At the Lancaster City Council committee meetings which were held on Monday evening, October 5th, 2009 at the Southern Market, the seven members of Lancaster City Council very effectively countered the arguments presented by Mr. Russell and Ms. Baumgartner. It was noted that the Lancaster Crime Commission was created early in this decade in response to resident’s concerns about crime. One of the seventeen recommendations made by the Crime Commission was the installation of surveillance cameras; in response to citizen concerns about police surveillance of private citizens, it was proposed that a private non-profit organization own and operate the camera system.
More significantly, the members of City Council seemed convinced that so few people speaking out with concerns about the surveillance cameras meant that the vast majority of people approve of them. Most likely, the only way that those who question the operation and use of the surveillance cameras could possibly make an impact is by dozens of different individuals contacting City Council members directly with their concerns, and by packing City Council and committee meetings with concerned citizens. Clearly, a lack of opposition is considered to be acquiescence on the part of the general public.
Mr. Russel and Ms. Baumgartner didn’t help their own cause by appearing to be inflexible. Although Mr. Russel’s statement included concerns about the lack of public oversight over the surveillance cameras and their operation, both he and Ms. Baumgartner went on to insist that there be a moratorium on the installation of any new camera installations. Had they both concentrated on City Council increasing its oversight of the LCSC, they might have made a more effective impact.
It is interesting to note, that this letter to the editor does not mention that the LCSC was correctly defined as “fascism” nor does it mention that one of the main arguments brought to the foreground is that this is not a popularity contest. It is about whether or not it is constitutional to have a surveillance society here in Lancaster. This country is a “Republic”, which means that the majority cannot take away the constitutional rights of the minority. Plain and simple. Citizens Against Public Surveillance will be better prepared for a presentation on the argument during the new city council next year.
What is disturbing is when I asked the committee, “What would it take to get a city ordinance prohibiting public surveillance?” The question, of course was not answered. The response was “That will never happen,” by Ms. Collier. There are those on this committee who are apparently showing their inability to be open-minded, and also do not know how to answer a question when it is asked.