I think this shows what makes comedy writers a little different and twisted. Rather than "truly painful to watch", I found this tape extremely funny, especially when they ask the name of the website and he says "Debunking Portland."

The pain comes mostly from seeing Greg and his L.O. constituents shutting the guy down (or trying to -- I can't tell if he succeeded in taping the rest of the meeting) based on what his website stands for. What difference does that make? Truly Cheney-esque.

Painful, indeed.

While Jim and I don't share a common perspective on many things, I've been in many meetings in Portland that he has taped and never heard any objection.

Indeed, at least once he was kind enough to share a copy of something I couldn't stay for the full duration of.

There are too many people skulking around these days. If you don't want what you say in a meeting with a politician (or with your constituents) to be recorded and played back on the internet, don't go.

Thanks Chris.

Jack, I usually try to avoid showing the audience, unless they are people who are used to being in the public eye. Since I almost always position myself at the rear, this is easy.

I was really surprised that Macphearson spent 6 1/2 minutes staring into a camera saying what he said. In all the taping that I have done that is only the second time that I got any mention about my recording. He didn't even know the law and his assistant told me that she called the police (her dad) to get advise.

Yes I did record the whole meeting (87min) , but it appears to require permission to post something that long on youtube. I might put it on my site when I get time.

Thanks
JK

Greg's always been a stand-up guy with me. It looks to me as if he was truly caught off guard. It's to his credit that the taping went on. But he needs a better response.

Would he have objected if it were a local TV station filming?

I suppose I can cut him some slack for being surprised to find a camera there, but the slack is pretty limited: it's a public meeting, ain't it?

Agreed.

After what happened to George Allen, you would think politicians would know to simply ignore all cameras.

What was this meeting? Is there a link somewhere, even just some event calendar, which explains what it was, where it was, and who called it, etc?

I think Jim has every right to set up his camera at public meetings, but let's not kid ourselves that it doesn't have a chilling effect. Nobody wants to be caught on camera saying stupid stuff...and I'm not talking about the politicians who can expect this kind of thing, but regular folks who show up at a meeting.

I respect what Jim's trying to do here --which is make public policy discussions more accessible-- but, in the real world, we also know that we don't want to be caught on tape scratching our butts --literally or figuratively-- and so the presence of cameras has an effect on how people interact, and what they say. The end result is the people not afraid of cameras get the edge. Ultimately it does a disservice to the discussion.

Macpherson was clearly pinning on a lapel mike for an audio recording, and no one bat an eye at that. And if the camera's only on him -- heck, his face is very familiar, that's no secret.

The end result is the people not afraid of cameras get the edge.

Of course, as Jim has pointed out, his preference is not to film the public audience.

"Greg's always been a stand-up guy with me. It looks to me as if he was truly caught off guard."

I agree. I thought Greg was very polite and merely asked who Jim was. It was obviously not his preference to be taped, but it's not like he lost his temper or went ballistic or anything. I'm sure he'll just ignore the whole thing next time around.

What I saw after a quick look at the statutes was that Jim didn't need permission unless Greg was naked, or if intended to offer the tape for sale.

The normal protocol of video journalists is to confer with the speaker ahead of time as a courtesy and give the candidate a point of contact. This is not to ask permission as much as it is for the speaker to be prepared for the presence of the camera, consider the material he/she is about to present, and inform the audience. Also, candidates like to know who to contact if the video is edited with a particular bias.

Jim, as a blogger, is much more a journalist than a private citizen so it wouldn't hurt in the future if Jim were to extend the same courtesy (I don't know if he gernally does or not).

As a side note: I generally disagree with Jim's points but i extend to you, Jim, a big thanks for being involved. Most people care less.

I find it hard to criticize Greg's conduct on finding himself on unfamiliar ground. He doesn't know the ground rules, and doesn't pretend that he does. It appears that his concerns are to protect the rights of participants in the meeting and to have an open exchange on the meeting's agenda. Jim Karlock, on the other hand, by not giving advance notice of his intentions and by his reluctance to answer simple questions, doesn't look so hot.

Maybe Greg MacPherson hair wasn't properly coiffured. Well, it was evident to me he doesn't like open and transparent government.
Just another limousine liberal, not unlike the righteous right.

I don't think Greg really tried in any way to shut down the recording, the initial question about the camera came from the audience not Greg, he seemed to me to be genuinely trying to interact with constituents and to talk in general about M37.

Isn't that something to be encouraged?

If every optional public appearance is to be taped by opponents (and let's not be blind to the fact that Jim Karlock is an opponent of "liberal" politicans like the Greg MacPhersons of the world, he doesn't go around taping pro-development politicians or Oregonian in Actions meetings does he?) wouldn't that have the end result of discouraging future interactions?

to me it looks like the introduction of "gotcha" politics into ever lower levels of government and it emphasizes superficial consistency over good decision making...

I find it ironic that Jim Karlock, who complains incessantly about how OR and PDX politicians cater to developers but ignore the true needs of most PDX citizens, is an agent for lessening the interaction b/w politicians and actual citizens.

"I agree. I thought Greg was very polite and merely asked who Jim was."

Mostly. It seemed to me that he may have been trying to get the audience to object to the camera for him. It's hard to read intent, though... it may have been just that he was surprised, stalling, and/or genuinely concerned with audience privacy.

It doesn't bother me that JK is a non-liberal showing up at liberal events. (If he even has an attendance bias, which is unproven.) At least he gives a damn. The opportunity is there for other people to do the same thing if they're worried about bias.

(Hey JK- do you make your unedited videos available to anyone? Or are they a private thing?)

I attended this Town Hall meeting in Lake O., even though I live in NE Portland. The subject matter of the meeting is very important to me, and I saw a posting of the meeting on Amanda Fritz blog. I didn't believe this incident was that big of a deal, even in person. A little excitement for first few minutes of the meeting, then it was over.

What suprised me (shouldn't have) was that OIA brought in a lot of their 'troops' for the meeting. Like myself, I bet most of them were not from Rep. Macpherson's district.

Three cheers for Karlock and his camera. I'm one of his biggest fans. Jim has every ludicrous statement made by a public official for the last ten years electronically documented. If only the local media were as thorough.

... and every ludicrous statement I made as a candidate, I might add! And that's just fine with me.

If that weaseling represents the best and the brightest, we are in worse shape that I thought. He even looks like Robert Liberty. Is 1000 thousand friends cloning them.

Amusing.

Karlock does this all the time and does it in plain sight. It wasn't Candid Camera and the video isn't edited. It shows what it shows - not Karlock's political beliefs.

Oregon law quite plainly permits Karlock's actions. And, although a public figure who, ironically, wants to be the next Oregon AG, MacPherson obviously wasn't conversant with it.

Since several folks seem to ascribe all kinds of evil and partisan motives to JK's actions in this particular instance, I'll have a go.

I don't know either of these guys but have admired JK's tenacity at pursuing facts. Whether or not one agrees with his conclusions, they appear to me to be based on exhaustive research rather than some sort of "faith".

It looks pretty plain to me that it was MacPherson who, for whatever reason, didn't want the meeting videotaped and tried to use the "...free flow of ideas..." line to enlist someone from the audience to hide behind. As for the "chilling effect" comment; lol - the camera was on MacPherson, and not the audience - scratch away, Frank! If the camera had a chilling effect on what MacPherson might otherwise feel free to say, then I submit that that might tend to cast doubt on his forthrightness. Allan's creative spin that MacPerson was trying to "...protect the rights of participants in the meeting..." and that somehow JK was being evasive are a pretty obviously contradicted by the video. The best line comes from scott who asks: "If every optional public appearance is to be taped by opponents ... wouldn't that have the end result of discouraging future interactions?" To the degree that it (unedited videotaping) tends to keep politicians honest and increases the public's ability to access public information, why should it?

What worries me most is that I agree with Alan.

In contrast to politicians (paraphrasing, God help me, Shakira) - "clips don't lie".

This videotape, ladies and gentlemen, IS the "free flow of ideas".

Bravo, Jim Karlock!

The criticism of Macpherson is totally off base. He did nothing embarrassing in the six minute video that I can see. He let the audience know they were being videotaped (something that JK should have done himself), asked if there were any objections, and there were. Greg then tried to mediate between those citizens and JK. Speculating that Greg somehow "orchestrated" or "encouraged" the citizen concerns is baseless and goes way beyond what can actually be be seen on the tape.

Of course JK has every right to tape a public meeting. But citizens also have a right to question him about it -- who he is, why he is taping, what he plans to do with the video tape, etc. What came across to me in this video is that JK doesn't actually like grassroots democracy so much. What right do these citizens have to question HIM?

Perhaps a better outcome would have been for JK to follow Greg's lead and politely explain to the audience what he is doing and also educate them on Oregon's open meetings law.

"What worries me most is that I agree with Alan."

Mua-hahahahaaa! My evil plan to mess with your head has... has...

You know, that is kinda disturbing. I think I need to go lie down for a bit. :-)

He doesn't know the ground rules

Then he is in the wrong business. Ignorance is no excuse. Particularly for a politician.

If you are going to be involved with writing new laws, you should at the very least familiarize yourself with the existing ones.

What's fascinating is how faithfully (and I include myself in this) one's political bias informs one's interpretation of "objective facts" as reflected in a video recording. There are basically two views of the video reflected in this thread, and they are pretty much irreconcilable (even ignoring the parts where commenters attribute motives to the actors that are not in fact expressed). It is, however, fatuous to criticize Greg for not knowing the applicable rules. Nobody knows everything, and you either know something or you don't. What matters is how you behave when you know you don't know.

Speculating that Greg somehow "orchestrated" or "encouraged" the citizen concerns is baseless and goes way beyond what can actually be be seen on the tape.

Oh please. He asks the audience leading questions, accepts at face value the bogus legal advice of someone in the audience, and somehow thinks that the free flow of ideas doesn't extend to letting the ideas flow outside that room.

It is, however, fatuous to criticize Greg for not knowing the applicable rules.

Yes, heaven forbid we expect public officials to know what's legally permissible at their public appearances to discuss public policy.

"I agree. I thought Greg was very polite and merely asked who Jim was. It was obviously not his preference to be taped, but it's not like he lost his temper or went ballistic or anything."

He didn't have to lose his temper. He's so smooth, he got the ignorant tribal council to gang up on Jim. It's pretty clear what happened. Jim would've been shut down if he hadn't known the rules and had backed down under threat that he may have been commiting a misdemeanor. Greg didn't say Jim was commiting a misdeameanor, by the way, he said his "advisor," the "expert" said so. The man immediately got labeled "expert" because... why? Because he said the right thing? He didn't show any credentials of his expertise. We know that.

Great manipulator's always work with smiles on their faces.

Funniest part of this farce was the "let's put it to a vote," and "Hey this is a democracy. We voted. Let the vote stand." Mob rule trumps the law, eh?

Thanks JK for doing what you do, and for sticking up for yourself and all of us. For the record, I dislike cars and take public transportation when I'm not walking. The streetcar's great for the elderly and handicapped who live downtown. But I think what you do is great.

"He doesn't know the ground rules."

I'd wager that he knows the rules, but it was convenient to feign ingnorance at the time.

This is a gem of a little clip, JK.

Miles,

You seem to miss the point. No one has said that MacPherson and the others present at the meeting didn't have the right to question JK. But neither MacPherson nor anyone else has the right to an answer.

The point is, as an elected official, MacPherson looked bad doing it. JK knew the law and MacPherson either didn't or pretended he didn't (it's soooo easy to ascribe motivations, isn't it). JK had no obligation to explain anything to anyone at that meeting - nor did MacPherson - it's just that JK is a private citizen just like most, if not all of the other attendees.

As for your "analysis" of JK's likes or dislikes; his camera has no such alleged biases.

A "better outcome", as you loftily phrase it, would have been for MacPherson to just ignore JK and the camera and proceed with the meeting.

I don't have a problem with McPherson and I support slowing down and talking about the issues surrounding M37, but I think LC is correct that he may have employed a slick trick to intimidate JK.

I love it that he and other concerned citizens-Jim Lockhardt comes to mind-put forth the effort to videotape public meetings to keep us informed. I consider them -like the bloggers-an important adjunct to mainstream journalism in this town and feel blessed to have them out there playing real good for free.

I'd wager that he knows the rules too, and that it was convenient to feign ignorance at the time.

He and others use the same approach on M37. Feigning ignorance while people trot out bogus notions about M37 planting hog farms next to neighborhoods or fouling neighbor's wells with toxic runoff.

Those outcomes are prohibited under any scenario. M37 or not.

McPhearson knows these to be falsehoods as do most if not all anti-M37 legislators do. Yet they allow the misinformation to permeate every discussion including their own legislative hearings.
Hearings in which public agency staff often appear to add to the misinformation.

Greg had to know the videotaping did not require permission of anyone, let alone everyone in the room.

Good job Jim.

There is another M37 town hall coming up by Ginny Burdick and Richard Devlin.

Lights, camera action!

No one has said that MacPherson and the others present at the meeting didn't have the right to question JK. But neither MacPherson nor anyone else has the right to an answer.

Agreed, but there is a difference between what JK must do, and what he should do. He should have provided the audience with an explanation of Oregon public meeting law, rather than defensively asserting that "It's a public meeting, I can tape it" and "Would you complain if my camera said KATU 2 on it?" Imagine if all those Lake Oswegans left the meeting with a new understanding and appreciation of public meetings.

The point is, as an elected official, MacPherson looked bad doing it.

I disagree. MacPherson tried to mediate, clearly stated that he didn't know the law, and tried repeatedly to start the meeting. The audience continued to raise concerns.

And besides, this is what we get with citizen legislators. They don't have a solid grasp on all public laws, and they aren't supposed to -- these are real people doing real jobs for 18 out of every 24 months. If you want our elected officials to be better versed, pay them more and make them full time. That's something we can agree on.

what matters is how it made the public feel, and that was: uncomfortable.

it's hard to get people to show up to public meetings and talk, more so if they feel a "spotlight" shining on them and their every word being recorded.

i'm glad Jim makes the videos--keep doing it. but it's confrontational--and the people were taken by surprise and therefore suspicious of Jim and his unclear motives.

if it had said "KATU" on the camera? Jim's right, it wouldn't have been an issue--because it's clear what the intention is--to put footage on the news.

maybe Jim could make his intentions clearer in some way before events begin?

"They don't have a solid grasp on all public laws, and they aren't supposed to"

What a cop out.

They're expected to know a few basic and fundamental public laws. I say he did know but was trying to be coy and feign ignorance in hopes of having the crowd convince Jim to leave.

Let's face it. These town halls are boiler rooms for cooking up M37 opposition rehtoric to feed the helpful press. In Jim's case he isn't the helpful press.

What matters is how you behave when you know you don't know.

Well, Macpherson behaved badly: appealing for and accepting "expert" advice from the crowd (how professional!), soliciting a "vote" on whether to lynch JK - all in front of the camera - if that's how he behaves when he knows he doesn't know - he's in big trouble.

It's not "fatuous" to criticize a lawmaker and attorney (and self-indentified future candidate for Attorney General) who arranged a public meeting for not knowing the law regarding that venue. But it's beyond fatuous to behave as MacPherson did.

He should have provided the audience with an explanation of Oregon public meeting law...

To be fair here, it isn't public meetings law that's at issue here. Public meetings law is about meetings of governing bodies and their decision-making. It isn't about any meeting of the public involving a public official.

...maybe Jim could make his intentions clearer in some way before events begin?

What would that change? How dense are these folks - especially MacPherson? How much clearer can JK's intentions be when he sets up a video camera at the back of the room? The law doesn't distinguish the legality or illegality of videotaping based on the political motivations (or lack thereof) of the videotaper.

Thank goodness we're not there yet.

And...

Why shouldn't JK defend his rights vigorously when assailed by people who are obviously ignorant of them?

Wouldn't you?

I believe Greg knew minimally, and more, the basics of laws concerning recording/taping public meetings. The six minutes he was making "inquiries" were based on his interests and not the audiences. He did not want to be taped.

In the past weeks of the state legislature Land Use Fairness Committee hearings (M37) which Greg co-chairs, and I attended, the hearings were videotaped and broadcast. I do not recall any inquires from the co-chairs if the audience objected. In the past Candidates Forums that Greg campaigned in, Jim recorded and Greg did not question his presense. Greg did not make inquiries of other cameras present for their identity, purpose, etc.

Jim records neighborhood meetings, city council meetings, zoning hearings, Metro, URAC meetings, everywhere. It's legal and Greg knows it.

Jim is not a journalist. He doesn't profit from his efforts. He is an active citizen.

Thanks Jim for your public service. And thanks to all bloggers that recognize Jim's (and others) services for the public good-no matter what perspective you may have.

In the past weeks of the state legislature Land Use Fairness Committee hearings (M37) which Greg co-chairs, and I attended, the hearings were videotaped and broadcast. I do not recall any inquires from the co-chairs if the audience objected.

Well, this DOES fall under public meetings laws, so it would have been even more silly to challenge it there.

"rr",

i'm talking about the public--i'm not worried about the politician.

Jim standing in the back of the room saying "i have a right to videotape you" to the crowd may be legally correct, but it's not very considerate.

and telling the plumbers and mothers and lawyers and carpenters in the audience "how dense are you?" for not knowing law or procedure isn't going to help, you know?

so, that's why i suggested--perform a little gesture of goodwill and clarity.

helping people understand goes a lot further than accusing them of being ignorant and standing on your rights.

that said--way to go, Jim! keep making these. we need this and more.

I don't care about the Karlock/MacPherson conflict, to the extent there is one. But I offer a couple of factoids to those who say that MacPherson ought to know "the law." I'm looking at the Oregon Revised Statutes -- the paper version that's on my shelf. 838 chapters. 17 volumes, each one 8.5 x 11 and about an inch thick. The references to taping being a misdemeanor are, of course, in the criminal code. That takes up only eight chapters, and slightly more than 200 pages. The public meetings law? I don't even know where to find it. The Google knows, I suppose.

MacPherson is a lawyer, and a legislator. That doesn't mean he knows "the law" or can be reasonably expected to. Seems to me it's a reasonable question to ask whether the right to record is different in informal town hall style meetings than in official committee sessions.

...and telling the plumbers and mothers and lawyers and carpenters in the audience "how dense are you?" for not knowing law or procedure isn't going to help, you know?

Oh, the humanity!

Yeah, I know, and I didn't tell them that.

Neither did "Jim (stand) in the back of the room saying "i have a right to videotape you" to the crowd..." (emphasis mine). Take your straw men elsewhere.

Look in the mirror. You're the one who has characterized "the public" as "uncomfortable". You're the one who patronizes them as being unable to figure out that there's a camera present and that the meeting might be videotaped. These people are self-selected "involved citizens". I'll bet they'd be insulted by your inferring their lack of understanding. I've heard this sort of elitist excuse before - it has nothing to do with democracy.

And, please, please, leave out the lawyers.
They don't need your protection.