Lindenwold council reverses ‘one camera at a time’ policy for meetings after resident sues

From Camden and Cherry Hill to Trenton and the Jersey Shore, what about life in New Jersey do you want WHYY News to cover? Let us know.

The Lindenwold Borough Council voted Wednesday to rescind its policy of allowing one camera at a time to record their meeting. The about-face was done to settle a lawsuit.

Alfonso Penna, who ran for council in the Democratic primary earlier this year, was removed from the council’s June meeting for not heeding to the council’s policy. When he was threatened with removal again in July, he decided to sue the borough.

“I think that anytime any official anywhere overreaches their power and goes after someone, it’s not only wrong, but unethical,” Penna said. “People who are coming to share the information to the rest of the public should be welcomed.”

The lawsuit, first reported by The Jersey Vindicator, sought to declare the Lindenwold policy unconstitutional and a violation of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act.

Lindenwold’s borough council approved the policy in January as part of its consent agenda, a practice that typically groups actions together in one agenda item.

The policy allowed for only one camera to be recording meetings at a time, on a first-come, first-serve basis at the discretion of the governing body. The policy also required those who wanted to use a camera give at least 30 minutes notice before the start of a meeting. In addition, it called for the council to be provided with a copy of the original, unedited recording within 48 hours.

A municipality can regulate camera placement, lighting and other equipment that could interfere with a meeting.

The suit was filed July 24 and, according to Pena, lawyers for the borough reached out to settle the suit within days.

Lindenwold Mayor Richard E. Roach Jr. declined to comment as he was leaving borough hall after the meeting.

CJ Griffin, one of the lawyers representing Penna, said she is thankful the council rescinded the policy, adding that the public has a right to record public meetings.

“Too many agencies have unlawful recording restrictions or unreasonable regulations on public comment,” Griffin said. “Agencies should take heed that New Jersey has a longstanding commitment to open government and civic engagement and review their policies accordingly.”

Penna, a lifelong Lindenwold resident, calls undoing the policy, which was also done as a consent agenda item, “a great step,” but said a new policy should be implemented where the borough records council meetings.

“Fellow residents, like the group ‘Love Lindenwold,’ should not be recording our meetings,” Penna said. “It should be the council recording and publishing our meetings to the website.”