The Duke Student Government Senate discussed a resolution to support the installation of security cameras on campus near residential areas during its meeting Wednesday.

The resolution, which was introduced by Senator for Services Michael Brunetti, a freshman, and Senator for Services Dylan Gambardella, a sophomore, would not actually fund the installation of cameras, but would instead support administrative efforts to do so. Several senators expressed doubts about the resolution, questioning whether the installation of cameras on campus was necessary and whether cameras would actually reduce crimes.

Junior Tanner Lockhead, vice president for Durham and regional affairs, spoke against the resolution.

“Crime on campus does not exist,” Lockhead said. “If we wanted [this program] to address the kind of crime that’s potentially happening on Duke’s campus, the very, very small instances of crime, this would have to be an enormous program.”

Lockhead said that John Dailey, Duke University Police Department chief of police, told him that crime on campus was very low and that the issue was being taken out of proportion. According to the University’s Annual Security Report published in September 2015, there were 51 instances of burglary, eight instances of aggravated assault, nine instances of motor vehicle theft and 11 instances of rape reported on campus during 2014.

Brunetti argued that students would feel safer knowing that residential areas were being watched by cameras. He pointed to recent instances of thefts, assault and malicious fire alarms as instances of crimes that could be solved by surveillance.

“Now we would actually have video evidence if that happened,” he said. “We’re trying to catch these people or deter them from committing these acts.”

Lockhead argued, however, that placing security cameras on campus would make students feel more afraid rather than safer. He said that installing a large number of security cameras would create unnecessary concern about crime on campus.

“Going around to every single dorm and installing a security camera doesn’t tell students that they are safer,” he said. “It tells them that they are unsafe.”

Several senators also asked about how footage from the surveillance cameras would be accessed and what types of crimes would prompt police to look at surveillance footage. Brunetti said that the resolution would only support unmonitored cameras with footage that was only used when a specific crime was reported to DUPD. He also added that any footage would likely be deleted after a few days.

After discussion, the Senate voted to table the issue and conduct further research into the effectiveness of surveillance cameras.

In other business:

DSG Treasurer Gwen Geng, a sophomore, presented a financial report to the Senate. The report showed that DSG has almost $200,000 in its surplus fund.

DSG Chief of Staff Annie Adair, a junior, proposed changes to the Young Trustee bylaw to clarify that an application for Young Trustee would only be made available to applicants and that interviews of Young Trustee semifinalists would be kept confidential. Adair said that under the current bylaw, applications could be requested by any student and that a semifinalist could request their interview and then make it public.

DSG Executive Vice President John Guarco, a junior, proposed amendments to the Senate bylaw that would aim to increase the accountability of senators to their constituents. The changes would, among other things, require senators to hold office hours and require them to meet with house council presidents.

The Senate approved funding of camera equipment for students. The equipment will be available for use by all students who have completed a short multimedia workshop.

The Senate approved SOFC legislation to fund an event on sexual health and wellness, photography for Blue Devils United’s “What I Be” program and an event sponsored by the Women’s Housing Option.