"Thoughts" on security cameras

I've been meaning for awhile to post my thoughts regarding the association's recently adopted camera policy. I don't think anything that I write, though, would be more well-researched than this article by Bruce Schneier, which originally appeared on CNN's website on 25 February 2010:

On January 19, a team of at least 15 people assassinated Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. The Dubai police released video footage of 11 of them. While it was obviously a very professional operation, the 27 minutes of video is fascinating in its banality. Team members walk through the airport, check in and out of hotels, get in and out of taxis. They make no effort to hide themselves from the cameras, sometimes seeming to stare directly into them. They obviously don't care that they're being recorded, and -- in fact -- the cameras didn't prevent the assassination, nor as far as we know have they helped as yet in identifying the killers.

Pervasive security cameras don't substantially reduce crime. This fact has been demonstrated repeatedly: in San Francisco public housing, in a New York apartment complex, in Philadelphia, in Washington, DC, in study after study in both the U.S. and the U.K. Nor are they instrumental in solving many crimes after the fact.

There are exceptions, of course, and proponents of cameras can always cherry-pick examples to bolster their argument. These success stories are what convince us; our brains are wired to respond more strongly to anecdotes than to data. But the data is clear: CCTV cameras have minimal value in the fight against crime.

While it's comforting to imagine vigilant police monitoring every camera, the truth is very different, for a variety of reasons: technological limitations of cameras, organizational limitations of police, and the adaptive abilities of criminals. No one looks at most CCTV footage until well after a crime is committed. And when the police do look at the recordings, it's very common for them to be unable to identify suspects. Criminals don't often stare helpfully at the lens, and -- unlike the Dubai assassins -- tend to wear sunglasses and hats. Cameras break far too often. Even when they afford quick identification -- think of the footage of the 9/11 terrorists going through airport security, or the 7/7 London transport bombers just before the bombs exploded -- police are often able to identify those suspects even without the cameras. Cameras afford a false sense of security, encouraging laziness when we need police to be vigilant.

The solution isn't for police to watch the cameras more diligently. Unlike an officer walking the street, cameras only look in particular directions at particular locations. Criminals know this, and can easily adapt by moving their crimes to places not watched by a camera -- and there will always be such places. And while a police officer on the street can respond to a crime in progress, someone watching a CCTV screen can only dispatch an officer to arrive much later. By their very nature, cameras result in underused and misallocated police resources.

Cameras aren't completely ineffective, of course. Used properly, they're effective in reducing crime in enclosed areas with minimal foot traffic. Combined with adequate lighting, they substantially reduce both personal attacks and auto-related crime in multi-story parking garages. And sometimes it is cost-effective for a store to install cameras to catch shoplifters, or a casino to install cameras to detect cheaters. But these are instances where there is a specific risk at a specific location.

But the important question isn't whether cameras solve past crime or deter future crime; it's whether they're a good use of resources. They're expensive, both in money and their Orwellian effects on privacy and civil liberties. Their inevitable misuse is another cost: police have already spied on naked women in their own homes, shared nude images, sold best-of videos, and spied on national politicians. While we might be willing to accept these downsides for a real increase in security, cameras don't provide that. Despite our predilection for preferring technological solutions over human ones, the funds now spent on CCTV cameras would be far better spent on hiring and training police officers.

We live in a unique time in our society: cameras are everywhere, but we can still see them. Ten years ago, cameras were much rarer than they are today. Ten years from now, they'll be so small you won't even notice them. Already, people can buy surveillance cameras in household objects to spy on their spouses and baby sitters -- I particularly like the one hidden in a shower mirror -- cameras in pens to spy on their colleagues, and remotely turn on laptop cameras to spy on anyone. Companies are developing police state–type CCTV surveillance technologies for China, technology that will find its way into countries like the U.S.

If universal surveillance were the answer, lots of us would have moved to former East Germany. If surveillance cameras were the answer, camera-happy London, with something like 500,000 of them at a cost of $700 million, would be the safest city on the planet. We didn't and it isn't, because surveillance and surveillance cameras don't make us safer. The money spent on cameras in London, and in cities across America, could be much better spent on actual policing.

Garage Sale

The garage sale was incorrectly scheduled for 16 May 2010, which is a Sunday. It will instead be held on 15 May.

Open Board Meeting - 18 March 2010

March's open meeting was called to order at about 6:30pm with about 25 homeowners and all 5 board members present. The entire open forum portion of the meeting revolved around a single topic: expenses (and the cutting of them).

• A homeowner came with a prepared list of items that she insisted not be considered in an attempt to cut costs/save money. These included locking the gates open; reducing the security patrol, pool cleaning/maintenance, landscaping, regular maintenance, gate maintenance; etc. After about 5 minutes, she was cut short by the board's president for running over time.
• Two other homeowners rose to speak against locking the gates open for safety reasons (speeding cars and protection of children). One of them suggested that the street sweeping service should be stopped.
  
• A homeowner rose to speak against locking the gates open and presented a map of sex offenders living in the area as a reason. She also raised the concern that it would allow people who don't reside within Park Lane to use its parking spaces.
• A homeowner spoke against the cutting back of the landscaping maintenance within the community.
• There being no other speakers, the first homeowner was allowed to continue down her list. Her reasons for not making cuts quickly devolved into finger pointing at current and previous board members for their misdeeds (perceived or otherwise). At one point I interrupted the homeowner to point out that her facts were incorrect. She curtly asked me not to interrupt her "3 minutes".

The open forum portion of the meeting was then closed (though homeowners were allowed to speak at various times during the regular meeting). Minutes from the 18 February 2010 regular board meeting were approved unanimously. The board moved then to committee reports.

• Architectural: A request to replace the windows on a home with more energy efficient versions was unanimously approved by the board. The board president reported that another architectural improvement within the community was still in progress.
• Landscape: The board approved unanimously a proposal to remove a willow tree at a cost of $250 whose branches where allowing rodents access to an adjacent home and dripping sap everywhere. It would have cost $150 annually to keep and trim the tree. No replacement is likely due to the confined space. The board tabled, with the committee chairperson's approval, a separate proposal to replace a rosemary bush at a cost of approximately $100.
• Social: The next garage sale will be May 16th.
• Other committee reports were inconsequential.

The board elected unanimously not to foreclose on a homeowner who has fallen behind on his/her payments. This article explains why. At this point, the board treasurer explained the financial situation to the board and homeowners who were present. All of that information can be found here. He then listed some prime places that can be cut from the budget which would keep the association's expenses from overrunning the budget, i.e. these cuts would simply make up for the revenue shortfall created by homeowners who are not paying their assessments. It was at this point that I spoke up to point out that these cuts would simply keep us afloat and do nothing to address the problems with the reserves. The board treasurer also pointed out that 2009's reserve study assumed a starting fund of approximately $177,000 that would be depleted by 2019. Since 2010 actually started with approximately $100,000 in reserve, this depletion will likely occur sooner. The board discussed cuts to the association's expenses at this time but no actual motion was made. It's not clear to me what is going to happen with regard to those cuts.

Prior to the approval of the financial statement, the board treasurer and I both asked the property manager about discrepancies on the financial statement and for an explanation of various charges. She was able to answer some of the questions ($2,000+ in printing costs in January were due to the annual meeting). On others however, she deferred to her accounting department, with whom the board treasurer and I will be meeting next week. During this portion of the conversation, we learned that as part of the management contract, the association is charged for every phone call made by the management on the association's behalf. [It appears to me that despite the lowered management fee (in comparison to previous management companies), we're being nickel'd and dime'd on individual charges.]

The board president then moved to approve the financial statement. Prior to the vote, I interjected to reiterate what I had brought up previously during the executive session, and that was that the reserves were not funded in January. I told the board that, to me, this represented a loan to the operating account, and that I believed we are acting in contravention of the relevant law concerning loans from the reserves. No one spoke at this point [the board president and I discussed this issue briefly during executive session, but I'm not sure of the legality of relating the substance of that conversation in an open forum], and the review of the financial statements was unanimously approved.

The last item before the meeting concluded was the issue of scheduling a special meeting to address the petition presented by a number of homeowners wishing to reverse the recently adopted rules. The board president read the petition and then stated that the board had no choice but to schedule a meeting. This led to questions from and discussions among homeowners and the board about the legal rights of the petitioners, the costs of holding the meeting, and the legalities of handling the vote. I spoke up and suggested that the board meet with the petitioners to see if something could be worked out. The president replied that there was no way to stop what had been put into motion by the petitioners. I suggested that they (the petitioners) could all agree (in writing) to reverse their request and that no one would sue us for not holding the meeting if the petitioners reversed their request. The board president insisted that the letter was delivered to him and, as such, was his responsibility and that the meeting must go forward.

A homeowner involved with creating the petition then spoke up to say that she would favor a meeting between the petitioners and the board and that no special meeting would be required if the petitioners and the board could come to an agreement. There was some minor discussion about the possibility, but the board president again insisted that the issue was his responsibility (to which I vocally disagreed) and that no such "arbitration" was possible and a special meeting must be held (to which I again vocally disagreed). The special meeting was scheduled to coincide with May's open board meeting, currently scheduled for 20 May 2010.

The meeting was adjourned a few minutes prior to 8:00pm.

Filling in the blanks

As I mentioned here, I've been trying for awhile to obtain a number of documents from our property management company. I finally picked them up this morning and have scanned and uploaded them.

• 2008 Reserve Study
• 2008 Reserve Accounting
• 2008 Minutes
• 2009 Budget
• 2009 Reserve Accounting
• 2009 Minutes

I have no further requests outstanding for any documents. If my collection is somehow incomplete, let me know.

Update on veto of rules changes

In the tradition of sunlight being the best disinfectant:

The homeowner who served notice to the board of directors that a special meeting was being requested to veto the rules changes emailed the board again on 8 March requesting an update regarding the process. His request was met with a response from the association's president that the matter was being reviewed by the association's legal counsel. Below is my response to the homeowner.

Lest you or anyone else have any confusion about the word "we" in Tom's response, let me clarify what has happened since your original email:

• 4 March 2010 @ 1928: Your email with an attached request for a special meeting to veto the rules adopted at the January open board meeting was received by the board of directors.
• 5 March 2010 @ 0824: One of the directors asked the other members of the board for clarification, i.e. what is required of the board in response to your request and how many homeowners are required for such a request to be valid.
• 5 March 2010 @ 0905: I responded to the other board members and our property management that, in my opinion, your request met the requirements for a special meeting and that we were now bound by law (which I cited for the other members) to hold such a meeting and facilitate a vote on the matter. (The timing of such a meeting is subject to debate, but it was my opinion that it should be held within 45 days.)
• 8 March 2010 @ 1658: You sent a second email to the board requesting an update with regard to your email/letter of 4 March.
• 8 March 2010 @ 2221: The board president replied, as below, that the board is in communication with the association's attorney regarding the matter.

As you can see from the time line I've presented here, there has been no conversation among board members regarding the scheduling of a meeting in response to your request (other than what I've described) and no discussion of involving legal counsel in the matter prior to the board president's reply to you on 8 March.

It is my opinion that the board's president has committed an "ultra vires" act, that is, I believe he has exceeded his authority by requesting a legal opinion (and incurring the associated costs to the association) without consent of the board of directors.

In response to this action, on 8 March 2010 @ 2248, I sent email to the other board members and our property manager stating that I am unaware of any vote authorizing said action and asking who approved of it. While it has been less than 12 hours, at this point, I have received no response.

Veto of rules changes

A request by 5% of the homeowners in Park Lane has been delivered to the board of directors requesting a special meeting to reverse the rule changes that took effect in February. This has generated some internal discussion among board members about how best to respond. Below is my reply to the rest of the board and our property manager.

According to Civil Code 1357.140, it takes 5% of the owners to call a special meeting, and they must make the request within 30 days of notification of the rule change. Since we have 159 homes, it takes 8 homeowners to call a special election, and since notice of the rule change was not delivered to the homeowners until 14 Feb, it appears that they are within the 30 day time limit.

The Civil Code does not give a time frame for scheduling of the meeting, but section 3.02 of our bylaws states that it must be scheduled "promptly". I would take this to mean within 30 days.

The bylaws require 51% of the homeowners (81, 82 to be absolutely sure) to constitute a quorum at which time a simple majority vote is sufficient to settle the matter. Based on my understanding, the same rules for the annual meeting regarding quorum apply to special meetings.

So, in answer to your question, I believe we are now bound to hold a special meeting in accordance with Corporations Code 7511 and deliver ballots according to Civil Code 1363.03. (1363.03 states that ballots must be sent 30 days in advance of the vote, which means we probably can't reasonably schedule a meeting in less than 45 days.)

Watch this space for updates.