Here’s a bill I’ll say yes to right now: Senate Bill 90 is a simple little proposal from Senator Ried Holien (R-5/Watertown) that adds one sentence to our laws on public meetings:
No state, political subdivision, or public body may prevent a person from recording, through audio or video technology, a public meeting that is open to the public as long as the recording is reasonable and not disruptive.
Hear, hear! Or should I say, tape, tape!? If citizens can see it happening, they should be able to record what’s happening and reinforce their memories with notes, audio, and video. We shouldn’t need a law to make the basic First Amendment right clear (freedom of the press applies here, right?), but it will be nice to have Senate Bill 90 make clear that, as long as your phones don’t cause a distraction, you’re welcome to whip them out and start recording your elected officials at work.
Question-not disruptive to whom? Who gets to decide the parameters of disruption? Details please.
Though not specifically addressed in state law, a State AG’s opinion going all the way back to 1974 has been the guideline here-to-fore regarding this issue. Getting it codified now (42 years later) is maybe not the sign of progress it at first glance seems. That AGs opinion may be less “law”, but it is also less restrictive. That non-disruptive language bothers me. Who doesn’t know a government official that could be “upset” and have his/her chain of thought “disrupted” by being recorded??
Well, I can tell you that my husband and I have been recording our City Commission meetings, debates and any other public meetings of interest in Lead since March of 2013. A couple of Commissioners balked at this and tried to put “restrictions” on us but we’ve kept it professional. We never alter the videos and we never disrupt any meeting or forum. We post them on our community FaceBook page for all to see. There have been a few citizens who recorded meetings on their phones with no problems. Our Mayor makes sure there are no disruptions!
I’m guessing if you tried to setup your camera in front of the crowd or were running around as if you were filming a Jason Bourne film you’d be considered disruptive. If someone filming in the back of the room who isn’t blocking the view or impeding the process is someone called out for being disruptive I’m guessing they would have a strong case for a lawsuit… and wouldn’t you know it they just so happen to have the entire exchange on video.
More open government has rarely led to negative consequences. Redundant or not, such clarification should be welcomed.
Keep up the good work, Denise! As Craig suggests, the commission wouldn’t have a leg to stand on kicking you out now, but Senate Bill 90 will make clear your right to be there, documenting the council’s actions for the public.
Richard, would that have been AG Sande? Do you recall if a specific incident prompted that opinion?
Pols of a certain persuasion should rightly be afraid of edited videos-if Liberals were inclined towards that. Fortunately for our side,wingnuts are apt to say or do something splendidly silly at any time and should be recorded for posterity’s sake.
I have recorded and posted on YouTube over 250 Sioux Falls city meetings since early 2014. My cameras are setup where I need them as I need them to capture the events. The City Attorney with the Mayor’s office gave me Press notices and then took them away because I was not afraid to ask questions.
At the Railroad Relocation press event Heather Hitterdal of the Mayor’s office even said to me on video, she made me media to force my camera to the back of the group. I politely did as asked. I immediately was told in the next event I was not media and would have to talk to the City Attorney to have the public meeting publications again.
The use of cameras in public meetings has uncovered improper meetings, questionably legal meetings, amazing theater and some very boring antics. We do not do or stage gotcha pieces but we do have fun with many of the videos when we post them. Some of the people involved take themselves a bit too serious.
We are also collecting the videos and posting them to give our fellow citizens the ability to see how a hearing or meeting is conducted beforehand so they can understand the process to be prepared.
We never use the videos to attack anyone, only process. Some of these processes are being corrected. We are collecting in our videos, evidence for Open Meetings violations and more. You should try it sometime in your town.
Many of you watched out video of Cory’s recent visit to the Sioux Falls Democrat forum. It was a challenge to keep up with him but it was worth it.
These cameras are changing dialogues and policy.
Look at our YouTube videos at http://www.siouxfall.org or http://www.southdacola.com where Scott will post them.
Mr. Bruce, I look forward to seeing your movies. Thank you.
SB 90 makes sense to me. Perhaps our governmental officials will behave better if they know they’re words and actions are being captured and shared with the public.
Since when has this been a problem?
I found public bodies in SD would love to have more public interest in what is going on. Every public meeting or hearing in SD that I ever participated in had no problem with cameras or recording. Most of the larger actually taped their own meetings, and made them available to the public, even running them on their on cable outlet. They might want you to set up in a particular area to prevent distractions, but I never was asked to stop taping when I pulled out my tape recorder. One problem happened once with the Rapid City Common Council when the Mayor started editing the tapes. That got stopped pretty quickly.
Donald, you should try that at some county commission and planning and zoning meetings in eastern sd…
Roger – hear hear!
Corey,
Not sure if there was a specific case or incident that opinion was based on. Of course NOW when I try to find anything on the Internet regarding recording SD public meetings (trying to retrace my steps of several years ago) guess what my search results tend to be flooded with??
You got it – several pages of links to discussion of SB90 and/or a lot of generic crap.
But here’s a link to one of the generic recording stuff sites that can further inform. Seems in SD one is free to record ANY CONVERSATION one is an interested party to.
“One-Party Consent Statutes Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)”
– See more at:
http://www.detectiveservices.com/2012/02/27/state-by-state-recording-laws/#sthash.bE0cbew1.dpuf
Maybe the potential opposition to being recorded is that “government isn’t a person”, or perhaps “no one is a party to the conversation at a public meeting”????
In my meanderings about the Web on the subject, I’ve also come to discover that local government SD’s rules on “time restrictions” on public input at public meetings is “an unlitigated issue with NO statutory reference.” Just sayin’.