Do people who are monitoring the cameras, are they also in manual control of the camera? They can put it at any 360 direction, zoom in, zoom out?
That's correct. One thing that I wanted to highlight is that our camera surveillance network is part of an overall command post. In other words, it's just not a room that's 114 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 situated for camera-viewing only. Our command post is comprised of our homeland security group, our unified camera surveillance network, our public works dispatch operation. And so we have a number of different individuals that sit in this particular room that are actually performing different functions, but the whole idea of the command post is that total situation of awareness. And so you've got individuals sort of like that -- it's almost as if they sort of like police themselves, so to speak, because they're all in this room doing their respective functions and roles.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, first I'd like to thank you all for coming on such short 115 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 notice. I'm looking forward to possibly going to Chicago to see how the systems operate. I know the Police Commissioner and his staff have indicated the need to come look at some of the systems out there, and we may be tagging along. One quick question. On the systems that triangulate towards the gunshot, have you gotten substantial false readings on that in terms of other sounds?
Initially, when we started the program -- and, again, you have to understand that this technology is still maturing, but initially, there were some false positive reads. But what I can tell you, though, is, we had continued to refine that technology, and to date, every gunshot that has gone off that sends a signal to our center has been an actual bona fide gunshot. The issue then of the actual camera veering or directing itself toward the direction of the gunshot itself is an area that 116 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 we're still refining. But the good thing is is that you have an actual POD camera watcher there, and so when the signal does go off and an address does pop up that is within the vicinity of the gunshot, the actual person who is monitoring can immediately tap into that camera and start looking for offenders or anything that is consistent with the gunshot going off.
So they can differentiate between a fire cracker, something like that?
Yeah. We've gotten -- like I said, initially, we were experiencing some false positives initially, but, again, with the vendor, we've gone out there and we continue to refine it, working on the acoustics and different things of that nature, and we have been able to get a pretty good read now in relation to gunshots. Don't get me wrong. Are there occasions where we may have a few false 117 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 positives? Yes. But, again, it's new technology, it's maturing technology, and certainly we're hopeful that we will have technology that we totally refine that will not result in many false positives.
Thank you. Again, thank you for your testimony today. I've learned a lot. What would you suggest we do here to start a program? Would you suggest that we first identify those private systems that we have at University of Pennsylvania, Temple, the private systems? And I think something that I think that we underutilize here, we have a network of cameras that PennDOT, I believe, our Department of Transportation, feeds to the various media outlets, showing the traffic conditions at various places throughout the state, and I would hope that we could 118 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 bring that technology in. And I think that maybe our first step is to start to identify what we have, because I don't think we really know what we have. Would you suggest that that's something that we do?
Yeah. I can tell you what I did. I brought in all of the City of Chicago sister agencies. I brought in all, with a separate meeting, brought in all the private businesses. But the first goal was to find out what did we have. I needed to find out what do we have by way of camera surveillance networks, what did the CTA have, what did Metra have, what did the Chicago public schools have. It was amazing to find out that the Chicago public schools had between six and ten cameras in all of their high schools. So the idea was to conduct an analysis to find out exactly what did everybody have, first and foremost, and then from that point, try to determine 119 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 what type of platform these particular cameras reside on and how can we make those particular platforms compatible with the current platform that we have so we can start tapping in those particular camera networks.
A perfect example is, and I'll end, that recently we had a tragedy here, a terrible crime. One of our federal buildings, the United States Postal Service, I believe it was, had a camera that was monitoring the exterior of the building and a woman was murdered. She was actually shot to death on the sidewalk, and as a result of good work on our Police Department's part, they immediately started to gather all of the video that may have been available to them. They got that. They started to review it, and there you go, one of the cameras that was at the federal level, I believe, captured the crime, the murder, and an arrest was able to be made. So there's a perfect example of 120 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 needing to know what you have. But the Police Department was very good in immediately going out and asking every business, I believe, within blocks of where the crime was committed, Please -- am I right, Commissioner -- don't erase, hold, save your video, and, bingo, they got a hit with the -- was it the federal government? The United States Postal Service had it, and it was just incredible that it was responsible for solving a crime right here in Philadelphia.
You raise a good point there. We had a situation where one of our businesses, our corporate businesses, was monitoring their particular camera networks and they were concerned about an individual. They had been surveilling their particular business. And so they contacted us to see if we had any cameras in the area, and which we did, and the reason why they were able to contact us is because we've 121 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 established relationships with all of the security directors in our financial districts, in our central business districts, because it's important that everybody knows, like you said, everybody knows exactly what everybody else has by way of surveillance technology. And so that's what's been integral to our success, is the fact that we've partnered with private sector agencies, our sister agencies, with the hopeful intention of bringing together all of these networks to have one solid and one unified camera surveillance network.
Hi. Thank you. I, too, want to thank you for coming in. I have a couple questions regarding Operation Disruption. I know 122 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 you said you started in 2003 with cameras, correct?
When we 12 went to Baltimore to see their system 13 there last June, they talked about -- and 14 our interest is to enhance public safety 15 and use these cameras as a deterrent to 16 crime. 17 They showed us a picture of the 18 use of a camera and it was a fight that 19 occurred after some function and all 20 these people were fighting, and one of 21 the things we realized was that the 22 camera was good because it had the 23 picture right there and you could see who 24 was participating, but the identification 25 becomes a problem. So how are you using 123 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 the cameras and the identification to apprehend a person that has been involved in a particular incident?
Well, the actual intent of the Operation Disruption program was not for effecting arrests. The idea behind the program was to disrupt criminal activity. However, it's been a significant force multiplier, if you will, in that there have been incidents where we have been able to record video and to pull that video that could be used for evidentiary purposes. And so to that end, it has been helpful in identifying offenders that have committed certain crimes. We are not specifically engaged in monitoring the cameras for the purpose of effecting arrests unless it's a specific sort of operation, a sting operation. Then the actual Police Districts will utilize those cameras to effect arrests. But the actual program itself 124 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 is designed to disrupt criminal activity. It's designed to deter criminal activity. It's designed to deter would-be drug dealers from drug dealing on a particular corner. And so that's the actual intent of the program. But where it can be utilized to provide video for evidentiary purposes, we do do that and we do provide that video to the prosecution and to the Police Department.
And do you have signs posted that tells people there's a camera there?
No, because it's very visual. I mean, you can't miss it. It's a huge box that has a blue light that flashes and it has a large Police Department logo on there, Chicago Police Department logo. So it's very visual. So it's not hard to miss.
But if I could add one thing. But we do warn 125 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 individuals regarding our red light camera enforcement project that there is a red light camera posted at certain intersections. So we do that with our red light cameras.
We have that, too, here where we have the red light cameras. There is a sign that tells people you're entering a red light camera-controlled area or something like that.
So these cameras aren't easy to vandalize? Someone couldn't just take a stone or brick or whatever?
All right. Good. Are you using them in any way -- for example, when you talk about the Alderman camera program, one of the ways I'd also like to see them used in my 126 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 area -- and Philadelphia has a problem with dumping, and we'd like to stop some of this illegal dumping of tires and trash and furniture all over, and we always talk about putting up a camera so that we can get a picture of --
We have what we call our fly dumping cameras, and so those are operated by the Department of Streets and Sanitation and they put those particular cameras up. Those cameras are very inconspicuous, and so the idea is to catch those individuals that would be fly dumping or engaging in graffiti.
I assume your Aldermanic camera program is to maintain support and funding for the program that keeps Councilmembers, Aldermen, engaged and making sure that this thing continues forward. I assume it's more also a political tool that's used to keep the support coming for it. 127 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092
Dean Tsilikas, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. I'm sorry. It's meeting a demand. The demand, much like the Baltimore Police Department stated, comes from the bottom up. It is the people. It is the residents of the City of Chicago that are asking for this help, that are asking for these cameras, that are asking for this protection. And we're doing exactly that. We are helping the Aldermen, the elected officials, meet the demand of their constituents. It is not an order coming from the top down, but one that's coming straight from the people.
I can see it being a very big success for you gentlemen here in this city as well. 128 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092
One technical question and then one administrative question. The issue of the ability to identify people for prosecution purposes with the video, are we moving towards the technology that will allow existing mug shots to be compared with video pictures and camera pictures similar to a fingerprint where certain points --
You're talking about the facial recognition technology. At this point in time for Chicago, that's merely exploratory.
Who do you work for? Who is your boss? The Police Commissioner or the Mayor?
Tough in a good way, though. 129 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092
Well, yeah, but he's very passionate about safety and security for the City of Chicago, and he really, really recognizes the importance of video surveillance technology for the City.
Thank you very much. It's been very informative. Thank you.
I'm sorry. Councilmember Brown. I didn't see you there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I also, too, want to say thank you for your testimony, and if you already addressed this issue, I can read it later in the transcript. With regards to the schools 130 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 around the City, as a part of the development of your strategy, was the location of schools where you have high crime a factor in the placement of those cameras at all?
In some instances, yes, but I think the Chicago public school system itself just wanted to be very proactive, and so what they started to do was, they started building in their own camera surveillance networks. And so they're pretty much equally disbursed around the City of Chicago. And so the idea now is to -- what we're trying to do is to develop and create the infrastructure to integrate their camera surveillance systems into our unified camera surveillance command post.
That was going to be my next question, is there any link between the two.
Yeah. We're in the process of building that link right 131 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 now.
I see. Do you know if because of cameras around schools there has indeed been a reduction in student violence?
You know, I would have to actually try to get that data from the Chicago Police Department. I can't say firsthand that I have that information, but what I can tell you is that in the neighborhoods where we've had cameras, we've seen a reduction of calls for service coming in in those particular areas that were once plagued by drug dealers and gang activity. We've seen a reduction in calls for service.
Curtis Jones. 132 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Curtis Jones, Jr. I am the President and CEO of the Philadelphia Commercial Development Corporation, PCDC.
I am pleased to offer testimony in support of the proposed Ordinance No. 060092 and prospective Resolution No. 060101. These proposed legislative actions, in my opinion, offer an effective, low-cost, efficient tool in the unrelenting fight against crime in our commercial corridors. We are pleased to know that this proposal, this legislative action, has incorporated thoughts on civil liberties and legitimate privacy interest. Also seated at the table with me are Mr. Aqil Sabur, who is my 133 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Vice-President for Microenterprise Development, and Mr. Steve Horton, who is my Vice-President for Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization. As a background, during the past 32 years, PCDC has arranged financing for in excess of $266 million in financing to 2,500 businesses in the City of Philadelphia. The last decade has seen a record growth in PCDC's loan volume. We provide various types of funding, ranging from micro financing to contractors assistance, to professional firms, franchises and venture capital. Many of the firms that receive assistance were small or disadvantaged neighborhood-based businesses that have created or retained jobs in low and moderate-income neighborhoods. Among our many business development activities conducted by PCDC on behalf of businesses, we manage 44 commercial corridors in the City of Philadelphia located throughout the City. 134 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 These corridors include places like Point Breeze, 9th Street, 52nd Street, 60th Street, Baltimore Avenue, Lancaster Avenue, Germantown and Chelten, Frankford Avenue, Kensington and Allegheny, Cecil B. Moore, Girard Avenue, just to name a few. These corridors generate $774 million in revenues to the City of Philadelphia and create thousands of jobs in the neighborhoods. Individuals who run these urban businesses in the area daily face the threat of violence against their person and property. Murder, robbery, assault and vandalism are additional risks of owning and operating a business in the City of Philadelphia. These hazards reflect in higher insurance premiums to properties, workmen's compensation rates are increased, and cost of security is skyrocketing. While critics of your proposed legislation point out the possible invasion and erosion of personal privacy, 135 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 they fail to take into account the human cost to lives and families shattered by violence and financial costs pursuant to victims' rights through the criminal justice system. I am saddened to report to this Committee that loss of life has affected members of our business associations and our portfolio financially. There are dozens that have died since 1993, but we want to point out just seven of them. In January 1993, Stacy and Russell Krass died on Frankford Avenue because of an intruder, snatch-and-grab, stole a rack of suits. Mr. Krass chased him and he was shot to death as a result. In 2003, January, Michael Robinson in your district, Councilman Clarke, at 12th and Girard lost his life. He was a manager of a Rite Aid. In October 2004, Harold Wexler at a check-cashing place on Ogontz Avenue in Councilwoman Tasco's district lost his life in saving the life of one of his 136 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 employees. In November 2004, Mr. Ki-Young Hong at Betty Brite Cleaners on Bryn Mawr Avenue lost his life in a robbery attempt. This is in Councilman Nutter's district. Benjamin Reid of Wall Street International, just recently was married, lost his life and left a widow in an attempt to open his business, his catering hall, on 52nd Street. Ronald Coleman of the Munchie Shop on North 22nd Street lost his life on a commercial corridor due to a robbery attempt. In December 2005, Ms. Traore of the Men's Urban Wear on Broad Street and Susquehanna, also in your district, lost their lives on a commercial corridor due to a robbery attempt.
Now, I'm aware and I've read George Orwell's 1984, and it scared me when I was a high school student reading it about Big Brother intruding in our 137 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 lives, but Mr. Orwell could not have predicted 9-1-1 and could not have predicted the high increased rate of violence in our commercial corridors in the streets of the City of Philadelphia. Post 9/11 technology-based security cameras strategically placed have two distinct features. They can objectively record a crime in progress and provide eyewitness identification that is virtually indisputable. S. Department of Justice and PennDOT to place surveillance cameras in commercial corridors within newly constructed bus shelters as a total part of our commercial corridor treatment. Seniors, young people, customers shopping in neighborhoods can congregate, relax with a sense of comfort, and can work, live and play within our commercial corridors based on this technological advancement. 138 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 The Police Department is helping, and they're trying to work. We don't believe at all that these cameras will ever replace a beat cop, but just like when they go out after roll call, they strap on a utility belt that has a firearm and some handcuffs, but also we want as a part of their belt to be the use of technology, so that in real-time and in real response time, they can be assisted in apprehending criminals. So I would like to turn the Committee's attention to a couple of boards that we've done in anticipation of this. And, again, once we realized that Councilman Clarke and this body was looking into this, we want to be a full cooperating partner with whatever the City of Philadelphia and this Council does. We're looking at a demonstration project in and around West Philadelphia, because that's where the money came from, Congressman Fattah and 139 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 his district, but also parts of North Philadelphia will be included and Germantown Avenue will be included.
We're looking at, because of the SEPTA construction, to take advantage of that and to look at that area and place cameras in and around Market Street from 46th to 63rd Street. We're looking at also doing some interesting things like bus shelters. We've gotten a grant to do that. If you noticed, when the republicans came here for their convention, in honor of them, we put up those customized bus shelters. We feel at PCDC that neighborhoods deserve bus shelters that reflect the culture in neighborhoods. So we've gotten a grant 140 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 to also assist in that regard. Why don't we go to the next one. We took a corner. It happens to be 60th Street, but it could be Germantown and Chelten. It could be anywhere. It could be Broad and Cecil B. Moore, Councilman. But what we're looking at here is a customized bus shelter there that we're going to take local artists and get renderings of their depiction of what represents the neighborhood. We're also in the case, and the reason why we're here today, is incorporating cameras. Now, we're looking at cameras that are in areas that have high-crime incidents. We're also looking in areas that would be dubbed as hot zones. Another feature here is that we're using the Mayor's initiative on WiFi to allow the use of technology there. So it's important for us to 141 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 believe that in the use of also some storefront rebate money to beautify these areas where we've done that on Cecil B. Moore Avenue and other places to beautify the area, but we're also incorporating security in that. I cited to you just several instances where merchants have lost their lives. We hope to work with the City of Philadelphia to get smart cameras involved in that. We have money to do demonstrations in various parts of the City and hope to work with you on how that should be dealt with, not violating anyone's civil liberties, but also being a helpful tool on the tool belt of our law enforcement arm to help deter crime. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you for waiting around, too. We appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. William Ewing, please. I'm sorry, Mr. Ewing. Hold on 142 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 just a second. Councilman Clarke.
Mr. Jones, I just want to thank you for your presentation and thank you for all the work that you've done in our commercial corridors, and I'm sure that the Congressman in Phase and Phase will be rolling out a proposal in both Germantown and North Philadelphia.
Just one suggestion. I don't know if it's being done now or not, and I think it's based on the testimony from the gentlemen from Chicago. Is there coordination going on with the Police Department and with SEPTA so that at some point in time, if we ever get to the Chicago model where the integration needs to take place, that the equipment is the right equipment and the software is the right software?
We've established 143 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 a task force that includes members of City Council, that includes the Police Department, that includes members of Weed and Seed, Town Watch and others just to get input as we go along.
That part, I understand that. I'm talking about the technical people that can make sure that whatever equipment and software is provided by the Congressman Fattah grant at some point in time can talk to the Police Department's equipment, which can talk to SEPTA's equipment. So as long as we're not going in different -- we're going in the same goal, but not in different directions with equipment and software.
In fact, what we've done is, we want to piggyback purchase off of whatever the City buys so that all of this technology works together.
Great. Thank you. 144 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Mr. Ewing, please. Mr. Ewing, I'm sorry for how long you've had to wait, and I appreciate your patience. Sometimes with technical hearings like this we have to get all the kind of technical information on the record, and I do appreciate your patience. So thank you, and please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. Thank you, Councilman Kenney. My name is Bill 13 Ewing. I'm testifying on behalf of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. I'm a member of the Board of the Greater Philadelphia Chapter of the ACLU. Like all residents of Philadelphia, the members of the ACLU are concerned about crime and are interested in seeing our government pursue meaningful actions that will make this City a safer place. However, we believe that there are many questions that have been left unanswered in the public discussion of video cameras, and we think 145 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 those questions should be addressed before any steps are taken to move forward with widespread installation of video surveillance cameras in Philadelphia and in fact before the question is put before the public in a referendum. Among those questions are the following: First, who will decide where those cameras will be placed; second, in what manner will the cameras be employed; third, is this the most cost-effective way to reduce crime in our City; and, fourth, what safeguards will be put in place to make sure that the cameras are not misused. We do not believe it's appropriate to present the issue of video surveillance cameras to the people of Philadelphia without answering those questions first. As a preliminary matter, I would like you to note that even now as we sit here today the District Attorney 146 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 can file a motion with the Court of Common Pleas seeking approval for the installation of a video camera at a specific location if she believes that there's a factual basis for installing it. Of course, that means that the District Attorney must demonstrate to a judge that there's a basis for suspecting that the camera will record criminal activity, and there are limitations on how long the camera may remain in place. Now, I was listening, as I know you were, with great attention to the testimony of the Commissioner and the neighborhood residents from Baltimore, and it seemed to me that the places where they described cameras having an effect because of the past crime history were probably places where cameras could have been installed without a broad-scale law, but basically based on the history, based on that, they could have been gotten with a warrant. And the same with Councilwoman Miller's concern, which I 147 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 share, concerning dumping. If you have a place that's a known dump that people often dump trash, I think you could probably get a warrant to install a camera there and we wouldn't need to have a law that sort of generally says you can have cameras hither and yon. I'm concerned and we're concerned about the kind of places cameras might be placed and about the basis on which the decision might be made. For instance, I can imagine that a camera might be installed outside an abortion clinic, and whether you're going there to have an abortion or to consult about an abortion or whether you're there in a peaceful protest, you might not want your presence to be recorded on camera for posterity and you're conducting a perfectly legitimate activity, or outside a bar that caters to gay and lesbian customers.
I just wanted to interrupt you for a second, 148 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 because I believe that probably outside places like Planned Parenthood and other types of organizations that do counseling and procedures, there probably is surveillance there already for their own protection. I think, as a matter of fact, Planned Parenthood, if I recall, at 12th and Locust I believe have cameras on their wall now to protect themselves from people who don't agree with their mission. Similar to many taverns and bars in Center City. I believe Woody's has their own surveillance cameras outside to protect -- and that's a gay establishment -- has cameras outside of their own choice to protect their customers and their staff.
Well, that's fine. It's the difference between a private individual doing it for their private use and then putting it in the public sphere, where if Planned Parenthood puts out cameras, that the people that are coming there for service as patients don't have 149 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 to worry about their picture being put out to some other people.
I understand, but I just want to make sure from my understanding, there are a number of establishments like that that have their own by choice.
Right. But our Constitution makes a big difference between whether private individuals do something or the government does it.
It's still a camera taking your picture one way or the other.
-- the question is where the picture is going to go, and that's the risk, it seems to me, here.
In all likelihood, 150 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 some residents will want cameras on their blocks, while others will strongly oppose them. Who then will make the decision to place cameras in certain locations and not in others? Will surveillance be imposed on all citizens equally or will some neighborhoods be more watched than others? Rather than feeling safer, the people in the most monitored communities may feel that they're being especially targeted. And cameras cannot serve their purpose if their presence is widely resented. Therefore, consistent with the principles of the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the ACLU believes that there must be judicial review of any decision regarding installation of a video camera. Our courts should be overseeing the decision-making of the Police Commissioner and District Attorney to make sure that cameras are being 151 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 placed according to well-defined objective criteria. And I noticed that Judge Massiah-Jackson testified regarding standards that the American Bar Association has adopted for placement of cameras. I don't know whether they include that criterion or not, frankly, but if we were to adopt and ask the people to vote on a specific set of criteria, that seems to me a more meaningful kind of referendum than the kind of referendum that says generally would you like video surveillance cameras, provided that all civil liberties are protected, where people really have trouble knowing what they're voting on. And the danger is -- I mean, the whole idea behind the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to limit the discretion of government administrators and to provide for a separation of powers and resolution that basically says, Well, is it okay to do 152 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 this general kind of thing and trust us it will be done right. It's something that's scary to the ACLU. We believe that individuals with homes or workplaces near camera sites should have an opportunity to challenge them. For a citizen whose movements will be unavoidably and consistently monitored by the police, a public meeting to discuss cameras is insufficient redress. Only providing the right to a hearing before a judge who reviews the application of the criteria and any objections from the resident strikes a proper balance between public safety concerns and the individual's interest in preventing discriminatory or arbitrary surveillance. The City must determine -- and we heard differently from Baltimore and Chicago -- what law enforcement objectives these cameras are to serve. Chicago puts up cameras with big flashing lights to deter crime. They had no 153 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 statistics on whether it actually worked. They basically said, Well, lots of people want them, but they didn't have any showing that the crime had been reduced. Baltimore had very impressive statistics of reduction of crime, but that's not the way theirs works at all. So there's a long way, it sounds to me, and I appreciate that you all members of the Council are exploring this issue, but there's a long way before it can get to be a concrete proposal. And it's our view that it should not be put to the voters for a general opinion before a concrete proposal is formulated to put before them.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Ewing, for coming in. I'm sorry for the long wait. Currently, based on the information that we've been able to get 154 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 on systems that have been implemented across the country, to our knowledge, there's not been a single municipality that has had the level of citizens' participation that we are requesting at this point. All of those municipalities made a decision administratively based on their authority that was given to them by the Constitution as it relates to privacy rights on public thoroughfares to simply implement systems without any public participation. I didn't think that that was appropriate personally and a number of other Councilmembers didn't think that was appropriate. So we started down this process of first looking at some of the other municipalities and then coming up with what we think may be a reasonable process that can have citizens' buy-in, which is why we're requesting a referendum as opposed to essentially letting the Police Department or the District Attorney go get a judge, who I 155 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 may not know, any of the citizens don't know, only have to face the citizens every ten years when they come up for retention. So, personally, I'd rather have the citizens make that determination as to whether or not there should be any video surveillance in neighborhoods and not some anonymous judge. Second of all, this is not a binding ordinance, as I said earlier. It is simply gauging the sentiments of citizens. I believe, and I don't have a commitment from the Police Department or anyone else, that based on this process that includes the citizens early on in the process, if in fact the City agrees to move ahead on the implementation of the system, that there will be substantial citizens' participation and also participation from Council and other elected officials in formulating policies that make some sense. I agreed 100 percent with Judge 156 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Massiah-Jackson's concerns and some of her recommendations as it relates to the ABA, and I think if we in fact do roll this out, that we probably should look at adopting some of those issues. What I didn't want to do is to proceed with the latter and not have a sense of what the citizens think, because if the citizens determine that overwhelmingly they don't want to have these video systems, then I don't think we should proceed. So I thought it would be more appropriate to gauge the sentiments of our citizens. Then if in fact there's something that they support, then we start talking about putting together standards, including citizens, in a full and meaningful way. So that's kind of why we took this process, as opposed to going to the Police Commissioner and asking him to get a judge to authorize a video system at a particular corner.
Well, I appreciate that, Councilman Clarke. I think it 157 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 would have been a more meaningful background for the citizens if Council had heard from Hoboken, which abandoned their system after five years when they only produced two arrests, or Miami Beach, which dismantled its system, or Detroit, which also disbanded a program, to find out why they disbanded it and whether Baltimore is -- I mean, it's only been in existence for a limited period of time in both Baltimore and Chicago. My concern is that this resolution is so general that basically says, Do you want us to fight crime and protect civil liberties. I mean, it's hard to vote against this referendum if you put it on the ballot, because it's so general that nobody really knows what they're voting for. I don't think it really gives much of a mandate, frankly.
Okay. You're entitled to your opinion, but I do think that we built into the question the fact that people do have some concerns 158 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 about civil liberties. That's why we referenced it in the language. And we do want to fight crime as a result of our ability to implement systems. So I don't know how much clearer I could be.
All of us want to fight crime and all of us want to protect civil liberties. I don't doubt that.
Well, sir, if in fact the City proceeds, I'm sure there will be very specific, detailed standards of both in terms of implementation and in placement, but to put that in a referendum without having any background information or any input from citizens, I just don't think it's appropriate.
Thank you very much. Thanks for your testimony. 159 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Mr. Holloway and Dara Tye. Hi. Thanks for waiting. A similar apology to you.
It's just such a long hearing with so many technical witnesses that we wind up going longer, but thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself.
My name is Dara Tye and I'm speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors for Rittenhouse Row. Rittenhouse Row is a non-profit destination marketing association. We represent 200 businesses in the Rittenhouse Square area, including restaurants, shops, salons, hotels, galleries, banks and more in the area between the Avenue of the Arts and 22nd Street from Market to Pine. Our goal is to attract people to the destination for shopping, dining, living and visiting. We wish to express our concern about the recent wave of robberies and 160 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 assaults in our area. We are deeply concerned for the safety of our businesses, our residents and our visitors. We feel that the proposed surveillance system will be tremendously helpful in curtailing the occurrence of crime and then solving crimes that do occur. We wish to applaud Councilman Clarke for his initiative in protecting the area, and 100 percent support the idea. Thank you for the opportunity to express these concerns.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Judith Robinson, please. 161 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 Again, my apologies for the wait. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Judith Robinson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the issue of video surveillance. I heard so many good things today about cameras reducing crime or all the positives, and that's a good thing. As the resolution has been worded, I don't think any one of us can say no to it, because we're all interested in reducing crime, except the criminals, for sure. But my concerns are that there was so much focus on these cameras that I did not see the same focus on prevention of crime. For instance, this hearing was 162 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 changed from the Public Safety Committee, and when I was here for the Public Safety Committee, most of the members of the Committee were not even here for the hearings. I see that you all are. So that makes me a little concerned that you're focused on the cameras, but you are not focused -- I think it's only one person, one member of this Committee, that also was a member of the Public Safety Committee, but I do see some members of the Public Safety Committee here. When that was changed, I didn't see that same focus, all day staying here. So I just want to make sure that we're not focusing so much on cameras, which we know it's not a panacea, and that we focus less on prevention. For instance, the Commissioner asked for $100 million to have five years of new recruits. He only got 10 million in overtime. What I heard today is that all 163 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 these things should work together. I don't think that a camera can take the place of a beat cop. In addition, I would be concerned about the cost. Cameras can't take the place of a good witness protection plan, with dollars behind it. So I just hope that we don't put a lot of money into cameras, not look at the long-term effect, and take away money from other areas that can also help to prevent crime. I am very much concerned about safety, too, as a business owner that will be on one of those commercial corridors. I would be using cameras, but I think it's a big difference between a public use of cameras and the government use. I am concerned, and I am glad that the ACLU was here today, because I am somewhat concerned about the long-term effects of government use of cameras. But if they can reduce violent crime, as what I heard today, then I would be for 164 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 them. But let's make sure that we put all the other areas in place, too, before we rush to spend a substantial amount on cameras and then only to find out five years down the road, or whatever, that we wasted our money. So let's walk slowly down this road. Let's get as much information as possible. Let's not look at only the pros and not the cons. And thank you very much. I hope it all works.
Thank you. I just want to make sure you understand from a technical standpoint the reason why this resolution and bill are being considered in the Law and Government Committee, is that we have a legal requirement to do this through this Committee to get it on the ballot. So it's really a technical ballot issue that requires the Law and Government Committee to actually put it out of Committee and put it on the floor. So I understand your issues 165 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 relative to when Commissioner Johnson testified the other day relative to the deployment and money and all the other things, but this is more kind of a technical committee that's needed to put these things on the ballot.
Right. I understand that, because I did inquire after I saw that it was moved. I like studying City Council.
We wish every citizen was engaged as you are into the issues.
I always try to encourage them to be. You all have a contract with WHAT to make sure the citizens get information out. Let's make sure that's really working effectively for the taxpayers. 166 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092
Thank you very much. If there's no other witnesses, we're going to conclude the public hearing and move into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for the purpose of offering various amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have two amendments, one to the bill and one to the resolution, and essentially these amendments change the language on the question that would be placed on the ballot, and the other, per the request of the Law Department, we wanted to clarify the issue with respect to the City's mandate to implement video systems, and the language essentially now says that the City shall consider and that there is not a mandate. 167 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 So at this time, I would like to offer an amendment to Bill No. 060092.
First of all, for the record, the amendments have been circulated to the members of the Committee and to the stenographer and they are in the permanent record. There's a motion and a second to approve the amendments, technical amendments, to Bill No. 060092. All in favor? (Aye.)
Bill No. 21 060092 is amended. We will report it out of the Committee accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke on a motion for the amended bill. 168 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I propose that Bill No. 060092 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 060092 as amended is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for the purpose of offering an amendment to Resolution No. 25 060101. 169 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092
Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to Resolution 060101. (Duly seconded.)
The amendment passes to Resolution 060101. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on the amended resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I move the Resolution 17 060101 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
Resolution 170 3/9/06 - LAW - BILL 060092 No. 060101 as amended is reported out of this Committee favorably. That completes the business of the Law and Government Committee. Thank you very much for your attendance. (Committee on Law and Government adjourned at 3:35 p.m.) - - - 171 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on March 9, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)