EDITORIAL: Henderson’s police video policy tramples transparency

Another week, another attempt by the city of Henderson to deny its residents the ability to see how their government is serving them.

Last month, in response to public records requests from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a reporter was allowed to watch video footage recorded by city police cruisers and pause, rewind and forward the footage as needed. More and more police departments are using cameras to improve accountability, rebuild public trust in law enforcement agencies and defend officers against allegations of wrongdoing. It's a national issue in the wake of the highly controversial deaths of suspects at the hands of police in Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and South Carolina.

But there can be no accountability or trust if the public can't see the video footage captured by police cameras, or at least can't get reliable reporting on what the videos show.

So it was alarming to see Henderson police on Sept. 24 put out a new policy on "viewing procedures" for police-recorded videos. As reported by the Review-Journal's Eric Hartley, the policy says, "No note-taking devices, including paper and pens will be allowed in the viewing room."

Can a journalist reliably report on what a video shows from memory, without taking notes? No. And no media outlet that wants to stay in business would allow a reporter to do so.

Which was the obvious point of the Henderson police policy: Pretend to be transparent by allowing someone to watch the footage, but subvert scrutiny by making it next to impossible for anyone to credibly document what's recorded.

Fortunately, it only took a day for the city to walk back its obviously cynical policy. On Sept. 25, city spokesman Bud Cranor said reporters would be allowed to take notes while viewing police videos until the policy can be finalized.

Which is to say the city wants to take another run at limiting public access to those videos.

"The way this policy is worded is clearly an attempt to prevent public scrutiny of Henderson police videos," said Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association. "They put restrictions in here so ridiculous as to make it impractical to glean anything useful from the video. This is the opposite of transparency."

It's not a surprising development from a city that threatened employees with termination for talking to media without the authorization of communications staff, who also serve the elected members of the City Council. A few years ago, the city refused to release a recording of a 911 call from a councilwoman's home. Henderson government retains an insular culture that is so focused on controlling information that officials consistently embarrass themselves and their city.

They preach that they have nothing to hide, then they go about trying to hide whatever they can get away with hiding.

Access to public information is not a media issue. All residents should care about their access to public records. They pay for them. And at some point, they might be the ones turned away.

Henderson not only must allow note-taking during the viewing of police-recorded videos, it must establish protocols that guarantee the eventual release of the videos themselves. Trust starts with transparency.