Reporters beware, don't plunk.
The State House News Service reports that Michael Travaglini, executive director of the Massachusetts pension fund, told a local reporter, "You have no right to record a meeting".
Travaglini later defended his stance by stating the reporter disrupted the public meeting of the Pension Reserves Investment Management Board by arriving late and "plunking a recording device in the middle of the table".
Reporters are allowed by state law to record meetings not in executive session, as long as they do not actively interfere with the proceedings. Hard to believe a "plunk" can cause such a great distraction, necessitating Travaglini chastise the reporter after the meeting.
Ari Herzog adds some background on Travaglini, noting he is "1) the brother of a former Massachusetts Senate President; and 2) the highest-paid state official, with a coffer of nearly $400,000."
Perhaps Travaglini could use some of that hefty salary to buy softer tables for the PRIM meetings.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
executive session?
By Ron Newman
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 6:47am
I thought an "executive session" meant a meeting closed to the public, so I'm a bit confused now.
Me too
By Huh?
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 7:46am
Me too. If it were an executive session, hard to believe that the only comment by Travaglini would have been concerning the recording of the meeting. So was it or was it not an executive session?
not executive session
By anon
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 11:06am
The SHNews story noted that it was a public meeting, regularly attended by press and public.
According to the SHNews story, Travaligni told the reporter to take it up with the Secretary of State's office. When asked, the Attorney General's office (the proper authority on such things) referred to a state law saying executive session would be an exception. But nobody, including Mr. "How Dare You, I'll stop cooperating with the SHNews" Travaligni, claimed they were in executive session.
The meeting was public, e.g.
By AdamPieniazek
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 12:13pm
The meeting was public, e.g. it was not an executive session.
Nope, wasn't an executive session
By Ari Herzog
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 9:58am
According to the original State House News report, it was a public meeting.
Reporters allowed in executive session?
By mediaseth
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 11:01am
I'm coming up on ten years of work in public access television and as far as I know, everyone from the public and the press has to exit a meeting room when Executive Session is invoked. If you can prove to me that I'm wrong, I'll happily stay for them. They'd make much better television!
(In Lynn, I made some "waves" when as a simple citizen I announced I was going to bring my own camera to record public sessions of City Council meetings. Recently, LynnCAM, with newly installed equipment, been cablecasting. But, bizarre and possibly illegal stipulations impeding rebroadcasts and the ability to obtain copies leave me no choice but to continue. I post them online. Call it "On-Demand" City Council. )
according to open meeting law
By mediaseth
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 11:04am
Just an additional comment - It's been a while, but I've read the Open Meeting Law. They have a right to tell anyone recording or videotaping where to set up in the room and to kick anyone out who they claim in causing a disturbance. I'm sure that "plunk" was just a convenient cause.
i think it's an error in the post
By issacg
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 11:28am
The word "not" seems to have been left out. Reporters are allowed to record the public session of any public meeting - not the executive session.
issacg is right - error in the post.
By AdamPieniazek
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 12:12pm
There should be a not.
"Reporters are allowed by state law to record meetings not in executive session"
Edited the post, sorry for the confusion everyone.
Had he not plunked it
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 06/04/2009 - 11:53am
Patronag-lini would have complained that his special secret meeting of the clubhouse boys was illegally wiretapped because they didn't hear it go plunk and therefore didn't know it was there!
You can't win when you have hacks and friends and buddies who constantly make shit up to avoid answering such unfair questions as "what are you doing for all that public money you are paid" and "why wouldn't the public have a right to know what and how you are deciding these public issues".
Given the current clique on the hill, transparency will not be forthcoming, nor will the badly needed overhaul of our medieval constitution.