Video and ordinances

Ramsey’s video ordinances and current situation

Chronology
2017:
  • December: ACLU-NJ writes and emails Ramsey, re unconstitutional video ordinance
  • December: Ramsey mayor, council and attorney keep letter secret

2018:

  • January: mayor and council introduce video ordinance 04-2018, first reading. No mention of ACLU-NJ letter
  • February: second (final) reading of ordinance – still no mention of ACLU-NJ letter
  • September: deliver my attorney’s letter and my own letter to Ramsey borough
  • September – October: requested and received (via OPRA) the ACLU-NJ letter
  • October: requested and received (via OPRA) borough emails relating to the matter
  • October: published the account here
Summary

The mayor reacted quickly to the December ACLU letter, responding that Ramsey would modify the ordinance in the New Year, as well as letting the council and attorney know of it. But nothing about that letter nor of the reason for the amending ordinance ever was made public until it was uncovered by my attorney, CJ Griffin.

This shows the degree that one should ascribe to the incumbents’ protestations of openness and transparency.

Details
  • Ramsey’s initial video and audio recording ordinance was enacted in 2004. Code 2-80 contains the details. It is very restrictive. (https://ecode360.com/search/RA2820?query=2-80)
  • In January and February 2018, the borough enacted an ordinance modifying the code. But there was no discussion, and the mayor and council provided no reason for the modifications, which removed a few of the restrictions, but left many of them. Ordinance 04-2018 had not, as of October 17, been integrated into the borough code. It is found under New Laws, https://ecode360.com/laws/RA2820
My attorney’s and my letter
  • September 12, 2018, my attorney, CJ Griffin, wrote to the borough about the unconstitutional video  ordinances. She stated that I would no longer ask permission to video record meetings, and would not post the “required” disclaimer when the video was posted on the Internet. Citations were provided demonstrating the unconstitionality. She had also uncovered an ACLU-NJ letter to Ramsey (December 2017) which addressed the failings of the ordinance, again, with detailed citations.
  • On the same date that I read a bit of CJ Griffin’s letter into the meeting record, I also read part of my own letter on the lack of openness and transparency of the mayor and council over the previous four years. Both letters were then provided, via the police officer at the meeting, to the dais. I did not have time to entirely read even my attorney’s letter, for the mayor and council’s new (2018) by-laws (posted on-line for the first time in recent memory) now limit each speaker in the public comment session to five minutes.
  • V-1 Attorney’s letter to Ramsey
  • In my letter, I note the mayor’s (then council president) comment in the September 2014 Suburban News article on video recording of meetings. It’s painfully clear to me that the mayor and council, and the borough, by their direction, limit the information provided to the public. Here’s my letter.
  • M-C – recording – 20180912
ACLU-NJ letter from December (hidden by mayor, council & borough attorney)
    • Now, knowing that the ACLU-NJ wrote to Ramsey, I obtained a copy via an OPRA request (Open Public Records Act request, a New Jersey statute requires state and local government to provide copies of records). One must know the record exists and describe it in the OPRA request. C J Griffin uncovered it, and I was able to obtain it via OPRA from Ramsey. Here’s the full letter. The ACLU-NJ did a great job, putting all the background together in the form of citations, so that there’s no question what is not constitutional.

    • ACLU-NJ letter to Ramsey
    • The letter would have provided the basis for a detailed discussion with the public when the new video ordinance was proposed. But the letter was never listed in the meeting agendas or minutes.
    • Borough attorney’s letter

On September 12, 2018, I hand-delivered a letter from my attorney, CJ Griffin, that detailed how Ramsey’s Video Recording Ordinances are unconstitutional. The letter is at the start of this section. As readers can see, Ms. Griffin cited numerous cases to back up our view that Ramsey’s ordinance violates both the state and federal constitutions by requiring citizens to obtain permission prior to recording public meetings and by requiring those who do record to place a disclaimer upon their recordings before they publish them. The ACLU previously sent a letter expressing the same concerns. [just preceding this paragraph].

In response, Ramsey’s Borough Attorney simply sent a one-line response: “The Borough of Ramsey is confident of the constitutionality of its ‘video recording ordinance.’” A copy of the letter is below. It is notable that Ramsey did not cite any case law to support its position—we do not believe any exists. Instead of repealing its unconstitutional ordinance, Ramsey seems to instead just be ignoring it rather than admitting defeat. We have not seen it enforced in the past two council meetings.

Why leave an unconstitutional law on the books, even if you are not enforcing it?


Scandariato

Mayor and council’s internal discussion

With knowledge that the mayor, council, and attorney kept the ACLU-NJ letter secret, making no mention of it before the new video ordinance was brought up, led me to submit another OPRA request, for emails concerning the video ordinances. And what came back, there was one that showed the whole governing body knew the same day about the ACLU-NJ letter. There was also suggestion of ways to limit and restrict the public’s right to video the meetings. The internal emails are shown following.

The ACLU-NJ had requested that a copy of the new ordinance be provided. There was nothing in the OPRA response to show that the mayor and council provided this small courtesy to the ACLU-NJ.


M-C-email-video