An email regarding the policy of recording meetings that Associated
Students, Inc. President Selena Farnesi composed was forwarded to
the ACLU by a member of the Senate. The ACLU asked ASI to stop
enforcing its unlawful prohibition of recording meetings.
James Ramirez / The Collegian
The American Civil Liberties Union told ASI the public has a right to record meetings
Associated Students, Inc. has received a cease and desist letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California regarding President Selena Farnesi’s enforcement of cellphones during an open Senate meetings.
After the Feb. 15 Senate meeting in which senators were seen using cellphones, Farnesi sent out an email to the ASI listserv addressing the issues that have come up in previous meetings.
In her email, which was obtained by The Collegian, Farnesi cites the dress code, cell phone policy, speaking out of turn and the policy on recording meetings.
Farnesi wrote: “Neither public meeting laws nor the First Amendment give anyone the right to record public meetings. Additionally, it is unlawful to record anyone without their permission. If you would like a recording of the meeting you can access it from our live feed. No one should be recording the meetings independently, especially since no one has come to any member of the staff or executive team to ask permission to do so.”
Farnesi said that only people within ASI received the email, which means somebody internally forwarded the email to the ACLU.
Senator Jose Luis Nava said later that he forwarded the email to the ACLU.
“It would have dragged on if the ACLU didn’t step in,” said Nava. “There was a possibility that the law would have been violated if the ACLU hadn’t stepped in.”
Farnesi said the university’s attorney looked over the letter from the ACLU and found that her email was in compliance with procedures and that no statements in it were found to be unlawful.
“They are claiming that we can not ask people to not record the meeting and that is an infraction on someone’s civil rights,” Farnesi said.
Farnesi said that the university’s attorneys drafted and sent a letter to the ACLU, but have yet to hear back.
“We are assuming this issue is over,” said Farnesi. “It’s a threat of litigation, not an actual lawsuit.”
Farnesi said the issue was never that recording was going on. It was the device that was being used.
“Our issue is not that people cannot record the meeting ”” we record the meetings ourselves and make them public,” Farnesi said. “The issue is if you use your cell phone to record.”
In the Senator Expectations Policy, devices that allow for outside communication are prohibited during meetings because the policy states, they would be a violation of the Gloria Romero Open Meetings Act.
Farnesi said that the point of having an open meeting is so anyone can access the information being said, and when a senator uses his or her cellphone, it could be considered communication the public doesn’t have access to during the meeting ”” violating the Open Meetings Act.
Nava said he had used his cell phone at the Feb. 15 Senate meeting to record, but has since switched to a device that is strictly for recording.
“I like recording the meetings to keep them as a reference,” Nava said.
Farnesi plans to regulate the meetings as usual and hold senators to the same standards that have been used in the past.
“We will continue to enforce all our behavior policies at the meetings,” Farnesi said.
Ren • Mar 11, 2012 at 5:23 pm
SO I DON’T HAVE a LIFE because I USE CAPS?????!!!! WOW ANON…you REALLY kNOW HOW to CHOOSE WHAT ISSUES TO SPEAK UP ON!!!!! WHY DON’T you SPEAK UP and HOLD YOUR INCOMPETENT RACIST FRESNO STATE ASI PRESIDENT SELENA M FARNESI ACCOUNTABLE for VIOLATING STUDENT RIGHTSS!!!!
anonymous • Mar 8, 2012 at 1:26 am
“the issue is if you use your cell phone to record” really? wow.
Frank • Mar 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm
@ DAVE…… to add what you said to GODOGS!
If Collegian did just that and walked into the ASI office to request public documents which is well in the legal right to do so, you just might hear of Selena Farnesi sending an email to the Collegian staff which might write that…
“Neither public records request laws nor the California Public Records Act gives anyone the right to walk into the ASI office and ask for public records.” She might also go on to say that “Additionally, it is unlawful to ask anyone for public records without the public’s permission. If you would like to know what happens at public meetings then you can access such information by attending our senate meetings.”
…Or something of that nature. And then Collegian can get some lawyers to send a warning to ASI again and then Selena can spend more student fees on legal consultation just to be told that she was wrong again.
My guess is that a few hundred dollars, maybe even a couple thousand of legal fees were incurred in just this case alone. It actually cost students money to tell Farnesi she was in the wrong. Sucks to be her.
Moreno • Mar 6, 2012 at 11:44 am
Interesting conversation you guys have going here.
Dave • Mar 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Actually GODOGS! Whoever you are, im not trying to bash your “I Love Selena Farnesi” parade but Collegian or any member of the public which includes you and me, can march right into the ASI office and request for any documents that are related to its spending and budget. That includes asking for the documents that show the cost of lawyer fees. It is called Public Records Request which is protected by law and im sure Collegian and Ms. Norton are well aware of how to request a Public Records Request. Is it just me or do we have some very stupid students on campus that have no idea about the law?
GoDogs! • Mar 5, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Why is everyone hating on Selena. She is doing a great job working for students and has never done anything to put ASI in jeapordy. If Collegian wanted do find where the expenses were going it is not like they could just march into the ASI office and ask for such proof, that would be a tedious task to take on and managing that office and all the student expenses is hard enough as it is. Why dont you all lay off already?
Ren • Mar 5, 2012 at 6:14 pm
ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME!!!!….FIRST OFF!!!…RACIST SELENA FARNESI is RESPONSIBLE for ATTACKING TWO MEXICAN AMERICANS WITH FALSE COMPLAINTS LAST YEAR….SHE’S IN AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH NEO NAZI NEIL O’BRIEN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! Her MALICIOUS BEHAVIOR caused ASI TO SPEND AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO DEFEND ASI FROM A LAW SUIT LAST YEAR!!!!! THIS SAME IDIOT IS CLOSE TO CAUSING ANOTHER FREAKIN LAW SUIT!!!!! RECALL THIS IDIOT NOW!!!!! DISCIPLINE HER FOR VIOLATING STUDENT RIGHTS!!!!!!
Anon • Mar 9, 2012 at 11:20 pm
All caps, really? Get a life.
Kelly • Mar 5, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Collegian you forgot to find out how much it cost in the ASI budget to pay for the lawyer to give Selena Farnesi “Legal Consultation” to redact her stupid nonsense about open meeting laws and stick to a new story where she now says its only in regards to the use of cell phones.
Selena Farnesi made a huge error in sending out such a message that public meetings are not covered by any laws to allow public to record or document them. Her actions might have placed the student government in a legal problem , hence the word she used “litigation” which would have cost students alot of money. For her error it would be to her best interest if she is for students, to send an apology letter to the Collegian and to all the Senators that she did f’ed up. She should go public and fix the situation rather than try hiding which makes it worse. The window of opportunity for her to make it right is closing and by not apologizing for her error, she could lose credibility with many. Selena Farnesi you should apologize for your ignorance. As an elected official it is your duty to know about these laws. And dont take it personal, this truly was an error based on your ignorance of the law. Or what seems to be more like neglect.
Terence • Mar 3, 2012 at 9:50 am
Jaime you are a “wannabe” politician that is the truth! I voted for you and your slate which included Farnesi and now I realize it was a HUGE MISTAKE!
Jamie, expect your name to be dragged into actions that are taken by members of the slate team you ran with last year. I recall you speaking with me and my girlfriend about running for ASI which I was not aware of who ASI was and you gave me the whole story of “we represent students yadda, yadda, yadda” and I thought “Well a nice student running for politics” and we voted for you. Now I believe those often accused as nutty students that say ASI does nothing for students.
Jamie what also embarrasses me (cause I voted for you) is that you are a student politician and you fail to think that maybe some of us students such as myself, have experience working as interns for local state, city and county offices. We know the law when it comes to open meetings and the rights of the public. Threat of litigation as quoted by Selena Farnesi, was something you did not speak up about. I been reading the Collegian all semester and it seems they keep bashing Senator Nava who obviously did the right thing in this matter. Why does it not come from such persons as you? Why? Because it seems you are Selenas lap doggie and ran on the same slate get the hint now? So go ahead and cry all you want lap doggie. You still wont get my vote if you run for office this time and don’t be upset when your name gets dragged into the conversation in regards to action taken by Farnesi.
And for you other folks, quit turning it into a race thing, the obvious issue at hand is that we have stupid, incompetent students with no backbone that represent us. That’s the plain simple truth.
Bob • Mar 3, 2012 at 9:40 am
This is what Selena tells her senators behind the scenes: “Neither public meeting laws nor the First Amendment give anyone the right to record public meetings. Additionally, it is unlawful to record anyone without their permission. If you would like a recording of the meeting you can access it from our live feed. No one should be recording the meetings independently, especially since no one has come to any member of the staff or executive team to ask permission to do so.”
Notice the emphasis on recording meetings.
This is what she tells the newspaper and the students: “Our issue is not that people cannot record the meeting ”” we record the meetings ourselves and make them public,” Farnesi said. “The issue is if you use your cell phone to record.”
She is a liar just trying to cover for herself.
The part of the meetings that is also embarrassing is how many times Jaime uses foul language. For someone who considers himself a “full-fledged” politician, he still acts like a high school student.
Stephanie J. • Mar 2, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Wow, isn’t this the same girl who had Collegian writers bash three Mexican American students over recording with their cell phones? Does this Selena Farnesi girl think that she’s above the law? She comes across as a racist and incompetent individual. Aren’t there consequences for violating state law?
Ren • Mar 2, 2012 at 11:21 pm
It is about time that SOMEBODY reports on the illegal behavior of SELENA FARNESI!!!!! In this CASE RACIST SELENA FARNESI has violated the rights of Students….and been caught!!!!….and she should be held accountable FOR HER ACTIONS via DISCIPLINARY PROBATION!!!!!!! RECALL!!!!
SpectacleStudy • Mar 3, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Ok the presumption that Ms. Norton is racist may be a bit hasty. The senators involved where Mexican-American, but there are many other Mexican Americans in ASI and these three have a history with Neil O’Brien. They were chattering during public comment. There is little disputing that. The particular issue here is two-fold Senators were cited for cellphone use(multiple individuals) and then VP Parks asked three in question to remain respectful during public comment.
Liberty • Mar 2, 2012 at 10:45 pm
“Additionally, it is unlawful to record anyone without their permission.””“ Selena Farnesi. Selena, you should tell that to you friend Neil O’Brien!
SpectacleStudy • Mar 2, 2012 at 5:22 pm
I also wanted to applaud Ms. Norton for her good journalism. I respectfully challenged her two weeks ago to ask Senator Nava’s opinion and it would appear she did. Thank you!
Affectionately,
SpectacleStudy
SpectacleStudy • Mar 2, 2012 at 5:18 pm
This has long been known. You can look at the article on the cellphone violation for my comment. As I said earlier and will say again, this is a public meeting. I understand the concern about politicians using phones to communicate in meeting, but recently the Senate and House have looked at revising their rules as the use of cellular technology, smartphones, tablets, and laptops is now commonplace. My question is, if I asked Senator Nava to enter his texts in the public record would he be willing to do that? That’s disclosure. There is no reason cellphones shouldn’t be allowed if people are willing to be forward about their use. I think it speaks for itself that Senator Nava has not, as of yet, used the right of response to challenge the claims made against him in the previous article. If Neil O’brien and Hector Cerda can record from the audience I don’t know why Senator Nava can’t record from his seat.
Terence • Mar 2, 2012 at 7:36 am
Kudos to the story writer for covering this for it is actually something that is newsworthy. We can only hope she follows up to see if there will be such possible “litigation” which cost students so much money. Alexandra Norton please keep this up and investigate how much in student fees we will have to pay for the university attorneys to draft up that letter sent to the ACLU. Remember last years expenses, what was it about $5,000 for Selena Farnesi’s issues with Pedro Ramirez?
Aside from that, Farnesi this wannabe law student as noted on her own twitter page is a embarrassment and she plans to go to law school? How in the jumpin jiminy cricket can she release a statement where she says public meeting laws nor the first amendment give anyone the right to record public meetings and that it is unlawful to record anyone without their permission?
She is utterly wrong and needs to get her legal facts straight. The open meeting laws of Gloria Romero, Bagley Keene and even the Brown Act (an exact copy of Gloria Romero) give the public full rights to record any public meeting. That is the whole reason that even the Collegian is allowed to walk into an ASI meeting and take pictures of her ugly mug for this story, write a story on ASI, and even ASI themselves to do the live newsfeed. How stupid and more ignorant can she be? Doesn’t ASI train themselves on these laws? Too busy partying in the USU again huh Farnesi?
Also kudos to that senator that brought this to attention because we only know Farnesi would have possibly got us sued with our own student money. Farnesi you need to read up on your law. You’re an embarrassment to those of us students who actually want to become law students. Its just sad that more of those Senators like Moncayo or Kiernan who claim to be Political Science majors and wannabe politicians couldn’t grow a backbone and stand up to Farnesi and put her in check. Lap doggies all the way. Embarrassing! If they even think of running for ASI positions again this spring they can count on me and my crew of friends not voting for them.
Philosotroll • Mar 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm
For those unfamiliar with the Gloria Romero Open Meetings Act, I recommend Article 1.5, §89305.1. (a), which reads:
A legislative body of a student body organization shall conduct its business in public meetings. All meetings of the legislative body shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body, except as otherwise provided in this article.
To the best of my knowledge, ASI senate meetings qualify under all definitions in the article and do not meet any exception. As such, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy at such meetings, and it is subject to all public meetings regulations…
That said, the ad hominem nonsense directed at Farnesi, Moncayo and Kiernan is kind of gratuitous. They’re wrong, and flagrantly so. Pointing out why (which you did) is sufficient.
Jaime • Mar 2, 2012 at 2:02 pm
How the hell did I get dragged into this? As far as I’m concerned recording the meetings is fine: as Hector Cerda never had a problem recording the meetings during my time at ASI nor did Neil O’Brien.
The main problem at hand is cellphone use, I have yet to be shown the specific cellphone that requires the user to actively interact with it in order for it to record.
I take offense to being called a “wannabe politician” as an elected official of the Fresno State student government, as the member of a board that has been twice now [inconsequentially] threatened with legal action by the ACLU, and as one of the few Senators that can actually be bothered to discuss the issues considered by the Senate, I would prefer to be considered a full fledged politician.
I even get slandered on the internet.
Finally, I would much rather be compared a house cat than a lap dog, if that’s ok with you. Anyone that has seen President Farnesi’s schedule knows that she is an incredibly busy woman, and being a lap dog would imply an inordinate amount of travel.
I mean, I could always just wait at the office for her to return and tell me what to do.
Philosotroll • Mar 2, 2012 at 6:44 am
“Neither public meetings laws nor the First Amendment give anyone the right to record public meetings.” – Selena Farnesi
California Government Code:
§54953.5. (a) Any person attending an open and public meeting of a legislative body of a local agency shall have the right to record the proceedings with an audio or video recorder or a still or motion
picture camera in the absence of a reasonable finding by the legislative body of the local agency that the recording cannot continue without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that constitutes, or would constitute, a persistent disruption of the proceedings.
I suppose the University attorney would know (certainly better than I would; it may be that the above only applies to government bodies, which excludes ASI) whether there was a legal issue to be raised here. However, given the scope of application for recording under Wilkins v. NBC I find it hard to believe that Nava’s recording wouldn’t be protected in court.
The question, it seems to me, will likely be whether or not the recording is disruptive. I doubt leaving a cell phone on the table to record meets the standard for disruption outlined above; anyway, I’m not a legal scholar. Just some rambling. It just seems a strange (and particularly un-nuanced) comment to make, especially from someone looking to go into law.