DC Taxicab Commission Adjusts Open Meetings Policy- Expressly Permits Recording

August 4th, 2011 by Alicia Calzada and tagged , , , , , , , ,

Five weeks after the NPPA sent letters to the D.C. Taxicab Commission, and U.S. Parks Police protesting an incident in which two journalists were arrested for taking pictures and recording a public meeting, the Commission reports that it has revised its policy on public attendance, photography and recording at meetings.

The new policy states, in part,

A member of the public, including any representative of the media, may record or photograph the proceedings of the Commission at an open meeting by means of a tape recorder or any other recording device so long as the person does not impede the orderly conduct of the meeting, by, for instance, creating excessive noise that impairs the ability of others to hear the proceeding or using excessively bright artificial light.

The Interim Chairwoman of the  taxicab commission, Dena Reed,  notified the NPPA of the change in a letter this week. Reed was quoted in June in a Washington Post article as stating that the commission had banned videotaping of its proceedings because it was disruptive.

Useful links:

The entire “Open Meetings Policy and Protocol,” can be found on the DC Taxicab Commissions website at this link.

NPPA’s Letter to the Taxicab Commission

Washington Post article about the incident.

Second Washington Post article about the incident and copy of a statement by Reed after the incident.

Carlos Miller’s article and video regarding the original incident.

Posted in Access, blogging, First Amendment, Legal, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism | 5 Comments »

5 Responses to “DC Taxicab Commission Adjusts Open Meetings Policy- Expressly Permits Recording”

  1.   USAPressNotFree Says:

    Okay so let’s get this straight, the second a camera flash goes off the photographer is thrown out. When the clicking of the camera is heard again the photographer is tossed out. This wishy washy policy is as ridiculous as all of the cops using “Obstruction of Police Operations” to harass the press. Why do “policies” have to be updated when there is the 1st Amendment?More fluff and nuttier from the “authorities” keeping down the media.

  2. Says:

    I am sure this piece of writing has touched all the internet
    visitors, its really really pleasant paragraph on building up new blog.

  3.   private proxies Says:

    Нi, I just dгopрed by to &X72;evіew this website.
    It ѕeems to be really grеat and I enj&X6f;&X79;ed гeadi&X6e;g it, &X74;hаnks fo&X72; the gгeat writi&X6E;g!

  4.   Bonnie Says:

    I just like the valuable information you provide on your articles.
    I will bookmark your weblog and take a look at once more here regularly.
    I am reasonably certain I will be told a lot of new stuff right here!

    Best of luck for the following!

  5.   Referencement 470 Says:

    Great blog but honestly the sheer amount of Ads.

Leave a Reply