Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "jim updegraff"

Democracy at work reverses public commenting decision

2010-09-08T14:05:35Z

On Aug. 17, the City Council members voted 5-3 in favor of holding public comments until the end of its meetings.

For the last three weeks, matters not found on the agenda have been addressed at the end of meetings for the last three weeks. However, the council’s rules of procedure were reversed last night after a number of advocacy groups publicly opposed the council’s decision.

Council members passed the motion under the condition that commenting would not exceed 30 minutes and would allow each speaker a maximum of two minutes on the floor. If the allotted 30 minutes expire before a person is able to share, their comments are to be held until the end of the meeting.

Prior to Tuesday’s meeting, Jim Updegraff, chair of the board at the Sacramento Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the council’s decision to hold public comments until the end of the meetings would “preclude members of the public from having the opportunity to voice their grievances, concerns and comments to their elected representatives."

One of the more outspoken opponents of the Aug. 17 decision was Tracie Rice-Bailey of Safe Ground Sacramento. Rice-Bailey opposed the initial decision to hold public comments until the end of the meeting because of the inconvenience it caused the homeless population for which she advocates.

“We had to fight that fight until they moved it back,” Rice-Bailey said, “and I’m glad they moved it back. It’ll save us a lot of struggle.”

In a statement released on Monday, Updegraff elaborated on the inconvenience the decision would have on people wishing to comment at council meetings.

“People will not be able to stay to the end of the meeting because they rely upon (public transit) for transportation, have family commitments or for health reasons cannot sit for the long hours meetings often run," Updegraff said.

Updegraff and others expressed gratitude to the council after seeing the decision reversed.

Sharing Updegraff’s sentiments was Director of Advocacy for Loaves and Fishes Joan Burke. Burke said she felt like she saw democracy in action at last night’s meeting and thanked the council for its reconsideration.

Johnson, who along with Councilmen Kevin McCarty and Ray Tretheway, was not in favor of the Aug. 17 decision, was happy to see the vote rescinded.

“I think this is a good day for democracy,” Mayor Kevin Johnson said.

Photo courtesy of Kathleen Haley

City officials, ACLU debate surveillance system

2009-07-09T03:20:59Z

City officials and civil liberties advocates are taking opposite positions on the city’s plans to set up security cameras at several locations in Sacramento. The two sides are presenting opposing views on the effectiveness of surveillance systems.

Mayor Kevin Johnson said in April that the surveillance system would help decrease crime in Sacramento. While locations for the cameras have not yet been selected, Johnson has said that K Street and Regional Transit stations are the kinds of high-traffic and high-crime sites that could be suitable for surveillance.

The city intends to purchase a $615,000 surveillance package that includes 32 security cameras, four mobile surveillance trailers and other related equipment. The money would come from Federal Homeland Security grant funds. The state will distribute the federal grant funds to the city.

While the grant money was promised to the city in April, the city is still waiting to receive the federal funds from the California Emergency Management Agency. The city expects to receive the funds, but is still working with the state to obtain the funding, said Sacramento Police Department spokesman Norm Leong. If the city receives the funding, it will buy the surveillance equipment through a procurement process, according to the police department.

The city’s plans are stirring public debate. The local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union is opposing the city’s planned surveillance system. Jim Updegraff, the chair of the Sacramento County Chapter of the ACLU, claimed in May that numerous studies have “demonstrated video cameras are ineffective in reducing crime.”

The Sacramento Press reviewed a recent academic study about surveillance effectiveness and asked officials in the police department and the mayor’s office to comment on its findings. UC Berkeley researchers studied the city of San Francisco’s surveillance system, known as the Community Safety Camera program, and released a report in December 2008.

One of the areas examined in the report was violent crime. “We find no evidence of an impact of the Community Safety Cameras on violent crime,” the report states.

While the UCB researchers do not see connections between security cameras and violent crime, they state that surveillance cameras could have caused property crimes to drop. “We find statistically significant and substantial declines in property crime within view of the Community Safety Cameras,” according to the report.

Leong said that security cameras already help the police department to combat crime. The department analyzes footage taken by private citizens and video from cameras at businesses, Leong noted. “We know for a fact, as a tool to solve crimes, it’s always been helpful,” he said. "Locally, both violent and property crimes have been solved with the use of surveillance footage."

Mayor Johnson’s spokesman Joaquin McPeek referred to the cameras as a tool.

"We're going to use every tool in the toolbox to reduce crime in Sacramento, including these cameras, and we can do it without infringing on civil liberties,” McPeek said.

Security cameras are now installed at some city facilities, Police Chief Rick Braziel said in May. Leong also noted that there are three surveillance cameras on Del Paso Boulevard. The security cameras currently being used are not part of the system that would be paid by the $615,000 grant.

Johnson and Sacramento Police Chief Rick Braziel were not available to respond to questions Wednesday.

Read the UCB report through the ACLU’s website under the "related documents" section. The report is titled “CITRIS Report: The San Francisco Community Safety Camera program.” The Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society is a UC Berkeley research program.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Civil liberties advocates protest city's plans to install surveillance system

2009-05-27T06:09:54Z

Civil liberties lawyers and advocates are objecting to the city of Sacramento’s plans to install new security cameras and related surveillance equipment at several locations in the city.

Jim Updegraff, the chair of the Sacramento County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the City Council Tuesday that the planned surveillance system would be “an affront to the privacy and civil liberties of the citizens of the City of Sacramento.”

Mayor Kevin Johnson and Police Chief Rick Braziel last month publicized the city’s plan to use a pot of $615, 500 in Federal Homeland Security grant funds to fund a new surveillance system with 32 cameras, four mobile surveillance trailers and other related equipment. Johnson said the surveillance system was important because Sacramento has ranked second to Oakland in violent crime statistics over the past seven to eight years.

But Sacramento County’s ACLU chapter and ACLU attorneys in San Francisco are challenging Johnson and Braziel’s views.

Outside the meeting, Updegraff told The Sacramento Press that the ACLU’s opposition does not mean the group plans to sue the city. The group always tries to work with issues, he said.

But the group’s firm opposition is clear. Updegraff told the City Council that the surveillance system will invade citizens’ privacy and will not fight crime. The group is also calling on the City Council to hold a public hearing about the planned surveillance system.

“Study after study, from San Francisco to London, have demonstrated video cameras are ineffective in reducing crime,” Updegraff said.

The Sacramento County ACLU chapter and ACLU attorneys in San Francisco together are directly challenging statements Johnson made last month about the surveillance system.

“The new system will create a powerful deterrent for would-be criminals,” Johnson said last month. “Similar systems have been used in other cities around the country and played a major role in reducing crime.”

Updegraff questioned the accuracy of Johnson’s comments, noting that ACLU attorneys had studied Johnson’s remarks. “Our attorneys in San Francisco are not aware of any studies in the country that support the comments of the mayor,” Updegraff said.

The local ACLU chapter is also challenging one of Braziel’s statements.

Braziel said at a press conference last month: “The cameras we put up will only be in places that are in open view of the public, so it is no different than somebody walking down the street with their videophone and taking pictures.”

The Sacramento County ACLU chapter “disagrees” with and “deplores” Braziel’s comment, Updegraff said.

Images from innocent people’s videophones “do not end up in police files,” Updegraff said, and are not shared with other law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center.

Sacramento Police Department spokesman Konrad VonSchoech said last month that the city will hold a procurement process for the cameras and other surveillance equipment.