PFBC walking back transparency?

The Rodfather

The Rodfather

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2023
Messages
296
City
Palmyra, PA
I find this little gem quite disturbing. From last month's Fisheries meeting update.

IMG_20260122_171921.jpg



Im quite not sure what to make of this on the heels of multiple ethics complaints in the prior months in regards to Commisioner Brock's behavior and suspect activity with PFBC funds.

They have wiped their YouTube channel of all prior meetings and will no longer post them after consulting with legal counsel.

This makes viewing the meetings live that much more important, unless you enjoy sifting through transcribed minutes.

The Rodfather
Engagement Czar and Conservation Chair
Dauphin County League of Chubsmen
 
DaveKile said:
Can you help me with a link to this statement please.

The next obvious question is where are the transcriptions?
Click to expand...
www.pa.gov

Meetings

Commission, Advisory Board and Committee Meeting agendas, streaming information, public comment opportunities, previous meeting recordings, minutes and more.
www.pa.gov www.pa.gov

Scroll down mid way towards bottom page
 
wildtrout2 said:
Transparency is a precious commodity in both State and Federal government.
Click to expand...
Dear wildtrout2,

This is not directed at you, but all of them are easily seen through if you open your eyes!

It's all about the Benjamins, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂
 
Pretty bad if you have to wonder if PAFBC is “redacting” documents 🙄 …

Commissioner: “someone at the meeting said that all wild Brown Trout are descended from stocked fish - we’ll have to scrub that!”

Secretary: “already blacked out Sir!”

Commissioner: “Good work”

😂
 
wildtrout2 said:
My eyes are open enough to recognize your use of lyrics from the Talking Heads "Once in a Lifetime", which was cool, but a lot of the time information is hidden, even from those trying to access it.
Click to expand...
Dear wildtrout2,

So, I'll quote the famous line from Jerry McGuire and say, "Show me the money!"

It's all the same. Someone is pulling the strings from outside.

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂
 
I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit here and guess that a lot of state agencies have a requirement that meeting minutes be kept in typewritten document format.

For example, the labor union I'm a part of has as a part of its constitution and bylaws that meeting minutes are kept for each meeting in typewritten forma. This isn't uncommon for any organization that operates under some form of parliamentary rules (Robert's Rules, etc.).

Typewritten documents take up little space and are timeless in many ways. PDFs are a stable document that will likely be able to be opened well into the future. Handwritten documents were the norm for hundreds of years; now it's typewritten documents. The storage requirements for these files are minimal, whereas storage for video recorded meetings would be extensive.

Whether it's transcribing minutes from an audio or video recording, there is always a chance for the author to apply their interpretation of what was said, etc. That's why in most organizations minutes must be put out for review, then approved as submitted or "with corrections".

The nice thing about videos is they don't lie. You can clearly see and hear what is being said, which makes it hard to misinterpret. Until government bodies make video recordings acceptable meeting minutes, my guess is they won't be an acceptable form of documentation of a meeting. The amount of work it would take for someone to cross-reference video recordings with meeting minutes would be immense, but if one is truly passionate about their cause, would be very doable. "Disappearing" video recordings of meetings is quite concerning, as it certainly doesn't pass the "sniff test"!
 
As far as I know there are not storage limits on youtube. All public entities that have a livestream or webinar format of meetings should post said recording on an official youtube channel. The video broadcasting of public meetings of local govts since covid has greatly increased public awareness and accessibility, at least in my local community.
 
I agree, the videos should be posted.

However, it is a public meeting. As such, everyone has first amendment right to attend and record the meeting. It would be "fun" if 20 people showed at the next meeting, whipped out their phones, and recorded.
 
lycoflyfisher said:
As far as I know there are not storage limits on youtube. All public entities that have a livestream or webinar format of meetings should post said recording on an official youtube channel. The video broadcasting of public meetings of local govts since covid has greatly increased public awareness and accessibility, at least in my local community.
Click to expand...

What I wondered about is keeping content on a private third-party site. What happens if/when YouTube disappears? In the case of governmental entities, they are at the mercy of third-party sites, whereas internal storage always ensures access to the content.
 
wgmiller said:
I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit here and guess that a lot of state agencies have a requirement that meeting minutes be kept in typewritten document format.

For example, the labor union I'm a part of has as a part of its constitution and bylaws that meeting minutes are kept for each meeting in typewritten forma. This isn't uncommon for any organization that operates under some form of parliamentary rules (Robert's Rules, etc.).

Typewritten documents take up little space and are timeless in many ways. PDFs are a stable document that will likely be able to be opened well into the future. Handwritten documents were the norm for hundreds of years; now it's typewritten documents. The storage requirements for these files are minimal, whereas storage for video recorded meetings would be extensive.

Whether it's transcribing minutes from an audio or video recording, there is always a chance for the author to apply their interpretation of what was said, etc. That's why in most organizations minutes must be put out for review, then approved as submitted or "with corrections".

The nice thing about videos is they don't lie. You can clearly see and hear what is being said, which makes it hard to misinterpret. Until government bodies make video recordings acceptable meeting minutes, my guess is they won't be an acceptable form of documentation of a meeting. The amount of work it would take for someone to cross-reference video recordings with meeting minutes would be immense, but if one is truly passionate about their cause, would be very doable. "Disappearing" video recordings of meetings is quite concerning, as it certainly doesn't pass the "sniff test"!
Click to expand...
That's a good observation and have to believe that all agencies are required to keep minutes like you have described.

Our trust in this agency is likely pretty low and along with the notes a recording of the meetings would be nice. Really a video recording on YouTube would be a great way to review a meeting people can't attend. I do feel like there is a big disconnect with they broadcast a meeting with audio only and and then only leave us with some notes. It's 2026 video and recordings easily available for anyone to create. It's not like it's difficult or that costly. My HOA does it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages

Share this page

Back
Top