Goodrich Village Hall

GOODRICH, MI -- In a time when people record everything in some fashion with the cell phones in their pockets, Goodrich Village Council President Mark Baldwin wonders about privacy in a deeply digital age.

Just before the end of a recent village council meeting, Baldwin announced a ban on recording anything on the grounds of the Village of Goodrich offices.

"Upon the adjournment of this meeting tonight, those with video and audio recording devices -- without permission -- you no longer will you be able to, you don't, you will not have the consent, to record anyone on the village property," he said in a recording of the meeting taken by village resident Katherine Vick.

In the recording, Baldwin's announcement was met with comments from the crowd stating the village hall is a public building, to talk of a lawsuit and even laughter from some.

He said recordings violated people's Constitutional rights, adding, "You wouldn't want it in your workplace, you wouldn't want it in your home; I've had complaints."

Baldwin said Monday afternoon, June 15, that he's requested a copy of the meeting's recording to be 100 percent sure of what he said. "I can be very honest with you when I tell you, No. 1, there has never been anything to stop people from recording at meetings."

He argued it's not his intent to prevent people from recording meetings, but Baldwin said there has been a concern with people being recorded after meetings.

"It was only my intent to protect people and their right," he said. "Whether it's in the building or outside the building."

Baldwin said there have been instances where people were recorded after meetings and they didn't know the recording devices were still on. He's spoken with the village attorney and Village Administrator Jakki Sidge about it.

"It is wrong for someone to secretly record your conversations," he said.

Recording during public meetings is allowed under the Open Meetings Act, said Joseph Richotte, assistant General Counsel to the Michigan Press Association.

"When it comes to the Open Meetings Act, the statute expressly provides that people who are attending those open meetings have a right to tape record, to videotape, to broadcast or televise live," he said. "It is specifically provided that the exercise of those recording rights is not dependent on the prior approval of the public body."

Reasonable rules and regulations can be established in regard to recording, but Richotte said, "There is no possible way that a blanket prohibition on recording would be reasonable, upon the meaning of the statute."

Michigan's eavesdropping statute makes it a "one-party consent state," Richotte said. That means at least one party to a private conversation must consent to its recording.

He said the rub "comes down to whether someone is having a private conversation in a private place."

But if conversation is taking place in a public building or a public place, Richotte said, it would be difficult to make a case that the discussion was private.

"I would certainly take the position that you can't get much more of a public place than city hall," he said.

Katherine Vick, one of the residents who records meetings, called the rule "one of the more laughable ones" she's heard come from the council president.

Baldwin previously called for a sergeant-at-arms to maintain the peace at meetings.

Vick said she was also struck at a recent meeting about a rule that the first portion of public comments could only be used to discuss agenda items.

"There is an ongoing attempt to shut residents up," she said.

When asked if she would continue to record meetings in the future, Vick -- wife of village council member Jacob Vick -- said, "I absolutely will continue to record the meetings. No officer of the law would even consider enforcing such a heinous rule."

Baldwin said, "If it was misinterpreted, it would be my mistakes in terms of not clarifying." He reiterated it was never his intent to ban recordings of meetings, adding the village places meeting videos on its website. He said some residents have agreed with his stance.

"Where do we draw a line on people's right, their privacy? This is something that's gone on for quite a while," he said.