Revised policy grants surveillance inside residence halls

Lewis & Clark notified the campus community on Sept. 8 through the Spottlight newsletter that it had revised its Video Surveillance and Security Camera Policy. The change opens the door for security cameras to be located inside residence hall common areas — a placement the college’s prior policy explicitly ruled out.

The Executive Council approved the new policy on April 8, just days after residents were told final decision on camera installation had not yet been made by President Robin Holmes-Sullivan, as previously reported by The Mossy Log. Vice President for Student Life and Dean of Students Ben Meoz told the ASB Senate in a meeting on Sept. 22 that the Copeland Residence Hall incidents were the direct catalyst for the rewrite.

“Obviously, this last year we had some incidents in Copeland. They were very challenging,” Meoz said. “We got a lot of student feedback, family feedback, feedback from Portland Police about deploying cameras, and not having a policy that allowed for the discretion to place some cameras on the interior of our facilities was a gap in our ability to respond to that incident.”

Beginning Jan. 25, Copeland saw a series of suspected arson attempts in communal kitchenette areas — at least five, according to a statement from the Portland Police Bureau (PPB). The college restricted kitchen access in Copeland Hall on March 4 after the attempts continued, and held a community meeting on April 2 with Campus Safety, Campus Living, PPB and Portland Fire & Rescue to address resident concerns.

At that meeting, students raised the idea of installing surveillance cameras as a preventative measure. Campus officials acknowledged that the college’s policy at the time prohibited cameras inside residence halls due to residents’ expectations of privacy, but said college leadership was exploring the possibility. Six days later, on April 8, the Executive Council approved the policy change that made installation possible.

The college’s previous camera policy stated that there would be no cameras on the interior of residence halls — cameras were permitted only on building exteriors, and were required to avoid pointing into residents’ rooms.

The new policy removes that  ban on interior cameras. It now permits cameras in residence hall entryways, hallways and common areas — including lounges, study rooms, kitchens and laundry facilities — but still prohibits cameras inside private bedrooms, apartments, restrooms or other spaces where students have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Despite the change in where cameras can be placed, Meoz said the approval chain itself is unchanged. Campus Safety makes the initial determination that a camera may be needed — temporarily or permanently — in response to a specific situation. That recommendation is then reviewed by Meoz’s office and, typically, by the college’s General Counsel.

Meoz was direct in saying the policy does not reflect any plan to blanket the campus with new cameras. 

He described the college’s current camera coverage as “a really fractured landscape,” noting that Stewart and Odell Residence Halls gained cameras as an incidental part of a renovation project, not because of any campuswide surveillance initiative. Other camera locations on campus are widely dispersed. 

In response to a question from The Mossy Log about what kinds of incidents — beyond the recent suspected arson in Copeland — might prompt new camera placements, Meoz pointed to recent issues at the law school, where he alleged people unaffiliated with LC have entered campus and coincided with items going missing from offices and common areas. Parking lots, he said, are another recurring source of requests, largely due to theft and hit-and-run damage.

The new policy does not create a mechanism for student input into specific camera placement decisions. When asked by Sen. Zora Forsberg ’29 whether students would have a say in where cameras are placed, Meoz acknowledged that they would not. He framed the current process as one he wants students to help shape informally, ahead of time, rather than after the fact.

He asked senators to flag any placement concerns or spaces where students would want cameras present before installation.

Meoz said footage is currently retained for about a month before being automatically overwritten unless it is preserved for a specific legal or disciplinary process. 

A large-scale expansion of exterior camera coverage would be a significant budget undertaking on its own. Meoz estimated roughly $750,000 in hardware costs alone, not including the ongoing costs of secure data storage and compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which governs the handling of records tied to identifiable students.

While the policy about the placement of security cameras has changed, there is no current installation plan for additional cameras on campus. Still, the administration hopes that the policy will act as a preventative measure and help mitigate damage in any potential future security issues.

About the Author

Charles Anderson

View All Posts