City Hears Media Input over Recording Regulations

Representatives from three local media organizations met with Fredericksburg city staff earlier today to So far, no rules have yet been drafted, but the City Attorney's office has been researching such rules in place in other jurisdictions.

On the city side, the meeting was attended by City Attorney Kathleen Dooley, her intern Patrick Slebonick, Assistant City Manager Mark Whitley, and Council Clerk Tonya Lacey. Media staff on hand at the meeting were Free Lance-Star Local News Editor Dick Hammerstrom, Free Lance-Star City Reporter Robyn Sidersky, WFVA correspondent Ted Schubel, Patch.com's Northern Virginia Assistant Regional Editor Dan Telvock and this reporter. 

The meeting was rather informal, with city staff and media representatives discussing the relative need for regulations on recording devices and the potential impact such regulations would have on media practitioners and the general public. 

Dooley opened the meeting by noting recent regional incidents which have focused attention on the use of recording devices such as the arrest of two journalists in Washington, D.C. attempting to videotape a meeting of that city's taxicab commission. 

Dooley stated that the intention of any such regulations would be to preserve the public right to document public meetings while balancing against disruptions. 

"Since FOIA [the Virginia Freedom of Information Act] tells us that recording devices have to be allowed in meetings, I thought that this would be an opportunity to discuss the placement and use of those recording devices," said Dooley. "If we ever actually need to use the regulations, Council will have a framework in place."

Media representatives were cautious about any rules which may unnecessarily define a disruption.

"There is nothing codified about how loud you can talk, but the mayor can bang his gavel and ask the speaker to lower their voice," Hammerstrom told city staff. "With disruption, you know it when you see it, to quote Justice Stewart."

When asked about the motivation for drafting such rules, Dooley said that there were no particular events which directly inspired this initiative, but she did note some disruptive behaviors which could potentially become an issue. For instance, a photographer entering the council dais and taking photographs within inches of a council member's seat during an active open meeting. Local outspoken activist James Lawrence was brought up during the meeting, but not over his recent comments at a city council meeting where he promised to assert his right to take pictures and record, but rather over an incident where he threw small owl dolls from the public comment podium in the council gallery. This was mentioned as an example of something which clearly constituted a disruption. 

Dooley noted that there have been no complaints from City Council members regarding the use of recording devices. She did relate a vague recollection of a time when a photographer entered the council dais and took up-close and personal pictures.

Dooley also said that it would be a good idea to have an adopted city policy asserting the right of the public to document meetings with recording devices. 

"We are trying to give the mayor a marker about what constitutes disruptive," said Whitley. "The only thing I can think of is saying you can't go between the clerk's desk and the mayor's chair to take pictures."

Members of the local media praised the opportunity to discuss possible regulations during the early conceptual phases of drafting such regulations. 

"The law is clear that the press and anyone in the public can bring a recorder or a camera to public meetings and use those devices," said Telvock after the meeting. "We think it's best that the city just let the law stand and not make any additional bullet points to define what a distraction might be." 

"I think it was helpful, everyone discussed the idea of regulations and we decided none were needed," said Hammerstrom after the meeting, indicating that he believed such a consensus was held by both media and city representatives." 

However, that decision was far from settled. Dooley left open the possibility that recording regulations could still be drafted for council approval. 

"What I heard was that the press thinks that the general rule against disrupting a meeting is sufficient," said Dooley after the meeting. "That very well may be true. I'm going to go back and think about what we talked about and decide whether there is a recommendation I can make to council."