Want to listen instead of read? Listen here:
Episode #1
Four Months, Seven Emails, and One Simple Question:
Can the Public Record Maine Government Meetings?
Entity Under Review:
Maine Government Oversight Committee (GOC)
Document Type:
Email Correspondence, Committee Communications, and Public Meeting Records
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
ABOUT THE PAPER TRAIL
The Paper Trail is an ongoing documentary journalism series published by The Maine Mirror.
Each installment examines a specific issue through the original written record, including emails, public records, meeting minutes, court filings, official correspondence, and other documentary evidence.
Every investigation follows the same questions:
• What was asked?
• What was answered?
• What was not answered?
• What happened next?
• What was the ultimate outcome?
Rather than asking readers to accept conclusions, The Paper Trail presents the documentary record in chronological order so readers can follow the facts for themselves.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2026, I attended a meeting of Maine’s Government Oversight Committee.
Like many journalists, advocates, and members of the public, I intended to document the proceedings by livestreaming the public meeting from my cellphone.
What followed would result in four months of correspondence, follow-up communications, a public discussion during a Government Oversight Committee meeting, and ultimately a clarification regarding the public’s right to record and livestream government proceedings.
This is the documentary record.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[February 27 clarification request]
The first email was sent immediately following the February 27 Government Oversight Committee meeting.
In that message, I documented that moments after I began livestreaming the public proceedings from my cellphone, I was instructed to stop recording. The explanation given was that the meeting was already being recorded and that additional recording devices would not be permitted.
Shortly afterward, a WMTW television crew entered the room, set up a professional camera, and recorded the proceedings.
Confused by the apparent difference in treatment, I left the room and spoke with security personnel. After consulting with supervisors, I was informed that the distinction appeared to be that the television crew were reporters.
Because I also engage in journalism through Together We Grow and the CPS Accountability Movement, I requested clarification.
The email asked several straightforward questions:
• Was there a written policy?
• Did a credentialing system exist?
• What standards governed recording access?
• Why was one recording device permitted while another was prohibited?
At this stage, I was not alleging wrongdoing. I genuinely believed there might be a policy I was unaware of and wanted to understand the rules.
The email concluded with a simple request for written clarification.
No response was received.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[March 9 follow-up email]
After receiving no response to my original correspondence, I followed up on March 9.
This second email was brief and respectful.
Its purpose was to ensure the original request had reached the proper office and to reiterate that I intended to continue attending Government Oversight Committee meetings in the future.
I again requested clarification regarding the applicable rules so I could ensure compliance moving forward.
At this point, none of the original questions had been answered.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Representative Perkins response]
The first meaningful response arrived from Representative Chad Perkins.
Representative Perkins wrote:
“I am not sure how much latitude committee chairs have in this issue and how it might conflict with the Maine Right To Know laws. I am trying to find out but have not found an answer yet.”
That statement became one of the most important moments in the timeline.
Rather than dismissing the concern outright, Representative Perkins acknowledged that there could be a legitimate question about how committee authority intersected with Maine’s Right To Know laws.
For the first time, it appeared that the issue extended beyond one meeting and one recording device.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Thanking Representative Perkins]
I responded by thanking Representative Perkins for taking the time to review the matter.
This email is important because it demonstrates the purpose behind the correspondence chain.
The objective was never confrontation.
The objective was understanding.
I explained that my only goal was to learn the applicable rules so that I could follow them appropriately during future meetings.
At this stage, the issue remained unresolved, but the conversation had begun.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[May 21 follow-up after recording without issue]
Nearly three months after the original incident, something unexpected happened.
I attended another Government Oversight Committee meeting on May 20, 2026.
This time, I livestreamed the public proceedings using a tripod-supported cellphone setup.
Unlike the February meeting, no concerns were raised.
No objections were made.
No one instructed me to stop recording.
The significance of this email lies in the inconsistency it documents.
In February, I was instructed to stop livestreaming from a cellphone.
In May, I livestreamed openly using an even more visible tripod-supported setup without issue.
This raised an obvious question:
Had the policy changed?
Or had there never been a prohibition in the first place?
Once again, I respectfully requested clarification.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[June 17 follow-up after public clarification]
The turning point came during the June 17, 2026 Government Oversight Committee meeting.
During that meeting, the issue was discussed publicly.
The Committee acknowledged that Maine law permits members of the public to record and livestream public proceedings so long as doing so does not interfere with the orderly conduct of the meeting.
This was the clarification I had been seeking since February.
The central question had finally been answered.
Members of the public possess the right to record and livestream public governmental proceedings.
That clarification carried an important implication:
The activity I had been instructed to stop on February 27 was, in fact, permitted under Maine law.
Following the June 17 clarification, I sent one final email.
Rather than revisiting the original dispute, I focused on a broader transparency question.
During the June discussion, it was noted that signs stating “No Electronic Devices” had been posted on committee room doors for years.
At the same time, the Committee publicly acknowledged that Maine law permits recording and livestreaming.
This raised a legitimate question:
How should members of the public reconcile those two messages?
A reasonable person encountering a sign that says “No Electronic Devices” could easily conclude that recording is prohibited.
If recording is permitted, should the signage be updated to reflect that reality?
The purpose of the final email was not criticism.
It was to encourage clarity so that future members of the public would better understand both their rights and their responsibilities when attending government meetings.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
OUTCOME
Four months after the original incident, the central issue was clarified publicly.
Maine law permits members of the public to record and livestream public governmental proceedings provided they do not interfere with the orderly conduct of the meeting.
The question that began with a cellphone livestream ultimately resulted in a public discussion regarding transparency, media access, and public participation in government.
The documentary record shows a citizen asking a question, pursuing an answer through official channels, and eventually obtaining a public clarification that benefits everyone who attends future meetings.
Sometimes transparency begins with nothing more than a simple question.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN
• Should public signage be updated to better reflect Maine law regarding recording public meetings?
• Are recording policies communicated consistently to members of the public?
• How should independent journalists and citizen reporters be treated when documenting public governmental proceedings?
• What steps can government institutions take to ensure transparency rights are clearly understood by everyone who attends public meetings?
Those questions may be worth exploring in future installments of The Paper Trail.