MONTICELLO – Like a grape that never sees fermentation, a resolution brought before the Sullivan County Legislature to extinguish employees’ recording rights received no support and died on the bureaucratic vine.

The resolution would prohibit county employees from recording the conversation of another employee without their knowledge or consent, and that doing so would result in disciplinary action.

In a contentious exchange during the Human Services Committee on Thursday, July 16, Human Resources Commissioner Julie Diescher defended the resolution as legislators quickly eroded its staying power by criticizing the resolution’s nebulous language and corrosion to the rights of government employees. 

District 4 Legislator Nick Salomone said, “As a [former] law enforcement officer, cops have body cameras for their protection… people should have the right to record.”

District 9 Legislator Terry Bernardo asked Diescher to define the difference between surveillance and recording and asked if there were exceptions to the policy if an employee recorded unlawful conduct. Bernardo added that the required written authorization seemed like too high a standard.

Defending the resolution, Diescher said, “This is actually the second time this policy is coming to your attention. There have been recent incidents of people recording in areas where there is protected health information and other concerns.”

She said there were five such incidents in the past six months.

Deputy County Manager Michelle Bowers also defended the resolution, saying, “It’s not just health information either, a lot of our departments discuss confidential information all the time. And you can’t just pick and choose which ones you want to bar them from recording, so having a blanket policy is really what’s best, in our eyes, for the county, with what we’re seeing with employees.”

District 5 Legislator Cat Scott pushed back, saying, “[This policy] doesn’t give people the ability to record something if they’re being victimized…. What if someone is being sexually harassed?”

“I was under the impression that… there was support for this, so if there’s not, I’m fine with [pulling the resolution],” conceded Diescher.

District 3 Legislator Brian McPhillips said he didn’t think the resolution was necessary, and stated that, “New York being a one-party state [means] that you’re allowed to record. It’s a protection given to you that needs to be upheld.” McPhillips was referring to New York Penal Law 250, which allows an individual to record a conversation of which they are part.

Residents in attendance also voiced their opinion on the proposed resolution.

“Your policy on recording, even though you can have that in the State of New York legally, I find it authoritarian,” said resident Ken Walter. “I think people should have a right to record something that’s going on, especially when there is mistreatment going on.”

Walter’s critique was echoed by resident Star Hesse, who said, “ I find [it] incomprehensible that someone would not be able to record an incident… and it could lead to disciplinary consequences because they did.”