Police body cameras are an important tool to enhance accountability and transparency in policing. Is Norwich ready to the make the move? How about if a grant covered nearly 80% of the cost? The matter is on the Selectboard agenda for its meeting on March 24.
Discussed below are the stated reasons for the proposed purchase as well the Selectboard Chair’s opposition. At the end, I rant about the lack of a capital plan.
The proposal is to purchase four in-car cameras and four accompanying body cameras. Total cost, including software and installation, is approximately $38,000. Of that amount, $30,000 is coming as a grant from the Jack and Dorothy Byrne Foundation. That Foundation regularly receives praise for its support of community organizations in the Upper Valley.
Body cams for police are usually thought of as a good thing. Even the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont is “cautiously optimistic” about their use. However, paying for the equipment is just one consideration. An overriding concern, says ACLU-VT is whether adequate policies are in place to “protect privacy, assure accountability, and allow transparency.”
Chief Frank’s proposal
Several months before her announced move to become police chief in Windsor, Police Chief Jennifer Frank proposed the purchase of four in-car cameras an four accompanying body cameras. The budget proposed by Town Manager Herb Durfee did not include the expense. However, in his proposed capital plan, the Town Manager included the purchase for the fiscal year starting this July 1.
In support of its inclusion in the capital plan, Chief Frank noted that recent legislation requires body cams for the Vermont State Police. She also believes this mandate will soon extend to local police departments.
Further, Chief Frank praised the benefits of body cams and in-car cameras. In her capital plan justification, the Chief wrote:
Furthermore, the US Department of Justice, through its research arm, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing include the use of body-worn cameras and in cruiser cameras as best practices for law enforcement. These studies concluded that officers utilizing body cameras had 87.5% fewer incidents of use of force and 59% fewer complaints than officers who did not utilize the technology. …
While body worn cameras and in-car camera systems were on the list of equipment to replace, research, and potentially implement, other budgetary needs were more immediate resulting in this line item receiving a lower immediacy rating for implementation. As a result of this new state mandated legislation, and in an effort to remain consistent with best practices, this equipment line item has been moved forward in budgetary expenditure fulfillment.
Selectboard packet for March 24, 2021 at page 96.
In-car cameras
At present, police cars in Norwich have in-car cameras. These date back to 2013. In her capital plan justification, the Chief described the system as “antiquated, unreliable, and incompatible with body-worn cameras.”
Opposition to purchase
Selectboard Chair Roger Arnold opposes “the use of Body Cameras for Norwich, especially at this moment in time.” His two page memorandum is in the Selectboard packet for March 24 at page 119.
In the memo, Mr. Arnold says that studies show mixed results regarding the effectiveness of body cameras, referencing a Pew Trusts Stateline article by Lindsey Van Ness. His conclusion on the studies differs from the statistics cited by the Police Chief. In addition, Mr. Arnold thinks the use of body cameras raise privacy and accountability questions.
Chair Arnold also asks the Selectboard to consider three specific points
- lf purchased, the use of Body Cameras in Norwich would follow the current statewide policy from the Law Enforcement Advisory Board, written in 2016. Mr. Arnold says that policy falls short of ACLU-VT concerns regarding use of facial recognition analytics and pre-statement review of video by officers.
- The Town of Norwich may require additional support for interaction with the Vermont Public Records Act. On this point, he says Burlington has struggled with developing a policy for releasing video to the public.
- I would like to avoid private or charitable donations for the purchase of this equipment. The Selectboard Chair indicates that the Board “must first develop a gift policy that ensures that no requirements or provisions are expected.”
In addition, four letters from residents in the Selectboard packet urge the Town to not purchase the body cameras.
Norwich needs a capital plan
This is the third (at least) capital expenditure since June that the Town is making decisions on, without the benefit of a long-term capital plan. The others are the replacement of the box culvert on Route 132 and engineering studies related to the Beaver Meadow Road Sidewalk. More ad-hoc decision making is on its way. The lack of a plan is not a good thing.
Over a year ago, the Finance Committee recommended that the Town form a committee to help generate a capital plan. The Selectboard ignored that recommendation, along with others by the Finance Committee. Eventually that Committee saw mass resignations, because members viewed their work as “pointless.” The loss of that talent caused not a stir on the Selectboard.
A five-year capital plan is not going to happen unless the Selectboard makes it a top priority. So far, it has not. Why?
Now, through lack of a plan, the Town finds itself in the embarrassing situation where it might return a gift from the Byrne Foundation, an Upper Valley institution. A gift that the Police Chief solicited. The Town Manager proposed a capital plan. He and the Chief presumably relied on the plan in soliciting the gift. Now the Selectboard might reject the gift. I am not expressing an opinion on the merits of police body cameras. My point: with a capital plan, the Town would not need to make decisions at cross-purposes or on the fly.
I also wonder why our leaders let this drift along for nearly four months. The gift was made on December 3. What took so long?
Contact me at norwichobserver [AT] gmail.com.
Chris,
As you know, I ran on the topic of developing a Capital Plan & Budget as well as the Debt Management Policy in Norwich. At the March 10, 2021 Selectboard meeting, there was some discussion about these topics as a function of looking at items that are in the “parking lot” of items for future discussion/action. I wanted to jump up and yell, “Hallelujah!!! They are preaching the Gospel of Pam Smith”. Not sure how quickly they will take action, but our newest Selectboard member, Marcia Calloway, is determined to push for an overarching “Operational Plan” for Norwich, which would include the adoption of a Capital Plan and Budget.
The Board is asked to approve this gift because there is not an adopted capital plan that would otherwise determine if body cameras are “consistent with budgeted items.” This was first flagged in correspondence that is also provided in the packet but is not referenced in this post.
Selectboard goal setting inclusive of operational and capital planning is also an agenda item for March 24. A special meeting devoted to these topics is planned for March 31.