Middle Tables Measure Limiting Photography, Video

Photo’s and Video by: Harry B. Scheeler, Jr
COURT HOUSE – It was ironic Monday night when Middle Township Committee was seeking to restrict the access of photographers and videographers in its municipal meetings that there were more video and still cameras there than at any time in recent memory.
Along with the usual two or three reporters that typically cover every township meeting, several additional photojournalists, newspaper executives, television crews and dozens of local residents showed up to protect the rights the First Amendment provides to the media and the general public.
For now, free speech is still safe in Middle Township as the governing body decided to table the controversial measure it had proposed.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Why did so many concerned with free speech attend the April 6 meeting of Middle Township Committee?
The governing body had proposed a resolution regulating still photography, as well as video and audio taping of public meetings within the township.
The resolution would require any person wishing to photograph, videotape or make an audio recording of any Township meeting to get prior permission from the mayor or his designated representative. In addition, the resolution would empower the mayor to direct audio and video taping to cease in a public meeting “upon the request of a member of the public who desires to discuss a personal matter with the committee, the mayor may direct the audio-video taping be interrupted when an audio-video recording could be embarrassing or humiliating if played at a later time.”
In addition, the resolution requires that immediately after any video taping at public meetings, “the original videotape shall be provided to the Municipal Clerk for the purpose of duplication. “A copy of the videotape shall be made and the original shall be available for pickup at the Municipal Building by the individual who videotaped the public meeting, or portions thereof, within five business days of the meeting.”
For many journalists, this type of measure is unacceptable. Herald Managing Editor Al Campbell led the media charge against this proposed measure.
“I stand this evening as managing editor of the Cape May County Herald, and on behalf of all New Jersey media outlets…and the public at large, that will be adversely affected by the resolution,” Campbell said.
“This ill-conceived resolution, while claiming to be constitutional, smacks the First Amendment in the face.”
This resolution, the brainchild of township Solicitor James Pickering, was conceived to protect the attendees of township meetings by standardizing the requirements of journalists and others taking pictures and recording the proceedings.
He told those in attendance that the Supreme Court said municipalities could enact reasonable restrictions to the recording, and photographing of public meetings.
The proposed resolution states that committee “has found it necessary in order to protect the rights of the majority of the citizens within the township and to ensure the unfettered administration and conduct of municipal government to regulate still photography, videotaping and audio taping within municipal facilities, and specifically of public meetings.”
At the April 6 meeting, Pickering gave the example of a private citizen who might be chilled from participation in public meetings by overwhelming photographic or other media attention. What if, Pickering asked, someone were going to speak, but decided not to talk when microphones were pushed in his face and flashbulbs exploded in his eyes.
Local Republican leader Eric Springer questioned where in the law that those who spoke in public meetings were guaranteed the right to privacy.
In his address, Campbell noted that there have been no incidents at any township meetings that have made it necessary to enact such regulations. In the lack of a problem, why look for a solution, he seemed to ask.
“The public has every right to see and hear what its elected officials do, regardless if that public is present in this room or in front of a newspaper page or computer screen,” he added. “ And at a public meeting, those things stated by the public have a right to be recorded and reproduced regardless of media.”
“I urge you to rescind (ALTER) this resolution. That would be the right thing to do. That would be the first step to restore the public’s faith in this governing body, and would clearly demonstrate that you adhere, not only to the spirit, but to the letter of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” he concluded.
Campbell received a round of applause from the meeting attendees at the conclusion of his statement.
Carole Mattessich, a journalist with the Middle Township Gazette as well as a township resident, said she and many others stood behind Campbell against this resolution. She too, saw no problem regarding the current situation at township meetings.
My husband and I come to virtually every public meeting,” she related. “And I’ve got to say that there has not been any such disruption.”
She noted that residents have been reacting strongly against the resolution questioning whether this was the “Kremlin.”
“I don’t want you to think that because we don’t simply not repeating those (comments made by Campbell), that we are not completely in that court,” she said.
Eileen Fausey, of the township taxpayers group, said that organization had asked about videotaping of township meetings before. Pickering said they would be permitted to do so.
In the end, Pickering agreed to hold talks with Campbell as well as other local media representatives and members of the public to determine an acceptable resolution regarding the taping, recording and photography of public meetings in Middle Township.