Archive: Opinions

I disagree with your editorial last week that the Lansing school district effectively communicated that cameras would be installed in the schools. Communication is not just leaving a message. For communication to occur, that message also has to be received and understood. We only know we have communicated when those we're trying to communicate with let us know that they understand.

Perhaps the school board and administrators did everything humanly possible to get the word out about the cameras. Maybe we should give them a big pat on the back. But clearly the message was not received. People I've talked with about the cameras have expressed disbelief, and, for the most part, a strong negative reaction to the idea. These people are very well informed residents, several of whom are very active in the community. They're not people you could claim are out of touch. And based on their strong negative reaction to the cameras, they certainly would have remembered being informed about them. If these very well informed people didn't know about the cameras, you can be sure that only a small minority of residents had any inkling about them.

As frustrating as that may be to those who think they did a great job, the point is, their communication was not successful. They now react defensively and criticize those who, in their minds, should have known about the cameras. And, because they believe they should have known, they have no right to express their opinions now. But the fact remains that most residents, perhaps more than 90%, including those who voted, were completely unaware of the cameras. And that's the reality the district needs to deal with. I don't think that blaming the public will gain them any good will.

However, as someone who regularly attends board meetings, I'm much more concerned by what was effectively and clearly communicated at a board meeting. My concern rises to a matter of trust. Can we trust what we hear at board meetings?

As you reported, in a January 2009 school board meeting the idea of installing cameras was brought up by a board member. In your article you reported, "But Board President Anne Drake said that the use of cameras is problematic. 'There is a great controversy around hidden cameras in the building,' she said."

That was quite understandable. I'm sure Anne remembered the controversy that arose in 2004 when a proposal to install cameras was discussed and then, because of a mild student uprising, soon withdrawn.

But, most significantly, your article went on to report "Grimm says that he wants to involve the community at large in the decision process to determine how much or how little security is needed. 'We have to move forward slowly,' he said. 'There are a lot of different options, but we also need to understand the current cultural level. We can include the community, parents, students, and then come to a collaborative decision.'"

Based on that statement, I didn't think it was necessary to raise questions when a few months later cameras were mentioned in a list of things that were part of a building project. No particular emphasis was given to them. I trusted that cameras would be only installed after a slow, deliberative process resulting in a collaborative decision. And perhaps, based on the outcome of that process, they might not be installed at all.

So I pretty much forgot about the cameras until, much to my surprise, I learned last month that cameras had already been installed without any stakeholder involvement. It soon became painfully clear that the board and administration didn't want to hear our views. The cameras were going in without any community discussion. What the community thought didn't matter. This is a done deal, as board member Aziza Benson put it.

And from that realization comes a lot of frustration and a lot of disappointment from people I've talked to. Although I tried my best to stay informed, I feel that I'm being blamed for somehow being negligent. And perhaps I was. I was negligent by trusting that what we were promised would actually occur. I'll try not be so negligent again.

Ted Laux
Lansing
v7i46