[BWNA] Re: BWNA videotaping controversy

[Rob Vaughn]

Hello all,

Worry not, this is my last missive on this subject in public.  I merely hope
to clarify some issues since the debate seems to be very poorly understood by
most of the BWNA board.  This is merely informational, I hope.

>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. 

I have spoken my peace, and since I am not a member of the board, I agree with
Al this is up to the board to decide and be finished with, and is no longer
something I consider my business unless I am asked to research it, and will
provide that information to board member(s) only, not the entire BWNA.

The only point I want to make is that the debate is whether or not the BWNA is
a "governing body", and as such classified under ORS "Sunshine Laws", and if
so, _cannot_ restrict the use of any recording devices, as both Jim and Amy
pointed out at last night's meeting.

It has nothing to do with being a "private" or "public" organization.  Either
of those may ban the use of recording devices if they see fit.  So whether or
not it is public or private is a completely moot and a Red Herring that has
been used to distract from the real issues.

A movie theater is a public place yet can ban cell phone usage, which they do,
for example.  They are a private organization that allows and encourages
public attendence, exactly like the BWNA.  It is a very apt and appropriate
example, and not one of my own making.

So far, ONI and the Portland City Council have said that the BWNA is actually
a _private_ organization, although what matters is that it is a not a
"governing body" and as such may legally bar certain devices, such as video
cameras, cell phones, etc. just as theaters and restaurants may.

That is the only point.  The debate has been badly misdirected from whether or
not the BWNA is a "governing body", which so far all indications are that it
is NOT - to whether it is public or private, is not the issue at hand.  I
think this is VERY important to understand and that many board members, such
as Al, have misunderstood.

>But it seems to me that classifying Neighborhood Associations as "private"
>organizations is a stretch at best.

But they are indeed classified by ONI and the City of Portland as such.  Not
as public organizations, but private ones that allow public attendence.

There seems to be a serious lack of understanding of legalities here vs. some
general concepts.

That said, the arguments have been made, I will not continue this discussion
in public, and it is indeed up to the board to simply decide; I have merely
been trying to find out if Jim has a legal right to continue taping, and if he
did, to drop the subject, because I would not want to impinge on Jim's legal
rights.

I started attending meetings over 8 years ago and back then the secretary,
Margaret Davis, kept minutes in a ledger with pen and was good about typing
them up for the next meetings and sending them to Mario and I to publish on
the mailing list and Web site.  There was no recording at the time, nor any
contention, and things worked fine.  I will also mention that _all_ of the
board positions were filled at all times in the first 4-5 years I attended.

In recent years, minutes have not been made publically available in a timely
manner, and Margaret and myself at least no longer wish to attend meetings or
participate due to what we consider a "hostile climate."  And I have not seen
meeting minutes posted on the mailing list in years.

Is this a change for the better by the introduction of new technology?

>Additionally, as far as I know, our treasury 
>funds are neither the result of private dues nor private fundraisers.

To educate all board members as well as Al, the majority of the funds come
from advertising, from what I understand.  Please correct me if I am mistaken?
David, Mario, and Helen could answer this properly.

>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.

Agreed.  You will find that is indeed the case.

I will leave the question here as after last night I do not feel the board
wishes to address this issue nor that of people who will not, or who dislike
attending, including even Jackie Dingerfelder, who took a lot of convincing
for me to get her to attend and most likely will not again.

It is up to the board to decide whether the old "pen & paper" minutes, which
older members know have served the BWNA well in the past, is enough, or if
this need to be "open" by allowing videotaping is truly serving the purpose of
providing supposedly "open" meetings when it seems to discourages people from
attending?

I hope the board will try to consider this point - is it worth even having
open meetings if the climate is such that many people do not want to attend?
I hope someone on the board will forward this question to the board mailing
list for all to consider before a vote is taken.

Good luck with the discussion of the issue and I hope it is resolved amicably
and that resolution announced publically.  I promise that I am now done with
this entire subject now and will focus my energy on the more positive things,
as Ankist suggested.

Cheers, Rob V.

--
robv at sound-o-mat.com