The oath reads:
“I, the undersigned board member of URTV, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will, so far as the duty devolves on me, diligently and honestly oversee the affairs of URTV in a sound and businesslike manner; that I will not allow my actions as a member of this board to be influenced by personal or political friendships or obligations; that I will familiarize myself with the bylaws of URTV; that I will not knowingly violate or willingly permit to be violated any of the provisions in the bylaws; that I will keep confidential all the affairs of URTV, except to other members of this board in good standing or URTV staff, as necessary to the conduct of my duties.”
That last part didn’t sit well with board member Richard Bernier.
"I’m profoundly angered by this type of oath being required for a member of a board that should set an example of transparency,” Bernier told Xpress. “I found it odd when it was presented to us. We weren’t really told much about why it was needed or where it was coming from.”
“This is just to protect URTV,” Garlinghouse told Xpress. “It’s absolutely standard practice for a board to have a formal induction. We hadn’t been doing that. URTV does fall under open-meetings law, and we’ve been following that.”
Asked why the oath says “all affairs” if it actually refers only to those brought up in closed session, Garlinghouse replied: “The wording was just taken from a standard oath. This is just routine; this is not a story.”
But Bernier isn’t the only one concerned about the clause. Board of Commissioners Chair David Gantt, an attorney by profession, said that part of the oath “looks a little suspect to me,” adding that he’s directed the county attorney’s office to look into whether or not it conforms to open meetings law.
“It doesn’t sound like any oath — or the kind of transparency — we usually have,” Gantt told Xpress. “I understand that there are some decisions — like staff matters or property acquisition — that need to be in closed session, but we want our boards to be transparent. I hope it [the clause] was an accident.”
The Board of Directors wishes to thank the public for their interest and recent comments about URTV, Western North Carolina’s Media Center. The Board is listening. Thanks also go to the entire community for continued support and programming for Charter Communications Channel 20 since 2006. URTV has always been subject to the NC Open Meetings Act and will continue to comply. The Board will review the Oath of Office to draft language that does not imply otherwise.
URTV is one of the most valuable resources that we have for citizen communication and information. The Board has full confidence in its management.
But that wasn't the end of the story, not by a long shot. This video surfaced, leading to more questions:
While a recent release asserted that URTV follows open-meetings law, a video has surfaced with statements made by Executive Director Pat Garlinghouse at the public-access channel’s last board meeting that misrepresent that law, according a North Carolina Press Association attorney — and some board members say they were not consulted in a press release that claimed to speak on their behalf.
In a video of the board’s Jan. 15 meeting, in response to John Blackwell filming the meeting, Garlinghouse can be seen asserting that “you can [video record] the meeting, but you cannot reproduce it. The video is only a documented version that you can share with someone who needs to know the information. You have no right to put it on TV or the Internet.”
What the state’s open-meetings law says is this: “any radio or television station is entitled to broadcast all or any part of a meeting required to be open. Any person may photograph, film, tape-record or otherwise reproduce any part of a meeting required to be open.”
Asked by Xpress to review Garlinghouse’s statements, North Carolina Press Association attorney Mike Tadych cited that part of law in saying that Garlinghouse was incorrect.
Garlinghouse also states on the video that “people have a right to say they don’t want to be on TV.”
“That’s absolutely wrong,” Tadych told Xpress. Anyone at an open public meeting can be filmed, he emphasized.
On top of that, some of the board claimed they weren't consulted at all before the above release expressing their sentiments went out:
board member Davyne Dial told Xpress that she heard nothing about the release or the changing of the oath until the release went out.
“I’m perplexed,” she told Xpress. “I was not notified. There was no meeting of or consultation with the board that I know of before this release came out.”
She later added, “The more I think about the release, I’m not perplexed ... I am outraged.”
Bernier also said he was not consulted and added that he disagreed with some of the statements made on the board’s behalf.
“It was news to me,” he told Xpress. “It’s just amazing, to say we’ve been following open-meetings law. If we’d been doing that, we wouldn’t have these problems right now.”
We'll have more on this controversy as it continues.
Comments