The Secretary of our Land Division Committee (LDC) has asked me to comment
on the following scenario.

        At its last meeting, the Chair of the LDC discovered that an applicant for
a severance had turned on a VCR recorder under his coat on the chair beside
him.  He was not taping the visual portion of the meeting, only the vocal
input.  He explained that his wife was unable to attend the meeting and
wanted to know what was said, so he wanted to tape the portion of the
meeting relevant to their application.

        One of the Committee members was understandably miffed that the applicant
did not ask permission first, but the Chair let him continue recording the
portion of the meeting dealing with his application, and then he left.

        I wonder if any members' institutions have policies.  If there are, would
you please let me know, off-list if you prefer.

        I think there are various considerations at play here.  Who makes the
record determines who has custody and control of the record.  A local
council has its meetings taped by Rogers for local broadcast.  This differs
from a recording made by a private citizen.  The integrity of a Rogers
recording can be safely assumed, since it is made for a commercial purpose,
and Rogers has an interest in maintaining public confidence in the
integrity and accuracy of the record.  Similarly if the creator of the
record is the Council itself.  But a private citizen's recording is not in
the custody or control of the public institution so recorded, and the
person has no prima facie claim on our confidence in the continuing
integrity, accuracy and completeness of the record.  That brings up the
technological distinction of analogue versus digital sound or visual
recordings.  The latter can be amended with ease, the former only with
great difficulty.

        So what's a public body to do?

        Doug Rozell,
        Records Management Coordinator
        County of Oxford