[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6381737,"mediaKeyId","2127990-4fa94a8f14c3a7c19754b4c0a04b50cc","parentId",2127990,"title","School committee reviews MOU rewrite to limit Springfield Police access to school security cameras","audioSeconds",3099,"startMs",55000,"endMs",3154000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2127990-4fa94a8f14c3a7c19754b4c0a04b50cc&start=55&end=3154","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2127990-4fa94a8f14c3a7c19754b4c0a04b50cc/thumbnail_55000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6381737/Massachusetts/School-committee-reviews-MOU-rewrite-to-limit-Springfield-Police-access-to-school-security-cameras","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6381737-8785da7f7801a0e2410dc0e95abb73dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771057393&Signature=JtcSnnILmF3e8p9gTams9xNMUwF6uDI-3JklkVN4SY94uMGnqEnwNExv9l2~s2tQdPTr7Q7dO~rgMQsCgPq2KUnPL1FlDcMOoiSwXSusmLVaX76MtiCP0n2jYdSnGnZaDCQRQ6G1IvcI1i-ZNFEjWIuagzNGXg0ztyBvgDtPAGKf6JZRWSCc0v9thyNjsl1wMI8bjQv4fRTVHpJfHXCvoKXKXpx72lnw0Tfl7oBBaWkgiBZbQu9Z58KDtDT7dSRB0oourfS2NOsF~-8IQGkvLUr74hyPULDSm1ykOR2n-6xhEeblfh~33Z2jtiqtBWmk2PpOGwfsZlbEO1BSEjbDdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Springfield Public Schools, MA","date","2025-01-17T00:00:00Z","article","The Springfield School Committee on an agenda item opened a working session on revising the interdepartmental memorandum of understanding that governs Springfield Public Schools’ (SPS) security cameras and Springfield Police Department (SPD) access.

Committee attorney Ian Keith, representing the school committee, said the review focused on three core concerns: “we wanna make sure it's more transparency. We wanna know when the cameras may be accessed, who's gonna access them when a record of the and a record of the access.”

Why it matters: Committee members and community speakers pressed for explicit language to prevent routine police use of school camera footage and to protect student privacy. Members asked the attorneys and SPS staff to make clear which kinds of video become education records under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and when SPD or its real-time analysis staff may view live or stored footage.

Most of the discussion centered on three technical issues. First, attendees sought clearer wording that video is not automatically a student education record simply because it contains images of students; instead it becomes a student record only when it is “directly related to a student” or used for a discipline or education purpose, as attorney Ian Keith explained. Second, the group debated language that limits disclosure to law enforcement to the FERPA public-safety exceptions (for example, where there is an “articulable and significant threat to the health or safety of a student or other individuals”), and to make clear that footage accessed for that purpose may not be repurposed for unrelated disciplinary uses. Third, the committee pressed for a clear operational distinction between real-time access and later requests for stored footage.

Bill Schwartz, who runs the city’s real-time analysis unit, clarified operational practice: the real-time camera access is performed by civilian real-time crime analysis staff and a video analyst, not by uniformed officers. “There are no police officers in that room. There are no police officers that have access. We run the credentials,” Schwartz said. He and other staff described a technical audit trail: when an analyst selects a camera, credentials and a time stamp are recorded in both the school’s system and the real-time center’s system. Committee members asked for stronger language in the MOU to require notification to the superintendent’s office after any access and to make that audit trail and reporting explicit in the agreement.

Committee members repeatedly sought wording changes to fix inconsistent acronyms and to ensure the MOU covers “any and all SPS buildings and property,” not only classrooms or traditional school facilities. Attorneys agreed to standardize names and acronyms in the draft.

Several members pressed for explicit limits on who may access live feeds, distinguishing daily operational review by school administrators and SROs (school resource officers) from the MOU’s subject: civilian-run real-time analysis access during major life-safety incidents. As one committee member summarized, the committee wanted the MOU to address the narrow public-safety use case — for example active shooter or a major life-safety incident — and to be explicit that routine disciplinary reviews remain in the school’s operational procedures or in a separate SRO MOU.

Attorney Hannah Murray (school legal counsel) said the SROs operate under a separate memorandum and that the team would check for conflicts between the two agreements so the MOU under discussion does not inadvertently hamper SRO operations.

Next steps: The committee asked attorneys to reword the draft to (1) standardize party names and acronyms, (2) clarify the conditions that make footage a student education record under FERPA, (3) add explicit public-safety exception language, (4) require a documented audit trail and notification to the superintendent’s office for access to interior and exterior cameras, and (5) spell out that real-time live access is restricted to civilian real-time crime analysis staff and the SPD video analyst. Attorneys committed to prepare an updated draft that reflects the committee’s requested clarifications and to bring it back for further review.

Ending: Committee members said they will resume review once the attorneys provide the revised MOU language and asked to include explicit archival-location and reporting language so the public record will show who accessed cameras and why.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","SPS: Budget & Finance | Legislative & Contracts Subcommittee Meeting 1/16/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Springfield School Committee on an agenda item opened a working session on revising the interdepartmental memorandum of understanding that governs Springfield Public Schools’ (SPS) security cameras and Springfield Police Department (SPD) access.","taxTitle","Springfield Public Schools, School Boards, Massachusetts","taxId",38504,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6381727,"Committee forwards FY26 budget calendar and reviews budget survey; public outreach planned",723,4514000,5237000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2127990-4fa94a8f14c3a7c19754b4c0a04b50cc&start=4514&end=5237","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2127990-4fa94a8f14c3a7c19754b4c0a04b50cc/thumbnail_4514000.jpg","/articles/6381727/Massachusetts/Committee-forwards-FY26-budget-calendar-and-reviews-budget-survey-public-outreach-planned","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6381727-da60f0f5b32e590891b55902f217f5cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771057393&Signature=le9EyQeAwJkTddLA8Fxk9Wn6uXfGqt0660MnpIBUZ3U3oT6paqkXktK5zdqeIRLTJG91jRsbzeWktqafa6RkgnN3A6Cku5~TCR7CVLuudCSv~s4M2rLRFLpyXUORBMpr5cYDpc3ya06UjDwbMUAcXP3FmhKgh8W0o7CwL7T~ofbJIGJ2-AE2do4fcvnNYAZkN9CpRXBoV4CMp3FicvtaDm4Dw5GDY7Y9LQgSodXvjeU~uF1BBe7e6SLbmhkq-DTVCbsm4jDTXUVJb-ZdNgMCRsm0NiXp1H5iQ6yUeON3~yrJMS56UA4bHBUeS2VGbNcXC6ZTV2gjwlnBgGvYhpDmGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Springfield School Committee reviewed the superintendent’s proposed FY26 budget calendar and the district’s public budget survey, voted to forward the calendar to the full committee, and discussed outreach to increase survey participation.

Chief Finance Officer Pat Roche presented the FY26 calendar and described only minor changes from prior years: the public input session is scheduled for March 5 at Putnam High School, school-committee priorities are due March 14, a summary of significant changes is scheduled for April 4, the superintendent’s recommended budget will be presented to the subcommittee on April 8, and the budget hearing is scheduled for April 30 with formal votes in early May. Roche said the meeting calendar largely mirrors the district’s recent practice and that the district would host more meetings at Putnam High School to increase public accessibility.

Why it matters: The committee must approve the subcommittee’s calendar to allow outreach and public hearings to proceed on the calendared dates. Committee members asked that calendar dates and locations be circulated to members and posted widely; Chief Roche confirmed the budget survey will be distributed via the district’s digital channels and social media and that the district plans to use community-based organizations to increase responses.

Committee members asked about membership dues and travel items in the committee’s budget request (for example, NSBA and related association dues and annual conference attendance). Members asked staff to collate dues and conference costs under clearer line items and to check for any new-district discounts that may apply for a new superintendent.

On the budget survey, Roche reported historical response counts of roughly 200 respondents with most respondents being district staff; the survey remains open about two weeks. The superintendent said she is building a communication network of community-based organizations to increase outreach and expects a higher response rate this year.

Action: The subcommittee moved and seconded a motion to forward the FY26 calendar and related materials to the full committee for action; roll call recorded Miss Monroe Miller — yes; Miss Hurst — yes; Miss Gresham — yes. The subcommittee’s recommendation will be placed on the full committee agenda for formal consideration and vote.

Next steps: Staff will circulate the calendar and meeting locations, finalize the budget survey language (committee counsel suggested rewording an item that asked respondents to “rank support programs or services” so the list better reflects mixed factors), and confirm association dues and travel line items. The communications office will use district and CBO channels to broaden the survey distribution.

Ending: Committee members said they would revisit the subcommittee’s request at the full committee meeting and monitor community outreach results from the budget survey.","The school committee reviewed the FY26 budget calendar and the district’s budget survey, approved forwarding the superintendent’s calendar to the full committee, and discussed outreach steps to boost community survey responses and add association memberships to the committee budget request.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6381733,"Committee tables $8,000 charitable contribution for Brightwood classrooms after equity concerns",1328,3168000,4496000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2127990-4fa94a8f14c3a7c19754b4c0a04b50cc&start=3168&end=4496","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2127990-4fa94a8f14c3a7c19754b4c0a04b50cc/thumbnail_3168000.jpg","/articles/6381733/Massachusetts/Committee-tables-8000-charitable-contribution-for-Brightwood-classrooms-after-equity-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6381733-0b8e9c14942368fc2a21cec3947556ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771057393&Signature=JzRQhP1Mb4~jK2cYwlQWk-nI~SP2lu7rwOMkTByOtO9ANE2b3-ZO0InDdGUOYhmRl95MRQNk8NBXnrtE8vgxwkBfTkk5sSAoW68zFV52kep9nnqxP5rz1kK5n9UkJfJguWGUco~YZa-7fR-~WETYjIkfzjx4UEuNFhd9xkQXFeIVIHmf7dEJZefhP8RdOdeKq4yS1zia337CVXVMKzdDTyXmyuVVlekQjVHZr7An8N3jqC2qu~ebVbJJgI~iL2J3j~y3aeYtHXwaG2kxlPx13Z6lujS2VGpUGw2g9mkmh0ADC4leED90Y8Fr4wkQdKTShKjBLc0pO6EoznngN5F2gw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Springfield School Committee tabled consideration of a charitable contribution agreement that would place $8,000 at Brightwood School for staff-authorized classroom use, after members raised equity and policy concerns.

Superintendent (name provided in session) introduced the gift and said school attorneys reviewed the proposed agreement to ensure it complied with state and federal rules on charitable donations and with district policy. Principal Delgado joined the table to explain the origin: a dining-guest donor, moved by a special-education teacher’s work, offered funds to support that teacher’s classroom.

Why it matters: Several committee members said the proposed agreement, which designates two teachers at Brightwood to receive $2,000 each per semester, creates unfair disparities within a school. “It typically…sets up haves and have nots,” Committee Member Mister Collins said. Members asked whether the donor intended school-level support or an individual teacher, whether the gift should be targeted to special-education classrooms, and whether the school committee’s gift-acceptance policy requires additional specificity.

Committee discussion and concerns concentrated on three points: perceived inequity among staff when only two teachers receive designated funds; the donor’s intent (whether the gift must stay with Brightwood or follow a named teacher if they leave); and the need for itemized receipts and administrative oversight so funds are used for students and avoid ethical conflicts for staff. School counsel noted the district policy on gifts (1993 policy in committee materials) and said an agreement that routes funds through the school with principal oversight and itemized receipts reduces ethical risk compared with direct payments to a teacher.

Principal Delgado said the donor’s original preference was for funds at the Brightwood site tied to the teacher the donor met, and that the donor might not give the gift if the school changes the arrangement. Committee members suggested alternatives — for example, designating two comparable special-education classrooms or clarifying the donor’s exact intent — to reduce internal conflict and clarify use.

Action: Committee Member Mister Collins moved to table the item so attorneys could discuss donor intent and revise language; another committee member seconded. Roll call votes recorded: Vice Chair Monroe Naylor — yes; Miss Hurst — yes; Miss Gresham — yes; Mister Collins — yes. The motion passed and the item was tabled for revision and re-presentation.

Next steps: Attorneys were instructed to consult with Principal Delgado and the donor to craft a revised agreement that preserves donor intent while adding clearer purpose, spending restrictions, principal oversight and itemized receipts; the committee will revisit the revised agreement at a later meeting.

Ending: Committee members said they did not want to reject the donation but sought clearer contract terms to avoid inequity and ethical conflicts before final approval.","The committee voted to table a proposed charitable contribution agreement that would have given $2,000 to two Brightwood classrooms over two semesters, citing concerns about perceived inequity, donor intent and necessary contract language; attorneys and the principal will consult with the donor and return with a revised draft.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

School committee reviews MOU rewrite to limit Springfield Police access to school security cameras

Committee forwards FY26 budget calendar and reviews budget survey; public outreach planned

Committee tables $8,000 charitable contribution for Brightwood classrooms after equity concerns