Recently a Melancthon ratepayer asked to videotape public meetings of Council.
(Shhh, The Municipal Act is silent on this issue. It is a local decision as to permit this or not. )
Melancthon Council did not seem to realize the decision was theirs and immediately went into panic mode and contacted their lawyer...DURING the meeting at which the request was made. Wow, this is clearly WAY more important than a 2,400 acre, 200 foot open pit mine, stop the presses, call the cops, get a legal opinion!!!!!
Attached is the legal opinion provided (at taxpayers expense of course):
http://melancthontownship.ca/10notices/2010-videotaping-meetings.pdf
In short, it basically advises Council to adjourn the meeting and to contact the police should anyone videotape a public meeting in a public facility. Do you think they have a panic room? I envision the Monty Python sketch, "Run away, run away"... but I digress.
Mr. Osyany's legal opinion does state that the Municipal Act, 2001 does not speak to videotaping a public meeting in a public venue. What he neglects to mention is that many, many, many Council meetings, even the Provincial legislature are videotaped by local cable programs.
His legal opinion also does not advise that if Council determines that videotaping will NOT be permitted, that they need to include that provision in their procedure bylaw AND/OR in a written policy.
Currently the procedure bylaw provides that the Mayor or Presiding Officer can deal with behaviour that "disrupts the order and decorum of the meeting". Did Council give this ratepayer the opportunity to show that the videotaping would be unobtrusive and not disrupt the decorum of the meeting?
NO. They just threatened to call the police. I am not sure what charge the police would lay???...????
If a member of the public can not videotape within the municipal building, I would presume that would also mean should VR land show up to videotape a good news story on the premises they would be barred. Should someone have a retirement party on the premises, I would presume videotaping would be prohibited?
I have to assume that, because there is a lack of a written policy with respect to videotaping.
It IS curious however that Council has NOT passed the demolition control bylaw which they introduced in December 2009. Apparently it is because the bylaw appears to be "directed" at one problem ratepayer (for lack of a better word) and their crack legal team has determined that you can't single out anyone for their actions with a specific bylaw or policy. (If this is not correct, you will have to forgive me, but the issue was dealt with in closed session as well as a private meeting between the Mayor and Highlands, ooops, I mean the "problem ratepayer").
Seems funny then, that Council can direct an unwritten policy and threats of police action against ONE ratepayer who merely asked to videotape a public meeting in a public building which said meetings and premises are paid for with taxpayer $$$$.
Melancthon Council did not seem to realize the decision was theirs and immediately went into panic mode and contacted their lawyer...DURING the meeting at which the request was made. Wow, this is clearly WAY more important than a 2,400 acre, 200 foot open pit mine, stop the presses, call the cops, get a legal opinion!!!!!
Attached is the legal opinion provided (at taxpayers expense of course):
http://melancthontownship.ca/10notices/2010-videotaping-meetings.pdf
In short, it basically advises Council to adjourn the meeting and to contact the police should anyone videotape a public meeting in a public facility. Do you think they have a panic room? I envision the Monty Python sketch, "Run away, run away"... but I digress.
Mr. Osyany's legal opinion does state that the Municipal Act, 2001 does not speak to videotaping a public meeting in a public venue. What he neglects to mention is that many, many, many Council meetings, even the Provincial legislature are videotaped by local cable programs.
His legal opinion also does not advise that if Council determines that videotaping will NOT be permitted, that they need to include that provision in their procedure bylaw AND/OR in a written policy.
Currently the procedure bylaw provides that the Mayor or Presiding Officer can deal with behaviour that "disrupts the order and decorum of the meeting". Did Council give this ratepayer the opportunity to show that the videotaping would be unobtrusive and not disrupt the decorum of the meeting?
NO. They just threatened to call the police. I am not sure what charge the police would lay???...????
If a member of the public can not videotape within the municipal building, I would presume that would also mean should VR land show up to videotape a good news story on the premises they would be barred. Should someone have a retirement party on the premises, I would presume videotaping would be prohibited?
I have to assume that, because there is a lack of a written policy with respect to videotaping.
It IS curious however that Council has NOT passed the demolition control bylaw which they introduced in December 2009. Apparently it is because the bylaw appears to be "directed" at one problem ratepayer (for lack of a better word) and their crack legal team has determined that you can't single out anyone for their actions with a specific bylaw or policy. (If this is not correct, you will have to forgive me, but the issue was dealt with in closed session as well as a private meeting between the Mayor and Highlands, ooops, I mean the "problem ratepayer").
Seems funny then, that Council can direct an unwritten policy and threats of police action against ONE ratepayer who merely asked to videotape a public meeting in a public building which said meetings and premises are paid for with taxpayer $$$$.
No comments:
Post a Comment