The police union in Montgomery County is pushing back against the county’s move to unilaterally equip each officer with a body camera.
The union filed a formal labor complaint in June against the county over the program and a county labor administrator ruled in October the county must negotiate with the union—Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35—over certain aspects of the body-worn camera program.
Patrick Lacefield, a spokesman for the county, said the ongoing negotiations have not halted a pilot program in which 90 officers were outfitted last year with body cameras. The pilot is being conducted to find out what policies need to be developed to make sure the cameras are properly used, according to county officials.
The use of body cameras by police is a developing national issue as citizen groups push for the use of cameras to increase police accountability and transparency in the wake of several controversial deadly police shootings.
Lacefield said the county believed that creating policies surrounding the program were a management decision, thanks to a 2012 referendum that ended so-called “effects bargaining,” which previously enabled the union to challenge decisions beyond salaries, benefits and working conditions.
“They’re arguing since it has to do with officers’ work, it has to be negotiated,” Lacefield said. “We thought it was a management decision.”
Marc Zifcak, the immediate past president of the union, said Tuesday the union believes it should have a say on policies surrounding the cameras and that it’s concerned about safety issues.
“When the county, as an employer, wanted to unilaterally, all on their own, implement the body-worn camera program, we said ‘hold on’, like [the use of] dash cameras, it has to be bargained,” Zifcak said. He added that he can’t talk in detail about the union’s concerns because the negotiations with the county are ongoing.
Ira Jaffe, the “permanent umpire” who ruled on the labor dispute, wrote in his decision that the union isn’t opposed to the cameras, but is concerned about how they could affect working conditions. The police department is testing two types of cameras, one that’s attached at eye-level to a pair of glasses and one that’s worn on the chest.
“The camera’s placement (e.g., location on glasses that might block peripheral vision), as well as the potential presence of wires and batteries, can have potential health and safety effects,” Jaffe wrote about the union’s concerns. “Breakaway wires may not function as designed, and other issues with this new technology may yet be discovered. In addition, some members of the public will likely be displeased about being filmed and may choose to target an officer in response.”
Jaffe ruled that county and police leaders have the right to decide to use the cameras, but that the union may bargain over the camera’s placement, the type of equipment used for the program, how the videos are used and how the videos are archived.
In the decision, Jaffe writes that Assistant Chief Luther Reynolds “opined that, if the [body camera] pilot program were stopped due to a failure to comply with [the union’s contract] or for any other reason, then it would create serious problems for the department in its relationships with the public, various community interest groups, and county government and, in light of the department’s expressed commitment to the use of body-worn cameras, would ‘create chaos.’ ”
Jaffe agreed with Reynolds that the cameras increase public trust and are effective in gathering evidence.
County Council member Marc Elrich said Thursday night at a forum hosted by Safe Silver Spring that the county will press forward with the program, even if it requires a battle with the police union.
“They’re uncomfortable with body camera evidence being used to prosecute them,” Elrich said. “We’re not going to let them decide that. I think the council is united in that we support the use of body cameras.”
Lacefield said the county is pursuing a way to outfit all of the county’s approximately 900 police officers with the cameras, a move that has been publicly supported by Police Chief Tom Manger. Lacefield said outfitting all the officers with the cameras could cost more than $2 million per year and county staff is looking for ways to include the spending in the fiscal 2017 budget, which begins July 1. He also said the county is awaiting state regulations surrounding the cameras. State lawmakers are expected to tackle the issue during this year’s General Assembly, which starts Wednesday.
Those regulations are expected to guide local police departments in developing policies that would cover such issues as how the public can access the videos, how long the videos should be stored and when officers should use the cameras.
At the Safe Silver Spring forum Thursday, Sara Love, public policy director of the Maryland American Civil Liberties Union, said concerns about privacy—especially of individuals captured by the cameras in possibly embarrassing situations—are an issue, but they shouldn’t be allowed to prohibitively limit access to body-camera footage.
She said that cellphone footage taken in recent police shootings has exposed “revolting incidents” and that body cameras could perhaps prevent those types of incidents from occurring, or at least provide answers after they happen.
“We want to make sure there is access to body-camera footage to hold everybody accountable,” Love said.
