Archive: News

The first hour of Monday's Lansing Board Of Education was a heated discussion of whether surveillance cameras should be used on the Lansing school campus.  Board member Christine Iacobucci and a cadre of speakers spoke against using cameras, asked for data supporting their need, and the need for a policy to govern their use.  Superintendent Stephen Grimm and other board members noted that the cameras are part of the Learning, Health & Safety capital project that was well publicized two years ago when the public voted to fund it.

"My intent as a policy board member and community member is not to push this through, and it is not to suggest that we adopt this particular policy, but to officially read it and get input from the community after it's read," said board member Aziza Benson, who is a member of the policy committee.  "It certainly was not to sweep it under the carpet.  I felt since the cameras are in place or will be online soon it was important that we get the policy that represents what we want to do as a board and a community going."

She added that she hopes people will send in feedback after reading the policy so the committee can incorporate community ideas to make a better draft.

Iacobucci made a motion to remove the policy reading from the agenda, charging that it was not added to the agenda in accordance with board policy.  Board President Anne Drake said that board policy was followed.  The board voted 4-1 to keep the item in.

	Click here for the first draft of the camera policy that was shared with the school board and the public last Monday. Click here for the Learning, Health & Safety capital project flyer that was sent to voters. Click here for other project documents on the Lansing school Web site.

Many speakers argued that a culture of paranoia and mistrust would result if the cameras are turned on.  Parent Joe Woelfel charged that the cameras would only solve 'small, anecdotal problems' and that the cameras would have a chilling effect.  His daughter Emary Iacobucci was the only student to weigh in on the discussion.  She argued that the use of cameras would raise privacy and trust  issues, and that they wouldn't in any case, be effective.

"These cameras are an invasion of privacy, in my opinion," she said.  "I read the draft of the camera policy, and it said that some of the cameras that will be placed in the schools will have audio.  All the students who talk about personal problems or teachers to their friends will be recorded on these audio cameras.  Cameras do have blind spots.  We talked about this in my Global class: students are very attentive to where the cameras are, and they will easily find the blind spots easily, I would say, within a few days."

Others also questioned the decision making process.  Iacobucci said board policy was not followed because the policy committee had been unable to meet before the draft policy was read.  Board members Glenn Swanson and David Dittman defended the process, stressing that the public voted for the project, and recalling an open, public discussion that included security cameras in 2010 before the vote.  Grimm noted the policy is just a draft, with plenty of time for continued input before a final draft is passed by the board.  But others questioned the process.

"I feel really angry tonight," said Martha Laux.  "I am truly disappointed because when Steve Grimm came to this district he stood out among all administrators we had ever known for his collaborative style.  He asked for input and tried to incorporate that into any policies that were made.  Tonight we are seeing that is no longer so."

At that point Grimm gave an impassioned rebuttal in which he defended his and the board's actions, charging that rumor, misinformation and personal attacks are tainting the public discussion.  His voice trembled as tried to contain his anger.

Grimm noted that no cameras in the school will have audio, and pointed to the draft policy which states that.  He said the only cameras with audio are on school busses, and have been for about two years.  He argued that with dwindling resources that forced the elimination of an assistant principal position, and a budget gap for the 2012 - 2013 school amounting to 3.7 million dollars that will almost certainly force more staff reductions, that cameras will save a lot of administrators' time when getting to the bottom of infractions such as students writing hate messages on lockers, or people coming into the schools at night to steal equipment.  He noted that $2,000 worth of tools were stolen from the high school in January of 2010, a few months before the project was passed.

He went on to defend his record on inclusiveness, saying that in addition to regular open school board meetings he had held special meetings around the community to talk to people about the project before the community passed it in a March 9th, 2009 vote, and detailed mailings and public discussions described the project, including cameras, at that time.  (Click here for our January, 2010 story about these meetings.)

"We have people talking tonight," he said.  "We have ten responses from the Web site.  That sounds like collaboration.  That sounds like seeking input and listening before you make a decision.  I see a board that is going out of their way to solicit input.  We've got a press that is also doing that.  People know about this.  You should be concerned about rights and privacy, absolutely.  We shouldn't be recording anybody's conversations in the hallway or the classroom, absolutely not.  That is in the policy."


Grimm noted there was an extensive discussion about security cameras an a school board meeting, coverage in the press, another long discussion at the board meeting two weeks ago.  He said that after that meeting he ran the draft by the district lawyers, and sent copies to the Board Of Education.  Then he and High School Principal Eric Hartz met with students about the draft policy.  Next he posted the policy on the school Web site with a feedback form, and emailed copies to the faculty and staff and provided hard copies for those who don't use email, asking for their feedback.  He said that some of those people used social media to make others aware of the draft.  He noted that board policy had been followed, and that the current camera policy discussion is part of the district's normal, approved process.

"Don't confuse my passion as passion for cameras," he said.  "My passion has to do with the false accusations that are out there, the misinformation, and all of that.  This drives me crazy when people don't have the facts before they decide what they are going to say about people, and character assassination, when what we try to do is involve people and do the right thing."

After Monday's meeting several board members requested a special Board Of Education meeting next Monday (11/21 at 7pm in the high school library) to continue the camera discussion.  A regularly scheduled board meeting is also scheduled for the November 28^th at 7pm.

v7i45