Serino and Videographer Clash in Putnam Valley

Controversy exploded inside Putnam Valley town hall Tuesday night after a constituent in the 41st senate district was threatened with arrest for attempting to videotape an informal forum featuring New York State Senator Sue Serino inside the town hall’s meeting room.

The most memorable moment of an otherwise mundane community conversation with Serino occurred before the forum even got underway, when Serino and a man who identified himself as Mert Melfa of Poughkeepsie clashed over him trying to videotape the public meeting. The entire confrontation was caught on tape by Melfa who posted the video clip online. In one day the video has registered close to 5,000 views on YouTube.

The videotaping came to an end when a Putnam County Sheriff deputy arrived and after a few minutes told the videographer “you’re pushing that line” toward an arrest.

The forum was scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. but Serino didn’t appear until more than 20 minutes later. When she did, she said talked to her chief of staff and legal counsel stated the videographer can be asked not to film because residents at the forum may not feel comfortable to speak out while being recorded.

“It’s not the same forum and I’d like to have an open dialogue and I don’t want anyone to be worried about what they’re saying,” Serino said. “I’m asking you to remove the camera.”

Several times Melfa said because it was a public meeting, he had the right to film it. A few residents that attended the forum defended him and cited open meeting law, but to no avail.

Putnam Valley Councilwoman Jackie Annabi, who works for Serino’s office, also asked Melfa to stop video recording and said she believed there were residents in attendance who didn’t want to speak on the camera. When Melfa vowed to not film the residents, but only Serino’s answers, that didn’t go over well either.

“(Serino’s) a guest here in Putnam Valley and we’re asking you to please not disrespect our town board and to shut down the camera,” Annabi said.

The deputy sheriff appeared to give the reasoning that the meeting was only open to Putnam Valley or Putnam County residents, to which Melfa, a Dutchess County resident, responded residency doesn’t matter because it’s still a public meeting.

“I think you’re making up your own rules because this is a public meeting,” Melfa said.

Other elected officials at the meeting included Councilmen Steve MacKay and Louie Loungo and Councilwoman Wendy Whetsel. Supervisor-elect Sam Oliverio was also in attendance.

In a statement, Sheriff Don Smith said after a review and assessing the entire situation, the sheriff’s department concluded that the citizen was acting within his rights to use the video recording equipment. (The Sheriff’s full statement is at the end of the article.)

Smith stated the deputy acted “in good faith and with pure intentions” in trying to defuse the situation in front of him. The deputy also relied on Serino’s statement that a legal determination had been rendered that Melfa’s use of a camera was deemed illegal.

“The deputy’s reliance upon the announced opinion of the official’s (Serino) legal counsel to the contrary was misplaced, because that legal opinion does not appear to be in accord with the Open Meetings Law or the court cases interpreting it,” Smith stated. “We regret that the misunderstanding about the Open Meetings Law provisions occurred in this case.”

He commended the deputy and Melfa for both maintaining a calm demeanor during the entire ordeal.

“I have directed my command staff to review with our members the provisions of the Open Meetings Law governing the recording of proceedings by citizens, Smith said. “My staff will also remind our members that, whenever the exigencies of a future situation do not make it impossible, before taking action to stop a citizen’s recording of a meeting they should seek supervisory guidance in assessing the validity of a ruling by a public body that the recording is prohibited.”

Robert Freeman of the Department of State Committee on Open Government said if a majority of the town board were present and functioning as the board, the Open Meetings Law would apply and allow anyone to record. If those board members were just there to observe, then the Open Meeting Law doesn’t apply.

Freeman said Serino has the right to ask the videographer not to record, but he wasn’t sure the videographer would need to abide by that request.

“In 2015, virtually every event of any significance or and many of no significance are recorded all the time. It is part of life,” Freeman said. “To suggest that people either do not or can not record is out of sync with the reality of our society today.”

According to the Department of State Committee on Open Government, “any meeting of a public body that is open to the public can be photographed, broadcast, webcast, or otherwise recorded and/or transmitted by audio or video means.”

The Putnam Examiner, which attended the roughly hourlong forum that featured topics ranging from lowering taxes and local Putnam Valley needs to Common Core and the SAFE Act, audio recorded the entire meeting without an issue.

After the meeting, Serino defended her actions and said she checked with legal counsel to ensure she could ask him not to videotape.

“We would never do anything without doing that and (counsel) said ‘yes, we have the right to ask him to not film,’” Serino said.

Sheriff Don Smith’s full statement on Putnam Valley incident: 

“First and foremost, I want to stress that the members of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office are dedicated to fulfilling the oaths we take to uphold the Constitution, to safeguard citizens’ rights under the law and to keep the peace; indeed, our members put their lives and limbs on the line every day to protect and serve the community. Second, I always say that the Sheriff’s Office is a ‘learning organization,’ and we strive to take away from every action some insight into how we can improve the way we carry out our duties. Third, our members often have to react quickly when called upon to defuse conflicts, and in doing so they sometimes have to rely on incomplete, unclear, or conflicting information that is available in those moments.”

“According to what we have learned about the incident at the Putnam Valley Town Hall meeting, the deputy sheriff acted in good faith and with pure intentions in trying to defuse the situation. He acted in reliance upon the official’s announcement that a legal determination had been rendered that the citizen’s use of video recording was prohibited in that proceeding. The deputy acted with restraint, calm and courtesy in trying to keep the peace and to allow the meeting to proceed without disruption. I commend the citizen, too, for maintaining a calm demeanor during the incident.”

“As frequently happens following incidents in which a police officer has to make a quick decision in a conflict situation, with the luxury of unpressured time to review all the facts and circumstances and the applicable law, we are later able to further assess the incident. In light of what we now know, we are of the opinion that the citizen was acting within his rights to use video recording equipment at last evening’s meeting, and the deputy’s reliance upon the announced opinion of the official’s legal counsel to the contrary was misplaced, because that legal opinion does not appear to be in accord with the Open Meetings Law or the court cases interpreting it. We regret that the misunderstanding about the Open Meetings Law provisions occurred in this case.”

“I have directed my command staff to review with our members the provisions of the Open Meetings Law governing the recording of proceedings by citizens. My staff will also remind our members that, whenever the exigencies of a future situation do not make it impossible, before taking action to stop a citizen’s recording of a meeting they should seek supervisory guidance in assessing the validity of a ruling by a public body that the recording is prohibited.”

“We continue to be committed to the proper and fair enforcement of the law and remain dedicated to our mission to safeguard the rights of all persons.”