[BWNA] Video taping at meetings

[jim karlock]

Neighborhood associations are actually part of the city government, 
at the lowest level. We advise the city on land use matters.

As a part of city government, we are subject to Oregon's open meeting 
law. We are also required to keep accurate minutes, particularly 
votes. Additionally there are personal liability issues when people 
vote to do something TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, so who voted how can also 
be an issue is some rare cases.

Below is from:
http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/index.cfm?a=97870&c=40257
Minutes
1. Minutes shall be taken at all meetings. Minutes do not have to be a
verbatim transcript of the meeting but shall at least summarize
discussion and actions. Minutes shall also include the following:
a) Members in attendance,
b) All actions, including motions, proposals, and resolutions
stated in full and their dispositions; and,
c) Results of all votes taken, and a summary of minority
opinions on all topics on which a vote is taken.

I have a DVD of a presentation by ONI on this subject and will try to find it.

Thanks
JK
PS: I am not sending this to the board list as I feel the very 
existence of list for only board members is probably a violation of 
the open meetings law if we discuss anything of substance.


At 12:14 AM 7/4/06, Deborah Ham wrote:
>I regret that I will be unable to attend the next Board meeting, as 
>I will be in Canada. Please allow me to use this vehicle to comment 
>on the concerns expressed by Albert about video taping the meetings. 
>It may be worth noting that I am personally unaffected by video or 
>audio taping, so these comments are relatively free of any bias on that basis.
>
>When objections to taping have been voiced in the past, Jim's 
>responses have conveyed his desire for accuracy. I think this is 
>something we all appreciate and want to support. Jim obviously takes 
>great care and devotes considerable attention to this (generally 
>thankless) task. His commitment to these duties constitutes a 
>tremendous service to our community. Accuracy, in addition to being 
>one of Jim's personal values, is important for all of us, as it 
>prevents misunderstandings and other complications.
>
>Equally as important as accuracy is the importance of broad range 
>participation in our meetings. In the year I have been attending the 
>general meetings, I have heard at least three different people 
>object publicly to the taping. On at least one occasion, a 
>participant asked to have the tape turned off during her comment, 
>and it was resumed when she finished speaking. One must assume that 
>there are others who find the taping disturbing, but perhaps chose 
>to minimize their participation rather than state objections (and 
>have it recorded!)
>
>This would indicate to me that the highest level of general 
>participation is currently being sacrificed to the practice of video 
>recording. If this is so, then we must determine if participation 
>trumps accuracy. Or, alternatively, we must determine some means of 
>assuring accuracy other than video taping.
>
>Some alternative suggestions:
>_Use an audio tape recorder instead of a video recorder_: Less 
>intrusive, and may be a bit more comfortable for some. However, some 
>will still find this objectionable and inhibiting. Plus, this method 
>doesn't record "WHO" is speaking. If the minute taker doesn't 
>recognize the voice or have name for that person, this detail is 
>lost. (Maybe that loss is okay?)
>
>_Continue with video recording, stating at the beginning of each 
>meeting that anyone who objects may ask to have the camera turned 
>off while they are speaking_. This won't fully solve the matter, as 
>some will feel too inhibited to ask for this, even if they want it. 
>And, of course, this would make for a rather interrupted recording 
>as long as Albert is at the helm!
>
>_Have two minute takers, and compare notes. H_ope that one picks up 
>any details left by the other. This is more time consuming, perhaps, 
>and there's no assurance that they won't both record the same things 
>and miss the same things, leaving holes broad enough for trucks to 
>drive through. Moreover, it's going to be hard to find a second 
>person as conscientious as Jim!
>
>_Let the minute taker off the hook_. Assure him/her that we do not 
>expect perfection and the _minutes don't have to be accurate_. They 
>just have to provide a sense of the group's intention. Close enough 
>is good enough for most things. But when its dates or dollar 
>amounts, such oversights could be problematic. (A vote in favor of 
>lax minutes may mean we sacrifice Jim services, since his desire for 
>accuracy would not be served. There are undoubtedly other good ways 
>and places for Jim to serve, but we would be left with some big shoes to fill!)
>
>_Do away with recorded minutes altogether_. Decide that if people 
>don't consider it important enough to remember without it being 
>written down, it probably won't matter anyway. This simplifies some 
>things, but greatly complicates others. Too many of the Board 
>members have passed the prime memory time-line! We would surely be 
>re-inventing the wheel most meetings!
>
>_Each time something "noteworthy" is said or decided, pause the 
>meeting long enough to have the note taker read what was recorded_. 
>If the group agrees with that version, proceed with the next topic. 
>This will slow the meeting a little, because more discussion or 
>clarification may be needed on confusing or controversial topics. 
>But it's possible that this approach will assure even greater 
>accuracy than a video recording, because misunderstandings or 
>misinterpretations will be dealt with in "real time."
>
>Regards to all of you.
>
>Deborah
>
>_______________________________________________
>BWNA mailing list
>BWNA at bwna.org
>http://bwna.org/mailman/listinfo/bwna
>See link above for unsubscribing or changing your settings.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sound-o-mat.com/pipermail/bwna/attachments/20060706/1937b502/attachment.html