Apparently, public officials in Helmetta have grown camera shy. Not that I blame them, given recent events. But that doesn’t mean the borough should be passing local laws that would ban the videotaping of public officials.
As NJ.com reports, Helmetta
is considering new legislation that could make it harder for residents to use smartphones inside public buildings.
Exempting public meetings, the proposed ordinance will prevent visitors to Helmetta’s municipal buildings from taking video or photographs without an approved permit.
The ordinance states that the permits will be issued at the borough’s discretion, and that any resident who receives one will be barred from interfering with the normal business operations of municipal employees and filming them or other visitors without expressed consent.
If approved, violating the ordinance could result in a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and up to $2,000 in fines.
The ordinance, as NJ.com also reports, that “Herb Massa, borough administrator, confirms that the ordinance is indeed a direct result of a recent scandal” that led to the resignation of a Helmetta police officer. The officer resigned after a video surfaced in which he tells a resident that the police do not have to follow the constitution. (The police obviously have to follow the constitution, as we all do, though it also is part of their oath of office.)
Helmetta accepted the resignation. What should have followed were efforts to make sure the handful of officers who populate its police force are schooled in constitutional law. Instead, the council is opting to pull the shades down on its residents, to require residents to get permission from the government when they want to document potential abuses by the people who may work for the government.
Massa told NJ.com that
“When they come into the building and people are conducting business, there has to be a reasonable expectation that the financial information is secure and not in the next 15 minutes up on Facebook.”
That makes sense. I’m not arguing that there cannot be some limits on video, but the ordinance as reported seems overly broad. No one wants sensitive financial information broadcast on Facebook, though it is important to remember that things like tax bills, water and sewer bills, tax liens, applications for permits and licenses, voter registrations, etc., are all public records. There are not that many things that might be considered sensitive and, even for those that are sensitive (credit card and bank account numbers come to mind), a municipality should be able to craft a tightly focused ordinance that protects that information without infringing on the right of citizens to hold their government up to public scrutiny.
But this is not really about sensitive information — at least, it doesn’t appear that way to me. That this is being drafted in response to the video of a police officer telling a resident that the officer is exempt from the Constitution is all we really need to know.
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 