Looking for drama laced with political intrigue and raw emotion? Look no further, as Hoboken’s City Council meetings are now being aired on public access channel 78.
As part of a franchise agreement with Cablevision that allows the company to operate in Hoboken, the city was given two stations years ago, channels 22 and 78, to use for governmental and educational purposes, according to city Information Technology Officer Patrick Ricciardi, who head up the operation.
Cablevision provided the city with a $100,000 grant in 2005 that was used to purchase production equipment currently housed in Hoboken High School.
Although the videos will be uncut, which means no content will be removed, graphics will be used for identifying council members and important discussion topics.
“It’s a very important venue that should be covered and the public should be involved,” said Mayor David Roberts. “It’s a historic act, and the more transparent it makes the government, the better.”
But the new service is not coming completely free of charge to the city.
The city purchased a new digital video camera that cost approximately $8,000.
A benefit of using a digital camera is its capacity to tape seven consecutive hours at a time, which Ricciardi says will be useful during drawn-out meetings in which a standard 60-minute tape would have to be changed several times.
This past City Council meeting is scheduled to be aired repeatedly, separated only by bulletin boards that alert residents of important upcoming city events.
Ricciardi said that the city is also planning to tape cultural happenings and other important events, such as Board of Education, Zoning and Planning board meetings.
The reaction
According to Ricciardi, the city’s decision to air the council meetings came as a result of residents and council members pushing for such a program.
“I hope it gives the city the transparency we deserve,” said Maurice DeGennaro, a long-time advocate for televising council meetings. “It’s a good thing, and maybe it will show those in the public that we’re not always being told the whole story.”
DeGennaro said that for a long time, he acted as a liaison for many of the elderly residents in his area who were unable to attend meetings.
Councilwoman-at-Large Terry LaBruno, who has been pushing for televised council meetings for quite some time, shared DeGennaro’s enthusiasm.
“I think it will be great for the community, and it’s long overdue,” said LaBruno. “Many residents, especially seniors who don’t ordinarily participate in the meetings, now can. I’m really excited about it.”
The city’s decision to televise, which was announced officially at the previous council meeting on March 7, coincided with a ruling in New Jersey’s Supreme Court the same day, in which Chief Justice James Zazzali ruled that residents of the state have the right to videotape public meetings. (See sidebar.)
Resident Elizabeth Mason, who is running for the 2nd Ward Council seat, has been videotaping both City Council and Hoboken Board of Education meetings.
“It’s a good thing for the city and its residents,” said Mason.
But Mason felt that the city was still not treating members of the public properly. She objected to the city still placing “burdensome requirements” on those who want to tape by allegedly forcing them to submit a copy of their tape to the municipality at their own expense.
Mason also criticized the current positioning of the microphone at council meetings, which gives the city’s camera a view of the speaker’s front side while forcing her cameraman to settle for a shot of the speaker’s back. Michael Mullins can be reached at mmullins@hudsonreporter.com SIDEBAR
Court ruling allows handheld cameras for taping public meetings
New Jersey’s Supreme Court, in a March 7 ruling, decided that New Jersey residents have the right to videotape public meetings.
This stems from a 2000 case in which Robert Wayne Tarus, a resident of the small Camden County town of Pine Hill, was arrested after he attempted to videotape the proceedings of the Pine Hill Borough Council.
In a high court decision written by Chief Justice James Zazzali, the impact of technology on modern life is alluded to during the explanation for the judgment.
“Today, hand-held video cameras are everywhere,” Zazzali wrote. “The broad and pervasive use of video cameras at public events evidences a societal acceptance of their use in public fora.”
On the other hand, Zazzali also noted that the court found that the “right to videotape is neither absolute nor unqualified” and that “public bodies may impose reasonable guidelines to ensure that the recording of meetings does not disrupt the business of the body or other citizens’ right of access.”
While these guidelines may include the type and number of cameras permitted and where they can be placed, the court found that any guidelines must be “neutrally adopted and limited in scope.”
This strong backing of televised town meetings seems to agree in many ways with the state’s influential “Sunshine Law.” The law, passed during the administration of Gov. Brendan Byrne in 1975, requires governments to make sure that meetings are open to the public.
Suzanne Piotrowski, assistant professor for public affairs and administration at Rutgers University-Newark, is the co-author of a new report by the New Jersey Foundation of Open Government, a non-profit advocacy group. The report, entitled “Partly Cloudy: A Report on the New Jersey Sunshine Law,” outlines several key areas that the authors felt should be addressed in order to revise the law in a way that will reflect the new possibilities of modern technology.
According to Piotrowski, this includes improvements in video and audio recording.
“While the public now has the right to tape, towns should also take it upon themselves to show the meetings on the local cable television networks,” she said. “If they have the financial and human resources, they should … tape the meetings and replay them as quickly as possible so people who can’t make it to the meetings can still have access to information.” – Mark J. Bonamo