This is not normal practice for any of the hundreds of board meetings, stock holder meetings, nor public involvement meetings I have been involved in.
1 Like
If you can find where it says that DMS is open to the public, then Iāll concede. Otherwise, my point still stands. The only places the law explicitly allows recording without consent is in public (outside, publicly-open places, etc.) Any other places, not explicitly allowed and you have to reasonably give notice and allow people to āopt-outā
See Parabo Press: Homepage
Sorry, but your point doesnāt stand. Can the general public come in and record one of our board meetings? No, but any member may do so, just as any shareholder of a private corporation may record those shareholder meetings. By making those meetings open to all members, they are by definition public in this context.
And while the board (or a quorum of members) could change the by laws to cover the photography āruleā you mentioned above (filming somone is the space against their will), I can find no indication that it has been done so. So while it would be rude to film someone at the space without their consent, it doesnāt currently appear to be against the rules beyond the ānot being excellent to one anotherā. But that is a very different situation from recording either the members meetings or the board meetings where an electronic recording is primarily documentation of the events. While we do have āmeeting minutesā they are a poor substitute. In the days before electronic recording became so easy meetings such as ours were recorded by stenographers who transcribed everything that was said. And that is the purpose of an electronic recording in a case such as this. An accurate and complete record of events.
3 Likes
@ bschaff:
Go to Events Tab on Website:
All events are free and open to the public unless otherwise noted.
2 Likes
So it sounds like we have differing opinions on all of this. Can we get the board to weigh in?
@AndrewLeCody, @AlexRhodes, @Kentamanos, @Robert_Davidson, @BenjaminGroves
If they side with you, then I stand corrected and everyone has my apologies for this argument.
So as Iām not a lawyer nor versed in the rules of recording meetings, it seems like there are some laws about board meetings. A quick googling seems that the board is required to give permission of recordings that are meant to be distributed.
This issue seems to be based more around HOAs than our kind of business. But, might still be applicable.
Another interesting link, but might apply to California only:
http://www.davis-stirling.com/MainIndex/Davis-StirlingAct/tabid/427/Default.aspx#axzz3jkIKP4bx
Also, it seems like much of what is required is really set by our bylaws, so looking into the requirements of texas corporation bylaws may be the definitive answer, as our bylaws do not currently make previsions for recording, but the texas requirements might. Who knows? Not I.
If you have been offended by my comments I appologize.
That said, even if the board (or some members of it) were to say that they would not allow the recording of those events, I would feel compelled to get my attorney involved. I am certain the case law is on my side in this situation.
While I really donāt plan on attending any more board meetings after last night, I really donāt wish to allow the rights of members to be curtailed in a manner that I believe to be contrary to current case law. and the best interest of all of the members (The exemption to the electronic recording is the use of a stenographer to provide a written transcript of everything that is said)
Particularly in the case where the action is solely to provide a complete and accurate record of the events to a meeting that impacts all members. This is one of those rare cases where the good of all of the members (ie accurate and complete record) is more important then the concerns (and valid ones) of any one member (or even several).
While I agree with your sentiment about members recording other members in any other context within the space without their permission, which I think is sufficiently covered by the ābe excellent to one anotherā, However, I think member and board meetings are a different kettle of fish, where the need for accurate records is paramount.
I donāt think apologies should ever be required for discussions and differences of opinions as long as things a civil - thatās what forums SHOULD be about. Passion - Yes, Abuse - No.
1 Like
Thatās pretty hard core! I would just stalk around and pout and whine about it for a while. However, you are correct, and, if we take our Space seriously as a legitimate business, your suggestion probably is appropriate. I fear that the Space is lax in some business areas.
No need for an apology, you didnāt offend me 
Iām not one of those anti-camera people, but I do feel that we all deserve an answer as to if itās āallowedā or not, and the guidelines for doing so.
However, I do feel that getting an attorney is a over the top. If the board says that meetings cannot be recorded if some people in the room are not comfortable with it, itās private property and they do have the right to do that.
As a business, the Board has certain obligations to the members. They cannot make just any rule they like, even if this is private property. Thatās especially true of a not-for-profit business.
Itās funny, but I actually am. Even in a public area, while I understand and agree with the law that allows it, I believe it is impolite to photograph someone without their permission. And our society could use with a lot more politeness.
For anything other then board and member meetings I would agree; however, as I said, I believe the case law is on my side for those two exceptions and would be willing to pursue it. I believe last nightās meeting illustrated the need for it since there were some disagreements over what was stated in previous meetings.
I believe those disagreements stem from a typical difference in the interpretation, but having a complete and accurate record is necessary to resolve those differences in interpretation. It was my conversations with Allen concerning the storage rules where he first made me aware of how lax the board and our members have become about adhering to the corporations by laws.
All that said, the point is probably moot, since I have no intention of attending any future board meetings, nor of videoāing them. But I will defend any members right to do so if they choose. Personally, I would prefer watching a recording of the events to keep abreast rather then actually sitting through another one of those meetings.
Iād be interested in seeing the case law. After doing some quick googling myself, I think Brooks is correct. And weāre not a business.
1 Like
[quote=ābgangwere, post:33, topic:4833, full:trueā]
Iād be interested in seeing the case law. [/quote]
Iām not going to attempt pulling any up right now. Maybe laterā¦ or not.
Iām old school enough not to trust a quick Web search for something that would require professional advice.
Oh, yes we are! We are a non-profit, but we are most certainly a business!
āDefinition: A business organization that serves some public purpose and therefore enjoys special treatment under the law. Nonprofit corporations, contrary to their name, can make a profit but canāt be designed primarily for profit-making.ā
1 Like
Brooks is correct that we (the board or a quorum of members) could modify the by laws to require permission to photograph or film members in a general sense. And frankly I this this is one of many good ideas.
However, for the purposes of providing a record of the board and member meetings the situation is very different. You can prevent the electronic recording, but only if you provide a stenographer to provide a complete transcript of everything said if a shareholder (voting members in our case) requests such a record. You can also limit the distribution of the records to only allow other shareholders (voting members in our case) as well. For instance given the current access allowed to the wiki, you really couldnāt place the electronic record on the wiki, or even on the internal file server since the former is available to the world, and the latter to all members, rather then just voting members.
As OpCode said, I suggest the advice of an attorney instead of google. I am so certain of the above, because I already instigated a court case concerning the issue for a company I was a shareholder of in Texas.
I donāt disagree with anything youāre saying, but I donāt think it applies to us. Weāre not a business, company, or government entity.
Well, unless the board decides to modify the rules to prevent the recording of board meetings or member meetings we will just have to agree to disagree, because until then this is just a collegial debate.
What do you think we are? Just a group of friends who informally cooperate in paying rent on a warehouse? No, are actually fall under IRS rules as a business. We have an EIN (275107244), a Board of Directors, can hire employees and are organized as a Corporation.
Article I - General Matters
Section 1.1 Name
The name of this corporation shall be Dallas Makerspace.
Section 1.2 Non-Profit Purposes
- This corporation is organized as a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Texas exclusively for one or more of the purposes specified in Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Legalese aside - the functions of Dallas Makerspace would be better executed with actual recordings (video or audio, theoretically the meeting format ensures all actions are vocalized). This is no way to argue the facts of a recording.
I sense there may be been some issues in the past (of which I literally know nothing); keep in mind that the world is not a perfect place, people do not have perfect recollection, and, believe it or not, some people even intentionally lie about things to get what they want. It would behoove the 'space to have recordings of meetings so that nothing can be perverted after the fact.
Edit: hell, people unintentionally lie all the time because theyāve convinced themselves something is true.
4 Likes