When two journalists were arrested at a D.C. Taxicab Commission hearing yesterday, many residents, officials and open government advocates were quick to express disgust and question how exactly such heavy-handed actions could take place at a meeting that was otherwise open to the press and public. The questions were even more pressing because it was just two months ago that a strengthened open meetings law went into effect in the District.

But a review of the law and its relevance to yesterday’s events highlights a loophole that allowed the commission’s Interim Chairwomen, Dena Reed, to not only prohibit the recording of public meetings but also call for the arrest of the two journalists — The Fightback’s Pete Tucker and Reason’s Jim Epstein — for doing just that. (The Post’s John Kelly was similarly prevented from returning to the meeting after Tucker and Epstein were arrested.)

According to the law, all public meetings of city agencies, boards and commissions have to be either recorded by electronic means or have detailed minutes produced for public review. But the provision of the law only imposes an official responsibility on the people running the meeting, not a distinct right for attendees such as Tucker, Epstein or members of the public to record it themselves.

In early May, Tucker reported that Reed had posted a notice banning the use of video cameras or audio recorders at the commission’s public meetings, saying that they were “disruptive.” Conveniently enough at the time, Reed was playing the dual role of Interim Chairwoman and general counsel of the commission, essentially allowing her to interpret the law in a way that benefited her in her capacity as the person chairing its meetings.

Mike DeBonis got a hold of a statement from Reed in which she verifies that since the law doesn’t prohibit the banning of cameras and other recording equipment, she went ahead with it.

Beyond that apparent loophole, the fact that the law is so new limits any specific actions that can be taken against Reed and the commission. According to the law, the D.C. Open Government Office, created to regulate and enforce the law, “may bring a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for injunctive or declaratory relief for any violation.” The problem? The office doesn’t yet exist. (Reed can be sanctioned in other ways, of course, such as by losing her position at the commission.)