Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public speakers press Santa Monica library board on safety as staff outline patrols, cameras and banning process
Summary
Public commenters described drug use and a confiscated loaded handgun at the downtown library, prompting staff to detail incident reporting, LSOs, NetWatch cameras, TrackForce logging and an increased banning process; staff said they have requested more city security funding but have not yet received it.
Public concern over safety at Santa Monica’s library system dominated the meeting of the Santa Monica Library Board, where members heard several public comments about drug use and aggressive behavior and staff described the systems they use to respond.
At the start of public comment, John Alley said the downtown library has become unsafe and urged the city to address security, calling for board members to raise the issue at city council meetings. Denise Barton, a downtown resident, said she avoids the library unless accompanied because she does not feel safe walking there. Whitney Veil told the board that staff and LSOs responded to a recent incident in which they recovered “a loaded 9 millimeter Glock 19” from a person in the library and praised staff for quickly involving police.
In response, library staff outlined a multi‑layered approach to safety they said is intended to both deter harmful behavior and connect people to services. Presenters said the library compiles pre‑COVID and post‑COVID incident statistics across branches, that LSOs (Library Security Officers) now meet people at the North Entrance and conduct regular patrols, and that staff coordinate with the downtown police and a city health team to refer people for services.
Staff reported that the pre‑COVID presentation data showed roughly 740,009 walk‑ins and 721 incidents in that short pre‑COVID period and that, since reopening, the system has recorded about 371,000 walk‑ins with 479 incidents and 85 police calls. They said the apparent rise in bans reflects both increased enforcement and clearer, streamlined guidelines developed with the city attorney’s office; library bans are typically progressive and can range from short suspensions for repeated low‑level behavior up to one year, while court‑ordered stay‑away orders imposed after arrest can last longer.
Technology and third‑party services are part of the response. Staff described NetWatch, an AI‑enabled external camera monitoring service that can trigger notices and follow‑up if someone remains on library property after hours; TrackForce, the incident‑tracking software staff use on patrols and to log events; and Good Guard, a contracted security firm that responds to escalations. Staff emphasized that cameras are placed outside restrooms and that no cameras are used inside restrooms.
Board members and staff also discussed resource limits. Staff said they have requested expanded security funding from the city but that increases requested so far have not been approved; they recommended preserving as‑needed staffing dollars to cover sick time and training, and they described ongoing staff training (CPR, AED, first aid) and coordination with police for targeted training and rapid response.
The board concluded the item by asking staff to provide talking points and data so board members and neighborhood groups can convey the library’s practices and the context for incident numbers when they discuss safety in public forums. Staff said community mapping survey responses include many comments praising the library as a safe, inviting place, and they urged the board to share that information alongside incident reporting.
The board did not vote on new security policies at the meeting; staff said next steps include continuing to pursue budget support from the city and expanding outreach and reporting so the public can better understand the library’s safety work.
