Two local Arkansas legislative bodies are trying to exempt themselves from the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, we noted earlier this year.
Co-publishers of the weekly newspaper in Izard County planned legal action against the city of Calico Rock after its aldermen voted in January to ban video recording of city council meetings by the newspaper.
Justices of the peace in neighboring Fulton County decided in August to prohibit people from recording their sessions. The camera had a “chilling effect” when it was turned on, the county judge complained after two individuals videotaped quorum court meetings.
The Calico Rock mayor was quoted as saying he had heard from residents who said they wouldn’t attend the meetings “because they didn’t want to be on YouTube.” Elected officials frequently become nervous when someone wants to record what they say and do. Meetings of the Pine Bluff City Council are recorded and broadcast on the local cable public access channel. Council meetings in Gould and Redfield are often recorded.
A 1983 non-binding Arkansas attorney general’s opinion regarding the FOIA affirmed a 1977 opinion that it is the right of any citizen to videotape a public meeting. Add another legal opinion that was issued Tuesday.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
State Sen. Missy Thomas Irvin of Mountain View asked whether a member of the general public has a right to make a video recording of a public meeting. Specifically, she asked the following questions: “Does the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) grant citizens a right to make a video recording of a public meeting of elected officials?
“Can a city council in the state of Arkansas prohibit video recording of their public meetings by claiming (that) the activity is ‘disruptive’? If so, does a member’s personal opposition or discomfort with being video recorded constitute ‘disruption’ to the degree that video recording may be prohibited on those grounds?
“Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution grant citizens a right to record public officials in the performance of their duties?”
We note that the senator from Stone County asked the same question four different ways. Assistant Attorney General Ryan Owsley, who prepared the opinion with the approval of Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, responded with the appropriate legal citations.
“The answer to your first question is, in my opinion, ‘yes.’ When one reads the FOIA broadly to foster greater openness and more disclosure — as we are required to do — I believe there are good grounds to conclude that our FOIA affords persons the right to videotape a public meeting. …
“According to my research, this also accords with the law in the overwhelming majority of states. First, one year after the FOIA was enacted the Arkansas Supreme Court set down a critical principle of FOIA interpretation, which has been repeatedly upheld. In an opinion written by Justice George Rose Smith, the court honed in on section 25-19-102 — which states the purposes of the FOIA — and clearly said that the FOIA, which is a law enacted entirely for the public benefit, must be construed in favor of openness and in the public’s interest:
“As a rule, statutes enacted for the public benefit are to be interpreted most favorably to the public. …
“Therefore, when interpreting the FOIA, we must read its provisions in a way that favors the public by providing greater access and more disclosure.”
“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” is how President Harry S Truman addressed a similar problem years ago. The man from Missouri understood the camera-shy elected officials.