City clerk reverses policy: video recordings of council meetings are now public records
Getting a copy of a video of city council would set you back $25 to $35 and could only be ordered from a video company in Bradenton; Venice Florida! dot com cries foul and enlists the help of Adria Harper of Florida First Amendment Foundation
-- John Patten, 12/18/07
-- jpatten@veniceflorida.com

Got a comment? Make it here.

It's not a public record because we don't archive it
Videos of city council meetings will soon be available to the general public on DVD at the cost of a blank DVD, this after a battle between city hall and Venice Florida! dot com over what is and what isn't a public record. It's a low key battle that has been brewing for several years and finally came to a head when the city refused to provide copies of the short term rental hearing of December 11 to Venice Florida! dot com.

Up until Monday of this week, the city was arguing that city council video recordings were not public records as the city itself did not keep archived copies. In an email from City Clerk Lori Stelzer dated December 17, the city finally reversed its longstanding policy of not providing the video recordings to the public as public records.

The city pays a Bradenton video production company, Studio 26, to record city council meetings and various public hearings. The contract with Studio 26, specifies that the video company is to keep archives of the council meetings without having to provide a copy to city hall. Studio 26 provides a free copy to Comcast so that the meetings could be broadcast on one of Comcast's public access channels, but there is no other distribution of the recordings.

In the past, if anyone wanted a copy of the video, the city clerk's office would advise them to contact Studio 26 and buy a copy from them at their going rate ($25 to $35 per disc).

Venice Florida! dot com cries foul
This policy sparked a longstanding disagreement between the city and Venice Florida! dot com over what is and what isn't a public record. This web site's contention was simple: since the video recording is created by a third party (Studio 26) under direction from and under a paid contract with the city, the city owns the recording. Therefore, since the public paid for the video recording, the recording is a public record. The city's stance was that since city hall never receives a copy of the video recording, it is not a public record. More succinctly, their argument boils down to 'We can't give you what we don't have and we deliberately don't have it.'

It was almost identical to a fight that the Charlotte Sun-Herald, publishers of the Venice Gondolier, had with the North Port Police Department last year (City resolution contradicts Florida statutes, Charlotte Sun-Herald, published June 1, 2006).

In that battle, Adria Harper of Florida First Amendment Foundation, went to bat for the Sun-Herald. The City of North Port subsequently backed down.

Venice Florida! dot com contacted Harper earlier this month and asked for the FAF's help in clarifying the argument with the city clerk's office. To Harper, the argument was simple: the city is paying for the creation of the record, therefore it is a public record -- who is and is not archiving the record is immaterial to the argument at hand. Harper stated last week that she would contact the FAF's General Counsel and that a letter would be sent to the city of Venice hinting at further action if the city did not comply with Florida's public records law. She also suggested that this web site contact the state's Attorney General's office.

Meanwhile, copies of the emails between this web site, the city clerk, and Adria Harper were provided to City Attorney Bob Anderson, this to apprise him of the argument in the hope that the city would back down without having to resort to contacting the Florida Attorney General's Office. Copies of some of the complaining emails were also sent to city council, who seemed stunned by the situation.

Council is surprised, promises support
Council members Rick Tacy, Vicki Taylor, and Sue Lang immediately responded to this web site's complaint. The three ignored the argument about whether the recordings are public records and approached the problem with the idea that even if the recordings aren't public records, they should be treated as such -- that citizens should be able to easily obtain copies of the video recordings.

Tacy, in particular, apologized profusely for what he felt was a dumb decision that he had agreed to a few years back without thinking of the ramifications. In an email to Venice Florida! dot com, Tacy wrote, "...I was amazed, no, dumfounded, when I found out [about this disagreement]. Worse, I am told council voted to do it this, i.e.: I voted for it back when we started recording. I screwed that one up and will be addressing at our next meeting. In the mean time I'll try and find if there is any away around it."

City Clerk reverses decision, Venice Florida! dot com gets sappy
On Monday, Lori Stelzer reversed herself and agreed to start providing copies of the video recordings at the cost of a blank DVD, this in an email to Venice Florida! dot com: "After further review and discussion with the records consultant and city attorney, the city will be getting copies of the DVDs of council meetings. This morning I requested a copy of the 12/11 meeting from Studio 26. As soon as I receive it, I will have a copy burned free of charge for you due to the delay. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you."

This web site's response: a link to this picture was sent to Stelzer via email.

Adria Harper at FAF was immediately informed of the change in direction that the city had taken and was thanked for her involvement in resolving the issue. Harper was asked to call off any further action and she readily agreed. Harper wrote in response, "Great! I'm glad we could help. Please don't hesitate to contact me again in the future."

John Patten is the head of Web Operations for Creative Pages, and has worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He can also be incredibly rude at times.