[BWNA] Re: BWNA videotaping controversy

[ApeLainJoy at aol.com]

If BWNA is a private organization, then the Board should conclude discussion 
at the next Board meeting and vote on whether or not to allow videotaping of 
meetings. 

But it seems to me that classifying Neighborhood Associations as "private" 
organizations is a stretch
at best. Our meetings--both Board and General--are not private. On the 
contrary, we encourage the
public to attend. And it is the public (from our neighborhood) that elects 
those of us who serve on 
the Board to represent them. Additionally, as far as I know, our treasury 
funds are neither the result of private dues nor private fundraisers.

So, if BWNA is indeed a public organization, then we need to do determine if 
public organizations like 
ours are legally authorized to ban videotaping of meetings. From what Amy 
said at the meeting last
night, Oregon law is somewhat ambiguous on this issue--referring to "the 
spirit" of the law, etc.

If Oregon law doesn't provide a definitive answer, then it would seem back in 
our hands--to decide the issue by vote of the Board.

While sympathizing with those who object to attending meetings that are 
videotaped based on their
right of privacy, and also sympathizing with those who argue that videotaping 
is adversely affecting 
participation at BWNA meetings, I personally believe it's most important to 
keep our meetings open
and transparent--to the public, to the media, and, yes, to any citizen with 
an audio or video recorder.
I don't believe it's proper to question Jim's motive for videotaping meetings 
any more than it's proper
to question the reason why someone would refuse to attend a (public) meeting 
that is being filmed.
My own guess is that most people who attend our general meetings don't pay 
much attention to Jim's
videotaping, because they assume it just goes with the territory of an open 
public meeting.
If you or I were hosting a dinner party at our house and one of the guests 
began videotapiing without asking permission, then it's entirely within our 
right as homeowner to insist that the camera guy cease and desist. My point is, 
BWNA is not a private residence. 

I'm in favor of resolving this issue, one way or the other, by the next Board 
meeting. And I join those
who spoke up at the end of the meeting last night asking for an end to 
personal attacks during 
discussion. Let's be dignified about this and make the decision based on 
principle, not on personalities 
and private feuds.

Respectfully,

Al Ellis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sound-o-mat.com/pipermail/bwna/attachments/20070109/9cc1efed/attachment.html