Following months of debate, officials in Springfield have agreed to a new deal spelling out how and when police can access cameras in the district’s schools.
A new, interdepartmental memorandum of understanding between Springfield police and the public school system was approved Thursday.
The Springfield School Committee voted through the new MoU, approving a five-year agreement developed with emphasis on transparency and clarity, says Vice Chair LaTonia Monroe Naylor.
“This has been a very tedious process, yet very intentionally so, because we wanted to make sure that we had the community input, the students’ input, our families, our educators, as well as our staff, who have been doing a phenomenal job,” she said as the item came up in the agenda. “And so, we were able to do that, really in tandem with the police department, under the leadership of Superintendent Akers, to make sure that we are very transparent.”
Originally a three-year-deal, the district’s last MoU spelled out the policies and circumstances allowing certain members of Springfield police access to both interior and exterior cameras at Springfield Public Schools – a district with 23,600 students across more than 60 schools.
In most cases, only the police department’s civilian-staffed Real Time Crime Analysis unit or Video Analyst unit can access the feeds, though officers and supervisors responding to or investigating an “incident believed to be depicted on such images and recordings” can also review them.
Rules for using interior cameras are a little more specific - non-emergency situations require “prior written approval” from SPS for their access, though there are exceptions for what’s considered a “public safety emergency situation.”
Therein lies some of the problems school committee members and parts of the SPS community wanted to see addressed – what exactly is a “public safety emergency?” What are non-emergencies? And who makes up these police units?
Those get clearer definitions in the new MoU, says committee member Joesiah Gonzalez.
“I think that sometimes a lack of understanding or common definitions - they lead to a lot of different interpretations of what was happening here,” he said in a phone interview with WAMC Friday morning, explaining how some in the city came to think the last MoU granted police access with little limitations. “Early on, when I joined the school committee - about four years ago - there was a lot of uproar in the Black and brown community in our city around the access of cameras and live feeds into schools because the understanding was - is that there was cameras in classrooms, the understanding was that cameras were being surveilled by the police department 24/7 - and that was not the case.”
Gonzalez praised Monroe Naylor and the committee’s outside legal counsel, Attorney Ian Keefe, for getting an assortment of procedures and terms spelled out.
He also praised community members, including students, who called for clarity and better accessibility: feedback that emerged during listening sessions last year.
“Last night, in the school committee chambers in city hall, room 220, I was pleased to see several students that participated in the process were in attendance,” Gonzalez said, referencing student activists who previously voiced unease over Springfield PD’s camera usage. “They had a copy of the MoU - I said, ‘Hey, how do you guys feel about it?’ and they said, ‘We feel great about this, this process has been great, we've been included,’ and I think that's positive.”
Supporters of the previous MoU, including Mayor Domenic Sarno and Police Superintendent Larry Akers, have pointed out direct, emergency police access to SPS interior cameras has been limited overall – used in only a handful of cases.
One involved a fake school shooting call in October – a situation in which a 9-year-old student allegedly called police, claiming a shooter was in the Springfield Public Day Elementary School.
Officials say access to interior cameras let police confirm there was no shooting – leading to a more informed response that ended with officers identifying the student, who had allegedly used a school staffer’s phone.
Fast-forward to Thursday night and school committee members were largely onboard with the final agreement, albeit an amendment appeared to lead to one dissent.
Gonzalez moved to have the term expanded from three years to five – giving more time for debate ahead of the next MoU discussions and dodge potential lapses. For context, the committee ended up passing temporary extensions after the old deal expires months ago.
Committee At-Large Member Denise Hurst argued that, with an election cycle underway, it wouldn’t be fair to lock in a deal of that length.
“We could very possibly have a brand new school committee, and I don't believe it's fair to extend something outside of a potentially new body coming in,” Hurst explained before the committee voted on the amendment. “With three years, that gives not only us to finish out this year and a new body coming in to assess how this current MoU is working, rather than to extend it too far, where they have no opportunity to review it, which is what happened to us when this MoU was put into place.”
Attorney Keefe said the committee does have the power to terminate the MoU with 30 days’ notice to the police department, if ever it wishes.
The amendment and the MoU passed with only Hurst voting “no.”
One of the final drafts of the new MoU can be found here. NOTE: While this draft was among the documents supplied to committee members ahead of Thursday, it does not reflect the five-year amendment and possibly other minor changes. A finalized version will replace the linked content as soon as it is available.
