the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ ,Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarell at a recent council meeting said “Im going to introduce an Ordinance” In regards to video taping of council meeting. Seemed after his recent out bursts he was not happy with being taped by outside sources .
You might want to run that one by the NJ Supreme Court .
At Village Council Meetings There are no expectations of privacy in a person in a public place.The meeting is already being videotaped, why is personal video a problem?
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey praised a New Jersey Supreme Court decision released today that protects an individual’s right to videotape public meetings.
“Videotaping is an invaluable method of documenting government activities or misconduct,” said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. “We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that American freedom and democracy depend on the people having a right to access government information.”
So whats the problem ?
Let’s be sure to talk to our neighbors and friends on the importance of the
elections ahead.
Because when you video tape the council meeting you can not later say you did say it. Also the video tape will show the tone, voice Inflection, facial expression and posture of the speak. Meeting minuets do not reflect this. To add another point if a Councilwoman can cast her vote for Deputy Mayor using Skype Communication from another country
The Deputy should not have a problem with video taping. Its a two way street.
For those that say the the meeting are already being video taped this is true but there is only one copy held by the municipality and its true that this video can be viewed at a later date on you tube. If available but as we have learned that is alway not true, Things have away of disappearing ( Nixon Taps) Plus the cameras do not alway focus on the speaker or the council members. They also don’t alway show the interaction between council members.
Megalomaniacal behavior. You’d think he would have more important things to do, what with him having a day job and all, unlike his colleagues who should all consider themselves lucky to be allowed to remain in his presence (/s). Crikey, what foolishness!
to be fair, the village has the right to ask for notification of taping. it cannot bar taping, and despite the deputy mayor’s angry outbursts about taping, he did not say he was trying to stop it, just adopt the process that is legal and available to village.
Anyone attending the meeting should be made aware of the fact that they are being recorded by a member of the public. Yes he has the right to tape it if he wants but, he should notify all in attendance that he is doing so and not do so surreptitiously. He has been known to focus only on certain individuals because, he is a tool.
Bill M…. yes… also he was talking about committee liaison meeting. Listen to Susan’s comments as well as the auteur’s neighbor…
Do I have to ask permission to a photo too?
All a bit silly to me – – who cares either way. So long as the official tape is made.
umm as a lawyer I would hope he would know that the supreme court has ruled that public officials in the public have no expectation of privacy as does anyone else. Anyone can be videotaped in public without their permission.
The committee liaison meeting was a public meeting,
What…would he prohibit a news crew from getting footage of a public meeting without first genuflecting to (i.e., tipping off) the ruling junto?
He was standing on the side next to the official camera with a big tripod and other equipment. How was this surreptitious? Should there be a sign above his head with an arrow pointing down that says “Resident”?
This is absurd. We are supposed to be moving towards more openness. Get these narcissistic idiots out.
I amnit a lawyer but taping in a public place is ok. Because. IT IS A PUBLIC PLACE -NO PRIVACY
Why, but why, write such a misleading headline that borders, no, croses the line into an outright lie. The Deputy Mayor never said he wants to ban the video taping of public meetings. He wants only wants such people to announce the fact they are doing that.
He should stay with in these guideline Mr. Halabby and I think everything will be ok. Oh I forgot to ask one olive or two?
However, the Court did find that the common law right to videotape public meetings is neither absolute nor unqualified. A public body may impose reasonable guidelines to ensure the videotaping is not disruptive to the meeting or to the other citizens’ right of access to and participation in that meeting. The court indicated that such guidelines can include restrictions on the number and positioning of cameras, lighting, and the location of the person operating the equipment. They can also include restrictions designed to control noise levels and prevent damage to public facilities. Any guidelines must be as narrow in scope as possible to accomplish these goals. Furthermore, they must be established and applied in a neutral fashion.
And all this over a garage that is not needed. Simply amazing.
Does that mean I can’t bring my Bell & Howell super 8 with the lighting tree?
Those meet6ing go long Paul that a lot of super 8 film.
To be fair to our younger posters Paul I have included a definition of what super 8 film is
Photographic film is a strip or sheet of transparent plastic film base coated on one side with a gelatin emulsion containing microscopically small light-sensitive silver halide crystals. The sizes and other characteristics of the crystals determine the sensitivity, contrast and resolution of the film.[1
Super 8 mm film is a motion picture film format released in 1965[1][2][3] by Eastman Kodak as an improvement of the older “Double” or “Regular” 8 mm home movie format.
Oh I forgot to mention the dictaphone so I can synchronize the sound afterwards…
Trust me, Albert wants to ban all taping. He would love to kill the electronic trail of his repeatedly horrific behavior. Paul too. Gwenn three.
Police activity in public is permitted to be recorded on video by members of the public. No “knock and video” rule there. Anyone who feels like it can whip out their smart phone and record the scene for posterity. Police do not like this, but they must come to grips with it because there is no constitutionally valid way to prevent it.
Deputy Mayor Albert Pucciarelli needs to realize that there is no relevant difference between his circumstance, and those of his toadies, lackeys, and bootlickers, on the one hand, and that of the police on the other. In fact, one can see police having at least a marginally greater ability to dictate certain terms to a civilian attempting to videotape police activities in public given the need on the part of the police to physically control their environment for their safety and that of the public. Public meetings are not the same in this regard and our elected officials should get down off their high horse about videorecording, surreptitious or otherwise. Every member of the public who comes to a meeting should now announce that they are recording the meeting either via video or audio, right as they walk into the meeting, whether they intend to or not! Why forego exercising your constitutional rights?
Be careful Paul Smith or the deputy mayor will try to tell you where to dictaphone!
1015- The deputy mayor is not looking for a way to prevent filming or recording. He can introduce ordinances that define “reasonable guidelines” . 7:34 indicates the spirit of these rules correctly.
Mr. Glazer acted completely within current law and was not disruptive in the least. The deputy mayor proposing new rules to try to regulate his taping is a power play and not a reaction to a real problem or issue.
Why is this reasonably astute Ridgewood resident getting the sneaking feeling that the deputy mayor is trying to intimidate one or more people by introducing or (heaven forbid) successfully passing the ordinance in question?