Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/2006, BUS 1 - VIDEO MONITORING POLICY council Alaccnc)a RepoRt CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology SUBJECT: VIDEO MONITORING POLICY CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution establishing a video monitoring policy. DISCUSSION Background Many organizations — both private and public — use video monitoring to better assure personal safety and protect property. In the private sector, many offices and stores routinely use video monitoring to help make their work places safer for their employees, prevent theft and protect their facilities from unauthorized access and vandalism. Locally, public sector uses range from traditional public safety uses — such as monitoring access at the public safety facilities and in-car video recording in police patrol vehicles — to a video camera in the hallway of the County's library in San Luis Obispo, which was placed there several years ago due to repeated vandalism of public restrooms. (The City has experienced similar problems in the The City currently makes very men's upstairs restroom in City Hall, where limited use of video monitoring:. excrement has been spread over the walls, fixtures • Police Station security and stalls; graffiti written and carved on partitions a In-car video: patrol vehicles walls; and toilets purposely clogged.) • Swim center security • Golf course club house security Video Monitoring Goals Video monitoring typically achieves its goals by either preventing adverse incidents; detecting them when they occur and assisting in the apprehension of those responsible; or some combination of the two. 1. Prevention. When used as a prevention strategy, the fact that video monitoring is occurring is usually prominently noticed, with the hope that this will alter behavior and deter acts of violence, theft or vandalism. 2. Detection. And in those cases where acts of violence, theft or property damage do occur, video monitoring systems can factually document the incident, and help lead to apprehension of those responsible (and in the case of theft, perhaps result in the recovery and return of stolen property). This can occur in "real time" or after the fact. Video Monitoring Policy Page 2 Clear Policies Should Guide the Use of Video Monitoring Systems Video monitoring systems are common today; and as digital technology lowers costs and makes camera placement even easier, they are likely to become even more common in the future. However, while the use of video monitoring systems is common, the adoption of policies guiding their use is not. Due to the factors noted above — lower costs and easier placement — combined with increased incidences of vandalism, it is likely that the City will consider expanding its use of video monitoring systems in the future. However, before doing so, we believe that it is important to set clear - — --- -- guidelines on their use in balancing privacy concerns ' with personal safety and responsible stewardship of In developing the proposed policy, the community's assets, which is the purpose of the we surveyed a number of local proposed policy. governments via several "listservs," both nationally and locally.. Proposed Video Monitoring Policy We found that the use of video monitoring for a variety of purposes Attached is the proposed policy, which guides the is widespread. However, we found City's use of video by clearly setting forth the: very few cities where policies governing their use were in place. 1. Appropriate uses of video monitoring systems. In fact; we received many requests in response to our survey to provide 2. Criteria and approval process. our policy after it is developed and 3. Location and placement. adopted. 4. Notification requirements. In short, we are taking a leadership 5. Oversight responsibility. role in local government indocumenting use guidelines before 6. Protection of recorded information and limited any significant use of video access. monitoring systems.. 7. Need for ongoing review. As reflected in the proposed policy, its "cornerstone" is the requirement that departments address key questions about the proposed use of video monitoring, including: 1. What other options were considered and why video monitoring is the best solution, before it is put in place.. 2. And subjecting requests to an extensive review process, including approval by the CAO; and full disclosure to others, including the elected citizen representatives: the City Council. Advisory Body Review Both the Human Resources Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission have reviewed the proposed policy. Both advisory bodies complimented the City for taking a proactive approach, and supported adoption of a policy guiding the City's use of video monitoring systems. 0 Video Monitoring Policy Page 3 However, both advisory bodies expressed concerns with first amendment rights and protection of personal privacy in the use of these systems. The following summarizes the specific concerns noted by individual advisory body members, and staff comments regarding them. Human Relations Commission 1. More definitively state the review period, rather than "periodically." The draft policy provided to both commissions initially provided for "periodic" reviews of the policy and its implementation. Several members believed that the review periods should be more definitively stated, with suggestions ranging from at least annually to every three years. The proposed policy includes this change, with the review period defined as at least every two years. 2. Provide the results of the review to the Council.. The proposed policy includes this change. 3. Include members of the public and/or advisory bodies in the review of departmental requests. The proposed policy requires approval by the CAO via the "CAO Report" process, as well as disclosure to employees and the Council (and as such, all decisions made under this approach will become public ones.) Under the CAO report process, there is an extensive review process by senior managers before final approval by the CAO. In this case, this would mean a recommendation by the requesting Department Head, with review and concurrence by the Director of Human Resources, Director of Finance & Information Technology, City Attorney and Assistant CAO, before final approval by the CAO. Given the strong guidance provided in the proposed policy, we believe that this comprehensive review process ensures appropriate implementation. Moreover, the disclosure to the Council provides an added safeguard, by providing the Council with an opportunity to reconsider the CAD's decision should they wish to do so. Parks & Recreation Commission Individual members expressed similar concerns to those outlined above. Additional concerns or questions raised by members included: 4. "Open space" is included in the list of areas where this policy would apply. Does the City have plans to install video cameras in open space areas? The policy is intended to apply to all City facilities or buildings. Open space is included in the "such as" listing simply to help indicate the broad., inclusive intent of the policy to cover all City properties. We have no plans to install video cameras in open space areas. l =2 _\Y ! � 1 Video Monitoring Policy Page 4 5. Why include "consistency with federal and state laws" in the statement of purpose? Of course, it is the City's intent to follow federal and state laws in all of our operations. However, including this statement in the policy serves as an important reminder to department heads in preparing requests to fully research laws that may affect their proposed use of video monitoring systems. 6. Discuss what the policy"isn't." Along with ensuring that our use is consistent with federal and state laws, the policy's goal is to ensure reasonable balance between privacy concerns with personal safety and responsible stewardship of the community's assets. Some members felt it should also say what the policy isn't about: an attempt to circumscribe first amendment rights of assembly or reasonable expectations of privacy. As a general practice, we believe that policies should be about what they are; not what they aren't. 7. Include a five-year sunset provision. We believe that the ongoing two-year review cycle provides appropriate assurance that the policy remains relevant. Moreover, an automatic sunset provision would have an unintended result: it would mean no policy guidance for the use of video monitoring systems. 8. Provide more detailed criteria for how and when "stakeholders" and the public will be notified when video monitoring systems are proposed. Since we haven't applied this policy yet, we believe it would be premature to include specific criteria at this time. However, this is clearly an area covered by the policy, and we believe that requiring this discussion in all requests will surface key notice issues, and appropriate implementation strategies. 9. Reduce retention periods. Several members expressed concern with keeping video recordings for periods longer than needed, in the context of the system's purpose. For example, if a camera is installed at a park site in order to deter vandalism and identify those responsible when it does occur, then recordings should be retained for a very short period: only long enough to determine if something happened last night; and if not, then that recording is no longer needed and should not be retained. Staff concurs with this concern, and from a management and cost of storage perspective, would prefer very short retention periods in most cases. However, as noted in the proposed policy, State law currently requires that all video recordings like those covered by this policy must be retained for at least one year. The City's policy is to retain recordings for the minimum required period. If the State should change its requirements, then we would change ours accordingly. Video Monitoring Policy Page 5 CONCURRENCES Advisory Bodies. As discussed above, this policy has been reviewed by the Human Relations Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission. They are supportive of the City proactively adopting a policy on this matter. Individual members asked questions and surfaced specific concerns, which are summarized above. Staff Review. This policy has been developed by a review team composed of senior managers from Administration, Human Resources, Finance & Information Technology, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Utilities and the City Attorney's Office. They concur with the proposed policy. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with adoption of the proposed policy. ATTACHMENT Resolution establishing a video monitoring policy 7 1+" i':. . d.:'�.777— G:Information Technology/Division/Security Cameras/Video Moaitoring/Council Agenda Report,Video Monitoring Policy,4-4-06 \ D RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING A VIDEO MONITORING POLICY WHEREAS, in order for public locations and facilities under the City's jurisdiction to be safe and secure, the use of electronic systems for routine video monitoring may be necessary; and WHEREAS, the City wants to ensure that their use is consistent with federal and state law, and reasonably balances privacy concerns with personal safety and responsible stewardship of the community's assets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the attached policy on video monitoring systems is hereby adopted. Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted on April 18, 2006. David F. Romero, Mayor ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonath ell, City Attorney f- l0 city of sAn Luis OBISPO . .___ Video Monitoring Systems PURPOSE In order for public locations and facilities under the City's jurisdiction to be safe and secure, the use of electronic systems for routine video monitoring may be necessary. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that their use is consistent with federal and state law, and reasonably balances privacy concerns with personal safety and responsible stewardship of the community's assets. Scope. This policy applies to systems that enable continuous or periodic routine video monitoring on a sustained basis for the following purposes: 1. Deter theft and vandalism and assist in the identification of individuals who commit damage to City facilities or property. 2. Assist law enforcement agencies with regard to the investigation of criminal activity. 3. Promote a safer environment by deterring acts of violence or aggression. This policy does not apply to the routine use of hand-held video cameras. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Installation Approval The approval process for installation of a video monitoring system falls into two categories, depending on the intended use. 1. Routine or traditional uses, such as security cameras at the Police Station, videotaping of water and sewer lines, or mobile systems in Police vehicles, will be approved through the usual budgeting and purchasing approval process. 2. Placement at other City facilities or buildings, such as City Hall, other City offices, public parks, Mission Plaza, open space areas, public street or other public locations, requires approval by the City Administrative Officer (CAO), via the CAO Report process. CAO Approval Criteria When seeking CAO approval, Department Heads will address the following issues and concerns in supporting their request: - 1 - Video-Mon itoring Systems 1. Objectives for implementing the system. 2. Use of equipment, including: a. Location of cameras. b. Location of reception equipment. c. Personnel authorized to operate the system. d. Times when monitoring will be in effect (and staffed, if applicable). 3. Other deterrence or detection measures that were considered, and why video monitoring is the best solution. 4. Any specific, verifiable reports of incidents of crime or significant safety concerns that have occurred in the location to be placed under video monitoring. 5. Possible effects of the proposed video monitoring system on personal privacy, if any, and how they will be mitigated. 6. Appropriate consultation with stakeholders, including the public; or reasons why this is not necessary. 7. Signage strategy advising the public that video monitoring is occurring. 8. Approach to installing and maintaining the system. 9. Fiscal impact and availability of funding. Location and Direction of Video Monitoring Equipment 1. Permanent, fixed-mounted cameras will not be placed in areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy is standard, such as inside restrooms. 2. Cameras located internally will not be directed to look through windows to areas outside the building, unless necessary to protect external assets, provide for the personal safety of individuals or deter criminal activity from occurring. 3. Cameras will not be directed to look into adjacent, non-City owned buildings. 4. Placement of cameras will also take into consideration physical limitations such as availability of power, cell reception and reasonable mounting facilities. Notification Procedures 1. The Council and City employees will be notified in advance, in writing or via e-mail, of the placement of any video monitoring system in a City-owned facility or building. 2. Clearly written signs will be prominently displayed at the perimeter of video monitoring areas advising the public that video monitoring is occurring. p- Video Monitoring Systems 3. On a case-by-case basis, as approved by the CAO, a decision may be made to eliminate public signage or employee notification in order to support crime prevention or investigative activities. Responsibility for Oversight of Video Monitoring Systems The CAO (or designee) is responsible for overall oversight of all video monitoring systems and for implementation of this policy. Intended Use of Video Monitoring Information Any information obtained from video monitoring systems will only be used for the purposes set forth in this policy. PROTECTION OF VIDEO MONITORING INFORMATION Security of Storage Devices Resulting from Routine Video Monitoring 1. When not in use, storage devices will be securely kept in a controlled access area. 2. All storage media that is no longer in active use will be numbered and dated. Retention and Destruction of Routine Video Monitoring Records 1. All records derived from routine video monitoring will be retained for as long as required by federal or state law. (Currently, California Government Code Section 34090.6 requires that these records be retained for one year prior to destruction.) 2. In the event that records are evidence in any claim filed or any pending litigation, they will be preserved until the pending litigation is resolved. 3. Destruction requires the written consent of the City Attorney. 4. Records will be securely and permanently disposed of in a manner appropriate to their storage media. Placement and Viewing of Video Monitors Video monitors will not be placed in locations that facilitate public viewing. Access and Use of Recorded Information 1. Only those personnel authorized by the CAO (or designees) in writing will have access to information acquired through.routine video monitoring. 2. Recorded information will never be sold, and will not be publicly viewed or distributed in any other manner, except as provided for by this policy and applicable federal and state law. r; i - 3- t Video Monitoring Systems ONGOING REVIEW OF CITY'S USE OF VIDEO MONITORING SYSTEMS Review of the City's use of video monitoring systems and their adherence to this policy will be undertaken at the direction of the CAO (or designee) at least every two years. The results of each review will be documented and provided to the Council; and any concerns or deviations from this policy addressed promptly and effectively. The CAO is authorized to make minor administrative changes to this policy in light of technological or legal changes as long as they are intended to carryout its purpose and will not have any significant policy impacts. G: Information Technology/Information Technology Division/Security Cameras/Video Monitoring Policy I -�v -4-