Few would argue with the wisdom of maximizing security for an event such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in November. The arrival of leaders from 21 regional economies, each with his or her own retinue of staff, demands that peak safeguards be in place. Hawaii leaders, who long to bring important business meetings here as well as leisure visitors, are right to pursue such measures aggressively.

So it would make sense for the Honolulu City Council to support the Honolulu Police Department’s request for additional surveillance cameras in Waikiki, downtown and Ko Olina and some other unspecified areas tied to the APEC conference. These would supplement the gear already in place in the resort district, as well as in Chinatown, both areas where tourism and high crime rates can intersect.

But HPD must follow the existing city ordinance that seeks to balance the needs for public safety and privacy. So it’s good that there are four opportunities available for public comment in the coming weeks, starting with today’s 9 a.m. hearing before the Council’s Safety and Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee. Those wishing to speak today should call 768-3818.

The first obvious question is the cost. Dollar amounts were to be revealed today, and HPD officials said existing city funds, paired with a federal grant, would finance the expansion of Oahu’s surveillance network. That’s essential, because equipment must be in place weeks ahead of the key meetings Nov. 12-13. A related issue: What will the new installation add to the cost of maintaining the entire city surveillance system, in the months and years after APEC?

Finally, the public deserves some assurance that the cameras are not excessively invasive, and that lenses will be trained on public spaces. That is part of the requirement of Chapter 2, Section 32.3 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu: "Cameras shall be installed in such a manner that they are not likely to view a private activity, condition or location."

That city law also holds that the public must be alerted to video monitoring, through published notifications, posted signs and annual reports. The ordinance dictates that "The notice shall include a general description of the area or building to be monitored, the general location of the cameras, the general capability of the cameras, and a statement that the public may submit written comments to the Council and the responsible city official relating to the monitoring." There ought to be enough leeway in that phrasing to keep the public aware that they’re being watched in specified public places without compromising the precise location of the gear itself, which could be periodically relocated within the same general zone.

The measure under review, Resolution 11-229, will be heard again Sept. 16 by the full Council, return to committee Sept. 27 and, if the anticipated timetable is kept, come up for a final vote Oct. 5. Residents concerned about keeping public surveillance above board should follow the issue as it develops and speak out. Ultimately, the police should be allowed to use "overt video monitoring" in areas to be specified "to detect, deter, investigate, or prevent crime and to monitor traffic in order to ensure the safety of the meeting attendees and the public and the security of the meeting venues."

That’s the logical end point, as long as authorities follow the right course in getting there.