Mr. Argenio,
I first and foremost want to thank you for the time that you have so generously donated to the village of Cornwall on Hudson. I am quite sure that your wife, children, friends and people you don't even know thank you in very much the same way. I am also a very busy person and understand what the investment of your time is worth. I don't know you...barely know Kris and really barely care. I do suggest however that it is clear that you do in fact have an agenda. I might suggest that documentation of our village's business be conducted by one that might otherwise be objective to what goes on. Our own Town business has been successfully recorded by a youth who might otherwise care less...ultimately his portrayal is completely objective. I'm not completely sure your portrayal is... given your links offered as supplements to your rages offered here. I've read them..I'm clear that you have an agenda. That rules you out as an objective bystander and truthfully just leaves me suspicious of what you offer. I might suggest that your spare time would be better served volunteering at the food bank, ambulance corp or either of the two volunteer fire stations who are otherwise desperate for the time of yours and many who have to offer it. Just a suggestion..

I just read this letter many times and I don't see any place in it where Andrew claims to not have an agenda ... From everything I have read he seems to feel that his agenda is open government ... Whether or not people agree with that is their own business ...

I have just one question - Does anybody run for government that has NO agenda? Is that not the point? To have an idea of how government should run and attempt to implement that idea ... that in itself would be an agenda. I do not want to elect an official lacking an agenda, I want someone with thought.

Andrew being objective is another issue ... Unless someone would like to claim that he is editing minutes out of the meetings, how is his video not objective?

I'd just like to say that I am grateful for the videos you post on YouTube, Andrew, and hope you will continue to do so.

I have never seen any of the videos, however I for one would rather see the video be set up in the back of the room and focused on the Board members and at best only the backs of the residents attending meetings. I know I for one would feel more comfortable with this and then residents would not feel as though they are the focus of the video.

It is a public forum so if people are afraid to speak up then that is their issue. It's not like the video is going viral and that person has papparazzi in front of their house.

We are an open community. If you plan to speak up, own what you say and be proud of it... or don;t speak up. You can always write a letter or send an email.

Whether Andrew or some 13 year old points the camera.... it is an irrelevant point. The video speaks for itself. You cannot claim bias if the video is not edited and nobody can make that claim based on fact.

This is just silly. I don;t know Andrew and I don;t know Kris but people need to focus their energy on what is best for the community and that is obviously not being done by the majority.

Andrew has an agenda and that is to serve the community providing video of the board meetings in which lays the real agendas
Keep it up Andrew! however i think Kerry does have a point maybe it would be better to stand in the rear of the room.
regards

Vanity is MY middle name! LOL

How do you comment on the vantage point of the camera without viewing any of the videos???

I thought that the footage of the December meeting captured what happened well ... does anyone who was there argue with that?

As someone with experience in recording live sound, I would like to address the issue of camera/microphone placement at the village board meetings. Mr Argenio is recording from the best location to capture the audio of both the village board and the audience. Without additional and expensive sound equipment, recording from the rear of the room would be impossible because you would not be able to hear the comments from the audience as their backs would be turned to both the camera and microphone. I don't think anyone expects someone who is volunteering their time, to bear the burden of time and expense to record these meetings at a professional level. In all of the videos I have watched, it seems that Mr Argenio is usually trying to frame the shot by centering the crowd in the camera's field of vision. I have seen him have to move the camera to avoid filming the side of a late arrival's head that sat near him, but don't think I have ever seen it moved or centered in a way that was intentionally meant to be intimidating or threatening.
Mr Argenio, thanks again for your time and effort given in providing the video footage. Some of us are unable to 'get off our butts' to attend most meetings due to work hours or family obligations, so these videos are a big help in keeping track of village government or the lack thereof.

My thought exactly re. the sound, though since I'm definitely not a pro I didn't post it. I went to one Village meeting and could barely hear a word that the poorly miked mumblers of the Village Board were saying--admittedly I spent too many years flying loud airplanes to have survived with my hearing intact--so I agree that Andrew is doing the best he can, soundwise, with the equipment he has.

I think that given our overwhelmingly visual culture, we've all developed a pretty sophisticated skill set in evaluating visual media. As far as objective documentation goes, it's safe to say that there are a few ground rules, and I think Andrew abides by them in the videos I've seen him take at the Village board meetings. The primary rule is: No Cutting. As far as panning the camera between the board and the audience, as long as it is following the dialogue, then the camera is really just assuming the point-of-view of anyone in attendance at the meeting. Re-framing to avoid the obstruction of a foreground body so that the viewer gets the maximum visual information doesn't create a bias, as far as I can tell. The tricky point is zooming. I think that as long as the camera is ONLY going into close-up on the person speaking, and that this technique is applied consistently for all speakers, then there is little bias. Andrew does not overdo the close-up. 95% of his videos are boringly wide, as they should be. I think he'd be crossing the line if he went in for reaction shots. This is what Kris suspected (incorrectly) that he was doing. The fact that he wasn't nullifies her complaint, as far as I'm concerned.