SPRINGFIELD — Springfield Public Schools and the city’s Police Department are working on updated language to a much-debated contract that lets police patch into the school cameras in live time during an emergency.
The hope is by January, the School Committee’s Legislative and Contracts Subcommittee will be discussing the next iteration of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two entities with the attorney, according to School Committee member and chair of the Legislative and Contracts Subcommittee, LaTonia Monroe Naylor.
“When we have our legislative and contract meetings then, we will present some language to be able to start drafting through what that [agreement] looks like,” Monroe Naylor said during a public input session on Dec. 12, the second of two that the Legislative and Contracts Subcommittee conducted over the past month.
The goal of the two sessions was to gather residents’ concerns and questions about the current iteration of the contract, which has been in effect since 2021 and was extended for a 120-day period in September.
Some concerns from the public
Both sessions saw students express concern over the Springfield Police Department’s level of access to the cameras.
Several people who talked during the first session in November were student organizers from the Pioneer Valley Project, including Davian Pagan, a Springfield Honors Academy student and organizer with the PVP.
“We are here today to talk about a policy that is rooted in a lack of transparency, a lack of trust and a lack of accountability,” said Pagan, who cited a previous 2019 assault case where a police officer grabbed a student by the neck at Commerce High School as a reason for student distrust of police.
“My question is, how can we trust the Police Department when we know they have assaulted students in the past?” he said.
Some who spoke during the first session said there was a lack of access to the current MOU on the school district’s website, so school officials said they would post the full agreement in a more accessible location on the website ahead of the second input session.
During that second session on Dec. 12, a few students asked clarifying questions, suggested ideas for the next iteration of the contract and continued to push for more clarity.
Springfield senior Naomi Edwards told the Legislative and Contracts Subcommittee that she felt the language in the current MOU was vague and argued that the agreement does not respect the privacy of the students.
“After reviewing the policy closely, it’s apparent there’s a huge lack of clarity regarding who exactly is accessing the camera footage, what it’s used for, the conditions under which live footage can be accessed, and most importantly, parental consent,” Edwards said.
The city side of things
Springfield Police Superintendent Lawrence Akers, Springfield Public Schools Director of Safety and Security Adam Fenn, Mayor Domenic Sarno and other city and school officials were on hand at the Nov. 14 input session to attempt to quell residents’ concerns surrounding the level of access police have with the cameras.
“We don’t want to watch inside the schools,” Akers said during the Nov. 14 meeting. “We don’t know what you do, we don’t know when you go to class; we don’t care about any of that, unless someone is in there attempting to hurt some people. That’s when we come into play.”
Akers, who told the public at the meeting that he has his own grandchildren and great grandchildren in the Springfield Public Schools system, said he would never allow anyone in the department to access the camera for no reason at all.
Akers also noted that the police can only access to the cameras when there is an emergency and with the School Department’s permission.
“We do not surveil, we do not have access to cameras; we do not want to sit back and watch what you’re doing,” Akers said.
According to information provided by the city, the school camera policy allows the Springfield Police Department’s Real-Time Crime Analysis Center and the civilian video analyst live access to these cameras only in the event of emergencies, like when there is an active shooter, or other life-threatening situations.
Since the inception of the agreement three years ago, the interior cameras have been accessed eight times in total. Seven of those times were prank swatting calls while the other involved the incident at Springfield’s High School of Science and Technology in the spring where shots were fired inside the school. The Sci-Tech incident was considered the only “real-time use” for the cameras.
City officials argue that the cameras were “invaluable” during the situation at Sci-Tech because the Real-Time Crime Analysis Center was able to utilize the interior cameras to provide responding officers with information like where the perpetrator fled the building, how many people were involved and who was driving.
“All we care about, and I know you do care about it too, is that our children, our students, families, teachers and staff are safe and sound,” said Mayor Domenic Sarno, during the Nov. 14 meeting.
Fenn said that Springfield is one of 30 districts in the state that have similar contracts.
Some other communities’ contracts, he said, gave officers carte blanche to access to the cameras.
“We don’t want that; we don’t have that,” Fenn said. “We have checks and balances. If there is a severe emergency in your school, the civilians in Real-Time Crime Analysis … access those cameras to make sure you are safe and direct the responding officers.”
Superintendent comments
Springfield Public Schools Superintendent Sonia Dinnall said that the Nov. 14 meeting reflected a level of mistrust, misunderstanding and misinformation, but she assured the people present that the cameras were used to keep the district safe.
During the Dec. 12 input session, she praised the students for bringing “scholarly” and “thoughtful” suggestions to the two input sessions.
“I am just so proud to stand here and say I’m your superintendent,” Dinnall said. “You all really provided suggestions that we have to carefully consider and include.”
Monroe Naylor said questions and suggestions provided by people during the two sessions will be considered when the Legislative and Contracts Subcommittee lands on a new iteration of the MOU agreement.
The hope is to have an updated agreement by the end of January.
