Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis asked regarding the cameras that would be placed in the <br />cars, who will have access to view those cameras and will the public have access to that <br />through the Freedom of Information Act if it goes through the city. How will that be <br />dealt with? <br /> <br />Ms. Nash advised that if there is still the camera provision still in place it would first of <br />all the requirement would begin in 2013. She stated that the company itself would <br />maintain ownership and control of that and have to maintain it for sixty (60) days. If the <br />City for some reason is following up on a complaint or a concern and has to ask for <br />access to that, then it would become a document if you will an item that the public could <br />have access to. The provision that is in the language of the ordinance to answer Mr. <br />Dieter’s question is that it must be in use during the passage ride. So there is that <br />provision. She stated that they would propose to have some sort of warning to people <br />that they are on camera. She stated that a question was raised about what if you are <br />saying something and you wouldn’t want it on camera or be repeated. She stated that she <br />thinks that everyone should know that they are on camera. Personally as a person <br />traveling late at night maybe getting off a plane and going to her home, she would like <br />very much to know that she is on camera and the driver is on camera. She stated that if <br />she were a driver she would like very much to know that she is on camera and that the <br />passenger is on camera as well. She stated that it would feel like a measure of safety in <br />that and prefer that. <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis stated that while that would make him feel safe, he wants <br />the public to clearly understand and know that they are on camera and that the public has <br />access to view those tapes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter stated that for clarification these cabs do not all have to be the <br />same color for each company. <br /> <br />Ms. Nash stated at this time they do not. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter asked if those recording are going to be private property of each <br />individual business or are they going to be under the umbrella of the city. <br /> <br />Ms. Nash stated that they would belong to the business, unless the City has to ask for <br />them for some reason. It would be just like the driver’s logs, each company is required to <br />have its driver’s keep a log of each of the trips that it makes and those stay with the <br />company unless the City has to ask for them. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter stated that it would be the interpretation of each company’s <br />attorney whether they want to release any information to people who want to come in for <br />tapes. <br /> <br />Ms. Nash stated no, the requirement would be that they have access to them. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter asked who would. <br /> <br />Ms. Nash stated the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter stated that they would have to go through the City, and there <br />would have to be a legitimate reason for someone to get the recordings that were made in <br />a taxi. <br /> <br />Ms. Nash asked a member of the public. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter stated yes. <br /> <br />Ms. Nash stated that she thinks under the Freedom of Information Act and Access to <br />Public Records Act that if the City has them, for some investigative reason, then they <br />would be public documents. <br /> <br /> 12 <br /> <br />