Doug -

In addition to Brian's comments and your own analysis...a question came
to mind...you may have checked this already...is there anything in your
Council's procedural by-law that deals with recording meetings of
Council and its committees - especially without permission?

And in terms of the evidentiary value of the recording, I'm no
lawyer...but there are issues like the chain of custody that (a) might
have the recording thrown out altogether and (b) might have it
superseded by either the testimony that Brian refers to, or the official
minutes of the meeting.

Just some thoughts...

Cheers!

Mark

G. Mark Walsh, Consultant
Recorded Information Management,
Archives, Historical Research & Writing


-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for discussion for the Archives Assoc. of Ontario
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Doug Rozell
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Audio-Visual Records of Public Bodies' Meetings

Thank you for a thoughtful reply Brian.

-----Original Message-----
From:   Brian Masschaele [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Tuesday, May 07, 2002 9:05 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: Audio-Visual Records of Public Bodies' Meetings

Doug, I agree that you should be very wary of those who selectively
records
proceedings and use it as evidence. However, it may prove difficult to
stop
people from exercising their right of personal freedom to record a
"public"
meeting.  It likely could never be used as evidence anyway.  The
definitive
record is the minutes as you well know.  To me, any excerpted recording
could be over-ridden by personal testimony of the councillor that the
excerpt was taken out of context.  In other words, even if the recording
were used against somebody, it likely would not stand up in court unless
it
was followed up by personal testimony.

On the whole, therefore, I would say that there is probably little
council
can do to stop this activity except to appeal to people's sense of
decency
and request that any recording be cleared in advance.  To me, the right
of
this fellow's wife to hear the people's business even thought she cannot
attend in person is one that must be respected and this fellow has come
up
with a creative way to tell her what went on.  Just my two cents, Brian.

Brian Masschaele, Archivist
Elgin County Archives
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON  N5R 5V1  Canada
Phone:  519-631-1460 ext. 138  Fax:  519-631-9209
E-mail:  [log in to unmask]



>>> Doug Rozell <[log in to unmask]> 05/03/02 10:28AM >>>
        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