At a recent weekly meeting, the undergraduate student government council discussed the possibility of live streaming its meetings online, but displayed an incomprehensible reluctance to simultaneously record these sessions.
Avi Oved, the internal vice president, proposed at a meeting late last month that the Undergraduate Students Association Council use Google Hangouts or some similar technology to live stream their public meetings without restriction online. But he immediately specified that no recordings of the weekly meetings would be posted online.
For an internal vice president who ran on a platform of transparency, the move to sidestep creating permanent records of council meetings is inexplicable. But even more astounding are misgivings some councilmembers voiced at the meeting, which highlighted a widespread misunderstanding of the purpose and capacity of USAC as an institution.
At the council’s final November session, External Vice President Maryssa Hall expressed discomfort over the live stream because USAC meetings can be a personal space. This contention contradicts the nature of USAC as a public body: While personal anecdotes are common in USAC meetings, that doesn’t make the event a private space, and responsibility for what is shared rests with the speaker.
Community Service Commissioner Omar Arce said he was concerned public commenters could be vilified for their statements. True, but vilification is a hazard speakers – and public commenters – take on when they stand up at an open meeting.
Finally, President John Joanino said the idea raised an “accessibility issue” saying the prospect of being recorded might make some people too scared or nervous to speak before USAC. But this is hardly a good reason not to move forward with a measure that would increase the accountability of all speakers, whether elected, appointed or otherwise, at USAC meetings.
The misgivings of these councilmembers are as well-intentioned as they are unfounded. The USA bylaws – in Article I, Section A, no less – contain a clear explanation that council meetings are open to the public, with only very specific exceptions.
When candidates decide to run for USAC office, and when students ask to be recognized for public comment, they immediately step out of the private sphere and into the public one. This is a fact that members of USAC should have internalized by now, and it’s shocking they need reminding.
USAC meetings should undoubtedly be recorded. Putting meetings online for review later makes student government more accessible and transparent – a goal to which most members of council have at least paid lip service.
What is a student to do, for example, who would like to hear what their elected officials are saying but cannot attend a meeting or watch a live stream because of another engagement?
The segment of the California Government Code dealing with government meetings grants any person “the right to record the proceedings with an audio or video recorder” so long as it doesn’t disturb the meeting. If USAC seeks to stake out a position as a legitimate governing body, there is no better model to imitate than prevailing state practice.
After approving increases to their own compensation this summer, the USAC council has had difficulty proving it can abide by principles of good government. Here is a chance to take an easy, unambiguous step in that direction.
Except anyone who has done any surface-level research would know that live-streaming USAC meetings violates UCLA university policy. Try again.
How does this violate UCLA?
Where does it say this?
The USAC is a public organization and has to follow the Roberts Rules of Order and the Brown Act. Under both of those the guidelines allow the meeting to be recorded and posted online. In fact it is encouraged to continue to show transparency.
But the fact that meetings are held within an ASUCLA-managed building means that you have to abide by actual set policies, not just the idealistic whim of transparency (UCLA might a “public” university but KH 417 isn’t a public space yo). You can record, but not without approval from administrative levels, and that only extends so far. The fact of the matter is, even if USAC consents to violate the personal privacy of everyone’s likeness in the room, they still can’t legally do it. Roberts Rules of Order aren’t the Rule of Law, they’re words for the sake of organization, and the Brown Act only guarantees the right to attend and participate, not stream live.
You can encourage all you want, but in the end of the day these are roadblocks you won’t overcome through a reasserting a stolen idea (Lana from LA! ran on USAC LIVE btw) on council or through a mild Ed-Board article.
The USAC Bylaws clearly states “The Council shall operate under Robert’s Rules of Order, except as stated in the USA Constitution”
So the Robert’s Rules of Order are more then just guidelines, they are the Rule of Law for the meetings.
Under Robert’s Rules you have to make it clear of what was done in the meeting as stated in section 60, “When the minutes are to be published. in addition to the strict record of what is done, as heretofore described.”
This means they cannot be a record of just the actions but of everything that is said during the meeting and discussion. A video or an audio recording will keep all of that.
I do not see how you think it is a violation of the personal privacy of the people in the meeting. They are public officers elected to those positions and that means they have to adhere to certain guidelines. If they are not followed then every meeting that takes place is a in violation, and can constitute removals from office and fines.
Where is this stated? Under what policy/document is recording a meeting a violation?
Dear Daily Bruin,
Once again, you haven’t done all the research you should have done. Avi Oved actually had to clearly state that the live streams would not be recorded (still posted online at the time) because during previous meetings with admin, he was informed that having them recorded would not be an option due to breeches of confidentiality etc. Naturally, one would have loved them to be recorded but since that is not an option live streaming directly is the best way forward. Admin feared that the recordings would be held again students in future, as well as a few other reasons. Check your facts.