The St. Louis County Board didn't need its attorney to conclude that any attempt to ban recording devices at public meetings would be close-minded and an affront to open government.
Did it?
Forbidding the gadgets would clearly violate constitutional rights and Minnesota's open-meetings law -- and if not its exact words, then its spirit.
Elected officials earn public trust and lead effectively by striving for transparency and by resisting even the appearance of conducting the public's business in secret.
By asking County Attorney Melanie Ford for a legal opinion about prohibiting electronics that can capture public deliberations, County Commissioner Keith Nelson demonstrated a desire to do the people's work behind closed doors. Voters can ask themselves why at the end of next year when Nelson is up for re-election.
ADVERTISEMENT
His request came in response to a recording of a County Board workshop last month posted at northernmnnews.com by the watchdog group We Are Watching. The captured conversation included insensitive and offensive remarks about American Indians.
Ford advised Nelson and the rest of the County Board yesterday "not to go there." While state and federal laws are fuzzy, banning recording devices from meetings could spark an expensive lawsuit the county probably wouldn't win. Ford said there was "no compelling reason" to pursue Nelson's suggestion of a ban.
While state law technically is silent on the issue, a 1972 state attorney general's opinion said boards, councils and other public bodies must allow private citizens and the media to record open meetings. The opinion has been gospel for 37 years, as the News Tribune's John Myers reported.
Elected officials can impose restrictions so the act of recording doesn't interfere with a meeting. Such restrictions are reasonable. But any attempt to interfere with the public's access to its elected leaders and their activities would be unacceptable. No one should have to inform a county commissioner of that.
