Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hudson County corrects ordinance notice after public question about photographing in county buildings
Summary
Public commenter raised questions about a proposed amendment regulating County building use and whether photography in county-controlled spaces is restricted. County Counsel and the Clerk said the published classified ad contained the correct hearing date and the Board amended the ordinance text to correct the internal date before final adoption.
A public question about whether a proposed amendment to Hudson County’s County Building Use rules would limit photography inside county-controlled spaces prompted a legal and procedural exchange and, ultimately, a correction to the ordinance record.
Mark Bloomberg, a West New York resident, told commissioners he had requested copies under OPRA but received them late and was concerned the proposed amendment—intended to clarify building use rules and enforcement—might limit photography for members of the public. “So my question today is, can I legally do that in that space? Or does this prevent me from taking pictures in that building?” Bloomberg asked.
County Counsel Alberico DePierro replied staff would provide the original ordinance and the underlying rules that describe which county buildings are open to public access and which have restricted access; he said whether photography is permitted depends on a building’s designation and the underlying ordinance provisions. DePierro also addressed a separate procedural concern after Bloomberg and commissioners noticed a date discrepancy in a printed notice. Counsel and the Clerk said the classified advertisement published in the Star‑Ledger carried the correct hearing date; the Board then moved to amend the ordinance record to change an internal date reference that listed the prior introduction-date hearing as June 26.
Commissioner William O’Dea voiced concern about multi‑year salary adjustments included in a related ordinance and argued for annual votes, saying the public should have repeated opportunities to respond to changes that affect public employees and users of county buildings.
Why it matters: The exchange highlights public access and transparency concerns when county rules are amended. The administration said it will provide the underlying ordinance text and building designations to the speaker and asked to meet him after the meeting.
What’s next: County Counsel said staff will supply copies of the underlying ordinances and that the Clerk will publish corrected language in the record; the Board amended the ordinance to correct the hearing date before final adoption.
