Worcester residents who supported reallocating money from the police budget to fund social services argued against equipping city officers with body cameras, calling the technology ineffective and a waste of taxpayer funds.

The Worcester City Council heard residents speak for an hour Tuesday night as many made the case against implementing a body camera program before voting to have further discussions on a series of petitions, including one in which the council commits to obtain any funding for such a program using existing funds from within police budget.

“As has been well documented, body cameras have no significant effect on police officer behavior. If this program is implemented, funding for this program should come from within the Worcester Police Department’s already extremely bloated budget,” said Eliza Lawrence, one of several residents who spoke in favor of the citizen petitions.

Lawrence suggested suspending the use of paid administrative leave for officers under investigation, capping overtime pay and withdrawing participation in police militarization programs, among other things, as a way to fund the program, if implemented.

The meeting put the review of a body camera pilot program in the spotlight after the release of a report in which Worcester Police Chief Steven Sargent estimated the program could cost as much as $11 million over five years.

Worcester City Councilor Sean Rose filed an order calling for members of the Worcester Police Department to begin wearing body cameras permanently following the six-month pilot program that involved 20 officers.

But the city council instead voted to hold further discussions on three citizen petitions related to body cameras that opposed deploying the technology across the department of more than 450 officers.

Eliana Stanislawski requested the city council acknowledge that body cameras have been documented to show no consistent or major effect on police behavior. She also requested the councilors to commit to obtaining any funding from within the department, rather than using funds from other departments

A third petition by Nathan Cummings requested that the city council take no binding votes on the implementation of a body camera program until the department provides a full report on the pilot program, which ended in October, and until residents can have a “robust public debate on the merits of the new program.”

City councilors unanimously approved to send the second and third petitions to the public safety committee. At-Large Councilor Khrystian E. King was the sole councilor to vote no on the first petition submitted by Stanislawski, as he argued that while there have been mixed results on the impact of body cameras, he has seen them help shed light on police interactions with the public.

“While it’s not a silver bullet and there are mixed reviews, it’s certainly worthy of trying to enhance public safety,” King said before the vote Tuesday night.

Allegra Martin raised concerns about the methodology behind the Worcester Police Department’s pilot program. She said the report lacked data, references and showed the pilot appeared to include younger-than-average officers.

“I’m sorry to say I found the report very sloppy,” Martin said.

Martin also said the report does not appear to outline the department’s goals behind implementing the program.

“Our schools are about to be really desperate for funding due to the COVID situation,” Martin added. “So therefore I would say this is the absolutely the wrong time to consider funding a body camera program.”

The meeting comes after weeks of protests and testimony from residents calling for councilors to defund the police department or, more specifically, reallocate police funding to social services in fiscal 2021. The City Council approved a police budget increase in mid-June.

The body camera debate has also surfaced on Beacon Hill. Both the House and Senate police reform bills include a task force to develop regulations into the procurement, use, and storage of body-worn cameras for officers. The Senate passed its policing bill last week after a contentious all-night session. The House plans to debate the bill and its 217 amendments on Wednesday and Thursday.

Related Content: