According to this article in the Coeur d’Alene Press, Coeur d’Alene School District 271 is limiting comments at public meetings and prohibiting audio recording of its supposedly public meetings by anyone except “working members of the media.”
We can safely assume “working members of the media” will not include anyone other than those stenographers who willingly and without question push the propaganda from the Hazel and Edie Show.
When the public began to crack the code of corruption in Idaho’s communities, Idaho Attorney General Wasden and his deputy William von Tagen dutifully responded to the demands of their handlers, the Association of Idaho Cities and the Cowles gang, to limit the tools available to the public to hold public officials accountable. In 2009 they eviscerated the Idaho Open Meeting Law, all the while claiming they were improving it. The Idaho legislature dutifully nodded its institutional head in compliance. We should not expect a challenge to the school district’s decision by AG Wasden any more than we should expect one from Kootenai County Prosecutor Barry McHugh. This is Idaho — where laws are merely suggestions and tools of intimidation.
Sit down, shut up, and don’t record this (formerly public) meeting!
I can’t believe the hypocrisy in Hazel Bauman’s statement that she’s instituting this rule to limit public comment because
But she obviously wants to severely limit the subject of any “public interaction”.
As someone on the Press blog asked, “Who works for whom?”
Comment by mary — October 16, 2010 @ 8:00 am
Bauman also was quoted as saying,
Maybe if Bauman and the others started listening and interacting meaningfully, it wouldn’t be necessary for the same thing to be repeated.
Bauman also finds the public’s using its own recording equipment to record meetings to be “intimidating.” Why is a digital voice recorder on top of the table in front of a citizen or held by a citizen in the audience any more intimidating than the one in front of Maureen Dolan from the Press? I have never seen anyone approach the imperial board of trustees and shove a microphone in anyone’s face during a meeting. My suspicion is that Bauman, like many public officials in this area, fears having an independently created recording that can be used to hold her accountable.
Comment by Bill — October 16, 2010 @ 8:22 am
“Shut up,” she explained.
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 16, 2010 @ 8:31 am
By the way, Mary, I left a reply on the other thread if you didn’t see it.
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 16, 2010 @ 8:35 am
I guess there will no longer be a “new business” or “open forum” section on the agenda unless it has prior approval from the board. They had better listen carefully as to where their discussions go because just one mention of a “verboten subject or phrase” may bring an unwanted 3 minute question from the audience.
With today’s technologies you can be assured that they will be recorded!!!!!!!!!1
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 16, 2010 @ 8:37 am
This increased control by the school board is disconcerting. They already had a 3 min. time limit (city council is 5 min) They already say they “speak with one voice”, which means that even though each board member is individually elected by the public, they are not allowed to respond independently to the public.
Isn’t that already too much control? Why can’t they have a conversation with the people that elected them and pay for the schools?
This will not bode well for any future levy requests.
Do you think this was Chairwoman Edie Brooks’ idea, or Superintendent Hazel Bauman’s?
Comment by mary — October 16, 2010 @ 9:07 am
They “speak with one voice?” That’s got to be one of the most idiotic things I’ve heard in a good while. If the point of elected board members is no longer to debate policy and speak for their constituents, but instead to “speak with one voice,” why not just let Hazel channel the “one voice”‘s will and make decisions on her own?
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 16, 2010 @ 9:15 am
Mary,
Here’s another set of questions:
Exactly who are “working members of the media?” How does the brain trust at SD 271 define that term?
Yes, I know it would include the “legitimate” newspaper, television, and radio reporters, but suppose a “reporter” from the Seattle PI wanted to record a meeting? Though it was once a print newspaper, the Seattle PI is now a totally online effort. Were its reporters made bastards by the migration from iron to online? What about Wayne Hoffman or Dustin Hurst from the Idaho Freedom Foundation? Who defines “working members of the media?”
Comment by Bill — October 16, 2010 @ 9:44 am
Bill, that’s an excellent point. From my perspective, OpenCDA, HBO, and other local blogs are a form of citizen journalism. Hell, it was a group of blogs that exposed Dan Rather’s fabrications and got him booted from CBS.
I think a group of us should show up at the next board meeting all toting video cameras, and see if Hazel wants to debate the definition of “journalist.”
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 16, 2010 @ 10:12 am
Please let me know! I have a new camera! Seriously, How are they going to enforce their ridiculous rules? Oh, that’s right, that SLAPP suit stuff has made its’ debut here in this area. Another thing to call and let your local politician know about and fix this session.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 16, 2010 @ 11:01 am
Well, I fixed that. I just joined the Idaho Press Club for 26 bucks a year. Maybe they will refuse the money, I don’t know.
🙂 I am also a member of The Poynter Institute.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 16, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Hey, there’s an idea! Mary, Dan, et al: Perhaps you should also pony up for some credentials? 😀
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 16, 2010 @ 11:25 am
Stebbijo,
I’m not sure that membership in any particular organization like the Idaho Press Club amounts to validation or recognition of status as “media”. I don’t think there is one universally accepted definition for that term.
Poynter and other organizations such as the Society of Professional Journalists (see Article 4) or Investigative Reporters and Editors don’t seem to be able to agree on what precisely defines a “journalist”. The same difficulty will face SD 271 unless it has defined “working members of the media.” Would someone writing for the Nickel’s Worth be considered “media?” How about someone writing articles for “The Capitalist Papers?” Does it matter if the writer is paid? Am I considered a “working member of the media” because I’ve written articles for professional publications? How about a college professor who has been published in professional journals?
Comment by Bill — October 16, 2010 @ 11:56 am
If Hazel and crew are going to try to define it as paid journalists only, I’m sure one of the OpenCDA admins would be happy to pay the freelancer Stebbijo $0.01 to write an article for OpenCDA. Heck, I’ll chip in if they don’t want to. 😉
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 16, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
She’ll need to get a fedora with a card stuck in the hat band that says “PRESS”!
Comment by mary — October 16, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
LOL.I will take a penny and I promise to stay away from the “D” word. 🙂
Bill, I understand – but it isn’t going to hurt and maybe I will get a nice newsletter. 🙂 Additionally, we have a Courts/Media judicial committee where they are defining social media, blogs ect. so I think that is something to address as well. Anyone can volunteer for that committee. Bill you are absolutely a working member of the media. Anyone who ‘authors’ regularly and is published is a working member paid or unpaid. Journalists are a different breed, I would not call myself one.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 16, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
You might remember that I was able to get the draft of the Media/Courts Judge Handbook from Betsy Russell because the STATE did not have the information readily available. Now, I think that is a story. We might be considered alternative media but we are media and we are working. I cover judicial committees that’s how I know.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 16, 2010 @ 2:08 pm