Tempest brews over camera in Atherton Town Hall


(In the original version of this story, Eileen Wilkerson was quoted as saying the City Council approved the installation of the camera. She actually had told The Almanac during an interview that she was under the impression the council had approved the device, but a search for supporting documents produced nothing, she said.)

Does the town of Atherton have the right to videotape members of the public doing business in Town Hall, even if they have not been made aware of the camera's presence? The question has been raised by several residents after they became aware of a camera's presence in the town's administration office for the first time this week.

The camera, which has no audio function, is trained on the cash register in the post office area of the administration building's front office, said Assistant City Manager Eileen Wilkerson.

Resident and town watcher Peter Carpenter, the president of the Atherton Civic Interest League, learned of the camera's presence when it was referred to in an exchange between others over the videotaping by resident Jon Buckheit of an Aug. 20 meeting in Town Hall between the city manager and three people seeking public records.

The revelation prompted him to fire off an e-mail to council members, town staff and others, strongly urging that the town "either immediately cease the use of these devices and to destroy all of the accumulated recordings," or to publicly disclose the presence of any camera and the town's policies on who has access to the recorded data and for what purpose, how long and where the recordings are kept, and whether an individual doing business in Town Hall can request the camera not record their actions.

Mr. Carpenter told The Almanac that he was shocked when he learned of the camera's existence. "It's an incredible violation of my rights as a citizen," he said, noting that there are no signs telling people their actions are being videotaped.

"This is not what I think citizens expect of their government," he said.

City Manager Jerry Gruber told The Almanac that the town has "no ulterior motive" in placing the camera over the area where money is kept. The town also has a camera in the police station, which is in the same building as the administration offices, and one outside the building.

The cameras, Mr. Gruber said, were authorized before he came to town.

Mr. Gruber and Ms. Wilkerson agreed that, given the concerns expressed by Mr. Carpenter and others over the cameras, particularly the one in Town Hall, it was time to look into creating policies on the use and retention of data collected by the camera, and on notifying the public of its presence.

"When you work with something for so long, you almost forget it's there," he said. But, he added, the town staff is receptive to residents' concerns and will try to address them.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.


Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Aug 26, 2010 at 9:53 pm

It wasn't that long ago that R.E.A.C.T. Task Force was based out of the Atherton Police Department. Very few people even knew it existed.

Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 26, 2010 at 10:20 pm

what is REACT program?

Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Aug 27, 2010 at 7:15 am

"what is REACT program?"

Rapid Enforcement and Allied Computer Team, or REACT, a multi-jurisdictional, high-tech crime task force.

Like this comment
Posted by John P Johns
a resident of another community
on Aug 27, 2010 at 10:25 am

Dear Ms. DellaSanta

In a recent article posted on the Almanac News website, Ms. Batti
quotes Ms. Wilkerson as stating the installation of video cameras was
approved by the City Council in 2008. In this same article Mr. Gruber
affirms Ms. Wilkerson's assertion that the City Council did indeed
approve the installation of video cameras. However he indicates that
such approval was granted prior to his arrival.

I have researched the City Council's minutes for all of 2008 and for
October through December of 2007. I have found no record of this
matter having been brought to the attention of the City Council in
open session.

It is entirely possible however that the City Council could have
discussed this matter in closed session where, in the words of Ms.
Wilkerson they could have engaged in a more productive and frank
discussion of the costs and benefits of conducting surveillance on
Town residents and employees.

In view of the apparent absence of City Council approval, please
consider this to be a public records request for any writings which
would substantiate Ms. Wilkerson's assertion that the Council did
approve the installation of video and/or audio surveillance equipment
at Town hall.

For your convenience, attached please find copies of all of the agenda that I have researched so far.

Please respond to this public records request within 10 days.

Thank you very much.

John P. Johns, CPA

Like this comment
Posted by BlackBart
a resident of another community
on Sep 1, 2010 at 2:30 pm

It's cool.
Their pictures are all hanging in the post offices and online.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

After experiencing harassment, owner of Zareen's restaurants speaks out about Islamophobia, racism
By Elena Kadvany | 28 comments | 6,972 views

Don't Miss Your Exit (and other lessons from an EV drive)
By Sherry Listgarten | 13 comments | 2,350 views

Goodbye Food Waste!
By Laura Stec | 7 comments | 2,256 views

Good News: The New Menlo Park Rail Subcommittee Hits A Home Run
By Dana Hendrickson | 12 comments | 1,541 views

Premarital and Couples: Tips for Hearing (Listening) and Being Known
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 765 views


Register today!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More