Recording Surreptitiously

Ethical Educator

Scenario:

During a meeting of the superintendent’s cabinet, a department head places his iPhone on the table and records the discussion without anyone else knowing.

The next day he transcribes what everybody said as a way to hold the superintendent and others accountable for action items discussed.

Was the department head obliged to get permission of all those at the table in advance for the recording?

A meeting participant complains to the superintendent about the surreptitious recording.

Kelly Henson: 

Laws regarding using recording devices vary from state to state. Whether the cabinet member was obliged to get permission of all involved would depend on the law in the state where the meeting was being held. Covertly recording a conversation is nothing new. Educators at all levels should assume that they are being recorded.

However, even if the recording is not illegal or technically unethical, it does represent exceedingly poor judgment and significantly diminishes the trust and confidence the superintendent and other members of the cabinet have in this department head. It essentially renders the department head ineffective. As superintendent, I simply could not have a person on the cabinet who committed this act or felt like he or she had to “throw a recording in my face” to get action.

Mario Ventura:

The department head was obligated to obtain permission from all individuals present at the superintendent’s cabinet meeting prior to the recording because the act infringes on a person’s privacy rights. The recording of an individual’s or group’s conversation without disclosure that a recording is being made is unethical and illegal in some states. 

As a district leader and professional educator, the department head is responsible for developing and maintaining trust with all stakeholders of the organization. Though the purpose for recording the superintendent’s cabinet meeting may have been to improve follow through and completion of action items that were discussed, the recording of the meeting without disclosure or consent could very likely adversely affect the relational trust within the group and their effectiveness to work as a team.

The department head also should consider the ethical use of technology and the impact of creating and distributing sensitive information. Once information is captured with a district-owned technology device such as a cell phone or if information is transcribed and stored as a document using a district technology device, the information could be considered a record under the Freedom of Information Act and state public access laws. 

The department head should consider taking a professional approach to addressing the issue by bringing the concern to the superintendent or the group and proposing an inclusive process toward reaching a resolution.  Taking a more reasonable and collaborative approach will promote trust and increase the executive cabinet’s professional effectiveness.

Sarah MacKenzie:

I assume this is not a public meeting where recordings often are made by a non-participant in the meeting. This particular recording was made in a workplace situation where employees would not necessarily have an expectation of privacy. State laws vary on whether such one-party recordings are legal. 

Without respect to legality, however, the taping of a meeting without letting other attendees know about it and then distributing a transcript of the meeting borders on the unethical. The action violates civility and trust among people who are leaders in a school system. Recording a meeting in order to have an accurate record of decisions and responsibility for fulfilling them is somewhat understandable and permissible, but creating and distributing a transcript of the meeting is problematic. 

Meeting participants may be uncomfortable with either the substance and/or form in which they expressed themselves, thinking they were in a private setting. Furthermore, this action could have a chilling effect on future meetings where people may be less open and honest.

People attending internal meetings would have an expectation of transparency. And, if asked, they might have agreed to a taped recording. In this instance, the department head’s actions might well backfire, depending on how he plans to use the transcript to hold others accountable. In fact, the complaint to the superintendent indicates that trouble is brewing. 

There may or may not be minutes kept at a meeting like this, but the recorder could take very good notes and circulate them as a favor to everyone to remind them of decisions and responsibilities. Such action might well be appreciated or at least accepted as helpful. It also would allow people to amend decisions or plans if necessary. The department head is certainly guilty of lack of trustworthiness and thoughtlessness and will likely receive some kind of reprimand. 

The superintendent would be well advised to make clear that at future meetings, recordings may be made only if all participants agree and only to ensure an accurate record of decisions and plans.

Shelley Berman:

The actions of the department head are, at the very least, a breach of trust among cabinet members and may be sufficiently disrespectful as to warrant discipline. Surreptitiously recording conversations is not only a violation of typical group norms and district policies, but, in many states, recording a meeting without the consent of the parties is illegal. A number of states explicitly require consent from all those who are party to a conversation.   

It is unlikely that cabinet meetings are open, public meetings at which a recording would be permissible. In superintendent’s cabinet meetings, there is generally an expectation of privacy so that people can feel free to present options, offer perspectives and take risks in suggesting ideas that may later be rejected. Even if the department head thought the transcription would be helpful to others, his actions reflect poor judgment in not seeking the consent of the superintendent and cabinet prior to recording the meeting. 

To record and transcribe a meeting for the purpose of holding others accountable is not within the purview or authority of any department head. It expresses a profound lack of trust in others and in the superintendent to follow through on tasks or commitments. It also undermines whatever spirit of cooperation exists between the department head and other members of the cabinet. If the department head has sincere concerns about the follow through of others, including the superintendent, these concerns need to be brought to the attention of the superintendent first in a private conversation and then more publicly at a cabinet meeting framed as a question about how the group can be more effective in moving plans forward or meeting deadlines, not in the confrontational manner of delivering a transcribed recording.  

The superintendent should meet with the department head to discuss the concerns that led to the recording and determine if there is something that the superintendent can or should do to better address those concerns. At the same time, the superintendent should make clear the negative impact the department head’s actions have had on the relational trust present with other cabinet members and discuss actions the department head might take to reestablish some level of respect and trust, including, at a minimum, a verbal apology to the meeting participants. Based on the results of that conversation, the superintendent needs to consider possible discipline and whether the department head should continue as a cabinet member.