The City’s Pulse Newsletter
By Mary Souza, July 8, 2008
There was a strong turnout of nearly 40 citizens at the Midtown meeting about the proposed LCDC workforce housing project last night. The Press reported “the majority at the meeting were property owners…” Kudos to the residents of Midtown for requesting and organizing the meeting.
I was unable to attend, but have been told that City Councilman Mike Kennedy moderated the meeting. He asked the entire group if anyone had a tape recorder. He then quizzed the newspaper reporter and Dan Gookin and Susie Snedaker by name, asking if they were recording the meeting. All of them replied “No”.
What does our city councilman fear? It’s legal in the state of Idaho to record a conversation or meeting if one person knows of the recording. I hope he was not trying to control the public’s ability to report and pass along accurate information.
According to today’s Press, Deanna Goodlander, who’s both a City Council and LCDC member said they should hold “ a more intimate meeting with only Midtown residents. They’re the ones who really need to come and say what their concerns are.”
Don’t limit attendance to any one group; all citizens should be able to offer their ideas. Let’s just have more open meetings, Deanna. You represent each of us, and the public tax issues in our city impact everyone’s pocketbook. Every citizen has a right question public projects, and to expect your attention and respect in the process.
Mary,
To clarify your point about being legal in Idaho to record if one party knows of the recording: The more accurate statement is that it is legal to record if one party to the conversation has given consent. Consent can only be given by someone who is a party to the conversation. Consensual interception can only legally occur while the consenting party is still a party to the intercepted conversation. Non-consensual interception requires a court order.
For example, suppose A and B and C are conversing at a table, and C has concealed a recorder on the table. If C leaves the conversation and is no longer a party to it, continued interception of the conversation between A and B would be illegal.
Consent wasn’t an issue at the midtown meeting, because it was a public meeting. For example, if I go to a City Council meeting, sit in the audience, and record it, no consent is necessary (nor can the Council enforce a demand that I stop recording) because it is a public meeting. However, if I hide a recorder or transmitter in the room where the Council conducts its secret business, and if I do that without the consent of anyone who’s a party to their secret deliberations and votes (or as Dixie might say, “We arrived at a consensus but didn’t vote.”), I’ve violated federal and state law.
It might interest some readers to know that before it started airing Council Meetings on CDA TV 19 and making a DVD for rebroadcast, the City Clerk was making audio casette recordings of all Council meetings except the secret ones. I’m sure she used the recordings to help compose the meeting minutes rather than relying exclusively on her contemporaneous notes. (The written minutes of the meeting are the official record, however the recordings are public records and must be preserved as such.) I don’t recall the Mayor ever announcing that the meetings were being recorded. She didn’t need to. They were public meetings.
Comment by Bill — July 9, 2008 @ 7:17 am
i agree that attendance should be open to everyone, but i would hope that local residents most impacted by any midtown plans would show up insufficient numbers to ask questions and express their concerns. as to the recording issue, it may be legal in idaho to record someone without their permission, but i think it is also sneaky underhanded and duplicitous. back in college the professors required that anyone recording a class for notes had to get permisssion from everyone in the class. at the very least people should be notified that someone is recording. just like they do on customer service telephone calls.
Comment by reagan — July 9, 2008 @ 7:22 am
reagan,
Re-read the last paragraph of my 7:17 a.m. post. Why would you characterize the Mayor’s, City Council’s, and City Clerk’s making audio recordings of Council meetings without notifying all attendees as being sneaky, underhanded, and duplicitous?
Comment by Bill — July 9, 2008 @ 7:32 am
bill, if no notice was given, no notice was posted and it was not common knowledge that the recording of meetings was standard operating procedure and the intent was to record the meetings without the other party(s) knowing about the recording, then yes i would characterize it the way i just did.
Comment by reagan — July 9, 2008 @ 8:11 am
reagan,
At public meetings such as Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, and LCDC meetings, what do you consider sufficient “notice?” What would you consider to be “common knowledge?” How would you determine what the “intent” of the person doing the recording was?
Comment by Bill — July 9, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Reagan brings up a wonderful point, one that is a hot topic of debate just about everywhere. In Britain, it’s legal to record people’s activities in public. The police to it all the time, in fact, the number of video cameras monitoring the British public is absolutely outrageous. Civil libertarians argue that such over-monitoring is an invasion of privacy. But on the other hand, public officials argue that your appearance and behavior in public is just that, in public.
My feelings in the matter are this: Public officials have an onus to the public. The law is on the public’s side on every issue where elected officials make decisions that affect the public. But the public officials control the official records. Based on what Bill said, it was obvious that the public record did not exactly reflect what occurred according to the DVD. I am also aware of other instances where the public record has not reflected what occurred according to a DVD of the same meeting. Because of that, it’s in the public’s best interest to have a reliable, non-biological recording of their encounters with any public or elected official.
Bill’s example is perfect. Had there been no recording of his encounter with Dixie Reid, then the public record would reflect that no illegal meeting took place. Yet Dixie clearly implies that some or all of the council were contacted and reached a consensus outside of the public view, an illegal vote. Perhaps convenient in the eyes of the council, but against the law nonetheless. Without the DVD recording, it would be Bill’s word against the council, and the council would prevail in the eyes of the public.
Bottom line: The public needs that kind of non-passionate memory that a recording device provides, especially when dealing with people who have little affection for the truth, let alone the public they’re supposed to represent.
Comment by Dan — July 9, 2008 @ 9:19 am
Whatever expectation of privacy any individual has, a public official interacting with the public ought to have none. They do the business of the public, it ought to be open to all. For citizens speaking out IN PUBLIC, whatever objection could they make to a recording? What ‘privacy’ expectation could possibly be at issue? I find reagan’s point of view incomprehensible.
Comment by Pariah — July 9, 2008 @ 4:08 pm