April24,2017 (by e-mail). Dear Cranston City Council Members: We were contacted today by a Cranston resident who express
w
128 DORRANCE STREET. SUITE
4OO
PROVIDENCE, RI 02903 401.831.7171 (tl
^
401.831.7175 {fl
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION of RH0DE ISLAND
www.riacIu.org I infolôriac[u.org
April24,2017 (by e-mail) Dear Cranston City Council Members:
We were contacted today by a Cranston resident who expressed concerns about the 'oProposed Council Rules for 2017-20l9" that you are scheduled to vote on tonight. Because we believe he has raised a legitimate concern, I am writing to ask that you amend Proposed Council Rule before approving it.
4l
The proposed Rule 41, in full, provides as follows: When the City Council or a Council Committee is in session in the Council Chambers, there will be no use of cell phones or electronic pagers, audio/visual equipment, or other device, without express approval by the presiding Council member. Private discussions should be kept to a respectful tone so as to not disturb the proceedings. The presiding officer shall warn those disturbing the proceedings to be respectful and considerate of those attending to the business of the meeting. If those disturbing the meeting continue to
do so after the warning, the presiding officer may order they be removed and those persons may be subject to any civil or criminal penalties. The italicized portion is new language added to the interim rules that were adopted by the Council at its first meeting of the year and that are currently in effect. The clear intent and result of this new language is to bar members of the public from recording, either aurally or visually, any City Council or Council committee meetings without express permission of the Chair. However, in January, when an incident occurred at a City Council meeting where an individual was initially barred from recording the meeting, the ACLU sent a letter to remind all Council members that the Open Meetings Act clearly gives members of the public the right to engage in this activity. A copy of that letter is attached. In short, no permission from a government official is necessary for a person to exercise his or her right under the law to record a public meeting. The proposed change from the interim rules is in direct conflict with that right. We have not had a chance to review any other changes that have been made by the Rules Committee to the interim rules, but we urge you to revise this one to reflect compliance with the Open Meetings Act. Thank you. S
Executive Director Enclosure
cc: City Clerk Maria Wall
t ili
ldwt¡bv
1
2B DORRANCE
i'j
SIREEÏ, SUITE
40O
PROVIDENCE. RI 02903
ffii$ Â.MERICAN CIVIL LIBËRTIES UNIOH o' RHODE ISLANO
401 831 7171
ltl
¿01 831 .7175
lf)
www r¡actu.org I info@riactu org
f
Michael Farina, President Cranston City Council 869 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910
anuary 26,2017
BY EMAIL AND MAIL
Dear Councilor Farina:
Our office was apprised of a dispute that occurred at the fanuary 23rd meeting of the Cranston City Council, where you publicly stated that no electronic recording of the meeting was allowed. Although you ultimately agreed to allow the taping to take place, you also seemed to indicate that this was a one-time dispensation, and that Council rules (you specifically cited a Rule 34tb)) otherwise prohibit such recordings, I am writing because such a prohibition, whether adopted by rule or not, is clearly illegal.
It has been over thirty years since a court first ruled that the Open Meetings Act [OMA) gives the publlc the right to record public meetings. As the Court noted in that case, "a determination that [OMA] requires [a public body] to allow members of the press and public to tape record its meetings follows inexorably" from the OMA's statement of policy. Belcher v, Mansí, 569 F,Supp, 379, 382-83 [D.R.l. 1983). Since that time, the Attorney General has reiterated and confirmed that conclusion, finding that publÍc bodies violated the OMA by refusing to allow videotaping to take place. See, e.g., Lemus v, Providence Board Zoning Board of Review, OM 06-58 (September B, 2006), Nor can a requirement of advance notification withstand scrutiny. Stoven v. Portsmouth Financial Subcommittee, OM 02-16 (August 30, 2002). Further, none of these cases involved a member of the press, so your queries as to whether the person wishing to record the meeting had a "press pass" were completely irrelevant. We have reviewed the City Council's rules and have been unable to find any rule, including Rule 34(b), that contains the ban you cited. In any event, such a rule would clearly be unlawful under the precedents cited above. Of course, the same also holds true for other meetings, as we understand a similar ban was inappropriately mentioned at a recent 0rdinance Committee meeting. To the extent that the recording ban you tried to impose is enshrined somewhere in Council rules, we request that the Council suspend and rescind this requirement forthwith. Either way, however, we ask that you clarify to the public that non-disruptive recordings of municipal meetings are allowed under the law. Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated, Thank you.
ffi'k",*
Executive Director
cc: City Council Members
City Clerk Maria Wall
.(:ìatjr))! {
