Once again the district wins the battle of not having me tape their school board meeting. Reluctantly I am following legal advice from transparency advocates that is better to comply with the policy now, challenge the district to change it and then let a third party decide.
The school board went as far as threatening to have me arrested if I didn't comply with the irrational and very broad clause they have on their policy. Shouldn't they be happy to have their meetings taped and displayed to show all their good work?
While I am willingly following legal advice to comply with the district's policy, can the district and school board say the same about them following their own policies and regulations? Can they?
While I may had been threaten I am not silent! MLK would had been proud of me!
9 comments:
I am very uncomfortable with any threat made by an official body regarding citizens taping public meetings. There is case law on this--the Tarus v. Pine Hill case, for one. I don't know what you mean by "irrational and very broad clause" here, but the only reasonable accommodations that would need to be made would be to make sure that the taping is not disrupting the meeting or that equipment is not blocking access/right of way. But to threaten with arrest is a form of intimidation. The technology exists now for a resident to videotape from his/her seat--frankly, I see individuals videotaping portions of city council meetings from their seats--I wouldn't even think of trying to prohibit their right to do so--if I did, I would hope that THEY would have ME arrested for violating their rights. This is quite troubling--I am hopeful that your challenge will be successful. You should contact the ACLU-NJ for assistance--they can help.
Rebecca
Thanks Rebecca. I am also uncomfortable by this threat of arrest, in writing by the BOE's counsel nonetheless. I did contact ACLU and I was contacted by NJFOG, both entities are now looking into this matter. "Broad and irrational" can be explained by a couple of sentences that BOE policy 9326 requires of those who tape their meetings: "All persons recording Board proceedings shall hold the Board harmless and indemnify the Board against all damage or injury whether to equipment, to themselves or to others."
The above is way too broad and it is irrational to expect that people will sign off something like that. I asked the BOE counsel to look at the Supreme Cases on taping public meetings, sent him the links, and in addition asked them to explain to me what the above meant. Their answers was that the policy was made by NJSBA and it is fine the way it is.
The policy got amended last night and now it has language that requires those that tape meetings to get a signed permission if the tape is to be broadcasted by those who taped the meeting.
I will now wait for ACLU and NJFOG to determine what is acceptable and what is not. I can not do anything else at this moment. Well, I could had got arrested last night, but how good would that had been for Plainfield? Thanks!
Like Rebecca, I believe that your civil rights may have been violated. What is the exact wording of the BOE policy? Keep us informed of ACLU's action if any.
Maria is not telling the whole story. She would have been permitted to videotape and was told so plainly, clearly and several time simply by complying with the policy. She refused to do so and was therefore ADVISED of the potential outcomes.
Additionally, it is not fair to say the Board threatened her. Her conversations were with the Board attorney and he ADVISED her respectfully.
I wonder if the Board would have a case for false accusations?
Maria and Rebecca, what do you have to say in respect to 11:34? False accusations and defamation is serious offenses.
So, just what are board members and the administration afraid the public will see at these public meetings?
The "hold harmless..." language needs to be immediately removed or clarified. Are they afraid we will hold them responsible for their actions??? Or, is that language meant for people falling over video camera wires (which no longer are used!!!!)?
The language was meant for “slip and fall” matters, yet it conveniently covers all sins...including administrative & fiduciary screw-ups (innocent or otherwise)...the "hold harmless..." language needs to be immediately removed!
The district (OUR Kids) is being sued and “settling” left and right, but the big shots don’t have to worry because their huge salaries and benefits don’t get touched. Kid-funding suffers when big shots make mistakes (constantly)!
Maria’s “anonymous” attackers’ IP-fingerprints will hopefully not point to employees…just sayin’
There was no false accusation or defamation made. Expressing support for a citizen feeling threatened with arrest for exercising her rights under OPMA is in no way defaming anyone, and there is nothing false about a letter being received. As far as being "advised" goes, to use your words, the board attorney speaks the will of the board. The board has broad powers, clearly, as it amended and expanded those powers last night(according to Maria's comment) to state--egregiously and illegally, in my humble opinion--that someone who tapes the PUBLIC meeting would have to get signed permission to broadcast the tape. What is meant by "broadcast" in this context? Showing the tape on public access? Posting it on YouTube? Publishing it on Facebook? Get permission from whom? Dare I say that there are already tapes of meetings of all types on various media--I have seen no "permission" slips, though. No one at a public meeting has any expectation of privacy--the courts have already upheld that. To wit, the board/the city council/the county freeholders/other public bodies tape and broadcast meetings--why would a private citizen have less rights? In addition, private individuals tape meetings and other public school events as well. I know that when winter concerts/special programs, etc., are videotaped/photographed by parents, teachers, friends, and other attendees and then placed on Facebook, YouTube, and so forth, I do not hear an outcry from any public body that the person who did the taping could be arrested. Executive sessions, private organizations/clubs, and so forth are different. But a public meeting held in a public forum is there for all to witness. Three and a half years ago, at a public hearing at Plainfield High School on the closing of Muhlenberg RMC, I was singled out and threatened with arrest by a Plainfield police officer if I did not stop videotaping that very public meeting--at which representatives from the state, county, and city were present, as well as upwards of 1,000 Plainfield residents. He said it was at the behest of the school's security director. I did not stop, and when I got up to the mic to make my comment on the hospital closing, I noted that this was a public meeting and that the law allowed public taping, per the Open Public Meetings Act. In that audience, they would have had to arrest at least 30-40 others as well, since there were at least that many other folks in their seats taping from small video cameras, phones, etc. In addition, the city's videographer was taping the entire meeting. I then demanded that the officer arrest me if what I was doing was illegal, and that he arrest everyone else who was taping as well. The officials on the stage looked surprised, so I asked them to school those who are supposed to uphold the law on the actual law. In response to me, one of the officials said that she had no problem with videotaping. The officer stayed away from me, and everyone continued taping.
Regarding the way the Plainfield City Council handles such things, here is the language of our Rules of Order, Sec. 3.9: "The taking of still or motion picture during meetings and the recording of proceedings of the council is permitted at all times unless such action becomes disruptive to the business of the City Council." I think this is reasonable--we have not had any "disruptive" action regarding videotaping by members of the public.
Rebecca
Be careful of a wolf in a sheep's clothing. Maria's claims and statement are often not sincere. She does not have the children or the community's interest at heart.
I do not question her position on the matter, rather her genuineness and sincerity.
What a disgrace to say that, "MLK would have been proud!"
After following Maria very closely and from a different position, I know that she talks a good talk but she does not value the entire community.
5:05,
Please ask me in person rather than behind an anonymous screen. And just what part of the community I don't value? Please share, don't especulate. Personal attacks are made when people just can't find a good reason to defend their actions. Thanks.
Post a Comment