Trial of body-worn cameras for City of Albany rangers to go ahead despite debate about development of policy

Body-worn cameras will soon be used by City of Albany rangers when they believe there are “operational reasons” to do so after the City of Albany council voted in favour of a committee recommendation to note their introduction on Wednesday. The proposed three-month trial caused debate as the officer’s recommendation called on the council to “note” the introduction of the cameras, which has an associated policy for their use. Three councillors argued at the committee level that policy decisions fell within the remit of elected members, while City staff and other councillors argued it was an occupational, health and safety matter determined by the administration. On Wednesday, Cr Chris Thomson tabled a motion designed to give councillors greater scope to influence the use of body-worn cameras. It was the second time this month a motion tabled by Cr Thomson on the issue had been defeated this month His most recent motion, defeated 5-8, would not have delayed the cameras’ introduction, like the alternate motion tabled at the committee level, but would have given the council a chance to reshape the associated policy following the trial. The motion included the committee recommendation but also would have seen the council direct the chief executive to produce a report for the council following the trial and draft a policy for body-worn camera use to be considered by the council if the trial was a success. The amended motion again prompted debate among councillors on the same matters of transparency and the division of duties. Cr Thomson told the meeting it was through discussions with Cr Robert Sutton that he had drafted his amended motion as an attempt at compromise. “I hear what the committee said, I hear that only three voted for the alternative motion, so the next best thing would be to allow the administration to conduct the proposed trial,” he said. Cr Sutton, who voted against Cr Thomson’s alternate motion earlier this month, said he was “all for the cameras” but supported the amended motion in an effort to “bring everyone together” because it would result in “a better outcome for council”. “Surely doing the three-month trial, we can pick up the good, the bad and the ugly then it’s our experiences, not ‘he said, she said’,” he said. “I don’t think this is going to alter anything other than being a little bit more thorough. “In life, we’ve got to negotiate, in the beginning, we were in two camps all broadly agreeing on going the same way but one camp want to do a bit more of a review on the policy to make sure the information we do learn from the trial is enacted.” Cr Malcolm Traill also spoke in support of the amended motion having previously voted against Cr Thomson’s alternate motion. He said he believed the amendment was about transparency without “undermining the administrative powers of the CEO and his staff”. Cr Thomas Brough and Cr Matt Benson-Lidholm spoke to their support of more council having the opportunity to determine the policy as they had done at the Community and Corporate Services committee meeting earlier this month. Councillors Sandie Smith and Paul Terry each stated they were still making up their minds during the debate, before ultimately voting against the amended motion. Cr Smith said there were already several administrative policies in place which were separate from the council’s strategic policies. “If you look at the website, you’d see they currently have 25 administrative policies, which includes the work health and safety policy,” she said. “This is an operational work matter and they should create their own policies around that.” Cr John Shanhun reiterated that it was a matter of “checks and balances” and Cr Amanda Cruse said there was merit to the amended motion yet also said “but I still believe this is too prescriptive. . . and I have no doubt in my mind this is an administrative matter”. The committee recommendation for the council to note the introduction of the body-worn cameras for use and evaluation by City of Albany authorised persons was passed 10-3 following the defeat of the amended motion.