Recording the Business Meeting

[kevin_standlee]

In a discussion elsewhere today about photography and recording (audio and video) at conventions, I pointed out that I'd authorized the video recording of the 2007 WSFS Business Meeting at Nippon 2007. (It's available from me on DVD. I haven't taken the time to chop it down into small enough pieces to upload to Google Video; GV and YouTube won't accept such large files in one piece.) There have also been past meetings recorded on audio tape. I asked whether such recordings actually should have active sanction from WSFS, or for that matter would the objection of even one person in the room to recording be sufficient to stop it.

The suggested answer, which makes sense to me, is that there's plenty of precedent for organizations to make provisions for recording of their meetings, and that therefore it would be appropriate to adopt a standing rule authorizing the Business Meeting Chair to arrange for recording of sessions at his/her discretion. However, the BM should be given the right to order recording stopped, either on a specific issue or for the entire meeting, by majority vote.

My interpretation of this would be that a motion to stop recording would be an incidental motion, but that you could raise it as a Question of Privilege when business was pending. That means it could interrupt anything except the motion to Recess or Adjourn (or some other more esoteric things), and could even interrupt a speaker; in such cases, it would be undebatable. If made while no business was pending, it would be an incidental main motion, and therefore debatable. In either case, a majority vote would pass the motion, and I think a majority would be sufficient to restart recording.

For example, if at the beginning of the first day's meeting, before any business had come up, someone could move that the entire meeting not be recorded. That would be debatable (and amendable). However, if during a contentious debate, someone moved to shut off recording (possibly interrupting a speaker to move so), the motion could be neither debated nor amended, but would instead have to be voted immediately.

I've referred the matter to the Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee for consideration. We may come back to this year's meeting with a motion on the subject.

Comments

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

Having recently become involved in Television production, there's also privacy laws and informed consent to take into consideration if the video or audio are going to be distributed in any way (even on DVD from you, even if only to WSFS members present). I'm positive Japan has different laws than the U.S. too.

It's often considered enough in the U.S. to say (and have posted for latecomers) approximately "we're recording - if you don't want to be recorded leave now." Though that may not be the case in all jurisdictions, and it's not really been tested.

It's a wrinkle to consider, if nothing else.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I did make a point of advising the attendees that we were recording; in fact, my doing so should be on the recording itself.

One suggestion was that we post a sign: "You are entering the WSFS Business Meeting. It is being recorded. If you act like an idiot it will be recorded for posterity."

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

I figured you'd think of it. But the laws in Japan and Canada may not make that enough. I don't even know if the laws in Denver make it enough. [in California, you'd be fine - except again, according to my limited sources nobody's really sued over it, so it's unclear]

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm going to proceed on the assumption that it's doing no harm, and it's reasonable. Yes, I know that sometimes "the law is an ass," but there have to be limits to the touchiness of people on this subject. Particularly if we end up passing a rule specifically authorizing it.

[tkunsman.livejournal.com]

If you act like an idiot it will be recorded . .

Thats funny. I like it.

I guess another way would be to state at the beginning of the meeting that it is being recorded, and thus that would also serve notice.

What would stop someone in the audience from continuing to record on his/her own recorder? I guess the chair could ask the member to stop recording if something came up in the meeting that need not be recorded.

The other day, the U.S. Senate had a closed door session because they we talking about something (National security or something - don't remember right now).

Now sure, the WSFS does not even come close to discussing anything close to national security, but one never knows.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The only problem with a notice up front, as noted elsewhere, is that it doesn't make things obvious for latecomers. This seems to assume that people won't notice the person recording!

Now sure, the WSFS does not even come close to discussing anything close to national security, but one never knows.

Well, all deliberative assemblies -- legislatures, clubs, and WSFS's business meeting included -- have the right to meet in "executive session," so a motion to Stop Recording is really just a special case of To Go Into Executive Session. That, by the way, is why I expect that Resume Recording takes the same vote, because it's equivalent of rising from Executive Session.

One thing we did at this past year's meeting was to go into Committee of the Whole to discuss a tangled issue. This isn't the same thing as Executive Session, but I told Lisa to shut off the recorder. That wasn't because the deliberations were secret, but that they were legally not part of the Business Meeting -- they were the attendees of the meeting sitting as a largish committee with someone else (Don Eastlake III, my deputy) presiding. I, in fact, went and got a drink and sat in the audience while the COTW discussed things. When they were ready, the COTW "rose and reported" back to the main meeting, and the COTW report was treated just like any other committee's.

The only reason that mechanism worked at Nippon 2007 was because relatively few people attended the meeting. If we'd had a more "normal" turnout, I expect we would have empaneled an ad hoc committee to hash it out between sessions.

Anyway, motions to go in and out of COTW are also majority either way.

[redneckotaku.livejournal.com]

Many conventions have a clause which they say that you may be photographed or recorded in any use that the convention deems fit. I know it is on the back of Katsucon and Balticon's badges. If you would like, I can find an old badge and give you the exact wording for the badges.

[gil-liant.livejournal.com]

My interpretation of this would be that a motion to stop recording would be an incidental motion, but that you could raise it as a Question of Privilege when business was pending. ... In either case, a majority vote would pass the motion, and I think a majority would be sufficient to restart recording.

[Disclaimer: I am no kind of parliamentarian.]
Wouldn't that be a "Motion to overturn something previously decided", requiring a 2/3's vote?

Of course, careful, thoughtful, deliberate attendees could either make "Stop Recording Definitely" (e.g., "for the duration of debate on the current issue") motions or "Stop Recording Indefinitely" motions (until the meeting is adjourned or the motion is overturned). But I would think that to overturn a "Stop Recording Indefinitely" motion, a 2/3's majority would be required -- unless it was a Motion to Reconsider, made by someone who had originally voted in favor of halting the recording.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't that be a "Motion to overturn something previously decided", requiring a 2/3's vote?

Not if we worded the standing rule to make it clear that it takes a majority to turn the recording on and off, either way, no matter what. Thus, a vote on [Stop/Start] Recording can't be reconsidered, because it can be renewed (after a reasonable period of time has passed). I think that we'll word it that way specifically to avoid the pitfall you point out here. Certainly I think that it would be the intent of such a rule that recording can be stopped and started at the assembly's [simple] majority will, and that it's not something where you would need the 2/3 protection.