In a Jan. 14 article in The Dispatch entitled
”
Should security cameras be a priority at all schools?
”
the issue was raised again about the need to install security
cameras in Gilroy Unified School District campuses, given the
recent lockdown of Luigi Aprea Elementary School instigated by a
couple of students reporting to have seen a man with a gun on or
near the campus.
In a Jan. 14 article in The Dispatch entitled “Should security cameras be a priority at all schools?” the issue was raised again about the need to install security cameras in Gilroy Unified School District campuses, given the recent lockdown of Luigi Aprea Elementary School instigated by a couple of students reporting to have seen a man with a gun on or near the campus.
While GPD responded according to plan for a potentially armed subject on a Gilroy school campus, and School Board Trustee Rhoda Bress was quoted as saying “It’s frightening to know that people are walking around with weapons,” Ms. Bress’ conclusion might have been somewhat premature in this case since the fact remains that there has been no proof-positive in a post-investigation that there really was such a person and weapon. And proof-positive would be the testimony of two or more adults such as teachers, administrators, parents, or neighbors reporting to have seen the same thing as the two students reported.
So at this point, we simply don’t know if these kids were (a) making this up to see what kind of react mode the school would go into (like possibly dismissing school early), or (b) if their eyes in all innocence were playing tricks on them, or (c) if they really did see a man with a gun. Of course, GPD cannot take any chances on a reported subject with a gun, and even if the odds are against such a scenario at a local school, the police must always respond as if it was a real threat, and the Gilroy public should have it no other way. Now that the dust has settled for this incident however, it seems to me that a lot of folks are running around appearing to think that installing security cameras in a school will be the cure-all to future incursions of a similar report.
But I’d like to ask a few questions regarding the whole security camera issue and relate those questions to the human element that must interpret what the cameras display. Will the installation of cameras give school personnel a false sense of security, when in fact there are some major people-related security questions that need answering?
Here’s my first question: just who is going to monitor these cameras? It’s going to take a real person(s) to devote time to monitor the activities that the cameras display, and be able to make a value judgment regarding what’s being displayed. Will these camera monitors devote full time to this activity during school hours, or will it be “hit-and-miss” of glancing at the display screens while doing other things?
Next, if intrusion alarms and outside monitoring features are included, then procedures must be instituted to handle false alarms. An influx of numerous false alarms can compromise the best of security systems, and weary the best observers. Remember the story of Chicken Little, how when the sky actually did fall, Chicken Little’s repeated previous false alarms dulled the farm animals so much they no longer gave heed to the real thing happening.
Also, how are these human monitors going to be paid? Will this monitoring have to be a new position in the GUSD? While the hardware alone, depending on its complexity and capabilities can cost anywhere from $40,000 to millions of dollars, that does not cover salary costs for dedicated staff people to monitor what the security system reveals. And if the GUSD budget is as tight as it reportedly is, then will that mean taking administrators and making them security monitors?
Will this require special security-observation training? That raises another question as to what legal liabilities would GUSD be exposed to if a subject slips by a camera monitor and causes a problem? Could the camera monitor be personally held liable for employee negligence? If so, then what kind of criteria is going to be used to make a decision that a subject is a potential dangerous person, or even a marginal subject that requires further investigation?
I don’t have the answers to these questions. I’m only saying I hope somebody in GUSD is asking them or similar questions about the people-issues of campus security. We’ve certainly come a long way in public education since the most dangerous thing on a school campus was kids running in the hallways.
