Court Opinion

ID: 9784925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:57:37.96668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:00.428818
License: Public Domain

Abbott, J.,
dissenting: I would reverse the public censure based on public policy.
When condensed, what happened here is the optometrists were called in for investigative questioning to determine whether formal charges would be filed against them. The public would be barred from the meeting. The optometrists wanted a court reporter present. There would be no delay or inconvenience, and the optometrists would bear the expenses and make a copy available to the Board. The Board refused the request, and the optometrists refused to proceed without a court reporter.
The optometrists then tested their right to have a court reporter in court and lost. They then offered to testify without a court reporter present. The Board refused and publicly censured the optometrists for their initial insistence on a court reporter being present.
The optometrists, in good faith, felt they had a right to have a court reporter present. They had an important property right at the core of the controversy.
*749I personally feel a private citizen should be able to record any conversation with a public official if it can be done without delay and without cost to the government. Proceedings held in private where the public is barred and á person’s livelihood is threatened is a frightening thing. Here, I would reverse the public censure as unjustifiable and contrary to public policy. Public policy should give our citizens whose livelihood is being called into question the right to record the proceeding if it can be done without delay and at no cost to the government. To allow what was done here is to chill others who in good faith attempt to protect themselves.
Davis, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.