After a new town policy restricting recordings of meetings drew complaints that it appears to violate North Carolina’s Open Meetings law, the town of Yanceyville appears to be backing away from its initial approach, though the disputed policy remains in effect.
Council members in Yanceyville unanimously approved an amendment to their rules and procedures on May 7, requiring individuals to obtain the council’s permission before recording video or audio at meetings.
Whether that policy is legal is “black and white,” communications lawyer Amanda Martin of Duke University told Carolina Public Press .
“(North Carolina statute) 143-318.14 , could not be more clear that the public has a right to photograph, film, tape record or otherwise reproduce any part of a meeting required to be open,” Martin said.
“That is just entirely unequivocal.”
Yanceyville Town Attorney Lee Farmer told CPP on Thursday that the policy is only meant to control where individuals are allowed to record video and audio and that the wording of the amendment would be changed within the next 30 days.
North Carolina law does allow public bodies to “regulate the placement and use of equipment necessary for broadcasting, photographing, filming, or recording a meeting, so as to prevent undue interference with the meeting.”
However, a video clip from the May 7 meeting and a letter from Farmer to state Sen. Graig Meyer, D-Orange, who represents Caswell County and expressed concern about the policy, appears to contradict Farmer’s claim that the amendment wasn’t originally intended to prohibit certain individuals from recording.
Prior to the amendment, Rule 22, section b of the council rules and procedures previous read as follows:
“All public meetings are allowed to be video or audio recorded by any individual, without prior permission being granted from the council.”
The amended rule reverses that policy, stating “No public meetings are allowed to be video or audio recorded by any individual, without prior permission being granted from the council.” The rest of the wording of the rule is unchanged.
Yanceyville is home to around 2,000 people and sits 40 miles northeast of Greensboro, just below the Virginia line. It serves as the county seat of Caswell County and is governed by a nonpartisan, five-person Town Council led by Mayor Alvin Foster .
During the May 7 meeting, Farmer presented the proposed amendment to the council and explained that he drafted it in response to complaints expressed by council members after a meeting in April.
“This will give y’all the flexibility to determine whether (meetings) can be taped, videotaped, filmed or recorded,” Farmer told the council. “It’s totally in y’all’s prerogative to control your meetings.”
Following this advice from the the town attorney, the council unanimously passed the amendment with little discussion.
A video clip of the meeting, which was posted to YouTube, captures an onlooker behind the camera whispering the words “First Amendment” as Farmer spoke.
The individual who posted the YouTube video to YouTube under the moniker “Yanceyville Examiner” sent a tip explaining the situation to CPP on May 8.
Christopher Hastings , a Yanceyville resident, recorded the video clip but was not the person who posted it to YouTube or sent the original tip, he said. He told CPP that he’s made a habit of going to Town Council meetings and thinks an interaction he had with the clerk during a special meeting on April 11 may have been the catalyst for the change in the Town’s recording policy.
When the council went into closed session, Hastings said, he used his iPhone to record himself questioning the clerk about whether necessary steps had been followed to allow for new business to be presented at a special meeting.
Prior to that interaction, Hastings said he had no trouble recording during meetings. He said the introduction of the amendment to change the Town’s recording policy in its subsequent meeting “came out of the blue.”
“My reaction was really just shocked that an attorney doesn’t have the knowledge to say that you can’t stop people’s … rights,” Hastings said.
The individual who sent the tip to CPP also notified Sen. Meyer, whose district encompasses Yanceyville. Meyer has made government transparency one of his key issues. He also filed a bill Wednesday to amend the state Constitution to enshrine the right to access public records and meetings, which are currently found in state statutes.
In response to the tip about Yanceyville, Meyer sent an email to Mayor Foster and Town Manager and Clerk Kamara Barnett , warning them that he thought the policy violated North Carolina’s Open Meetings Law and that the town faces risk of litigation.
A week later, on May 16, Meyer received a letter from Farmer defending the council’s actions.
“The Town Council is fully aware of its obligations and duties under the North Carolina Open Meetings Law,” the letter read. “However, the Town Council reserves the right to maintain and reasonably regulate decorum, order, location and placement of recording devices within the Town Council chambers.
“This right and privilege has been recognized by the UNC School of Government. Under the Council’s new amended Rule 22, recording will not be commenced until approval by the Council consistent with the above noted Council rights and privileges.”
Asked about Farmer’s claims, Martin, the media lawyer, expressed doubts. While the law does give council members the ability to have some regulations, it does not give them the ability to prohibit anyone from recording, she said.
Farmer seemed to modify his stance since that letter was sent, telling CPP on Thursday that the rule would be amended once more.
“It’s a little generic, what’s in that,” he said. “We’re gonna go back and amend that where it will relate to placement and location of cameras or video devices.”
When asked whether there would ever be a situation where an individual seeking permission to record would be denied, Farmer replied “No, because that’s a violation of Open Meetings Law.”
Still, Martin is also skeptical that a policy like the revised one Farmer now describes would be allowed to apply to any recording devices other than TV cameras or other larger equipment.
“If someone wants to record in a manner that requires no ‘placement and use of equipment,’ then I don’t think the public body has the right to approve or disapprove,” she told CPP in an email.
“So if you want to sit in your chair and record with your iPhone, I think you have the right to do that. Thus, I think the new language should make clear that you only need permission if you are bringing in some kind of equipment, like the camera a TV station might use.”
The next regular Yanceyville Town Council meeting is slated for July 2. Whether council members will take up the issue of re-amending their policy at that meeting remains unclear at this point.
Most Popular
Comments / 0