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.

"Macpherson behaved badly: appealing for and accepting "expert" advice from the crowd (how professional!), soliciting a "vote" on whether to lynch JK "
It's all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? And yet, rr, you seem to need to distort the "facts" of the video to make your points. Macpherson neither solicits nor accepts advice from the audience; it's volunteered. And his characterization of the person providing it as "expert" is at least ambiguous. He doesn't call for a vote -- that comes from someone in the audience.
And you people who think that someone who's a legislator should know everything are beyond ridiculous -- you're dangerous. Whether these proceedings are the subject of open meeting laws, or whether the right to attend includes the right to record, and what sorts of conduct are permitted in what public context are good questions, but the answers aren't always clear.
As for Karlock, he seems only to be able to say "I do this all the time." I guess that makes it o.k. What section of ORS is that in?

And you people who think that someone who's a legislator should know everything are beyond ridiculous -- you're dangerous.

Talk about distortion. The main focus has been not "he should know everything" but that public officials at the very least ought to know the laws and rules governing how they function as public officials. It really should be the bare minimum they should know.

It's one thing for a public official to not know every single statute in the state of Oregon.

It's another thing for a public official to not know what to expect and what's permitted when it comes to their interactions in the public arena they serve.

In my job, I'm expected to know the rules under which I, my coworkers, and any customers are to operate. I would think it's fair for public officials to know those things about their jobs, too.

Allan L. It is simple, OR statutes simply defines "public meetings". You don't need to read all 200+ pages. Greg's meeting was public. You don't need to split hairs. As I pointed out, Greg has been attending "public meetings" until the cows come home. He's an attorney in one of OR's largest firms. The Fairness Committee meetings are the same as the Oswego meetings. When has Greg raised his concerns about video-taking in previous public meetings? It is simple.

"It is simple."
Well, there you go. Vehement criticism of an elected representative soundly and firmly based on . . . ignorance. The only thing simple, Lee, is your approach. A quick look at the public meeting laws would be enough to make it at least clear that while this was a meeting, and was public, it was definitely not a "public meeting" covered by Oregon's public meeting laws.

How positively Clintonesque!

Interesting that you find the need for an affirmative legal justification to record a meeting like this. I would have thought that you might take the tack that, unless specifically prohibited, videotaping the meeting might fall within the intent I perceive in the definition mentioned in ORS 192.001:

(b) The interest and concern of citizens in public records recognizes no jurisdictional boundaries, and extends to such records wherever they may be found in Oregon.

However inconvenient that interpretation might be for "Greg".

and please, Allan...

"dangerous", "ignorant", "simple"?

Think about your approach to the legality of JK's videotaping...

prohibited unless specifically permitted

...is that really what you want?

Alan DeWitt 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?
JK: While I was setting up, BEFORE McPhearson arrived, I was approached by his assistant who a told that I might not be allowed to record. i told her that I would be recording as the law was on my side. She definitely had a cell phone, so it is likely that she contacted him before he arrived.

Jack Bog 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.
JK: That mic was for a little PA system - a speaker with built in recorder sitting on the table. I don’t think there was tape in it.

UsualKevin 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.
JK: I missed the prohibition on naker or sales in the open meetings law. However sales might trigger an ownership rights issue, but probably not with an elected official.

scott 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.
JK: Look at is a increasing the interaction by broadcaseing some of these types of meetings. (I have pretty much convinced myself to put this one on cable)

he doesn't go around taping pro-development politicians or Oregonian in Actions meetings does he?)
JK: Yes I do (keep in mid OIA meetings are private events and not subject to ope meetings laws).

JK: For the record I am ANTI-DEVELOPMENT and believe that density is destroying our quality of life in Portland. However, I recognize progress and compromise to point of accepting development that naturally happens. None of our current development is naturally happening because metro’s artificial shortage of land is driving high density developments into every neighborhood. Development that otherwise would occur somewhere else. Further the city is paying developers to build high density garbage that even the developers don’t want to build, but they have little choice. I view the developers as just wanting to build what people want to buy, but are victims of the politician’s scheme to densify Portland to keep riff-raff like us out of Neil’s wine country.

Alan DeWitt(Hey JK- do you make your unedited videos available to anyone? Or are they a private thing?)
JK: Yes. I already promised a few DVDs to people and I can add you to the list - email me. But it will be complete, but edited to prevent any audience members from showing. Also to improve the sound.

Miles 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.
JK: I would have loved to read from the text of the law, but misplaced my copy that I always had carried.

Allan L What section of ORS is that in?
Here iswhat Jack Roberts posted on NWRepublican: (nwrepublican.blogspot.com/)
It is interesting, though, to see the degree of ignorance people have about the right to record public meetings. As long as the recording device is unconcealed it is perfectly legal to record a public meeting. See ORS 165.540(6)(a).

Thanks
JK

"is that really what you want?"
If it would stifle some of the dangerous, ignorant and simple (let me add, negative and destructive) sentiments oozing out through this thread of comments, I could live with it.

How is what's being said here dangerous?

The dangers in criticizing the actions of elected public servants, or activist community members, if the criticism is based on, say, false statements of facts ("he called for a vote"), or the imputation of motive or intent ("Karlock has a political agenda"), or an unrealistic performance standard (a lawyer/legislator should "know the law") are that public service or community activism may be discouraged; that individuals' conduct may be influenced in unfortunate ways (elected officials no longer willing to admit ignorance or error for fear of repercussions); or that interactions between the public and their elected representatives are chilled.

The dangers in criticizing the actions of the Bush administration, or conservative activist community members, if the criticism is based on, say, false statements of facts,("Liberals have a political agenda"), or an unrealistic performance standard are that public service or community activism may be discouraged; that individuals' conduct may be influenced in unfortunate ways (elected officials no longer willing to admit ignorance or error for fear of repercussions); or that interactions between the public and their elected representatives are chilled.

Boy is that stupid.

I fundamentally disagree with Karlock's world view, but of course he has the right to film a public meeting.

Ouch. I guess the Oregon legislature ain't exactly the big time.

If it would stifle some of the dangerous, ignorant and simple (let me add, negative and destructive) sentiments oozing out through this thread of comments, I could live with it.

Wow...I wonder if the rest of society could live with it?

Allen L: I didn't mean to be "dangerous, ignorant, simple, negative, destructive" in your interpretation of what I wrote, but have you read ORS 165.540 (6)(a)? Do you interprete the language differently than many do?

If it would stifle some of the dangerous, ignorant and simple (let me add, negative and destructive) sentiments oozing out through this thread of comments, I could live with it.

Freedom of speech and and few other freedoms might be oozing out, too, but they'd just be collateral damage, huh?

Amazing.

"I wonder if the rest of society could live with it?"

As best I can recall (you could look it up), that wasn't the question.

It seems to have been established so far that it was not a crime for Jim Karlock to tape the community meeting. That doesn't address the question, though, of whether the person running the meeting (I guess that was Rep. Macpherson -- that is at least how it looked) had to permit it (as he obviously, eventually, did). If it were a meeting subject to the open meeting laws, I'm guessing he would. But assuming he has some authority over the course of the meeting, and without making any judgment about whether it would be a good idea for him to exercise that authority on a given subject, what exactly does he have the latitude to do? I have absolutely no idea, least of all from reading statutes on criminal conduct and open meeting laws. If presidential candidates can eject members of the public, based on what they wear, from their "public appearances", then I guess there must be some areas susceptible of control.

I'm also in the minority here, it seems, in believing that Jim Karlock's practice of taping such meetings is not beneficial. It is a potentially very effective form of intimidation. Based on some recent court decisions about police taping of demonstrations, if it were done under color of public authority, it would appear not to be legal. That alone, it seems to me, is justification for asking who's taping, and why.

Lee, I did read that statute, and I guess my interpretation is that it is not a crime to tape a "semipublic" meeting (at least as far as audiotape is concerned) without the consent of all participants. As noted above, though, that doesn't seem to me to answer the question whether the person running the meeting (who surely can exercise some measure of control over its conduct and the conduct of those in attendance) has to allow the taping, as Rep. Macpherson apparently did, in the end.

I think everyone agrees that Jim has the right to videotape this meeting. (Although I have to admit that I have become confused, as some assert that this falls under the definition of "public meeting" or "open meeting", whereas others (b!X) say it's not a public meeting as defined by law. Anyone have the definitive citation?)

It's legitimate to raise the possibility that videotaping a meeting of citizens may stifle the willingness of some of them to speak openly. This isn't an attack on Jim's right to videotape, so much as an observation that the act of videotaping can alter the substance of the meeting. I think those who raise that point are just asking JK to consider the potential unintended consequences.

I also think JK's intent, which only he knows, is important. If he is videotaping in order to better inform busy Oregonians of the public discussions that are taking place, that is a good thing. If he is videotaping in the hopes of catching a political opponent saying something stupid or silly, and makes public only the few minutes (out of hundreds of hours) where that actually happens, that is not a good thing. It debases the whole process and takes away the incentive for public officials to engage in open dialogue.

b!X wrote:
In my job, I'm expected to know the rules under which I, my coworkers, and any customers are to operate. I would think it's fair for public officials to know those things about their jobs, too.

I'm guessing you get paid more than $17,000 a year, and I'm guessing you do your job for more than six months every two years. It is absurd for people to criticize our citizen legislators for not being well versed in a particular legal area. Keep bashing our legislators, and the quality of those willing to serve will continue to erode.

I think taping politicians when they are talking to groups has the salutary effect of being able to hold them to their words later. They're comfortable sticking cameras in parks, airports, intersections, and countless other places, to hold us accountable; what's the problem with us doing the same?

Every time I get frustrated with Bogdanski's blog (mostly because of his anti-Bush rants), he puts up some thought-provoking content that keeps me coming back. I am a constituent of Greg's. This video raises so many important questions. 1. Why would anyone ever want to serve in the Oregon legislature? (I'm pretty sure Greg isn't getting any graft, so I really don't get it.) 2. Why would anyone spend an hour attending a meeting such as this? (If you really want to suffer, you can watch C-Span or reruns of the City Club meetings without even leaving the comfort of your living room.) 3. Why would anyone take the time to film such a meeting? (Can't get a job in the adult film industry?)4. Why did I take the time to watch the video (twice)? (I did then click on the Elle MacPherson intimate apparrel video YouTube linked to on the same page, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.) 5. Why did this get more comments of Bogdanski's blog than anything else? (I guess people really do like to watch train wrecks.)

I can hardly ever tell which posts are going to draw the comments, and which aren't.

One more time: it's not a crime for Jim Karlock to videotape the meeting (if we're right about the limitations of that section of the criminal law applying to "public" and "semipublic" meetings. That doesn't answer the question, though, whether he has the RIGHT to videotape. An analogy: it's not a crime for me to park my car at a metered space on SW Salmon Street between 3d and 4th Avenues, but I don't actually have a RIGHT to do so -- or if I do it may be limited by someone else's RIGHT, if she got there first.

"I'm guessing you get paid more than $17,000 a year, and I'm guessing you do your job for more than six months every two years. It is absurd for people to criticize our citizen legislators for not being well versed in a particular legal area."

Dude. He's the chair of the judiciary committee. It's not like he's a newbie this year. I dunno how many terms he's served, but he's had years to learn the stuff that pertains to being a legislator.

While your comment may well apply to legislators in general, and especially to the mewbies, it's a huge stretch to think it applies to this particular fellow.

Just shooting from the hip, but it has been my impression that the open meeting law applies whenever two or more elected officials convene to discuss a matter of importance to the public.

"It is a potentially very effective form of intimidation." Litigators videotape discovery depositions all the time as a mode of intimidating the witness. I think Jim Karlock's only purpose for videotaping is to "intimidate" if that's what you want to call it. He's no hero in my book, but it's a free country and he can do things his way if that's what he wants.

BTW Greg MacPherson never suggested that they take vote or whatever, and he did allow the videotaping to continue in spite of objections from some of the people in the crowd. I don't come from the school of thought that every elected official is a slick slimebag who needs to be approached as an advesary. Obviously others posting in here don't see it that way.

Allan,

Now that you've scolded us, analyzed us, derided us, pedantically defined exactly what this pesky moving target of a question is, graciously given us a wonderful analogy, the whole issue has become a pointless little fugue.

It's just no fun anymore...sob...

I hope you're happy.

From:
doj.state.or.us/pros/pdf/pmappa.pdf

Q. May I tape record a public meeting?
A. Yes. 38 Op Atty Gen 50 (1976). You may also video tape a meeting,
subject to reasonable rules of the public body to avoid disruption.

Q. Must I inform the governing body before I tape record?
A. No. Although ORS 165.540(1)(c) prohibits the tape recording of
conversations unless all the participants are specifically informed that the
conversation is being obtained, subsection 6(a) of the statute specifically
states that the prohibition does not apply to public or semipublic meetings.

Thanks
JK

I can hardly ever tell which posts are going to draw the comments, and which aren't.

You're too modest.

No, really.

Some of you need to be aware that Jim records many various types of public gatherings-like conferences, seminars, private meetings of organizations (with approval), etc. They have been benefical to those who may not be able to attend the event, or part of it. His videos have been on several public TV programs. Even some elected officials besides governmental staff have requested use of Jim's efforts. Speculating, attributing ill intent on Jim's part is derogative at the least. I have used his photos, portions of videos to develop presentations for hearings, meetings. Thank you Jim for taking your time to help public discussion of regional issues.

rr,
I'm so sorry for your loss, and I feel your pain. I did the best I could to provoke and antagonize, but in the end succumbed to an overwhelming urge for pedantry and pontification, and wrote too much (or the same thing too many times).
This was an engaging thread for me for several reasons, but mostly because I think Greg Macpherson is one of our most able, responsible and intelligent legislators and, while it's perfectly fair to criticize him, I thought some of the criticism here was not reasonable or constructive.
It's also engaging because the practice of videotaping such gatherings is not unambiguously benign. I don't disagree with Jack's point that politicians should be held accountable for what they say, but I think that has to be balanced against the chilling effect on other paraticipants in a process that is supposed to gather information for our collective benefit. That process obviously doesn't have to be public, under the law, so what's the public benefit to the taping?

UsualKevin wrote:

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.

May I infer from your comments that Greg Macpherson could have disrobed and THEN ASKED Karlock to stop the taping?

I'm sorry to see our next A.G. wasn't better informed about the law (or more eager to let the sunshine in). That said, I would still vote for him rather than a carpetbagger or Goldschmidt minion.

(a) Public or semipublic meetings such as hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting or other events;

Wonder what would happen if Jim set up his camera at, say, a Blazer game? Or a trial going on in a Multnomah County courthouse? Would anybody like to argue that Jim has the "right" to film wherever, and whoever, he wants? Tell that to Blazer security as they're marching him out the door.

I think taping politicians when they are talking to groups has the salutary effect of being able to hold them to their words later.

I've no big beef with that. But the problem presented by Jim's camera, though, is that he is recording everybody there, and everything everybody says, whether they are on camera or not. That's intimidating to many people. And, as Jim points out, when Oregonians in Action meets, well, that's "private." What this suggests is that "private" functions --and functionaries-- have "rights" (to privacy) that mere mortals and citizens in the public sphere don't.

A couple of months ago Chris Smith organized a party, at a bar, for posters and commentors on his Portland Transport list...Jim came with, and set up, his camera! I mean, c'mon, folks, maybe it wasn't such a hot party, though Chris bought the first beers, and we ended up with a discussion on the Columbia River Crossing bridge idea. But Jim setting up the camera...the mood palpably changed. Suddenly this was "of record" and a formal setting rather than a let-down-your-hair fun have-a-drink-at-the bar event. Sheesh!

If citizens don't have the right to meet with their elected officials, or even just get together, in a casual, off-the-record setting...democracy is hurt by this, not furthered. I venture to guess that most people do not want cameras rolling, recording their every utterance, just waiting for the perfect "gotcha" moment. And some of us don't just scratch our butts, rickyragg, sometimes we fart too, and I don't think either I --or the world-- needs mine recorded for posterity!

Imagine this isn't Jim doing all this recording, but a cop in uniform, insisting on recording everything elected officials say, and everything citizens ask them in a public forum? No intimidation factor there? C'mon...

Frank,

Would anybody like to argue that Jim has the "right" to film wherever, and whoever, he wants...

No. I don't think anyone has, though. The issue here is JK's "right" to videorecord a public meeting. As far as recording "everybody" and "everything", again, that isn't what JK does. Maybe moving the camera to avoid incidental recording of the "crowd" would be a reasonable compromise but I don't think it's necessary. Most public meetings are audiorecorded and transcribed by the government body involved, anyway. I'm not a big government groupie but I don't recall being informed about that when I've given testimony before a state board and a Senate subcommittee.

I think you and Allan vastly overstate the "chilling effect" of videorecording as it applies to citizen participation and don't see or acknowledge the beneficial, inclusive effect. If citizen participation is "good", as you both seem to assert, then more is better - right?

A "public" meeting effectively restricted to a small group of the public able to attend is public in name only. You want participation? Videorecord it and post it. More light is better for honesty and to foster citizen involvement. For every citizen "intimidated" by the camera, ten more will be better able to participate in the political process because of it.

If politicians are "inhibited" from dissembling or talking out of both sides of their mouths by the camera - that's a good thing. The bemoaning of some "double standard" of rights to privacy is just theater. This is about a very specific set of circumstances and not your police state hyperbole. The public has every right to participate in the process of their government and no right to intrude on private functions or conversations. There's that nagging disconnect again about the "public" nature of public office and public meetings. Participation in the process is public.

As for your scratching, farting and letting your hair down being inhibited by the camera, that scenario really doesn't apply - it was private. Sometimes inhibitions are quite useful to society.

...you have hair???

Man!

As far as recording "everybody" and "everything", again, that isn't what JK does. Maybe moving the camera to avoid incidental recording of the "crowd" would be a reasonable compromise...

Jim may not be FILMING everyone, but he's recording people's questions, public comments and, quite likely, people's private comments. The microphone doesn't discriminate.

You want participation? Videorecord it and post it.

We need more active participation in the process of government, not more watchers.

If politicians are "inhibited" from dissembling or talking out of both sides of their mouths by the camera - that's a good thing.

That will just give us more artful, better-trained politicians, well-schooled in being "on" all the time. Is that the goal?

The underlying assumption, too, is that the camera is an honest, objective window into our world. It's not. By selecting what is posted or broadcast, we flavor and filter reality. A anti-war demonstration of 10,000 pople is represented on the news by a ten-second shot of two jerks burning an American Flag...is that "reality?" Of a sort, but it doesn't tell the whole picture, and it certainly doesn't tell it accurately.

The public has every right to participate in the process of their government and no right to intrude on private functions or conversations.

Really? When lobbyists meet with legislators behind closed doors --or poolside, over cocktails-- where the real law-making and deal-making gets done...where are the cameras then? No...it's only in these most public settings where the public get's to participate without picking up the lunch tab that Jim's camera is showing up. And, besides, if Jim's recording everything is cool...why NOT my private conversation on the side with you? Why not a gaggle of roving cameras, with live feeds to our various constituencies watching from their couches, on their respective TV channels? Where do we draw the line?

We could call that "democracy"...but, y'know, its just watching TV.

I thought the 'cheney-esque' comment was unfair. Reminds me more of Randy Leonard!

Whew! Greg McPherson's worldview gushed out of every pore. It was a M-37 public meeting and he didn't want to be on record.

My whole family had a lovely guffaw when I replayed starting at 3:55 to 4:10. There may be more substance to that part than anything.

Happy Saturday!

C'mon yourself, Frank.

"...the microphone doesn't discriminate."

and

"The underlying assumption, too, is that the camera is an honest, objective window into our world. It's not."

???

Could it possibly be true that people won't participate if they don't "watch" first? You're already a "participant", I think your judgement about "watchers" shows a certain disdain for those not actively involved already. Do you really want more citizen involvement, or do you want more involved citizens with whom you agree?

More artful liars? Sure, that's my goal. How cynical you are. Wider exposure will trump those artful liars. (see Saruman in front of the crowd at Isengard - sorry, but it rings true.) And don't conflate what JK does with networks news - that's a bogus argument and you know it.

What, exactly IS your position on openness in government? You seem to be arguing for less. Again, your argument seems to be with someone other than the real Jim Karlock and the facts of this particular instance. Jim doesn't record everything - and that wouldn't be "cool" and no one has said that it would (not I, at least). As for back room deals, you think they would go away if cameras were banned from public meetings, or what???.

You seem to be saying that since we don't have complete openness, we should further limit what openness we do have. Or is it that openness intimidates people and therefore we should have less? Democracy itself is intimidating - should we find another form of government to avoid making anyone feel "uncomfortable"?

Frank Dufay I've no big beef with that. But the problem presented by Jim's camera, though, is that he is recording everybody there, and everything everybody says, whether they are on camera or not. That's intimidating to many people. And, as Jim points out, when Oregonians in Action meets, well, that's "private." What this suggests is that "private" functions --and functionaries-- have "rights" (to privacy) that mere mortals and citizens in the public sphere don't.
JKThat is what editing is for. The finished product of the event has NO pictures and NO side conversations of members of the public.

Frank Dufay A couple of months ago Chris Smith organized a party, at a bar, for posters and commentors on his Portland Transport list...Jim came with, and set up, his camera! I mean, c'mon, folks, maybe it wasn't such a hot party, though Chris bought the first beers, and we ended up with a discussion on the Columbia River Crossing bridge idea. But Jim setting up the camera...the mood palpably changed. Suddenly this was "of record" and a formal setting rather than a let-down-your-hair fun have-a-drink-at-the bar event. Sheesh!
JK Come on Frank, First I asked Chris for permission. Then the camera only was for the presentation by a government body that presented on the Columbia River Mega Bridge (well, it wasn’t admitted mega yet)

Frank Dufay Imagine this isn't Jim doing all this recording, but a cop in uniform, insisting on recording everything elected officials say, and everything citizens ask them in a public forum? No intimidation factor there? C'mon...
JK I could make a case that politicians should have NO PRIVACY while doing public business. I would love to be in on EVERY meeting that included any property developer or streetcar salesperson.

Thanks
JK

An edited product is just that, edited. The impression you are left with is the one the editor creates. YOU may know, Jim, that you edit people's private comments and pictures out...but other people don't.

I'm all for as open government as we can get because this government belongs --or should belong-- to us. And I'm for as much public participation as possible. I'll repeat what I've said before, stick a mic in some people's face and they freeze up. A camera, worse. Knowing their conversations are being recorded does not, in any way, get people to open up more. It has the opposite effect. That's reality.

Politicians should be under continual scrutiny, its part of the job. Citizen activists who shoot their mouths off in public lose some of their right to bitch about impingments on their privacy. But neighbors who come to a meeting to discuss their issues with their elected official shouldn't have to feel they could end up on the news, or Youtube.

I've known Jim a long time and I think he's a pretty honorable guy, however much I may disagree with him. But I don't know who he works for, or what he does with the voluminous recordings he makes and keeps. And I'm sorta surprised, actually, that the libertarians in this crowd aren't more wary of the continual erosion of our privacy rights, by government and the private sector.

Frank,
I honestly think your bias is clouding your judgment on this one.

Now you're questioning who Jim "works for"? Who it is, that if he worked for them, would somehow make a difference in his taping of local public events?
George Bush?

I mean come on. Why would you need to know who he works for or what he does with his recordings?
You are missing the entire point of open meetings.

They can be recorded by anyone,
who works for anyone,
for any reason,
to do whatever they want the recordings,
And not report to anyone a damn thing.

That's a very good thing.

Now get back to being reasonable my friend.

Frank Dufay An edited product is just that, edited. The impression you are left with is the one the editor creates. YOU may know, Jim, that you edit people's private comments and pictures out...but other people don't.
JK: Without spending days writing up how I cover an event, here are a few key points:

1. The goal in this type of program is to get an accurate record of the complete event. The only things cut out would be technical problems with equipment, interruptions etc.

2. When someone walks in front of the camera, I either switch to another camera or simply freeze the frame from before the person enters the camera’s field of vision. Or re-frame the image to keep the person out. All of this is done in the editing stage.

3. For that event I had a mike on the table beside/behind the speaker that was used for the entire event except some audience questions (you see one speaker pick up that mike by mistake in the full video). A shotgun mike in the front corner of the room was used to pick up the audience questions better than the mike on the table. Whatever it picked up between questions, I don’t know, since I neither used those parts or listened to the recording.

4. The finished video is continues with nothing left out. When I needed to avoid showing a face, as explained above, I just substituted another picture and kept the sound un-touched. While editing the American Dream Conference videos, there were occasions where I cut out stuff. Like when one speaker finishes and the next takes a few seconds to get to the podium, when there was confusion over the slide show, speaker gets confused, lost his point in the script etc.

Thanks
JK

Well, since Jim says what he does is honorable and professional and without bias, I guess it must be ok!
To those who carp that Rep. Macpherson didn't know (or pretended not to know) the answer to the question, I'd just like to point out that, after three days and eighty-some posts, we still don't have a firm grasp of what the question is, much less the answer.
I'll just say that, in the context of legislators gathering information and opinions from constituents, I think taping doesn't have to produce much intimidation at all to become an infringement on a citizen's right to petition her government. Why should I have to have my views spread around on You-Tube or the local news or whatever if I want an elected representative to know what I think about Measure 37, or estate taxes, or HPV vaccination, abortion, or any one of a number of controversial issues on which my views, and the basis for them, are between me and the government?

"Why should I have to have my views spread around on You-Tube or the local news or whatever"
You don't. Stay home, write letters or call you public official.

Did you ever ask that question at a Metro, city council or legislative hearing that is televised?

Or are you comfortable as long as government arranges the taping, use and broadcast?
Well, since the government says what they do is honorable and professional and without bias, I guess it must be ok!???

"Stay home"

The defense rests.

Looked a lot more genteel than my one public taping experience, of suspicious activity outside a methadone clinic formerly in the Hollywood District. WIthin 30 seconds I was surrounded by addicts and "counselors" screaming abuse. But then I evidently committed a misdemeanor by failing to ask their permission.

Anyway, whis this particular meeting in Lake Oswego? Was Mr. Karlock expecting that Mr. Macpherson about to introduce Al Gore to screen his movie?

Regarding intimidation, no one can hold a candle to some of our local politicos and lawyers, so to have something approaching a legitimate and balanced record, we need chroniclers like JK. And when the dust of history clears, my guess is that is they whowill have the legitimate moral high ground.

Now you're questioning who Jim "works for"? Who it is, that if he worked for them, would somehow make a difference in his taping of local public events?

Since Jim steadfastly refuses to disclose who he works for, that becomes an issue for me, however I feel about Jim personally. It doesn't feel right. But then I think people commenting on blogs anonymously is off putting too. I figure if you think what you have to say has value, then own it and put your name to it.

We ask people to sign in at our neighborhood association meetings, and we actually tape record them. The difference is we don't require signing in, and the recording is kept only long enough to write up the minutes. Could that be intimidating? I think it could.

I've certainly been interviewed more than once in my life and career, and generally there's discussion on the record, and there's discussion off. That's how you get better interaction, and, sometimes, more honest discussion. Anyone here who has spoken for an hour, on camera, or to a reporter, knows you can say a hundred things, but one sentence may make the cut. You try not to say something stupid so THAT doesn't become the one thing (witness Joe Biden's comment about the "clean" Obama, and the disproportionate impact it has).

I feel more comfortable speaking off than on camera, just as I can write something really dumb here...but back up and hit delete before I hit "send." (Not that I'm always smart enough to do that!) I certainly c'an't do that if I'm posting "live", with every keystroke captured for posterity.

I like talking to elected officials when they don't feel they have to be "on" and "on their guard." I think most neighbors would too, but that process is hurt when someone shows up with a camera. Sorry, it just does. It dimishes our ability to speak honestly with each other.

I see your point, Frank, but I think maybe if we weren't all such actors ,afraid of candor and letting our foibles show, there wouldn't be such a need for being "on". Candor would improve public conversation substantially, imho.

BTW, did you find your kitty? (I monitor lost and found forums for the cat group I work with)

I can build WITHOUT ASKING first -- just like taking pictures

BTW, did you find your kitty?

Hah...talk about thread drift!

Yes...CJ somehow made his way across Division to SE 35th & Clinton (from 23rd & Stephens), where a very nice young woman took him in and found our phone number on Craig's List where Anne had posted a lost-cat notice. However, while she was at the Humane Society she'd spotted another cat that cried out to her, and after we got CJ back, she went and claimed Kara, a Scandanavian tree cat, who'd been found stray and malnourished. She grows bigger by the day, and is now a playful companion for CJ. (And quite strikingly beautiful.)

Two cats, a dog and a horse...imagine if I'd been caught on tape saying --as I sometimes did-- I wasn't an animal person except for when I like to eat them! I really had no idea how attached you can get to these animals, which soon truly become family members.

Kara, a Scandanavian tree cat

On re-read that didn't sound right. That should be Norwegian Forest cat...well, geez, I was sorta close. Just shows you can say goofy stuff "for the record" even when you don't mean to.

"Hah...talk about thread drift!"

Sorry; can't do the email thing anymore and I had to ask.

Regarding goofy stuff: we all do it and I'm not sure it isn't better for us to realize that politicians and professionals are as goofy as anyone else and just let it all hang out. It might keep us from idolizing "celebrities" instead of thinking things through ourselves. A generation of so ago, we tended to idolize surgeons; I thought about that recently when my sister had an operation on her knee and had to mark knee to be operated with an X, since it is common for surgeons to think of a left or right apendage as the one to his or her right or left, rather than the patients'. We're all stuck in the human condition and I think we do better when we are candid about it, even if we look stupid on film.

BTW, happy to hear about the great kitty outcome!

Come on folks, let's push this over 100 for Jim.

Despite the apparent effort of some to discredit Jim's incredible volunteer activism he gets paid from no one for any of his video taping, data collecting, printing and website hosting.

So please give Jim a couple more thumbs up and run this thread counter over 100.

What cracks me up the most is all the PC filtering that's at play here. If Karlock were using all that energy to promote streetcars, condo bunkers, bicycles, biodiesel, and all the other favorite causes of the local politicians, by now they'd have him slated for sainthood right after Chris Smith.

Come on folks, let's push this over 100 for Jim.

I could talk about my cats some more?

Anyway, I first met Jim in person when he was in the Auditor's Office using a personal scanner to scan Contribution & Expenditure reports. He was around a lot. Clearly he's passionate about what he does and I very much respect that.

I don't question Jim's motives (though I certainly question a lot of his stats and conclusions). But the issue isn't Jim, isn't what or who he represents...the issue is the ubiquitous cameras in our lives, and whether we can live real lives outside of tv.

When I went to the Hawthorne Business Association-sponsored meeting to hear Sam Adams talk about parking meetings...everyone who asked a question got filmed doing so. The same went for the last Bicycle summit I attended where you could be filmed just sitting at your table, not bothering anybody. Why this incessant need to record everything...almost none of which is ever watched by anybody? My objections aren't based on who's doing the filming, but the whole filming thing itself regardless of who's doing it.

You can't walk into a pub in London without a sign announcing you are under surveillance. We've cameras in my office filming the front counters. My bank. Safeway. There's a camera when I'm sitting in the spa pool at 24-hour fitness.

It's getting to be a bit much, y'know?

After all this adulation, you probably want a chance to meet the ubiquitous JK -- Jim Karlock -- in person. He is an oftimes visitor at the Executive Club.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007
6:00 PM meeting starts at 7:00 and ends at 8:00 pm
at the Shilo Inn Airport
(I-205 North to Airport Way Exit, East on Airport Way) No charge to attend, unless you want dinner.

There is a fun session in the Cigar Lounge after the meeting. Bring your own revolutionary tavern pipe.

ConcordBridge

Here's to you Jim:
http://debunkingportland.com/

I'm guessing you get paid more than $17,000 a year...

For the record, no. I make less than $15,000 a year But thanks for playing. Have fun trying to find a different irrelevancy to try to fend off my opinion with. Maybe have a beer while you look.

Frank's point about cameras is well-taken. But to me, JK, and others like him, represent more a grassroots effort to correct the official record in this town, a town where sharpies are adept at manipulating it. I may or may not agree with his conclusions, but it is the process of truth-seeking that I admire.

And Frank, just wait till I start my cats and politics blog.

For the record, no. I make less than $15,000 a year But thanks for playing. Have fun trying to find a different irrelevancy to try to fend off my opinion with.

You're the one who brought your job into this, b!X -- or maybe that was too long ago for you to remember? Besides, my refutation of your point had nothing to do with how much you make, I was simply pointing out how LITTLE our citizen legislators make and how few resources they have to learn about their jobs. I suspect you know that, but it's far easier to ignore the substance of my critique and focus on the easy stuff, isn't it?

I'm still interested in why you feel justified criticizing citizen legislators for not knowing the intracacies of when a public recording is or is not allowed. And also how you think we should deal with the impact of these constant attacks on our legislators, which discourages good people from wanting to actually run.

Miles, even at our lowly neighborhood association level, there are orientations, update sessions, handouts, neighborhood coalitions support, that reviews the basic requirements to meet state and city regulations regarding meetings, recording/taping, proper notification; the whole deal. The Oregon Legislature also has orientation meetings for newcomers, and updates. I would think that Greg, being an old-timer legislator and with a long-time family in politics, had the answers to the questions he was asking of Jim and the audience. And if not, his "questioning" was leading.

"all the PC filtering"

I guess when you run out of arguments, you can fall back on impugning people's inferred motives. Or you could just jump straight to name-calling.

Miles, even at our lowly neighborhood association level, there are orientations, update sessions, handouts, neighborhood coalitions support, that reviews the basic requirements to meet state and city regulations regarding meetings, recording/taping, proper notification; the whole deal.

As a former Vice-Chair of my NA, I don't ever recall seeing anything about the appropriateness of recording those meetings. In fact, if someone had set up a video camera, I would have asked many of the same questions that Greg asked, and I probably would have asked if anyone objected. Perhaps that's why I'm willing to give Greg the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I would think that Greg, being an old-timer legislator and with a long-time family in politics, had the answers to the questions he was asking of Jim and the audience.

I guess we have two choices here: 1) Assume that Greg was being honest when he said "I don't know what the law is" here, or 2) Assume he was lying. I'm taking Greg at his word, you're not. I think the burden of proof falls on you to prove that he knew the law and was lying about it. If you can show me that the orientation for legislators specifically covers this issue, I will gladly agree with your statement.

I also think we should keep in mind that the routine videotaping of small neighborhood meetings is pretty new, and even seasoned pols may be encountering it for the first time.

I don't know if I can one-up you, but I have been involved in our neighborhood assoc. for over 32 years. It is true that early on the background information given to assoc's was minimal, but now with NA coalitions, ONI, and such, things are sophisticated. Many interesting "legal questions" seem to arise in these meetings. If it hasn't been covered, there certainly are board members or audience participants that seem to have the answers. With Greg's background it seems he would know some of the answers to his questions. By the way, Greg is a great guy.

Miles, I also gave another "choice"-Greg "was leading". I did not call him a liar.

Oh come on, the posts about Jim Karlock being some sort of open government champion are bogus, he is in favor of open government only so much as it results in government actions of which he approves...he is not in favor of "good government" or an "open process" he is against infill and growth boundaries and expensive public transit projects, he is a fierce partisan for his positions, and if PDX and state government were to propose doing away with the UGB in an underhanded, behind-closed-door manner, he would be all for it.

You can tip your hat to him for finding the time and energy as a private citizen to get involved to the extent that he does, but the recording he undertakes has no purpose other than the advancement of his own narrow special interest.

You can tip your hat to him for finding the time and energy as a private citizen to get involved to the extent that he does, but the recording he undertakes has no purpose other than the advancement of his own narrow special interest.

Can't speak for others on this, but I never thought (or said) otherwise.

In this regard, he's exactly the same as sainted citizen activist Chris Smith, who's a "hero" with Portland government. If that was Chris Smith in the back of the room, would Macpherson and the crowd have spent six minutes essentially asking him to go away?

Maybe, maybe not.

No question Karlock frequently wears a partisan hat, but I have seen him film meetings, such as those of West Mulnomah Soil and Water Conservation District where the motivation was indeed to correct a manipulated record in the public interest. I take issue with the notion that Karlock is never a public interest advocate because I have personal knowledge to the contrary.

Scott: Is "open government" only if the proponent advocates what you believe? Chris Smith certainly advocates a position, but I would not say his advocacy does not help achieve "open government". It all goes both ways and it is not for me to absolutely determine which is the right "special interest" except for myself. Then I will try to advocate as much as you will listen to, my "special interests". Democracy.

From the blog of Ann Althouse
The right to videotape public meetings.

Oh, how I love the New Jersey Supreme Court and its Chief Justice Zazzali, who not only has a cool name but also wrote this really cool opinion that starts with a quote from Patrick Henry -- "[t]he liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them" -- and holds that people have the right to videotape public meetings.

You have got to go read the facts, and the excuses.

From the case:

"camera might intimidate residents"

"asked whether any public attendees objected to being videotaped"

The local paper reported the Mayor as saying:

"The council didn't want him to film them. I asked him to turn off the camera, and he refused to do it. We can't permit private people to film. If it was an organized filming, that would be different. . . . If he was a decent resident, we would have no problem."

Can't say that I have spent much time at either Karlock or Smith's internet sites, but I did check out Save Portland after this post appeared and noted that Karlock asks to be corrected if he gets facts wrong. Although he has his own agenda, he impresses me as genuinely interested in fact finding. That is not the impression I have of the streetcar crowd. When I see Chris Smith pictured int he big O on one of the shiny new conveyances, I wonder if he fancies himself Judy Garland in "Meet me in St. Louis" and "Clang, clang clang goes the trolley starts running through my head.

I guess when you run out of arguments, you can fall back on impugning people's inferred motives. Or you could just jump straight to name-calling.

Projection?

You be the judge.

No, You be the judge.