Support for televising meetings strong from people who’ve been doing it for awhile

in favor of recording the meetings is that there is no means to quantify how many residents will choose to sit through a two-hour long meeting. “All we know is the number of cable subscribers in Alton [3,600]. We have no way of knowing which ones are watching the Boston Red Sox, and which are watching the Alton selectmen.” They don’t know how many are watching, but they do know that some definitely are. Longabaugh said, as did Laconia Deputy Clerk Ann Kaligian, that they fi nd out how popular the recordings are when viewers call in to complain. Social scientists sometimes refer to a problem called the “observer’s paradox,” wherein a group of people change their behavior because they know they’re being watched. Longabaugh said such was the case with the cameras in the meeting room. “Just having the selectmen on the air, they had to watch their Ps and Qs... More politeness, more carefulness about what they say.” This applied to all but the most boorish of elected offi cials. Kaligian has 39 years of work experience at City Hall, most of which was her tenure as clerk. She was serving in that capacity when the city decided to begin recording their meetings for television about ten years ago. Laconia started with a two-camera system, and now features four cameras, which Kaligian can pan and zoom from her desk, where she simultaneously takes the minutes of the meeting. At fi rst, she said some councilors were “using it as a bandstand” and giving speeches for the benefit of the viewing audience, rather than focusing on the meeting at hand. It quickly wore off, though. Now, she said, “The council acts the same, maybe because we’ve been doing it so long. Even the taxpayers who come to speak — they say what they have to say.” Even though it’s an additional responsibility for Kaligian, she’s very supportive of the program. “The people get the facts as they appear — a lot of people do watch it.” Ron Cormier is the chairman of Belmont’s selectboard, which is in the process of buying a system of cameras. A group of citizens petitioned the selectmen to put the question on the ballot, and a majority of the voters said it was worth it to them to make the expenditure. The warrant article originally allocated $5,000, but the board has upped that figure to $9,000 for the purchase and installation of a twocamera digital system. Cormier said he thinks it’s a good idea to put their meetings on the air, especially because the town is transitioning this year to a secret ballot style of town government (SB-2), which does away with the traditional town meeting. “I think we need to do whatever we can to get more information to the voters,” he said. “It’s something they want, I hope they’ll use it.” He expects the system to be installed in July, and he said he doesn’t expect the presence of the cameras to change the character of the meetings. “I’m going to try not to think about it too much. Hopefully none of us will pay much attention to it.” Frank Michel ended his six-year tenure as Meredith selectman in March of this year. That board started broadcasting its meetings after his first three-year term. At first, he said “you’re definitely aware of the camera,” but “shortly thereafter it just faded into the background and it was business as usual.” Conscious of the viewing audience at home, Michel said the biggest change he made was being careful to provide context or background so that the public knew what the board was talking about. That might have “slowed the train down a little and the meetings were a little longer.” Other than that, he agreed with above comments that it enhanced the “professionalism and respect” of those who found themselves on camera. Overall, Michel, and everyone else interviewed, expressed support for the initiative. “It’s an attempt to be transparent and accessible to the

public... It’s better for the people.”

TOP