Iowa Officials Fail At Banning Citizens From Recording Public Meetings

January 3, 2012 @ 9:38PM

Iowa Officials Fail At Banning Citizens From Recording Public Meetings

Topics
News

Officials in a small Iowa town who were attempting to ban the recording of public meetings were forced to backtrack after residents raised hell about it.

The proposed ban was in direct violation of the state’s open record law, but West Branch City Council officials didn’t let that stop them from attempting to sneak it through.

Yale Cohn, a regular reader of Photography is Not a Crime, who runs his own television show in Iowa, said he and other residents began talking about the council’s plans on Facebook, which eventually forced the media to question the legality of the plan.

Officials – who proclaimed the reaction to their plans had been “blown out of proportion” - said they were merely trying to discourage citizens from capturing them in a “gotcha” moment.

In other words, they were hoping to keep their stupidity from being shared on the internet.

Instead, they ensured that I would do just that.

According to the Press-Citizen:

On Tuesday night, the West Branch city council was scheduled to review a set of procedural rules that govern how they run their council meetings. Among those 58 rules was one that would have banned electronic devices including “tape recorders, portable phones, video equipment, photography equipment and/or any other electronic devices” in the council chambers before, during or after a meeting unless granted permission by the council. Public notice would also have to be given to council members.

However, after local media reports questioned the legality of the rule, Muckler said he is dropping the proposed rule.

“It won’t be considered moving forward,” Muckler said Tuesday.

Muckler said his intent with the rule was to discourage people coming to council meetings with the goal of creating a hostile environment. Doing so was easier said than done, he said.

The Press-Citizen recently named Cohn one of “10 to watch in 2012.”

Please send stories, tips and videos to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com

Comments

Elliott

4 months ago

Dumbass... Sort of wish they had managed to pass this, its close enough to drive over to force the issue..

Nobody wants a gotcha moment, but public official lose much of their rights to control it..

And even as private citizens we don't have much control.. As a perfect example.. The photo I attached is of a man in the process of trying to steal a car. GOTCHA! We'll see if he goes to court or pleads out..

I hate it when people in my home state get stupid and forget that the city councils are only allowed to write laws that the STATE has permitted them to..

DavidForthoffer

4 months ago

"The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest." Smith v. City of Cumming (11th Cir., 2000) The case cites other circuits agreeing with that princple.

I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has not heard such a case on point because there has never been a circuit split on this issue.

Gregory R. Norfleet

4 months ago

As a resident of West Branch, Iowa, I was glad to see such media interest -- I found one story on a Web site for a newspaper two states away -- in the rules, Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics proposed for the West Branch City Council. As editor of the local newspaper, I am also sensitive to the fact that members of the media tend to have strong libertarian leanings. I know I do.
Reading the above story made me think I ought to share a bit of context to the situation.
1. The city council has had a couple of tense meetings recently over a proposed sidewalk project. I'm sorry to say that both sides share some of the blame.
2. The rules, codes, etc. seem to come from a genuine concern and an attempt to calm things down, but the city did not write them. Rather, they borrowed the bulk from the Iowa League of Cities and pieced in rules from other municipalities. It is unclear where this "recording rule" came from. Still, the city is responsible for the draft list.
3. The city administrator who compiled all this does not have a history or reputation of trying to sneak things by anyone. In fact, since he got here, he has made the city more transparent.
4. I can't speak for other news organizations, but our newspaper started reading the suggested rules two days before I saw the first Facebook message highlighting the recording rule. When I first learned about it, no forcing was necessary to get us involved. As I'm sure owners and contributors of Pixiq are aware, newspaper reporters frequently if not always take cameras to council meetings, so we are directly impacted by such a rule. Not only did we do a story the same day, we also sent e-mails to the city and council members explaining our opposition.
5. Also it should be noted that the rules, codes, etc. are really just a boiled-down version of Roberts Rules of Order. Iowa law permits recording devices and cameras in public meetings, but is also gives governing bodies the power to make sure meetings are orderly. This rule attempted to do that, but went too far.
In summary, we're glad the rule was removed from consideration. But I don't think there was anything nefarious going on.
Sorry if I rambled.