NORTHAMPTON — Discussion about surveillance cameras downtown will continue.
That was the message that the City Council sent at its meeting Thursday night, when it voted 5-4 to refer a resolution opposing the installation of additional permanent municipally-operated surveillance technology downtown to its Committee on City Services and its Committee on Legislative Matters.
A related ordinance that would restrict the use of surveillance technology downtown was referred to those same two committees by a vote of 8-1.
Dozens of people packed the council chambers prior to the votes, a number of whom held aloft signs opposing expanding surveillance with slogans that included “surveillance is not colorblind” and “cops watch who they want to.”
Indeed, the mood of the attendees seemed decidedly against the expansion of security cameras that has been put forward by Police Chief Jody Kasper, as were most of the folks who spoke to the issue during a lengthy public comment period. Kasper’s proposal, however, did have some support.
One of the people who spoke against the cameras was Northampton mayoral candidate John Riley. In his remarks, Riley referred to a Sept. 14 forum that Kasper held on the issue.
“I feel that the chief could not justify the claim that cameras would make us safer and deter crime,” Riley said. “There were no facts or statistics to back up this claim.”
“There is one person who can immediately stop this plan,” Riley concluded. “And that is the mayor. I hope to accomplish that.”
Amy Bookbinder was another person who spoke in opposition. She noted a number of proud moments in Northampton recently, including the naming of Northampton as a sanctuary city and the raising of a Black Lives Matter flag at city hall, as well as the selection of a woman as police chief, Kasper.
“We don’t want Big Brother in Northampton,” she said. “But we also don’t want our sister Jody to become Big Sister. Jody, we need you to withdraw the plan.”
Blair Gimma noted wider societal concerns with policing in her opposition.
“The constant patrolling of community is an act of terror,” she said.
Prior to the meeting, Kasper wrote a letter to the City Council opposing the ordinance. In her letter, Kasper said that the ordinance as it is currently worded would make a number of the activities that the police already do illegal.
She also noted how camera surveillance had already helped solve high-profile crime.
“Passing this proposed ordinance would tie our hands and would greatly diminish our ability to effectively investigate serious criminal offenses that occur in our city,” she wrote.
She also said that she knew of no instances where police surveillance footage has been misused in Northampton.
Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Suzanne Beck spoke in favor of having more dialogue on the issue, and urged the council to vote against the resolution.
“The resolution and ordinance send a clear message: We’ve heard all that we need to here,” Beck said.
She also implied that business owners in favor of more cameras were hesitant to speak in public on the issue.
Another person who favored surveillance cameras was David Corbett, who noted an Associated Press story that said that a double-murder of two black men was solved using security camera footage in Louisiana.
“You’re going to close the door on the possibility of stopping further murders?” said Corbett. “Stupid.”
When the resolution was discussed, one of the chief cruxes of the debate was whether or not the nonbinding resolution should be voted on at that meeting.
Ward 5 City Councilor David Murphy said that he would like to put off a vote on the issue, as he thought that voting on the resolution would prejudice the consideration of the binding ordinance, which was scheduled to be discussed later in the meeting.
“I think it prejudices that committee process,” he said.
City Council Vice President Ryan O’Donnell, the author of the resolution, noted that the ordinance would not be passed for quite some time.
“We have an immediate issue,” he said. “Why would we not weigh in on it?”
After some significant debate, Murphy withdrew his request for a continuance, with the understanding that a vote would not necessarily happen on the resolution that evening if it was debated.
In the debate over the resolution, O’Donnell said that installing more cameras downtown would not be a proportionate response to issues downtown.
“The facts on the ground do not demonstrate that this measure would be in proportion to the problem,” he said.
Murphy, meanwhile, said that he would like to see the resolution go to the same committees as the ordinance, so that issues with it could be worked out.
One of those was a passage of the resolution which said that people have the right to not be constantly surveilled, which he noted contravenes Massachusetts law as it applies to public places. This prompted protesters to hold up signs.
“Hold’em up, it’s the way the law reads,” he said.
Ward 2 Councilor Dennis Bidwell, meanwhile, said that he wanted both the resolution and the ordinance to be withdrawn, so that the public process initiated by the police chief could continue. It was clarified, however, that one process did not preclude the other.
City Council President William Dwight said that he hoped that the resolution would pass, and likened increasing surveillance to slowly boiling a frog. He also responded to the claim that some make that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from surveillance.
“That’s absurd,” he said, going on to say that he thought he’d gained that freedom when he moved out of his parent’s house.
In the end, Dwight, Bidwell, O’Donnell and Ward 7 Councilor Alisa Klein voted against sending the resolution to the two committees, while Murphy, Ward 1 Councilor Maureen Carney, Ward 3 Councilor James Nash, Ward 4 Councilor Gina-Louise Sciarra and Ward 6 Councilor Marianne L. LaBarge voted to do so.
Bidwell was the lone dissenter on the vote to send the ordinance to committees.