A member recording a meeting

[Guest Matt3502]

In a local chapter meeting of a nationally chartered organization, can a member make an audio recording of a meeting? There is nothing in the national or local bylaws which prohibits this action. The local chapter is supposed to follow RRONR but does not, they only publish snippets of the previous meetings and there are no full meeting minutes for a member to review. There was an incident at a meeting where one member physically threatened to eject another member and at the same meeting information which was told to another member in confidence was shouted out. The only way the aggrived party can substantiate the claims of violence against them and information being let out would be to use an audio recording. This was a meeting at which at least 20 people were present.

[jstackpo]

The person with the recorder should ask permission of the assembly.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Dr. Stackpole at least in the sense that someone who wants to record a meeting SHOULD ask for permission (or ask if there is any objection).  However, there is no rule about this in RONR.  The only statement in RONR about the use of a recording device is that such a recording can be helpful to the secretary in preparing the minutes (page 471).   The use (or non use) of recording devices is something that is completely up to each organization, but in some states there might be applicable statutes about recording people without their consent.

[Guest Matt3502]

Thank you for the input gentleman. There does seem to be some contention that the recording itself may be "illegal" under the laws in the state of CT. I conferred with a friend who is a member of the CT bar and he could find no statute that prohibits recording of meeting of this type. Personal conversations area different matter in CT.

[George Mervosh]

1 hour ago, Guest Matt3502 said:

In a local chapter meeting of a nationally chartered organization, can a member make an audio recording of a meeting? There is nothing in the national or local bylaws which prohibits this action. The local chapter is supposed to follow RRONR but does not, they only publish snippets of the previous meetings and there are no full meeting minutes for a member to review. There was an incident at a meeting where one member physically threatened to eject another member and at the same meeting information which was told to another member in confidence was shouted out. The only way the aggrived party can substantiate the claims of violence against them and information being let out would be to use an audio recording. This was a meeting at which at least 20 people were present.

A recording device seems to be the least of this group's issues.

[Gary Novosielski]

3 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

A recording device seems to be the least of this group's issues.

Indeed.   It sounds like they're in dire need of a presiding officer.

[George Mervosh]

1 minute ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Indeed.   It sounds like they're in dire need of a presiding officer.

And a police officer.

[J. J.]

43 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with Dr. Stackpole at least in the sense that someone who wants to record a meeting SHOULD ask for permission (or ask if there is any objection).  However, there is no rule about this in RONR.  The only statement in RONR about the use of a recording device is that such a recording can be helpful to the secretary in preparing the minutes (page 471).   The use (or non use) of recording devices is something that is completely up to each organization, but in some states there might be applicable statutes about recording people without their consent.

I sort of disagree.  The meeting area is in control of the assembly.  A person putting a recorder out on the table, could easily lead tho the chair finding it improper and ordering it removed (which would be appealable).  Likewise a member can raise this as a question of privilege.  I think it is a little more that should.

[Guest Matt3502]

Funny you should mention presiding officer and police officer. The Presiding officer is the one who has the decorum issues with the other member. The other member making the claim about no recordings is a retired law enforcement officer.

The ethics and integrity of both of these "gentleman" should be called into question.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

10 minutes ago, Guest Matt3502 said:

The ethics and integrity of both of these "gentleman" should be called into question.

By appointing a committee to investigate and prefer charges if appropriate. Assault during a meeting is more than a "decorum issue."

[Gary Novosielski]

While it may not apply in this case, there is a flip side to the recording issue for public bodies with open meetings laws.  If the public is allowed by law to observe the meeting, some courts have held that the public may record or even videotape the public portions of those meetings, as long as doing so does not disrupt or endanger anyone.  This will probably vary from state to state, but could affect the ability of the assembly to limit things, and suggest the involvement of an attorney (which I am not).

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with Dr. Stackpole at least in the sense that someone who wants to record a meeting SHOULD ask for permission (or ask if there is any objection).  However, there is no rule about this in RONR.  The only statement in RONR about the use of a recording device is that such a recording can be helpful to the secretary in preparing the minutes (page 471).   The use (or non use) of recording devices is something that is completely up to each organization, but in some states there might be applicable statutes about recording people without their consent.

While RONR does not prohibit recording devices, it is clear that the assembly controls the meeting. If the assembly wishes to ban the use of recording devices, it is free to do so.

In my view, this means that it would be inappropriate for a member to record a meeting without asking, especially if the member did so surreptitiously. The society would be fully within its rights to discipline a member who recorded a meeting without permission, in my opinion.

2 hours ago, Guest Matt3502 said:

Funny you should mention presiding officer and police officer. The Presiding officer is the one who has the decorum issues with the other member. The other member making the claim about no recordings is a retired law enforcement officer.

The ethics and integrity of both of these "gentleman" should be called into question.

See RONR, 11th ed., Ch. XX for information on how to do that.

The lack of a recording should not really be an impediment to disciplinary proceedings. There were at least 20 witnesses, and the burden of proof in a trial for a private society is not the same as in a court of law.

2 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

While it may not apply in this case, there is a flip side to the recording issue for public bodies with open meetings laws.  If the public is allowed by law to observe the meeting, some courts have held that the public may record or even videotape the public portions of those meetings, as long as doing so does not disrupt or endanger anyone.  This will probably vary from state to state, but could affect the ability of the assembly to limit things, and suggest the involvement of an attorney (which I am not).

There is nothing said so far which suggests to me that this is a public body.

[Guest Matt3502]

This particular group has some specific qualifications that one must meet in order to be voted in as a member. There are also associate members who do not meet the full criteria. Guests can be invited to the meeting so that they might consider joining but can stay at the meeting while it proceeds. In that sense it is a public meeting: people who are not full members can be present. There is no question of disruption being an issue. The audio recording actively refutes some statements that have been made against the aggrieved party and the recording substantiates bad behavior and breach of confidences.

At present, it comes down to a he said she type of thing. The audio recording proves that one of the parties involved did not speak truthfully. Threats are being made against the aggrieved party if they use these recordings when the whole mess is presented to an appeals board of the national part of this organization.

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, Guest Matt3502 said:

In that sense it is a public meeting: people who are not full members can be present.

Yes, but my understanding is that this is a private society which voluntarily opens its meetings to some members of the public.

The kind of meeting Mr. Novosielski was referring to is a meeting of a governmental body which is required by law to have its meetings open to the public.

14 hours ago, Guest Matt3502 said:

There is no question of disruption being an issue. The audio recording actively refutes some statements that have been made against the aggrieved party and the recording substantiates bad behavior and breach of confidences.

At present, it comes down to a he said she type of thing. The audio recording proves that one of the parties involved did not speak truthfully. Threats are being made against the aggrieved party if they use these recordings when the whole mess is presented to an appeals board of the national part of this organization

This is all well and good (and I understand now why the audio recording is more important, since the body making the final decision will not be the body of people that was present when the alleged conduct occurred). Nonetheless, the fact remains that as a parliamentary matter, the assembly is in control of its hall, and this extends to the use of recording devices.

I would advise making a motion to permit the use of recording devices. The assembly can debate the motion, and amend it if necessary. When the dust settles, you will have a clear position from the society on whether recording devices shall or shall not be permitted during the society’s meetings, which should resolve the issue.

If the society decides against the use of recording devices, you have no further parliamentary recourse. You may have legal options, but that is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

I see now that the motion was about recording devices which have already been used without the assembly’s permission. In that event, I suppose you may as well present the recordings as evidence, as the damage is already done. The above advice may still be helpful if you wish to resolve the matter of whether recording devices shall be permitted in the future.

Edited February 23, 2018 at 06:37 PM by Josh Martin

[DR Stockley]

We have for many years taped the our meetings to aid the Adjutant in taking accurate minutes.  Of course, this practice was approved by the membership decades ago when I was the Post Adjutant (Secretary).  Of course, owing to state law all parties have to be made aware that the making of audio recordings is being done.  I'm not sure of whether a member recording, either openly or clandestinely, would be permitted under that same notification in the eyes of the law.  However, I suppose that any restrictions to it would have to determined with the By-Laws rather than RONR.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, DR Stockley said:

However, I suppose that any restrictions to it would have to determined with the By-Laws rather than RONR.

I concur except that I would say “bylaws or other rules.” A rule regarding recordings need not be in the bylaws - a standing rule would be sufficient.

Edited March 19, 2018 at 01:00 PM by Josh Martin