Procedural Fouls in Passing Recording Ban

Shame on President Eisgruber! He called for the vote on this highly consequential recording ban amidst unnecessary haste and procedural irregularities attendant to this surprise measure and passage of a needlessly flawed rule.

It is disgraceful that no public notice — much less text of the proposal — was given on the CPUC agenda published in advance. A key purpose of such notice is to give Princetonians the ability to submit questions and comments. Furthermore, as reported by The Daily Princetonian, Vice President for Campus Life Rochelle Calhoun readily acknowledged that the FAQs to explain the ban’s operation were not ready for presentation at the meeting. Notwithstanding this admitted lack of preparation, President Eisgruber drove the matter to a vote.

In doing so, Eisgruber’s rulemaking-by-ambush deprived the community of meaningful opportunity for input. Kudos to CPUC member Jim Bosch and others, who, reports the Prince, rightly identified the ban’s potential to “exacerbate power imbalances between meeting organizers and attendees.” As Isaac Barsoum ’28 ably explained, this rule will “reduce the access of students, faculty, and staff to University policymaking” — not to mention that of Princeton alums.

Alex Norbrook ’26 presciently warned us of this danger in April 2024, writing: “The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”

Moreover, Norbrook pointed out that Chapter 8 of the CPUC Charter forbids any rule “abridging … freedom of publication.” The right to record similarly finds support in the University’s Statement on Freedom of Expression’s prohibition against restrictions “inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.”

The new University Recording Policy undercuts these rights and values. At minimum, the CPUC should commence forthwith live webcasts of its meetings and post copies on its website. In 2024, I proposed this to no avail, even though the CPUC successfully used Zoom during COVID.

Scandalously, the CPUC has fallen into an insidious and deplorable pattern of limiting Princetonians’ ability to know what happens at its meetings. For seven years, the CPUC has not met the mandates of its Charter (Sections 3.2, 3.8, and 4.12) to publish minutes of all CPUC meetings and committee meetings, as well. This means the Princeton community has been denied these charter rights to review proceedings for CPUC for seven years and even longer for the committees. Similarly, for seven years or more President Eisgruber has not been listed on the CPUC Executive Committee roster and has not chaired its meetings, in open dereliction of his duties under Sections 4.2 and 4.11.

I have written the Board of Trustees about these and other major violations.  The board must fulfill its fiduciary duties regarding President Eisgruber’s wrongdoing and do so promptly and openly.

Meanwhile, at its next meeting the CPUC itself must demand that President Eisgruber obey the Charter. Better still, it should demonstrate this to all Princetonians via webcast.