photo by Boyd Loving
To the Village Council –
I was absolutely shocked at the end of last night’s meeting to witness such extraordinary uncivil and intimidating behavior regarding the taping of public meetings.
First of all, a resident was permitted to verbally attack another resident (who was not even present) and make wild hypothetical accusations about what might or might not be done with a videotape of the meeting. Both Susan and Michael attempted to stop this diatribe and defend Dana, and Matt Rogers quickly explained that taping is legal as long as the individual is not disruptive. Susan, Michael, and Matt all did the right thing, and quickly, and I appreciate their actions. Unfortunately, they were unable to stop the Bob, Albert, and Paul.
Certainly Dana had not been in the least bit disruptive, quietly standing at the side of the room. That Bob Fuhrman was allowed to go on and on about how we are all at risk of some sort of unspecified internet wickedness was completely wrong. Gwenn remained silent, instead of trying to stop this barrage of accusations; silent inaction speaks volumes. Compounding the mess, Paul and Albert then fueled the conversation, agreeing with Bob Fuhrman, contributing to his rant, and bringing up another meeting (of the HPC) at which Dana was legally taping the proceedings. Residents as well as elected officials should not be allowed to attack other residents, and should be stopped from doing so immediately. Unfortunately we have seen you allow as well as participate in this repeatedly, but last night really went over the top. Just a few weeks ago I was publicly accused by Albert and Gwenn of being a stalker, a bully, intimidating, and weird because I had my cell phone up while I sat quietly in my seat; again, my taping was completely legal and nondisruptive.
Whether it becomes a requirement that those who wish to tape a meeting must announce their intentions before doing so remains to be seen if Albert introduces his resolution. But at this time it is not required, so Dana’s actions at the HPC meeting you cited were neither illegal nor disruptive. (really, since when is sitting quietly in a chair considered to be disruptive?). And Dana’s actions last night were certainly not in any way disruptive. Remember, Matt Rogers clearly stated that it is legal to tape these meetings as long as the person is not disruptive.
Last night’s meeting ended on a horrible note thanks to the actions of Albert and Paul, and the inaction of Gwenn. It was actually horrifying to witness this scene, in which it was clear that you wished to intimidate and discredit one of our citizens. I am expecting that corrective action will be taken to rectify the damage you have done.
Anne Loving
The bigger question here is why the hell would you tape a public meeting when an official copy exists ? What is the intent ? I get it, when things get boring at the kid’s birthday party dad can show a film of a Ridgewood council meeting !
A little late now, but the poster should have saved her rant for something worth reading.
I , Diane Palacios, disagree with the above. I think Dana Glazer should not be allowed to visually record town meetings. Those visuals can be used in a variety of ways that can embarrass people.
I just finished reading a wonderful new novel satirizing suburbia , The Dogs of Littlefield by Lily King.
There is an episode describing a town meeting in an affluent suburb and the various individuals at the mic. I burst out laughing, but I wouldn’t laugh so hard if it were me she was describing.
Come on now; we don’t look like movie stars; our speaking styles are far from perfect; we can easily be put in a Woody Allan type movie and be made to appear somewhat ridiculous.
I have lived here for many decades and have never encountered this problem. I do not think it should be allowed especially in the Internet age when it is so easy to be subjected to a public viewing.
I know the Ridgewood government is recording us, but I trust they will not use me in a film. Let Dana use his creative juices somewhere else.
I think the garage design should be shown to residents before it is approved. I feel very strongly about that.
Also, if and when I speak again at a council meeting, I will not speak if Dana or any one else except the Ridgewood government is visually recording me.
I will ask that the camera be turned off.
We are not public speaker’s for God’s sake or movie stars. Really, how dare he visually record us. For shame.
Furthermore public speaking is rated as one of the most stressful situations that people can encounter. It takes a lot of courage for people to come up to the mic.
It make it more difficult to have an outside resident recording us. Someone outside the normal Ridgewood govt.
Having an additional private citizen making a film only further discourages people from coming to the mic.
Let’s have some sensitivity here, New Jersey.
So someone in power got caught on tape behaving badly during an open public meeting and this is what we get as a result – rules designed to protect those who can’t behave civilly?
What form of intimidation will taxpayers be subjected to next? Armed police officers at every meeting who stand next to those who don’t agree with the “Council Majority” in an attempt to keep them in check?
Good Lord. July 1 can’t come fast enough.
What I sent to the town officials:
Hello Govt. Officials,
I do not think outside film making of town meetings should be allowed. Being recorded is a breach of privacy. The public meetings are in a sense private. They are for Ridgewood residents and government.
Outside recordings can be used in a variety of ways that invades our privacy.
I did watch the meeting last night on TV.
Sincerely,
Diane Palacios
342 N. Van Dien Ave.
201-652-5851
Well no sidewalks on Clinton Ave will get you that kind of loyalty. Thats all it takes.
WHEREAS,
the Mayor and Council are committed to open governme
nt and ensuring that the
public is fully informed on the actions of their ele
cted officials; and
WHEREAS
, citizens of a democracy are best served when public
meetings are open and when
decision making is transparent; and.
WHEREAS
, pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A
10:4-6, the public has a right to be
present at meetings of public bodies empowered as a v
oting body or public fund-spending body to
perform a public governmental function; and
WHEREAS
, in Tarus v. Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007), the N
ew Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the
common law right of individuals to videotape municipal
council meetings with reasonable
restrictions; and
WHEREAS,
the Mayor and Council deem it necessary to establish
reasonable restrictions to
accommodate citizens and members of the media who wis
h to video record public meetings; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY
the Mayor and Council of the (Municipality
),
(County
) , State of New Jersey that any member of the publ
ic is entitled to make a video recording
of any municipal meeting open to the public pursuan
t to the Open Public Meetings Act, subject to
reasonable restrictions laid out herein:
1.
Any individual shall be permitted to record by camera o
r other recording device, a public
meeting without prior written notice.
2.
All video recording shall be performed in a manner th
at is not unreasonably obtrusive or
disruptive of the proceedings or in violation of any
federal or state law or any law or
regulation governing the safety of persons or prope
rty.
3.
The equipment utilized should operate silently, and wh
ile cell phone video recording is
permitted, cell phones with video recording capability
shall be silent.
4.
Absent prior approval from the clerk, no additional a
rtificial lighting shall be permitted.
5.
Stationary equipment, once positioned, shall not be
moved during the public meeting
6.
The Mayor, or individual presiding at a public meeting
, shall have the authority to require
disruptive video recording operators to either turn of
f the recording device or otherwise
have the recording device removed from the meeting ro
om.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Municipal Clerk sha
ll forward a copy of this ordinance to
all chairs of municipal boards, commissions, or othe
r municipal instrumentalities that are subject to
the Open Public Meeting Act, and make a copy of this
ordinance available to anyone desiring to
video tape any future meetings so that they can comp
ly with the requirements set forth herein.
MODEL ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH
REASONABLE RULES FOR VIDEO
RECORDING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS
Questions concerning the Open Public Meetings Act, or OPMA, are frequently matters of concern for municipal officials in New Jersey. While some are unique to a certain fact pattern, certain issues recur with frequency. Some of the common ones that have been brought to my attention by municipal officials over the past few years follow.
A common point of confusion is the amount of detail to be included in the resolution that must be adopted by a municipal governing body before it enters into closed session. While there has not been controlling case law on this subject, a recent unpublished Law Division case, Paff v. Monroe Township Board of Education, 2007 WL 191984(N.J. Super. L.), has indicated that a resolution restating or quoting the section of the Open Public Meetings Act dealing with the subjects that can be discussed in such a session does not by itself comply with the statute.
In that case, the defendant board used a resolution that supported its need to meet in closed session by stating that it needed to “discuss personnel, negotiations, legal and student matters.” To determine if this resolution was sufficient, the Court looked to the section of the Open Public Meetings Act requiring the resolution, N.J.S.A. 10:4-13.
It provides:
”No public body shall exclude the public from any meeting to discuss any matter described in subsection 7. b. until the public body shall first adopt a resolution, at a meeting to which the public shall be admitted:
a. Stating the general nature of the subject to be discussed; and
b. Stating as precisely as possible, the time when and the circumstances under which the discussion conducted in closed session of the public body can be disclosed to the public.”
The question before the Court was the meaning of “general nature of the subject” in N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 a. The Court noted that the amount of information to be given to the public in closed session resolutions must balance the open government underpinnings of OPMA against the confidential nature of the subject matter discussed in the closed session. That is why the statute requires only that the general nature of the subject must be disclosed. However, more that the simple recitation of the subjects exempted under the law is required. The court therefore determined that “The Board’s resolution, which simply parrots the statutory language and encompasses all possible justifications for proceeding in closed session,
is improper”.
To give some idea of what would be sufficient description of the subject matter of a closed session in the resolution, the Court stated that in many cases where litigation is being discussed, the name of the case can be divulged without harm. In certain situations, however, doing so might reveal confidential information, and in such a situation, the mere statement that litigation is being discussed could be sufficient. Similarly, the resolution could state that labor negotiations or personnel matters are being considered in the closed session.
Another area of confusion for some officials is the applicability of OPMA to “executive sessions” of the governing body where municipal matters are discussed, but no action or votes are taken. All of the requirements of OPMA for meetings of the municipal governing body apply to these sessions, including not only the notice and the requirements that minutes be kept, but the requirement of a public comment period at the session. Under the Act, if a meeting of governing body is open to the public, a comment period must be provided at that meeting.
The public comment period itself, a requirement added to the Act in 2002, is also a source of questions. Unlike the other aspects of OPMA, this requirement applies only to the meetings of municipal governing bodies and Boards of Education. Therefore, for example, while the meetings of a municipal planning board are certainly subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), and therefore must be properly noticed under the Act so that the public has the opportunity to attend, no public comment period is required at such meetings. The particular provision of OPMA, N.J.S.A. 10: 4-12 a., that requires time to be set aside at a meeting for public comment does not apply to these meetings. While allowing time for public comment at planning board meetings is good public policy, it is not a legal requirement.
The application of the Open Public Meetings Acts to subcommittees of public bodies is another area of concern. It is common for municipal governing bodies to have subcommittees that study various issues and report back to the council on their findings. The meetings of these subcommittees need not be open to the public under OPMA as long as there are not enough members of the governing body present to constitute a quorum, and as long as these subcommittees function only in a research and advisory capacity.
However, N.J.S.A. 10:4-7 states that the public has the right to be “present at all public bodies, and to witness… all phases of the deliberation, policy formation, and decision making of public bodies.” Furthermore, N.J.S.A. 10:4-11 provides that “No person or public body shall fail to invite a portion of its members to a meeting for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this (Open Public Meetings) Act.” Therefore, if subcommittees are used improperly in an effort to keep the public out of critical discussions, their meetings will be in violation of OPMA. All deliberation and decision making must occur in public, and the public meeting can never operate as a mere “rubber stamp” on decisions made in private.
The New Jersey Appellate Division has upheld closed meetings of a planning board for certain limited purposes where no decisions were made or discussed. In Gandolfi V. Town of Hammonton, 367 N.J.Super. 527 (March, 2004), the planning board had a closed meeting with a developer concerning some claims made by the developer. Some time later, this same developer made an application for a subdivision before the planning board. All of the subsequent subdivision proceedings before the board complied with the Open Public Meetings Act. The court ruled that the Planning Board’s closed meeting did not create an OPMA problem. As long as the discussions at the closed meeting did not culminate in a vote or any other action being taken, there was no violation of the Act. The Appellate Division also found no violation of OPMA when two Planning Board members met with the Board’s Engineer and representatives of a developer in a closed meeting, since no action was taken on the matter discussed except at open meetings complying with the requirements of the Act (Neu v. Planning Board of the Township of Union, 352 N.J. Super. 544, 2002).
Municipal officials are often concerned about the videotaping of municipal meetings by the public, both because of the possible disruption of the meeting and because some residents attending the meetings do not want to be videotaped. New Jersey case law makes it clear that a member of the public cannot be prohibited from videotaping a municipal meeting. In the case of Tarus v. Pine Hill, Docket No.a-93-05(2007), the New Jersey Supreme Court said “…we hold that, subject to reasonable restrictions, members of the public have a common law right to videotape municipal proceedings in New Jersey. Our conclusion is supported by an interwoven tapestry of jurisprudence and policy that demonstrates both the value of open government and the right to document governmental proceedings.” As for concerns over the privacy of members of the public, the Court said “Although some citizens may be fearful of video cameras, we find that consideration insufficient to deny the right to videotape. Further, no right of privacy protects a citizen’s public comments.”
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.
Interpretations of the Open Public Meetings Act are constantly evolving. If a municipal official has questions about the requirements of the Act, he or she should consult with the municipal attorney.
The Appellate Division affirmed. Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill
, 381 N.J. Super.
412 (App. Div. 2005). It
found no constitutional right to videotape, and determined that to the extent that a right to videotape exists under the
common law, the exercise of that right is not absolute
, but subject to reasonable governmental regulation and
control. The panel found that the restrictions imposed on
Tarus were “neither arbitrar
y nor capricious, but eminently
reasonable under the circumstances.” The Supreme C
ourt granted Tarus’s petition for certification.
HELD
: There is a common law right to videotape a municipal council meeting subject to reasonable restrictions.
The Borough and its Mayor violated that right here by imposing arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions that
prevented Tarus from videotaping the Council meetings in question.
1. New Jersey courts have long recognized a common law right
to public information. In addition, our courts have
afforded citizens effective means to record the information gleaned during public proceedings. The right to
videotape public meetings was first addressed in Maurice River Township Board of Education v. Maurice River
Township Teachers Ass’n
, 187 N.J. Super.
566 (Ch. Div. 1982), aff’d
, 193 N.J. Super.
488 (App. Div. 1984). In
that case, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial cour
t’s holding that there is a right to videotape municipal
proceedings in New Jersey. Although the Maurice River
decisions may not have been decided exclusively on
common law grounds, they rely on broad common law protections of open government to support the conclusion
that a right to videotape exists in New Jersey. (pp. 11-21)
2. The Legislature’s enactments also provide statutory support for the common law right to videotape. The most
recent and relevant statutory incarnation of the right
is the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). N.J.S.A.
10:4-6 to –
21. Every state and the District of Columbia have codified open public meetings laws. Some of these statutes
explicitly guarantee the right to videotape public meetings. Courts in some of the other states have found support
for a right to videotape based on a liberal interpretatio
n of their statutes, the relevant language of which is
substantially similar to that of Ne
w Jersey’s OPMA. The law has embrac
ed the undeniable fact that modern
electronic devices are silent observers of history. These legal foundations support a finding that there is a common
law right to videotape. Because the Court recognizes a
common law right to videotape, it declines to examine the
issue through the prism of the New Jersey Constitution.
Constitutional questions should be addressed only when
necessary to resolve a pending controversy. (pp. 21-25)
3. The common law right to videotape is neither absolute nor unqualified. Public bodies may impose reasonable
guidelines to ensure that the recording of meetings does not disrupt the business of the body or other citizens’ right
of access. However, if a public
body chooses to exercise th
e opportunity to formulate guid
elines, that decision in no
way postpones the accrual of the right to videotape until guidelines are established. The Borough violated Tarus’s
common law right to videotape. The Mayor and Borough d
eclined to implement approp
riate guidelines and instead
created ad hoc restrictions intended to
block a critic from videotaping Coun
cil meetings. Because those actions
were not neutral and reasonable, they amounted to impermissible restrictions on Tarus’s common law right to
videotape. (pp. 25-31)
4. Tarus is estopped from relitigating his contention that the Borough lacked probable cause for his arrest under the
doctrine of res judicata. The federal District Court determined this issue, concluding there was probable cause for
the issuance of the disorderly persons summons. Because probable cause is an absolute defense to an allegation of
malicious prosecution or false arrest, Taru
s’s claims must fail. (pp. 31-33)
The judgment of the Appellate Division is
AFFIRMED IN PART
and
REVERSED
IN PART
, and the
matter is
REMANDED
to the trial court for further proceed
ings consistent with this opinion.
JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS join in
CHIEF JUSTICE ZAZZALI’s opinion.
Who is Bob Furhman? Who gave him standing at this meeting?
No sidewalks on Clinton Ave Bob Futhman. Get it.
To 10:48 a.m.We are not robots. We are human with human emotions. So what if a council member gets angry ot someone at the mic. Did you ever watch the House of Commons sessions. Tons of anger and name calling. Residents get angry too. so what.
We care passionately about the town on both sides of the dais. Let us celebrate our humanity and emotions ….in private without being filmed by a third party.
Yep, Paulie boy acted like a jackass at the HPC meeting and then got furious that it was caught on tape. Public meetings can be taped. Simple. The end. If you don’t behave badly, you do not need to worry. Regardless of whether diane P or Bob F want other cameras turned off when they speak, they cannot make this happen because people can legally tape or video.
Paranoia strikes deep. Into your lives it will creep.
Yes, the meetings are taped. Yes, the VOR tapes can be edited. Yes, private citizens can tape. Yes, it is legal. If you are so worried about being taped, don’t come to the meetings. What are you hiding? You are on tape, on YouTube, on the cable channel. Who cares if someone else quietly tapes you too? Wow, some people are really trying to hide something. Bob Fuhrman looked like he was having a nervous breakdown. WTF???? Calm down.
Public meetings are not in any sense private. They are in every way public. If you are uncomfortable with that in any way you have a choice of speaking or not.
Albert Pucciarell “Im going to introduce an Ordinance” In regards to video taping of council meeting WOW.
Glad to see that your not going to speak anymore Diane Palacios.
Freedom Of Information, Press
N.J. residents have common-law right to videotape public meetings
Associated Press
Wire Report
Thursday, March 8, 2007
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. — The public has a common-law right to videotape government meetings, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday in the case of a self-proclaimed government watchdog who often ran afoul of the Pine Hill Borough Council.
The unanimous decision agreed with part of a 2005 state appeals court ruling, which held that residents have the common-law right to attend public meetings and videotape them. However, both courts said that those rights are not unrestricted.
Back in 2000, Robert Wayne Tarus, a regular at local government meetings and frequent critic of those in power, contended that the borough council changed its policy positions from meeting to meeting. He could catch the officials in the act, he figured, by videotaping the meetings.
In meetings in September and October of that year, the mayor asked him to stop recording, saying some people attending the meeting objected to being on tape. Both times, Tarus refused to turn off his camera. And both times he was then escorted from the room by the police chief and issued disorderly persons summonses. A municipal judge found him innocent of those charges.
He later sued town officials, claiming they were wrong to bar him from videotaping and that he was arrested without probable cause that he had committed a crime.
In the high court decision written by Chief Justice James R. Zazzali, the court ruled that citizens have a common-law right to videotape government meetings.
“Today, hand-held video cameras are everywhere — attached to our computers, a common feature in consumer still shot cameras, and even built into recent generations of mobile telephones,” Zazzali wrote in Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill. “The broad and pervasive use of video cameras at public events evidences a societal acceptance of their use in public fora.”
“Commensurate with the use of video recording in society is its intrinsic value in documenting events,” Zazzali added.
The court ruled that the government may set up some limitations to ensure the taping does not interfere with the meetings — for instance limiting the number of video cameras and the places where they may be set up.
The high court sent Tarus’ case back to the trial court to be considered in light of its ruling.
In Pine Hill, Tarus did return to meetings and taping, but stopped after he filed a lawsuit against the town in 2001. He said he has not been to town hall since.
Tarus, who prefers the title “community activist” to “gadfly,” said he was happy the court validated him but wished it would have gone further and declared that citizens have a constitutional right to videotape town meetings.
Given yesterday’s ruling, Tarus said he might go back to meetings now. “I don’t think they’d be so apt to arrest me anymore,” he said, adding that he would seek damages from the town.
Leslie Gallagher, who was mayor in 2000 and a defendant in the lawsuit, said he had not heard about yesterday’s ruling.
When he was told about the ruling in favor of Tarus, Gallagher’s response was succinct: “Good for him.” He didn’t elaborate.
While the American Civil Liberties Union was pleased that the ruling affirmed rights for citizens, advocates for local officials were pleased that it gave towns the right to set guidelines for taping.
“We are pleased that the court has recognized the necessity of allowing municipalities to regulate this activity to prevent the disruption of municipal meetings,” said Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities.
The Supreme Court agreed with another part of the lower court decision: There was probable cause to arrest Tarus for videotaping the meetings.
People are missing the point. The point is that Albert, Paul, and bob behaved horribly. Don’t give me this they are human bull. We live in a society here. Threatening and intimidating at these meetings must be stopped
From the Politburo( NO VEDIO TAPING OF COUNCIL MEETING)
@1:08 right on. They answered so few really good questions from the audience yet stopped to gossip about another resident.
SMILE ALBERT and PAUL! You’re on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat…
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?
Diane – Public meetings are in a sense private? Huh?
Paul and Albert were like middle school mean boys, teaming up with Bob Fuhrman to attack Dana. Their behavior was shocking. Never mind what the subject was, taping or not taping, the point is that they behaved very very badly. And Gwenn was no better, sitting there mutely while her two guys went on a rant. Wow. So glad this was taped and is on the internet for all to see.
Just watched the entire exchange. Aronsohn had the nerve to suggest that those who were speaking at the HPC meeting were playing for the camera? What a sanctimonious prick our mayor is. Every single thing out of his mouth is played for the camera, for the reporters, etc. How the hell dare he accuse citizens who go to a HPC meeting of being scripted. The mayor is pissed because he was nervous, sweating, and calling “shame on you” to one of the residents. Overall the mayor looked horrible and therefore was horrified to learn it was caught on tape. Kind of like your wife catches you at a motel with another woman and you yell at her for driving past the motel.
So I took the time to write down all the words that were used to describe Mr. Glazer’s actions, which were completely legal in every sense no matter how the Deputy Mayor wants to spin it. Here you go:
FUHRMAN: “every one of us is at risk,” “no safety,” “he could make all of us look like horses’ asses” – – – – – Whoa there buddy, you made yourself look like a horse’s ass without any help. What risk? What lack of safety? What the heck is the matter with you that you think a concerned, involved citizen is going to jeopardize you in such a horrific way. Get a grip.
PUCCIARELLI” “disgraceful,” “beyond the pale,” “people out to get each other,” “we’re better than that,” “surreptitious,” “secretive,” “sneaky,” “gotcha game at its worst,” “awful” – – – – – Oh my goodness Mr. Deputy Mayor, nervous much? What the heck are you so worried about? Oh yeah, that’s right, you’re so nervous because you constantly lose your temper and you don’t want it being recorded. Like it was recorded last night. And one more thing, your “gotcha game” quote identifies you from some other anonymous posts on this Blog. Tee Hee
ARONSOHN: “not to be tolerated,” “not a way to conduct business,” “disgraceful,” “disruptive,” “deceitful,” “hidden” – – – – – well, these adjectives pretty much describe you and they way you conduct your meetings. In no way do they describe Mild Mannered Law Abiding Dana Glazer.
Kind of looked to me on the TAPE like they knew that Bob was coming. Hmmmmmm, was he asked to do a favor since they kept the sidewalks off his street? Did they suggest he come and drop this bomb? Even more suspicious since Bob waited until Dana had left when he could have mentioned it earlier. Food for thought. Well, in any case, it backfired all over their faces.
Diane Palacios believes that the only video taping should be done by the Village. She assumes that this will be a true copy without any manipulation on the part of The 3 Amigos or Queen Bee Village manager. Diane Palacios trusts them that tell you something. They through the Village IT person could edit the tape or just say there was a problem and we don’t have the tape. After all they have done she still thinks there should be only one recorded video and that video should be done and held by this village government. Sad.
Hey James where are the 3 amigos apologist? Where is Rurik Halaby or Jim Griffith? Whats their take on last night fiasco on video taping ?
Big Al is going to make Village Attorney Matt Rogers a very rich man when he comes out with his new video recording rules for council meeting.The ACLU and The League of Women Voters lawyers are just waiting in the wings. Hey Al your Ordinance may even get nation coverage. You will have your 5 minuets of fame.
Narcissists are very good at mind games. They are intelligent and quickly learn what your triggers are. A narcissist will ignite a potential drama right before guests walk in the door. That way, when he gives you that, seemingly innocent, tone of voice an hour later you explode and your guests think you are nuts. After all, they didn’t notice a thing.
Ok so here is food for thought: two meetings ago BIG AL threatened Dana saying “someone is going to pay for this.” And last night they went after Dana in what had the appearance of being a planned attack with Bob Fuhrman as the straight guy. Very coincidental, dontcha think????
What about Gwenn at the last council meeting holding up he phone and video taping the public thats ok. No wonder she had nothing to say this meeting about video taping
Hey Big Al
March 7, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
NEWARK, N.J. – 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.”
Hey Big Al, how’s the toupee twisting with all this backdraft???
as 1:01 p.m. quotes Freedom of Information Press, March 2007:
“We are pleased that the court has recognized the necessity of allowing municipalities to regulate this activity to prevent the disruption of municipal meetings,” said Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities.
The Supreme Court agreed with another part of the lower court decision: There was probable cause to arrest Tarus for videotaping the meetings.
Municipalities have the power to regulate this activity to prevent the disruption of municipal meetings.
Again, it should not be allowed. The town council meetings are like a family meeting, a family of residents and govt. officials.
How would Dana feel if someone filmed his children on the playground or walking home from school. People love me as Dana loves his children and don’t want me filmed outside of govt. province when I speak. My fat ass is my own business and so is my face. I choose where to place it and whom to allow to record it. I don’t want a third outside party visual recording me at family type Ridgewood council meetings.
They should blend in the side a little better
Why does Dana Glazer feel compelled to record all of these meetings? It’s obsessive and strange, if you ask me. Again, it’s the same as filming children on the playground or walking home from school.
What does he do with these visual recordings. He can obviously distort them and do anything he wants with them.
Diane – No one (except maybe YOU) considers the Village Council meetings to be family gatherings. Just so you know (since you don’t seem to come to these family meetings) Dana has not been disruptive in the least. He is operating entirely within the law, quietly, in fact silently. You have no leg to stand on.
Diane – Dana can record these meetings for any reason whatsoever. We all can. As a matter of fact, others do so using their cell phone. It is not the same as filming children on the playground or walking home from school. That would be obsessive and strange (although not illegal). Filming a PUBLIC meeting is legal. How dare you suggest that he could distort them and do anything he wants with them. For that matter, you could distort them and do anything you want with them, because they are on the internet compliments of the Village of Ridgewood. As someone said, a person in Bangladesh could be looking at the Village website now and dowloading some previous meetings where you spoke and distorting them. Really, get over your idiotic paranoia. Dana is an involved, dedicated member of the town who is keeping records of this very shaky elected triumvirate that is running roughshod over our community right now. Thank goodness he is keeping these records because for all we know the mayor might decide to ooooops accidentally delete any videos on the village website that don’t show him in the best light. Well, that would mean deleting every meeting he ever attended.
Diane Palacios January 28, 2016 at 7:21 pm
” it’s the same as filming children on the playground or walking home from school.”: You have to out of your mind by posting this.
Diane- He’s so influential we can’t put sidewalks on his street. Sure, he wasn’t trying to provoke a reaction… just an innocent citizen… yeah right
I have been to many of the meetings and spoken at them and sung excerpt from a Beethoven Symphony to illustrate how nature undeveloped inspires artistic creation and should not be considered passive space, concerning Schedler.
I have always felt as in a family and have felt comfortable expressing opposition to every issue the council now seems to be passing: high density housing, gigantic parking garages, Schedler development. I have written letters on all these issues. I am very against Kensington Assisted LIving for high traffic reasons.
I saw Dana at a recent meeting where I spoke and I thought he was hired by the Village to film the meetings. When I heard , watching meeting on TV, Wed. night that he was doing this on his own, I was outraged. By filming he is removing me from the family, town setting and putting me in no man’s land.
Well, if people can see these meetings from India on You Tube, I don’t understand today’s technology. And if stuff is permitted that I don’t like, I can express it in letters and not speak at meetings.
This Internet age as far as I am concerned have more negatives, drawbacks than positives. I think in the main it hinders personal communication and full expression through thoughtful letter writing, personal face to face communication ,especially for children.and we are subject to constant hacking. All the video games I think are a waste of time too and on and on but I will stop.
Better yet give them a call Diane Im sure they would love to hear from you but watch out the call maybe recorded
Name Position Phone
Paul Aronsohn Mayor 201-670-5500
Albert Pucciarelli Deputy Mayor 201-670-5500
Gwenn Hauck Councilwoman 201-670-5500
Susan Knudsen Councilwoman 201-670-5500
Michael Sedon Councilman 201-670-5500
Title:Use of Camcorders/Video Cameras in City Council Meetings
Summary:MTAS was asked whether the City Council may ban, by ordinance, the public from
bringing video cameras into and videoing city council meetings.
Original Author:Bingham, Pamela
Co-Author:Product Create Date:07/22/2002
Last Reviewed on::03/22/2010
Subject:City council–Procedure; Meetings; Open meetings; Open meetings–Laws and regulations
Type:Legal Opinion
Legal Opinion:
Reference Documents:
Text of Document: Your question of this morning is whether the City Council may ban, by ordinance, the public from bringing into and videoing city council meetings. You indicated that you believed you had read several years ago in a Tennessee Town and City article that such an ordinance would be valid. As we discussed on the telephone, it was my opinion that such an ordinance would not be defensible, and after researching this issue, I am confirming my prior conclusion.
While the it appears that under a First Amendment analysis, the proposed ordinance, which seeks to restrict a type of access to a public meeting, withstand judicial scrutiny, it is important to note that this question and factual scenario have not been addressed by the Tennessee Supreme Court or any federal appeals courts, to my knowledge. On the other hand, the Tennessee Attorney General, in addressing your question as applicable to another Tennessee municipality, has opined that a blanket ban on bringing video or photographic equipment into an official city council meeting would violate Article 1, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution, as applied to the Open Meeting Act, T.C.A. §§ 8-44-101 . Op. Tenn. Atty. Gen. 95-126 (December 28, 1995). [Note that this opinion overruled a portion of a previous opinion from that office on the same subject].
The dispositive analysis in this response centers around the premise that governmental bodies only may regulate access to their public meetings in ways that reasonably advance or protect public safety and welfare. In the case of Peloquin v. Arsenault, 616 N.Y.S.2d (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1994), the New York Court struck down a ban on all cameras and camcorders in council meetings when the sole justification offered was that certain board members and members of the public found it personally distracting to be videoed. While Court noted that the board could restrict video recording that clearly was “obtrusive and distracting,” the Court found the justification proffered was insufficient.
In another case, Mitchell v. Board of Education of Garden City School District, 493 N.Y.S.2d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985), the Court held that a ban on tape recorders was too restrictive in view of the legislative scheme embodied in the Open Meetings Law. The Court noted that it was appropriate to have rules governing the decorum of meetings, however, such rules could not be irrational or unreasonable.
In summary, a complete ban on the use of video cameras in official city council meetings would probably not withstand judicial scrutiny. The council may make reasonable rules regarding taping of meetings, perhaps placing a limitation on the amount of cameras allowed in the room and where they should be located, etc. I am enclosing a copy of the Opinion from the Attorney General for your files.
Please remember that these legal opinions were written based on the facts of a given city at a certain time. The laws referenced in any opinion may have changed or may not be applicable to your city or circumstances.
Always consult with your city attorney or an MTAS consultant before taking any action based on information contained in this database.
Please Diane, Don’t give up on public meetings. We’re from a different generation but having kids like all kids who are computer savvy and social media buffs, I realize that we are witnessing the future and we’re not going back. A friend of mine several years ago said that email is the new DNA. We’ve moved past that. i am aware that anything I say or do might be seen or heard in a venue I am not familiar with. You’ve never said anything at meetings that is in anyway disrespectful of the process. You already are on the village tapes and minutes as I am. News papers and letters could always edit a comment, take it out of context or not respond or report it at all. Now we might all appear on Youtube. All we have to do is remember that and still speak out in a way we can stand the scrutiny.
Every time a crime takes place or an accident, a million videos appear which help the police.. There are cameras mounted on banks, restaurants, clothing stores, apartment buildings, everywhere. We are all being tracked all the time. It is no big deal if you are not doing or saying anything wrong. Who cares if you are being taped at the public meetings? Unless you are saying inappropriate things, or behaving badly, it is no big deal. Of course in the case of Albert and Paul, they are caught on tape all the time saying inappropriate things and behaving badly, which is absolutely why they want to restrict what is lawful. When you have something to hide, you want to hide it.
Not to disappoint my many fans on The Ridgewood Pravda, I mean the Blog: I did not attend the VC meeting in person but watched most of it on the web, including the discussion on taping meetings by private individuals. I listened carefully to Deputy Mayor Pucciarelli’s comments on the subject, and as to be expected what he said was totally twisted by the vocalantis, rhymes with vigilantes. Not once did he say he would introduce an ordinance banning the private taping of meetings by individuals. My understanding of what he said is that if a private person is going to record a meeting he should disclose it to the attendees so that they know they are being recorded. I am not a lawyer but I believe it is against the law to record someone without that person knowing he or she is being recorded. I also think it is very threatening (using your favorite word) for some creep to creep up on you with a recording device and without telling you what he/she is doing. With your Bolshevik proclivities for secrecy and subterfuge I am sure you don’t quite see it this way.