The Guernsey Town Council was set to consider a resolution at its regularly scheduled town council meeting Tuesday that would ban people sitting in the audience from recording and photographing meetings, instead specifying where and how people can do that.
The resolution seeks to “establish content-neutral time, place and manner regulations governing photography and videography within town hall meeting spaces to ensure the orderly conduct of public meetings, minimize disruptions, protect public safety, preserve sightliness and accessibility and respect lawful expressive activity without regard to the content or viewpoint of any expression.”
Shawna Reichert, a self-described “independent citizen journalist” who has been recording the Guernsey Town Council meetings for the past year, said she believes the resolution is retaliatory and infringes on First Amendment rights.
"We have a right to record our government officials,” Reichert told Cowboy State Daily.
But councilwoman Penny Wells told Cowboy State Daily the resolution is an attempt to minimize disruptions during council meetings and does not threaten freedom of speech or expression, as people are still free to record.
They will just have to do that from the city’s specified “time, place and manner” as outlined in the new rules.
“I don’t think we are limiting recordings,” Wells said. “We’re trying to get to a situation where things can be recorded without disruption.”
Some council members say Reichert doesn’t just record, that she narrates and talks for her video audience while recording and livestreaming, which can be a distraction during meetings.
Resolution, Maybe?
Council member Joe Michaels told Cowboy State Daily on Tuesday afternoon that the council would not vote on the resolution because of the public pushback the council has received about the proposed resolution.
Besides, he said, it “borders on being unconstitutional.”
“It’s a very, very fine line,” Michaels said. “We don’t want to infringe on anybody’s rights — not ours and not theirs.”
Michaels said the resolution has “been put in a back pocket for a time.”
Asked when or if the resolution would be voted on, he said the resolution may be discussed Tuesday, but no vote will be taken.
An agenda shared with Cowboy State Daily by Town Clerk Hillary Dawson on Tuesday afternoon still shows the resolution on the schedule.
Guernsey Mayor Ed Delgado told Cowboy State Daily via email that the resolution is important because “we want everyone to have as much access to our meetings as possible, but in an orderly non-disruptive fashion.”
Citizen Journalism
Reichert said she started recording town council meetings about a year ago as a way to document what the council is doing.
“We couldn’t find ordinances,” she said. “We couldn’t access things.”
Reichert manages the Guernsey Watch Facebook page, which she said is focused on transparency and local government updates in the town of just over 1,100 people. Reichert livestreams the council meetings on the Guernsey Watch Facebook page.
“We want the public to know we’re being honest and transparent,” she said.
The town of Guernsey also livestreams its council meetings on Zoom via a link on its homepage.
But, Reichert said, council members don’t always turn on their microphones, and when their microphones aren’t on attendees tuning in remotely can’t hear everything.
“There were a lot of things happening,” Reichert said about the town’s rendering of online meetings.
She accused council members of proposing the resolution as an act of retaliation.
“It’s definitely been directed because we are holding them accountable to what the public needs to know,” Reichert said. “We are the only ones that record the meetings.”
Town Council member Jeremiah Fields agreed that the move was retaliatory on the council’s part.
“Yes, absolutely,” said Fields, who has been supportive of Reichert’s recordings of the meetings. “I do believe it is retaliatory."
Seeking Control or Peace?
A statement from the Guernsey Watch group says the proposed restrictions on where and how the public can record meetings are not about order or structure, but instead about control.
“When elected officials limit how the public can document what happens in a public meeting, they are limiting transparency and accountability,” the statement reads.
Wells disagrees.
She said the resolution was proposed to mitigate interruptions during the public meetings.
“I’ve felt that we’ve had disruptions,” Wells told Cowboy State Daily. “A couple meetings ago our town attorney could not hear what was going on because the people recording were so chatty.”
Mayor Delgado also referenced that meeting, saying the town attorney had to request that people please be quiet.
“Attorney Jones prepared this resolution to allow for the Freedom of Recording and freedom of expression during meetings, but in a space that would not disrupt the Council meeting and allow citizens to not be distracted by the camera/phone/recording devices on tripods in the front of the Council room,” he said.
“People should not have to worry about their attendance being interrupted,” Wells added.
Designated Area
The proposed resolution establishes “designated areas” for photography and videography of council meetings.
According to the proposal’s language, “designated areas” refers to “specific locations within the meeting space identified by the Town.”
If the resolution passes, town staff will, prior to each meeting, “identify and clearly mark” designated areas along the perimeter walls or rear of the room, “or other locations that do not obstruct sightlines of attendees, dais or presentation screens.”
Michaels said council members have received a lot of pushback and suggested that the proposed resolution is "infringing on the right of the press."
"We don’t want to put them in the back of the room," he said. "We don’t want to put them on the side of the room. That’s when you’re limiting the press."
Wells said she was not sure how the designated areas for recording and photography were determined.
Fields also said he could not specify how the designated areas were determined.
“There’s been no direct reasoning why,” he told Cowboy State Daily. “I can only assume they’ll say it’s out of safety.”
Delgado said that as mayor, he would like anyone who wants to record to have an unobstructed view that still allows for meeting attendees to view the meeting without interruption.
Reichert expressed concern over public recording of the meetings to be relegated to the back of the room.
“It is not independent access,” Reichert said. “It is controlled access.”
Fields agreed.
“Anyone who records sits in the same spot up front where you can see good and hear good,” he said.
First Amendment Rights
The proposed resolution raises doubts about freedom of speech, freedom of expression and right to assembly, Reichert argues.
“It is a First Amendment right,” she said. “We have a right to record our government officials.”
Fields, who has served on the town council for about a year and a half, told Cowboy State Daily he believed it was well within Reichert’s rights to record the meetings.
“I think they are trampling on her first amendment rights,” he said.
Wells feels differently.
“I don’t think that this violates First Amendment rights because we’re not preventing anyone from recording,” she said.
Council member Dale Harris declined to answer Cowboy State Daily’s questions on the proposed resolution, but he said he did not believe the resolution was important.
“There’s a problem. I can tell you that,” he said.
Delgado told Cowboy State Daily, “Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression in my town.”
Fields said he expects local residents will protest the resolution.
“What’s better than keeping local government in check?” he said.
Kate Meadows can be reached at kate@cowboystatedaily.com.
