An “Honest” Mistake in Greece?
Well - another day another op-ed piece that makes you spit out your coffee. I’d argue many of these op-eds are actual health and safety issues as it seems I’m continually spitting out my breakfast as I read the daily drivel.
Two words I don’t want to see in the same sentence - let alone referring to the same event “on advice from the district’s attorneys” and “honest mistake”
So let’s review the editorial. Here is my take.
A school board member urges voters to vote a particular way. This is either illegal in some degree or, as the op-ed says, prohibited. So the school board member urges a vote a certain way, the incident is caught on tape. Attorney’s are consulted and the offending (to the school board) video is deleted. The offending school board member apologizes and all with well with the world. Oh, we should be reasonably concerned that the school board who doesn’t have to tape these meetings might get the opportunity for greater abuses because there is a move to take these responsibilities from a local independent agency currently taping these meeting. The Fed rules are stricter.
Where to start.
How about this - “On advice of the district’s attorneys…” the offending video was deleted. This is intentional. This is not an honest mistake. This is an attempt to erase or hide someone’s mistake - honest or otherwise. This is an attempt to purge the record. Make it like it didn’t happen. The question I have is this - do honest mistakes have to be decided with the help of an attorney? I don’t think so. When attorney’s are involved the “honest” qualifier goes away and it simply becomes a mistake.
You don’t have to be an expert in Greece School board matters to see the issue here - expunging a record not what a particular school board member said. If it was truly an honest mistake - her apology would have been sufficient.
So yet again - a have it both ways editorial -How about this editorial with my words instead
Greece should tape all school board meetings with the current independent local non-profit agency. This creates a permanent record, helps inform voters and residents and reduces opportunities such as the intentional deletion at behest of the school board. As this page [D&C that would be you] has repeated emphasized the right of all citizens to an open and accessible government. Our award winning coverage has taught us that every day should be Sunshine Week and it affects local government activities. Taping and public distribution of unedited governmental meetings, in this case the School Greece board, is the right of each resident. We should not stop with the Greece School board but it is a great place to start.
I’m sure the professionals at the D&C can work with this.
no way its an honest mistake
cable 12 did not tape this video. It no longer has any contract to tape school board meetings.
As described by the local blogs this seems to be the process. Cable 12 receives a video form the school district with 12 minutes edited out.
Later board member member charlie hubbard provides cable 12 with a complete tape which is run on cable 12 several times.
IT seems to me that the offending speech by vanorman could have easily been cut and the rest left in. Why would they feel the need to cut out the whole section. The reasoning just does not make sense.
IF I read the D and C Sunday article correctly, hasn’t the school district through its lawyers asserted they have the right to edit any portion of the board meeting anytime. You can call it what you will that’s censorship
They did not say for example, that if there is a legal issues we need to edit out a small portion, they said something quite different. Shame on moderate man. he missed the point again.
Maybe you should be more careful with hot beverages.
I’d like to come at the situation from a different point of view…
At the risk of appearing to defend a school board member who (should not have) publicly endorsed a bond issue under consideration in the Greece Central School District (GCSD) or, worse yet, appearing to support censorship, I think the reasons for editing out her comment(s) were sound. Running an unedited version of the tape would have magnified the problem. Unfortunately the editing job was out of proportion to the need. Apparently, the offensive portion of the tape was removed along with other items of importance that should have remained. Perhaps they could have “bleeped out” the audio related to the endorsement leaving the image & the remaining portions of the meeting intact. (I have yet to see a published accounting of who actually did the editing.) And, yes, an unedited version should be held per NYS law & FOIL requirements. Should the independent cable access company that ran the tape be charged with making the decision about what should run & what shouldn’t? Well, at least in my view, no.
The apology offered by the GCSD board member may not excuse her error or inoculate her from action by the New York State Education Department but it does help clear the air AND, more importantly, provides a model of contrition for other public officials. Isn’t it refreshing to hear an elected official say, “I’m wrong and I’m sorryâ€ÂÂ? Wow! If only all the public officials in our community, our state and our nation would ‘fess up when they mess up, we’d be in a much better place. From the point of view of a “good government” argument, we should be able to recognize & appreciate an elected official’s public apology while ALSO calling for any reforms that are suggested by the circumstance.
– Rome Celli
I hear you. My issue is the op-ed not the School board member’s comments. Attorney’s were consulted prior to editing. I’m sure an apology would be in order and perhaps this board member did indeed apologize.
I want the D&C editorial board to take a stand - be firm and decisive in opinion and not pander. There are still issues here which sound like they need to be investigated further.
Like you said
folks you miss the point. it the friendly form of fascism that we all we warned about.
It was all too easy to go from editing the short section to what is esseically a content restriction. That is a serious issue for public access programming.
Who is missing the point?
It’s a clear violation of Public Access & Meeting Law. If it was said in front of the public, it is produced, not edited. They could have moved to Executive Session if they felt it was qualified to be so, but not editing. They pay the lawyers, the lawyers are nothing more than their blanket insurance policy that no one will test the waters. They’re scaring you all with a plastic shark. Show me the legal interpretation and the bill for the legal service.
Mr. Celli made an important point that you all seem to be ignoring.
The “public access” provider should not be the arbiter of what content is or is not broadcast. It is the producer of the content who should decide (within the FCC rules and regulations).
If I understood one of the comments, the cable access provider (Educable?) decided to broadcast the full version despite the fact that the content provider (the School Board) edited it out. Who appointed the cable access provder as the arbiter of what is or is not broadcast?
Further, I do not believe that the School Board is required by law to broadcast its procedings. School Board members apparently are, however, legally prohibited from “electioneering” regarding a bond issue. As such, broadcasting the unedited version contributed to a worsening of the legal violation.
I have to assume that the legally required minutes of the meeting were maintained in accordance with law. I do not believe editing the meeting tape was a violation of any New York State statute.
Sorry - an independent entity can show content even if the school board does not want it shown.
Isn’t that the underlying principle of the 4th estate which I believe this part of? I mean taking it to an extreme - why does the media report on stuff the government doesn’t want them to. I don’t think they do it often enough and my political opposites might believe they do it too often but isn’t that what they are supposed to do?
It is a good point that there is not a requirement to tape school board meetings. I understand it there is not a law so I agree with you but hold the celebration - that doesn’t mean there should not be a mandate that these are taped.
So - Per Rome
Independent is the key. It is a watchdog over the process - as part of the 4th estate. I see the point but disagree.
Oh where did the cable provider get the unedited tape from? Another school board member (assuming reelgreaser is correct)
Finally, remember - this post focused on the D&C op-ed inability to articulate a side. I don’t have all the information and who gave a tape or authorized an edit and so on. There is something else here and as the D&C said this morning - there should be no investigation I disagree with them too. The facts are not clear here.
I think there are two points being merged here.
Clearly, news organizations (or members of the public with a camera) can tape record public proceedings and broadcast them if they like. Certainly, if a reporter (or citizen) wants to get out some story or message about some public proceeding, that’s fine, and, in fact, good from a democracy standpoint.
But some of the comments and some of the original post went to the issue of public access. Mr. Caterino, for example, has been outspoken in his attempts to convince people that there will be restrictions on public access if his company loses its position as cable access provider. Given the fact that FCC rules constrain public cable access providers, I don’t see this as a valid concern.
My point was that the School Board was both the producer of the video and the subject of the video. As producer, they had the right to edit the tape before providing it to the cable access provider. As the subject of the video, the School Board ’s editing opened it to legitimate criticism on open government grounds. The cable access provider made a decision to run an un-edited version of the tape even though the producer of the tape submitted an edited version. I question that decision.
Wrong-go John-O. The school district is bound by the rules of open forums. This was a tape of a public meeting, not a private production. Were the meeting minutes edited as well? The tape is a violation of law, and editing of the minutes would be too.
You on the other hand are Joe Blow. Joe Blow can produce and provide a tape to the public cable access provider studio and it has to be shown by law, as long as it’s not illegal in content.
A few years ago a show was broadcast that had guys going to strip clubs to review the broads. LEGAL, and it was broadcast.
The rules are clearly defined. If anyone is trying to blur the lines it’s the “machine”. They don’t need your help.
“Mr. Caterino, for example, has been outspoken in his attempts to convince people that there will be restrictions on public access if his company loses its position as cable access provider. Given the fact that FCC rules constrain public cable access providers, I don’t see this as a valid concern.”
…You just proved Mr. Caterino IS RIGHT.
(Somedays you’re just too easy John)…
Jiminy:
I realize that in your mind you make perfect sense, but could you help me out here? Can you explain your point so that feeble-minded guys like me can get it?
Here is a copy of the LAW John:
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/openmeetlaw.htm
And here is a copy to the link for the oversight committee where Mr. Caterino can file a complaint and open an investigation:
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/coogwww.html
Jiminy:
I’m glad you can link to the law. Now maybe you should read it. Further, you could try to read my comments and try not to misinterpret them.
I suggested that the School Board was not required to videotape its meeting. As such, it is my opinion that the Board could edit the video in any way or discard it if it chose to. I also suggested that the School Board is required to keep minutes. Presumably, the Board did not edit the minutes since that is the legally required form of the record of the meeting.
Nothing the Greece School Board did regarding the video violated the Open Meetings Law.
Scuse ‘em wah John. You obviously don’t live in Greece and realize all the money SPENT to build a cute little television/radio studio here, that if all goes according to plan, will house the public access television (aka GOP-TV).
And you are wrong, when they accept PEG money, they are required to broadcast. PEG = Public/Educational/Governmental access. 3 Channels John, all paid for by the 5% they charge you as a “franchise fee” (aka illegal tax) on your cable bill each month.
I know the law John-O. Like the back of my hand. I suggest you read it and the FCC regulations regarding PEG access. When you finish your homework assignment, come back and I’ll grade you.
Until then, don’t profess that others don’t know the law, when in fact, they do. The simple statement you made about the board not being required to videotape their meetings is proof. And censorship IS illegal under the Open Meetings Law.
This isn’t a private boys club John - it’s a public entity - paid for and supported with taxpayer dollars and franchise fees. That makes them accountable to the State, both legally as well as the Board of Education, and the FCC, as well as others.
But you’ll find out about all of that soon enough. Lawsuits a comin’ down the rail John - better get off the tracks now before you get hurt!
.
I’d also like to personally thank Mr Di Caro for his “evidence”.
Please note the administrator of the channel is the one responsible for enforcing program guidelines and national and state regulations. Duh! So if we are the administrator, then we are charged with a certain responsibility. We are not allowed however to exert editorial control of submitted programs.
What I believe you see here is the towns views of the public access channels as their private property, in which as they towns they get to assert control. This is the kind of thinking we have run up against. The level of misunderstanding’s of west side officials of public access issues is truly astounding. Basically like George Bush they don’t want to understand.
While certainly public access programs submitted by a producer can be edited by the producer. For example say I did a show where I took a clip of Ralph Esposito at the Gates town board meeting and do a commentary and satirize him. I don’t have to show the whole meeting.
Governmental access programming is different kettle of fish indeed. Governmental access generally provides meetings in full unless there are some compelling constraints The government is not a content provider or a producer in the same sense as you or I making a show. Rather it is the entity whose public proceeding is being recorded. Clealy the governmental entities is here asserting editorial control over the record of governmental proceeding provided to the public .The same entity being recorded can not be the final decision makers of the content of that recording provided to the public. A government entity further is not a “person “or an individual bearer of rights. it is a public body. but to our west side leaders see the public body as private property.
it’s something we will pursue.
But the issue goes way beyond what’s legal and what not legal. It’s a matter of basic trust. I don’t know dicaro he is probably nice to his wife and kinds but his statement as it stands shows a profound lack of regard for the mandates of PEG access and the integrity of the PEG operation.
That is why on the west side its very crucial to keep the public in public access.
Mr Dicaro is unfamiliar with FCC rules and state regulations but he is providing a clue to the rationales that will be followed if the takeover goes ahead.
Time Warner is very keen on keeping limits on what public access can do. They are deeply fearful of any reactions in conservative Rochester or the suburbs on unruly programming. Brian Wirth ex employee of (emphasis on the ex ) for example, threatened to close us down over some lesbian themed programming. Maybe we might want to look at his role in the whole takeover too.
I have a hunch how this is going to go down The lawyers for tw and town or school district lawyers are going to try to assert that they can limit the types of programming you see, including not just obscene but “offensive” programming. They will claim that as long as they are following the same rules for all they can limit programming, and it will not be a content restriction. This trick has been tired in many venues sometimes, but not with uniform success.
They may well also try to limit political programming.
Mr. Caterino:
It is quite humorous for you to question the motives of various Town governments regarding these issues given the fact that you have a vested financial interest in the former system.
There has never been the slightest claim or intimation that Towns would try to limit public access. You are the source of that view, and it is your pure conjecture, once again, colored by your interest in the outcome of the matter.
The Towns are not going to contol the access; a contract vendee, like your company, will continue to do that. The Town of Gates, to my knowledge, has never tried to prevent, limit or in any way hinder any broadcast on Cable 12, nor will it do so in the future. That contract vendee will be bound by the laws and rules which govern public access (as are the Towns involved).
You are trying to equate what the Greece School Board did with its video to an effort by a government entity to stop the broadcast of someone else’s video of a public meeting. The Greece Board was the producer of this video. They were free to do what they wanted with it.
You can make an argument that the editing reflected an unwillingness to provide complete “openness” regarding this proceeding (though, I don’t think it is a meritorious argument). You cannot, however, translate that into an argument that municipalities are denying “public access”. In this case, for example, whose “access” to the public airwaves was denied? The answer is no-one’s.
“given the fact that you have a vested financial interest in the former system.”
There you go again Johnny - Educable (aka Brian Caterino) is a legal NOT FOR PROFIT. Do you know what that means John?
Jeesh you just don’t get it.
Excellent comments here _ Thanks on both sides.
So moving from the wishy-washy op-ed to what seems very focused attempts to control public access or at least enable that potential.
I’ll try to find some time and move this up to the front page for a more detailed explanation maybe over the weekend but let’s focus on this point.
A public governmental-type meeting is taped, edited and a public provider is given access to both tapes. The provider airs the unedited tape which has 100% content of the edited tape btw. The providers of the edited tape are pissed. Provider of the unedited tape (part of the same organization that is subject of the edited tape) is not - Blog gets a lot of comments
No tossed darts here - I do want to respond to these points as I understand it.
John DiCaro writes -The Greece Board has the right to produce and edit the tape any way they see fit. (If I understand it correctly) as well as, there is no legal obligation to tape these proceedings.
Rome Celli - says - the Greece Public Access provider should not be the final arbiter of content shown.
I think all of this is a red herring -
If you take the independent operator out of the equation - then unedited tape - which I haven’t heard anyone object to (Rome says they edited too much and I don’t see an objection in my quick scan of John’s comments) doesn’t get aired.
I suppose it is possible that the non-independent agencies could possibly air said video but come on - Does NBC investigate or air critical stuff about GE? How critical are people of their bosses? In general it doesn’t happen.
So if you remove the outlet, either shutting it down or controlling the content, then any controversy is removed as well.
Isn’t the mere fact that we are talking about this on both sides indicate that there is debate and as such the public has a right to know?
More later - off to work
Oh - one more thing - financial motive
If Brian Caterino is getting called out for having a financial stake in continuing to provide public access
Then you need to call out certain members the Greece School board who have a stake in not looking foolish in public.
At issue here is not a specific person - It is an idea.
The concept of public access to information so citizens can be better informed as opposed to governmental denial of same
john
Your position makes no sense.
Whenever folks stand up to blow the whistle on wrongdoers their motives are called into question. That what scoundrels do when they have no defense left to give
It’s always considered the best to have an independent non profit corp (a real independent one) run access. I don’t know what Mr. Dicaro sees as our financial motive but he should either substantiate his claim. ___ or get off the pot. Any group that operates public access would get paid to operate. So therefore all public access operators including one hand picked without any public input or hearings by a bunch of GOP supervisors is financially motivated? Actually the only person I have ever heard invoke the profit motive for public access in Dicaro’s boss Ralph Esposito. Rather comically Esposito at a Greece School Board meeting attempted to persuade the School board members to take over access so they could make a profit. He was rather directly told that you can’t make a profit on public access. Interested folks might like to see the video we have of the appearance of Esposito, Kathryn Firkins of Greece (Auberger never shows up) Rick Lemcke and Gay Lenhard addressing to the school board. It is true theater of the absurd. I might also point out that we were denied any opportunity to speak at this meeting.
AS for any “independent operators” the term ‘independent’ when applied to the prosed new arrangement can only be used with caution. The process by which the proposed new PEG contact is being chosen is dubious legally and morally problematic.
An RFP which was hastily prepared was sent out to my knowledge to “selected” individuals or groups I got one barely a week before it was due and almost two weeks after the date of the letter. The offer stipulated that service was to be provided out of the rather dubiously obtained facilities at the Greece Olympia HS. WE have indicted again and again that we would never run PEG operations out of school distinct facilities and using school district equipment. This runs contrary to principles of independent public access. Our non-profit has its own facilities (Which speaking of financial motives are located on very valuable land on Ridgway ave — wouldn’t the town like to get their hands on that?). These facilities are much better suited for independent PEG operations. WE indicated we would be willing to continue operation at out facilities. But that was taken as a non-bid. But who got to decide what facility was proper? We were excluded from the beginning.
TO my knowledge there was no public posting announcement or discussion of the matter. Only two folks applied at least one of them (perhaps both) very closely tied to the Greece school district. The agenda the criteria and the interviewing were decided upon behind closed doors and by government officials (all republicans) from various towns and probably the school district. I find it hard to believe that anyone picked in this way and who is will be carefully surveilled by a crony loaded access board and the school district will have any real independence at all.
PEG contracts are fundamentally different from other government contracts, in that they involve a unique service: facilitating the exercise of citizens’ free speech rights. Public access channels have been characterized as the video equivalent of the speaker’s soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet. In determining how to facilitate the exercise of those rights, PEG access operators face a wide range of difficult policy choices, not ordinarily faced by run-of-the-mill government contractors. For this reason it is considered very important, _- even required — to have public hearings and discussions about community needs and access mandates.
These ideas aren’t mine alone. They didn’t come out of my head. They are clearly recognized as mandates. No such hearing and no such procedure has been carried out. We have no public statement or debate as to what the all republican body expects out of their provider though it safe to guess. The whole operation smells of crony connections from top to bottom.
[...] So let’s review the editorial. Here is my take.ÂÂ A school board member urges voters to vote a particular way. This is either illegal in some degree or, as the op-ed says, prohibited. So the school board member urges a vote a certain way, the incident is caught on tape. Attorney’s are consulted and the offending (to the school board) video is deleted. The offending school board member apologizes and all with well with the world. Oh, we should be reasonably concerned that the school board who doesn’t have to tape these meetings might get the opportunity for greater abuses because there is a move to take these responsibilities from a local independent agency currently taping these meeting. The Fed rules are stricter.ÂÂ Where to start.ÂÂ ÂÂ —> http://rochesterturning.com/2007/12/04/an-honest-mistake-in-greece/ ~ [...]