Guernsey Town Council considers ban on recording meetings from audience

The Guernsey Town Council was set to consider a resolution at its regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday that would ban people sitting in the audience from recording and photographing meetings, instead specifying where and how people can do that. The resolution seeks to “establish content-neutral time, place and manner regulations” to ensure orderly conduct and minimize disruptions.

Shawna Reichert, a self-described “independent citizen journalist” who has been recording Guernsey Town Council meetings for the past year, said she believes the resolution is retaliatory and infringes on First Amendment rights. “We have a right to record our government officials,” Reichert told Cowboy State Daily.

Councilwoman Penny Wells said the resolution is an attempt to minimize disruptions, not threaten free speech. “I don’t think we are limiting recordings,” Wells said. “We’re trying to get to a situation where things can be recorded without disruption.” Some council members say Reichert doesn’t just record — she narrates and talks for her video audience while livestreaming, which can be a distraction.

Council member Joe Michaels told Cowboy State Daily on Tuesday afternoon that the council would not vote on the resolution because of public pushback. Besides, he said, it “borders on being unconstitutional.” Michaels said the resolution has “been put in a back pocket for a time.” Mayor Ed Delgado said the resolution is important because “we want everyone to have as much access to our meetings as possible, but in an orderly non-disruptive fashion.”

Reichert started recording meetings about a year ago to document what the council is doing. She manages the Guernsey Watch Facebook page, focused on transparency and local government updates. She livestreams meetings on that page. The town also livestreams meetings on Zoom, but Reichert said council members don’t always turn on their microphones, so remote attendees can’t hear everything. She accused council members of proposing the resolution as retaliation. “It’s definitely been directed because we are holding them accountable to what the public needs to know,” she said. Council member Jeremiah Fields agreed: “Yes, absolutely. I do believe it is retaliatory.”

The proposed resolution would establish “designated areas” for photography and videography along perimeter walls or the rear of the room. Wells said she was not sure how those areas were determined. Fields said he could only assume the reasoning was safety. Reichert expressed concern about being relegated to the back of the room. “It is not independent access,” she said. “It is controlled access.”