Kathleen Moore - Major error in this article. Police Department coming in under budget is NOT "a rare occurrence." The only year police department did not come in under budget in recent years was 2011. That was because that was the only year they drastically cut police OT budget and did not allow them to use salary surplus to counterbalance other budget overages. Thus, the PD finishing in the red in 2011 was the rare occurrence. How do you get something like that wrong? And, if quoted accurately - I'm surprised the Mayor does not know that?

Cameras - too intrusive.
With respect to whether they prevent crime, I suspect they do in some cases although it is difficult to prove a what did not occur. Common sense would lead one to believe that some criminals will be deterred if their actions are monitored.

But, if someone is determined to commit a crime, I suppose the cameras will not stop them. But, the cameras afford the victim an opportunity to have their perpetrator arrested, even if it is after the fact. Cameras have resulted in the closure of serious crimes, including homicides. You seem to dismiss capturing criminals as unimportant.

Bottom line - the Constitution has concluded long ago - what you expose to the public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. And, it is not as if the images are captured and stored indefinitely.

And, given the fact the fact the police dashboard cameras capture the interaction between the police and citizen being detained, I would think the ACLU would think that a good thing.

Binding arbitration was implemented to protect workers' rights who do not have the ability to strike. So, you needed a system to protect their rights because the government officials who would make those decisions are not infallible.

Nonetheless, the system needs major revisions.

First, you need real independent arbitrators not beholden to the unions or the politicians. And, you need people who really have expertise in the necessary areas -economists, health insurance, tax deferred retirement plans (also independent from both involved parties). You do not have experts, true experts, making an informed decisions about these matters.

Reform the system and you can pay the officers and firefighters fairly for the challenging job they have, and do what is best for the municipalities. It might be possible that both sides will make out a lot better.

SPD does have random drug testing and has had it for years.

Then, why single me out and not ask for the names of any other anonymous posters?

And, would you care what my name was if I agreed with everything you said?

And, what you " have a trouble with" problem with is irrelevant. It's the "Schenectady Gazette", not the "Marincic Times". When you publish your own paper than you can decide what's appropriate.

People who read any comments posted by me will determine the accuracy for themselves.

But, if you were really knowledgeable about these matters you would know they were accurate.

Afraid? Silly assertion, I just choose not too.

There is no expectation of privacy in the areas covered by the surveillance cameras. And, the footage is not stored indefinitely. The cameras do not peer into private places.

I would ask Ms. Trimble or other critics to point to one example of abuse by the Schenectady system. Any governmental tool, process, can be abused, but I have yet to hear about it being done in Schenectady which has one of the larger systems.

Trimble need not look any further than Schenectady if she is looking for the crime fighting value of cameras.

Some of the best research available indicates that there is value contingent on how the cameras are used.

Cajuste exerted a lot of effort re: police recruitment of minorities. I saw it first hand.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

No one said you do not know anything, my issue is that you say what you do not know