You can help, please email email@example.com and ask for a copy of the new public meetings "Broadcast Policy"
The City of Hamilton is ignoring repeated emails from The Public Record for the new "Broadcast Policy" invoked by the City Manager's Office to remove TPR for tweeting during a public meeting on Monday.
UPDATE: 11am - The City just responded and pointed to an obscure area of their website where the policy was posted. The City has not explained its definition of broadcasting, nor explained how tweeting by members of the public violates the policy.
The following are the emails sent by The Public Record requesting the policy. (I've edited out the name of a front line staff member from the email thread)
I'll update once the City provides a copy of this new policy.
Subject: Re: Removed from Public Meeting - Trespass to Property Act
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:58:00 -0500
From: Joey Coleman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: McKinney, Andrea <Andrea.McKinney@hamilton.ca>
CC: Murray, Chris <Chris.Murray@hamilton.ca>, Tom Henheffer - CJFE, Caterini, Rose <Rose.Caterini@hamilton.ca>, Auty, Nicole <Nicole.Auty@hamilton.ca>, Noa Mendelshon CCLA
It is beginning to appear that your office does not have a definition of
"broadcasting" and may not even have the Broadcast Policy you refer to
as a written document.
If you did, yourself or one of the many administrative support staff who
are handling these emails on behalf of the three City of Hamilton senior
management team members on this email thread, would have it easily
accessible and would have been able to provide it already.
Does this policy and a definition of "broadcasting" actually exist?
Independent Journalist, www.thepublicrecord.ca
On 2017-03-07 08:07, Joey Coleman wrote:
> Please let us know how long you expect before the City Manager can
> provide the definition of "broadcasting" that your office is now using.
> This seems a simple matter, because you should have already defined
> the term prior to authorizing your staff to remove members of the
> public from public meetings for violating this definition.
> Joey Coleman
> On 2017-03-06 06:07 PM, Joey Coleman wrote:
>> Thank you,
>> You are confirming I was removed from a public meeting for the use of
>> a cellphone to post news reporting to Twitter.
>> The appellant did not object until City staff stopped the meeting to
>> object to two tweets I posted. Neither of which was live video.
>> The appellant objected to my reporting on the grounds that I'm not a
>> journalist, as staff told him I'm a "blogger".
>> There would have been no objection were it not for the decision of
>> [Frontline Staff Member] of the City Manager's Office to stop the meeting in
>> progress to object to my presence in the public gallery of this
>> public meeting.
>> Can you explain how posting information to Twitter of a public
>> meeting is an illegal activity that is in violation of Section 2(b)
>> of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
>> Would you please provide me your new definition of "broadcasting"
>> which the City solicitor was citing today.
>> Forwarding this definition should be easy, because you should have it
>> readily available - this can be done separately from explaining about
>> using a cellular device is not a Charter protected activity during
>> public meetings at Hamilton City Hall.
>> Please note that Noa Mendelsohn of the Canadian Civil Liberties
>> Association is now cc'd in this discussion.
>> Thank you,
>> Joey Coleman
>> Independent Journalist, www.thepublicrecord.ca
>> On 2017-03-06 05:55 PM, McKinney, Andrea wrote:
>>> Mr. Coleman,
>>> I have consulted with the new City Solicitor, Nicole Auty. She was
>>> advised by her staff that the Committee did hear from an appellant
>>> who objected to being broadcasted and the Committee accepted his
>>> argument as meeting the criteria in the Broadcast policy. At which
>>> point I understand you were asked not to broadcast the meeting, but
>>> you were welcome to remain. I understand that staff explained the
>>> decision on the matter will reflect this - and will be shared with
>>> you. Staff also advised that you did not acknowledge the ruling of
>>> the Committee Chair on the Broadcast policy pursuant to powers under
>>> the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act, and as a result you were
>>> asked to leave the meeting. I was also advised there was no
>>> reference to issuing a Notice of Trespass nor are you banned from
>>> the Property Standards Committee.
>>> I hope this helps clarify, if you have any questions or points of
>>> clarity, please do let us know.
>>> Thank you,
>>> Andrea McKinney
>>> Director, Communications and Intergovernmental Affairs
>>> City of Hamilton
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joey Coleman
>>> Sent: March-06-17 1:03 PM
>>> To: McKinney, Andrea
>>> Cc: Murray, Chris; Tom Henheffer; Caterini, Rose
>>> Subject: Re: Removed from Public Meeting - Trespass to Property Act
>>> Ms. McKinney,
>>> I'm awaiting your office to issue the written notice as it committed
>>> to do.
>>> Please advise when I can expect the notice to be provided.
>>> Joey Coleman
>>> Independent Journalist, www.thepublicrecord.ca @JoeyColeman
>>> On 2017-03-06 11:35 AM, McKinney, Andrea wrote:
>>>> I just spoke to the City Solicitor, who advised she is not aware of
>>>> what you are describing. While I look into this further, I'm happy
>>>> to discuss any further information you have and am available to speak
>>>> at your convenience. Thank you, Andrea
>>>> Original Message
>>>> From: Joey Coleman
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 11:12 AM
>>>> To: McKinney, Andrea
>>>> Cc: Murray, Chris; Tom Henheffer; Caterini, Rose
>>>> Subject: Removed from Public Meeting - Trespass to Property Act
>>>> I was just ordered to leave a public meeting for using a
>>>> device to post to Twitter.
>>>> Rather than force the City to arrest me under the Trespass to Property
>>>> Act, I accepted a promise from the City Solicitor in the room that you
>>>> will provide me a written Trespass to Property Act notice that I'm
>>>> banned from the Property Standards Committee.
>>>> Please forward that notice immediately such that I can challenge the
>>>> City's order.
>>>> Please note that you are now required to issue the notice, as I have
>>>> been removed from the public meeting, even if you choose to
>>>> immediately revoke it.
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Joey Coleman
>>>> Independent Journalist, www.thepublicrecord.ca @JoeyColeman