By Deneka Michaud
A proposed policy for video surveillance in Ottawa schools has been rejected by trustees because it doesn’t protect privacy rights.
“There is a big gap between what was laid out by the privacy commissioner and what staff have laid out,” says school board trustee David Moen.
The policy is supposed to ensure that schools don’t jeopardize the privacy of students, staff and parents, says a report issued by the Ontario privacy commissioner.
But trustees believe that the proposed policy doesn’t accomplish this.
The policy should make clear the reasons for using video cameras. The goals, whether they are to stop vandalism, trespassing, or bullying, must be identified. Schools also need to prove that traditional forms of supervision, like teacher patrols, won’t work.
The board’s policy doesn’t adequately meet these requirements, says Moen.
“All we’ve got anywhere is, ‘We’re responsible for the safety of students and staff.’ Well, that doesn’t justify video surveillance necessarily,” he says.
The policy also needs to deal with where and when video surveillance should be used and who’s responsible for it. The areas and hours that need surveillance and the people authorized to operate the system must be clearly identified.
But Moen believes that these issues aren’t clear in the board’s proposed policy.
He believes that the video surveillance policy drafted by school board staff is too vague and fails to meet many of the requirements.
The requirements are outlined in a December report by Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian. The report set out guidelines for schools to follow using video surveillance. They are aimed at upholding privacy rights under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
“It’s very important that school boards follow the guidelines. It’s the reason we put the guidelines out. Video surveillance has the possibility and the potential to be very intrusive if not done properly,” says Brian Beamish, director of policy and compliance for the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.
But the school board staff did a poor job of following the guidelines, says Moen.
“The specific part that said, ‘This policy should include,’ lists 14 points. Most of these points I felt weren’t addressed at all either in our policy or in our procedures document that accompanies policy,” he says. “Clearly they should all be included.”
Some of the points that are addressed have been placed in the procedures document and not in the policy, explains trustee Joan Spice. But the more essential points should be included in the policy section, she says.
Trustees voted to have the policy changed when they referred it back to staff for redrafting at the Business Services Committee meeting on Mar. 10. Board staff sought to have the policy passed at the meeting, but trustees wouldn’t support it because of its inadequacies.
But originators of the video surveillance policy believe it meets the privacy commissioner’s guideline requirements.
“We felt it reflected the spirit of what the guidelines were trying to achieve. That’s why we put it forward,” says Mike Carson, manager of planning for the school board.
The staff feel some trustees are asking for more details than required, says Carson.
But since trustees want the policy to be more explicit, the staff will look into adding more detail when they redraft the policy, he says.
If this draft is passed it will go to the public for consultation.
The reaction from parents will depend on how the final policy turns out, says Albert Chambers, chair of the Glebe Collegiate school council.
“If it’s crafted carefully and takes the board only as far as it needs to go and it’s done in an appropriate fashion, then I think that it would get a fairly positive reaction.”