City panel on cameras informative, but ignores citizen questions

Frayda S. Bluestein

GREENSBORO, NC -- The City of Greensboro sponsored a panel discussion today regarding public access to video recorded by police body-worn cameras, which the City maintains are not public records. It was an informative discussion, but it fell short of its full potential. Despite having previously announced that it would include "time allotted during the panel discussion for questions from the in-person and online audience," according to the City's publicity, the forum was brought to a close without a single citizen's question asked. The City got to ask its questions, but citizen questions were not addressed.

Jan Pritchett

That was a big disappointment, especially since the last half hour or more of the discussion was given over to panelists largely repeating points they'd already made. Nonetheless, there was some very interesting and thought provoking discussion and the video is worth watching if you weren't in attendance and have an interest in these matters. View it here.

Here are the questions submitted by citizens, as provided by the City. Some are just statements and some are off topic, but there are some good questions that, had they been asked, would have made the panel discussion more beneficial.
-------------------------------------

Online questions/comments submitted via e-mail regarding panel discussion on video footage:

Why not put the cameras up and make them public access except in emergencies. The resolution could be easily degraded for public access and enhanced for official business. This could be a draw for downtown.

I believe this is a case of BIG BROTHER watching over us and can easily be miss-used for political control. This threatens to be a gross invasion of personal privacy.

Worst idea I ever heard of. "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions".
We don't need someone making everyone a suspect in a surveillance state

1) Does an actual written policy exist within the GPD and/or City of Greensboro, re: release of body cam video? If there is, what is it? If there is not one, why not?

2) The lack of a concrete written policy and/or guidelines seems to create the impression that any release of video to the public is arbitrary, depending on whether or not the GPD wishes to raise the issue of personnel laws or not. The presumption should be to always release absent a specifically cited exception, not never release unless no loopholes are found.

What is the purpose for this open forum? Are decisions being made or simply discussed? Lastly, what is the potential impact on me as a civilian? Thank you.

Why in the world would you do this? Thank you Mayor Vaughn. If these cameras go up it will be the LAST time I go down town. You will NEVER create a perfectly safe environment. Downtown Greensboro can forget my business coming there if this goes through.period. More reason for malls and outlets to move their business out of the cities.

Please cite for me EXACTLY WHERE in the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution, you are given the authority to spy on citizens. We are CITIZENS, not subjects, and the government rules with the CONSENT of the governed. We do not consent to this. If you don't believe it, give us a chance to vote on it!

You would better serve the citizens by providing this panel at a time when most people could attend. That the panelists could not attend at another time tells me you didn't try hard enough to find panelists who could. As for me, I won't be going downtown if the cameras are installed. I view it as a gross invasion of privacy and agree with Mayor Vaughan, I don't want to live in a police state. Thank you, Nancy

Questions/Comments collected during the discussion to be answered by the panelists:

The City records calls to its help line, creating a record that, like body cameras, records interactions between city personnel and the public. The City advises callers that these recordings are public records and has, in fact, released them in response to records requests. How is it that the personnel records exception is applied to body camera recordings, but not help line recordings? Isn’t it just a policy position? (This one was submitted by this blog's author.)

Question for the City Attorney: Has the officer involved in the March shooting of the knife wielding woman, the video of which is being withheld under the guise of personnel records, been asked if he would consent to release of the video?  (This one was submitted by this blog's author.)

If all video is released, how do you prevent a rush to judgment and lynch mob mentality before a full investigation can be completed?

Why should we have to pay or help pay for something we don’t have access to?

Why has the City Council been hesitant on voting for authority over cameras and subsequent footage?

If GPD is adamant about cameras being personnel property, then we must have a citizen review panel.

The personnel argument is weak – just because a record is created with a secondary possible use (officer evaluation) it does not make it a personnel record. How do those advocating this position reconcile that with attempts to apply the exemption in this way completely undermine the transparency objective of wearing cameras?

What is the truth about who funded the camera imitative and whose idea was it to begin with?

The police officers file may not be public information, why not?