from his testimony today that he got the point.]
12:35 – Rasmussen need info from Parks
Rasmussen: Seems if we allow them to continue, we would rely on Parks and SPD to suggest positioning. Maybe need to move them. Schmidt: We’d work with Parks. Bagshaw: That’s what we’ll need to do, have that kind of information. Conscious of ACLU’s concerns. Wonders if we need to have more notice to public of cameras in the parks if we decide to continue using them. Since we paid for them and have them, need to make decision forthright about whether we’ll use the. What’s the benefit to the police? What’s the cost of removing them? Would like to hear more from SPD and Parks. “I appreciate the fact that this is a real concern for people, to think that big brother is watching.”
14:00 – Schmidt consider use modes separately
Schmidt: When Council looks at this, consider that there are three modes: live mode, active mode (where we balance citizens’ concerns about big brother watching), and review of videotape. Encourages Council to consider the three separately, not as a whole, to determine how to protect the interests of everyone.
14:26 – Bagshaw need to visit SPD adjournment
Bagshaw: Would like to visit Police Department and see cameras, would be valuable so she can understand and have a better sense of… References Phil Mocek’s and ACLU’s comments. Schmidt: We’d welcome all of you. Adjourned.