Whitehall Township Board of Commissioners meetings can continue to be taped, according to a recent legal opinion.

The use of the video recorder was questioned at the start of the September commissioners meeting. The board went into an executive session with Mayor Edward D. Hozza Jr. When they returned to the board room, without any discussion, Hozza removed the video recorder, which had been used to tape meetings for five years.

Township Solicitor Charles Fonzone was tasked by the commissioners to research the legality of taping the meetings. This month, Fonzone provided the commissioners with an answer.

"It is my advice that cameras and audio equipment can be utilized at our public meetings," Fonzone said. "If there is to be any limitations there will have to be reasonable rules adopted for the necessary conduct of meetings and the maintenance of order. The rules and regulations cannot be construed to violate the intent of the open meetings act."

Hozza recently told The Press he has no plans to reinstall the video recorder for use during the commissioners meetings.

"I will leave it up to the commissioners. It is their meeting," Hozza said.

Reporters with hand held video phones have been recording meetings for some time now, as has a TV station recently.

"Except as provided in subsection (b), a person attending a meeting of an agency shall have the right to use recordings devices to record all the proceedings," said Fonzone, quoting the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law. "Nothing in this section shall prohibit the agency from adopting and enforcing reasonable rules for the use under section 720 [relating to rules and regulations for conduct of meetings]."

Fonzone said he views the above section of the law to mean a person attending a meeting can use recording devices to record all of the proceedings. The solicitor noted cases which further state that nothing in the act reflects intent by the legislature not to classify video cameras as recording devices.

Also, a blanket ban in videotaping would not further the purpose of maintaining order without violating the intent of the act, he said.

Fonzone referred to the case of a Reading School Board member and his wife who filed suit against the school board, alleging the board's resolution against videotaping meetings violated the Sunshine Act. The Berks County Common Pleas Court sustained the board's preliminary objections.

The school board member and his wife appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court which reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to enter a declaratory judgment in favor of the school board member and his wife.