Security Camera in the Hall

[Hannathy]

they can be targeted in many ways, kids can be cruel...

Who is talking about kids? the question was about school board member's.

 

[NotUrsula]

The issue for me is WHY the school board feels that they need on-demand access. The cameras are used for security deterrence and for disciplinary evidence, and neither of those things is within the day-to-day purview of a school board member. These issues are the responsibility of the school administrators, not the Board.

IME, elected board members have a tendency to want to micromanage aspects of the schools that are not their immediate business. They should only be directly involved in issues like these when a lawsuit or a funding issue is on the table, otherwise it isn't their problem, and I think that giving them this sort of access will tempt them to meddle that much more often.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that the reason that the board wants the access has much less to do with wanting to watch the students than it does wanting to watch the teachers. IME, the number one not-their-problem issue that board members like to meddle with is personnel matters. (And yes, I understand that school staffing is part of their responsibilities, but only in the wider sense: issues with individual personnel are between the teacher and the administrator unless the teacher wants to take it up the line; in which case the tapes are there for review when they are needed.)

 

[Hannathy]

No - not anybody can walk into a school and observe.

I didn't say anybody. I said a school board member.

And yes a school board member would have the right to walk into a school.

 

[sam_gordon]

they can be targeted in many ways, kids can be cruel...

OK. So "Suzy School Board" (DD of School board member w/camera access) wants to target "Ivy Innocent". Wouldn't anything that's on camera be able to be seen by someone physically IN the school? In other words, if Ivy is in the hall and picks her nose, wouldn't someone see her in person?

I agree kids can be cruel. But how would access to the cameras help (them be cruel)?

 

[sam_gordon]

I can give you a semi-example from our town. Big name realtor in town #1 (BNR #1) is on the school board. He is often in direct competition against Big name Realtor #2 (BNR #2), Mom of a local High School student.

The little darling went on a rampage one fine afternoon and smashed up a trophy case and an broke into a bunch of lockers. Evidence was turned over to the local police for prosecution and that is working through whatever juvenile court system handles such things.

BNR #1 used his position as a school board rep to get access to the evidence at the school and then turned that evidence out into the wild for no reason other than to harm the local reputation of BNR #2. He released the name, posted some pictures on a website, brought in the child's past disciplinary records etc. In the process, the child's right to privacy in concerns to his educational and legal records was violated and now the SCHOOL DISTRICT has a legal problem.

So the camera is one thing. However anytime such information is collected and stored in a school system then the school takes on duties to protect that information. You have website log-ins ... then you have security issues. What purpose is there in letting School Board members log-in from anywhere at anytime for any reason. If they have a reasonable need to view the tapes, then they can certainly do so from the school.

No - not anybody can walk into a school and observe.

So we shouldn't have cameras because you don't know WHO might use them for undesirable purposes. After all, what if the principal has an ax to grind?

I'm also guessing the school community (meaning students & their parents & friends) already knew who had vandalized the school, even before BNR#1 released the name & footage.

 

[RitaE]

So we shouldn't have cameras because you don't know WHO might use them for undesirable purposes. After all, what if the principal has an ax to grind?

I'm also guessing the school community (meaning students & their parents & friends) already knew who had vandalized the school, even before BNR#1 released the name & footage.

No - but the fewer people who have access to the images, the fewer chances there are for problems. That is why not every school employee has access to student files. That is why not every school employee has access to the computer databases. That is why access to any sort of school record is limited to those who need to information to perform their jobs. So again, why does a School Board member need website log-in privileges at will?

People might see Suzy pick her nose in a school hallway, but if a Teacher takes a picture of her the school needs a parental release form before it can be published in the School newsletter.

And it doesn't matter what the town knew about before the school employee acted inappropriately. The only thing that matters legally is he gained access to confidential student information in his role as District Board member and then violated a student's privacy.

 

[Hannathy]

And it doesn't matter what the town knew about before the school employee acted inappropriately. The only thing that matters legally is he gained access to confidential student information in his role as District Board member and then violated a student's privacy.

And that is why HE should have been charged. You are citing 1 very specific case of a board member doing something unethical. You summed it up perfectly HE acted inappropriately not the board.


your image when you are out in public is not confidential

 

[sam_gordon]

No - but the fewer people who have access to the images, the fewer chances there are for problems. That is why not every school employee has access to student files. That is why not every school employee has access to the computer databases. That is why access to any sort of school record is limited to those who need to information to perform their jobs. So again, why does a School Board member need website log-in privileges at will?

I don't equate "school security camera video" with "school records". I agree the janitor (or even a school board member) needs access to a students records (grades, attendance, disciplinary issues, etc). But what does the video show about the student... that they were there, that they went to their locker to get their books?

People might see Suzy pick her nose in a school hallway, but if a Teacher takes a picture of her the school needs a parental release form before it can be published in the School newsletter.

Which I think is a school covering their behind.

And it doesn't matter what the town knew about before the school employee acted inappropriately. The only thing that matters legally is he gained access to confidential student information in his role as District Board member and then violated a student's privacy.

Then he should be held accountable.

Look, I'm not saying a school board member has the RIGHT/NEED to be able to see video whenever they want. But I don't see the outcry against it either. Like I've mentioned before, kids images are probably stored ALL OVER the place that non-school employees have access to.

 

[NotUrsula]

And that is why HE should have been charged. You are citing 1 very specific case of a board member doing something unethical. You summed it up perfectly HE acted inappropriately not the board.


your image when you are out in public is not confidential

Yes, but normally surveillance video that is intended to be used as evidence is not publicly accessible. Part of the reason why is that wide dispersal of it gives rise for opportunities for tampering. If the kid's attorney can make a case that the footage *might* have somehow been tampered with, he has a fairly good chance of getting the case dismissed.

The bottom line is that, no matter what kind of personal ethics issue this board member had, if he had not had access to that video via a channel that allowed him to download and distribute it, then the school district would not be on the hook for the potential liability.

There is quite a lot of value in preventing people from getting their hands on enough rope to to hang themselves, especially when someone else might have to pay for the funeral, metaphorically speaking.

 

[ICF]

Really dont see what this is an issue.....

I'd have no issue with the cameras or with some people being able to access it.

It's not like they are in the locker rooms / bathrooms.

 

[ols386]

I don't know why school board members would need to have access to the video camera images, at home. I can see security-type people having access, and maybe administrators of the school, but not board members.

 

[luvsJack]

So we shouldn't have cameras because you don't know WHO might use them for undesirable purposes. After all, what if the principal has an ax to grind?

I'm also guessing the school community (meaning students & their parents & friends) already knew who had vandalized the school, even before BNR#1 released the name & footage.

I don't think the pp you quoted is saying that there should not be cameras. But there is no logical reason for the school board to have access.

There IS logical reason for the principal and other school personnel to have access, but I think it should be limited to those that need to have it.

Yes, the principal may have an axe to grind, but if the access is limited to only a couple of people--its less likely to be a problem. Folks don't ususally like to be the one to "leak information" if it is more likely to be pinpointed who did the leaking.

 

[luvsJack]

Those of you that are debating with others about "why there is a problem".

Why do you think the school board needs this kind of access?

 

[happygirl]

Those of you that are debating with others about "why there is a problem".

Why do you think the school board needs this kind of access?

Why don't they need the access. They are largely responsible for the school and the staff. maybe there are staffing issues that OP doesn't know about

 

[NotUrsula]

Why don't they need the access. They are largely responsible for the school and the staff. maybe there are staffing issues that OP doesn't know about

The normal role of a school board in staffing issues is to set district-wide employee policies, approve the budget, and sometimes to adjudicate appeal hearings from staff who have gone all the way to the Superintendant already. They really should NOT be interfering in day-to-day HR matters, and that includes who to hire and or fire or discipline in any other way.

The normal chain of command is that teachers and other school staff report to principals, principals report to the superintendant, and ONLY the superintendant reports directly to the Board. The Board's own HQ employees are their direct HR responsiblity, but except in terms of setting policy, school employees normally are not.

If they have heard complaints, then the Superintendant can arrange to get the video shown to them in a group, so that they can discuss it from a policy perspective.

 

[luvsJack]

Why don't they need the access. They are largely responsible for the school and the staff. maybe there are staffing issues that OP doesn't know about

The school board is not really responsible for what goes on in the hallway of a school. The teachers are and then the principal. The school board is there for policies and procedures, to approve hirings and terminations--not to see if Johnny walked down the hall and pinched Suzy.

There are people between the school board and the staff that do need access. If the principal or vice principal has an issue with the staff and if they see something on the cameras, then it can be taken to the school board. But in all reality, if there is an issue and the staff member needed to reprimanded for something on the cameras, the principal would do that NOT the school board. If it was something that would cause a termination, the board only approves what the principal recommends anyway and so at that time whatever the principal saw can be taken to the board.

Since the cameras are in the hall and not in the classrooms, its seems that its not an issue with staff but to keep an eye on the students in the hallway.

The board doesn't need to see the day to day activities of the students.

 

[Coconut36]

Those of you that are debating with others about "why there is a problem".

Why do you think the school board needs this kind of access?

Why don't they need access? They play a role in the school too.

 

[Coconut36]

The school board is not really responsible for what goes on in the hallway of a school. The teachers are and then the principal. The school board is there for policies and procedures, to approve hirings and terminations--not to see if Johnny walked down the hall and pinched Suzy.

There are people between the school board and the staff that do need access. If the principal or vice principal has an issue with the staff and if they see something on the cameras, then it can be taken to the school board. But in all reality, if there is an issue and the staff member needed to reprimanded for something on the cameras, the principal would do that NOT the school board. If it was something that would cause a termination, the board only approves what the principal recommends anyway and so at that time whatever the principal saw can be taken to the board.

Since the cameras are in the hall and not in the classrooms, its seems that its not an issue with staff but to keep an eye on the students in the hallway.

The board doesn't need to see the day to day activities of the students.

Hmmmm...yeah I don't know that I agree with the bold. When certain disciplinary actions are taken or put in motion it can end up in front of the school board..if there is a question regarding what occured or a parent arguing the punishment or that their child "did it". So while the responsibility isn't immediate (it starts with teachers/Principals) they do end up involved in things like Johnny getting into a fight or if there is an incident that involves a lot of students. Even things like drugs on campus (such as "it was noted Susie was the last person in the hallway before the drugs were found"), fights, bullying, questions regarding teacher actions...etc could all be relevant to the board and be verified or disputed based on camera footage from a hallway.

 

[RitaE]

Hmmmm...yeah I don't know that I agree with the bold. When certain disciplinary actions are taken or put in motion it can end up in front of the school board..if there is a question regarding what occured or a parent arguing the punishment or that their child "did it". So while the responsibility isn't immediate (it starts with teachers/Principals) they do end up involved in things like Johnny getting into a fight or if there is an incident that involves a lot of students. Even things like drugs on campus (such as "it was noted Susie was the last person in the hallway before the drugs were found"), fights, bullying, questions regarding teacher actions...etc could all be relevant to the board and be verified or disputed based on camera footage from a hallway.

In which case the footage could be viewed by the Board in one of those closed door disciplinary school board meetings. That still isn't a reason for them to have unlimited log-on access from their personal computers.

 

[Coconut36]

In which case the footage could be viewed by the Board in one of those closed door disciplinary school board meetings. That still isn't a reason for them to have unlimited log-on access from their personal computers.

And it isn't reason that they shouldn't. Really I just fail to understand the issue at all. This is not random strangers or anyone off the street. It's staff and board members.