Skip to main content.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

School Board Quashes Securty Video for Logan, Other District Schools

By Bethany Stringer, Courier Staff Writer


In a surprising 2-2 vote, the New Haven Unified School Board did not approve a proposed Surveillance Camera Policy.

The policy entailed allowing any school site to install video cameras as a crime deterrent. Cameras
would not be allowed in certain areas such as school bathrooms or locker rooms, but could be placed in any other part of the campus.

Board member Jenn Stringer expressed concerns including invasion of privacy and that the cameras would not effectively deter crime. Rather, those committing these acts would simply find new areas, unmonitored by cameras to carry out their felonies, she said.

Board member Gwen Estes was concerned with whether the Superintendent or the school sites themselves would be in control of the camera placement.

The vote was surprising and upsetting to many, as such committees as the Logan School Site Counsel had been largely in favor of it, as was Superintendent Pat Jaurequi.

In a discussion following the vote, questions were
raised as to if the policy could be brought back again for a first reading. However, the Superintendent did not think this was permissible under Robert's Rules of Order.

Posted by courier at 05:35:18. Filed under: News

Comments

I have experienced many unfavorable things at Logan, none of which I can prove. CST's are the only ones who could have aided my case but they were not present; they can not monitor everything constantly. If there had been cameras present, in my situation justice could have been done to the perpetrator of the crime. Unfortuately, due to the fact that only circumstantial evidence could be provided from my side, I gave up. A court case would have been based purely on hear-say and would have gotten me no where. Cameras might not deter crime but they may aid the victims of such crimes. I wish they had been there for me.

Posted by Where-s everyone when you need them? at Thursday, April 05, 2007 19:23:54

I agree. There are some things, actually many things that people get away with because their is either no witnesses who want to speak up, or there is no way other than circumstantial evidence to prove anyting. The cameras would not be an invasion of privacy, rather a means for people like myself and others to attain justce. While I understand how the cameras could be an invasion of privacy, it is all a matter of who operates them.

Posted by nee-ha at Saturday, April 07, 2007 21:03:28

Add Comment

 

Previous Item - Archives - Next Item