Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huntington Township amends meeting recording policy after public outcry
Summary
Following public criticism that a recently adopted policy limited recording in a public building, the Huntington Township Board of Supervisors amended its recording policy by voice vote after speakers argued the restrictions could violate the First Amendment and Pennsylvania open‑records expectations.
The Huntington Township Board of Supervisors voted on Aug. 8 to amend a recently adopted recording policy after hours of public comment that questioned whether parts of the earlier resolution limited public access and press freedoms.
The chair told the room the township had received emails and calls threatening litigation alleging First Amendment violations and said the board would remove three specific items (referred to as items g, h and k in the existing policy) to address those concerns. The text read at the meeting included restrictions that had prohibited operating concealed recording devices, recording before meetings and after adjournment, and recording during certain recessed/closed proceedings; the board proposed eliminating those three provisions.
Several residents argued the policy's language was overly broad. One commenter said the provision requiring recording devices "to be positioned only in the location designated by the chair" left the phrase "reasonable access" undefined and could give the chair excessive discretion to limit public recording. Marie D'Ganci called item h unconstitutional and alleged prior retaliation against her when she recorded township meetings.
Levi Trumbull, who described himself as an investigative journalist, criticized the prior resolution as an improper attempt to restrict recordings in a public building and said he had checked with county and state officials who said filming would not prompt arrests. Trumbull characterized the earlier policy as having prompted an online backlash that led the board to reverse course.
After public comment, the chair moved to amend the recording policy "as stated by our solicitor." The motion was seconded and approved by a voice vote with the chair announcing the motion carries.
The board did not adopt new, narrowed definitions of "reasonable access" at this meeting; the amendment removed the three enumerated prohibitions described during the discussion. Members and residents indicated they expect follow‑up review and potential clarifying language to address how recording locations are designated without unduly restricting access.
