Last week’s arrest of two journalists at a public meeting of the D.C. Taxicab Commission highlighted something of a loophole in the District’s new Open Meetings law — it doesn’t say anything about whether the public or the press are allowed to record the proceedings, or when a commission, board or agency can limit or prohibit it.

That looks like it’s going to change.

Faced with an uproar in the wake of the arrests (charges were dropped against both Pete Tucker and Jim Epstein), D.C. Attorney General Irv Nathan has decided to tell the commission that it must allow recording unless a very specific disruption can be cited to prohibit it, according to NBC4’s Tom Sherwood.

In early May, the commission’s interim chairwoman, Dena Reed, had posted a notice forbidding the recording of meetings, a practice she later defended by saying that the Open Meetings law was quiet on the issue and that cameras and recording devices were “disruptive to meetings.” Tucker, who appeared on Newstalk with Bruce DePuyt this morning, argued that Reed wanted to limit recording to avoid scrutiny in her re-writing of regulations governing the city’s taxicab industry.

In a letter sent to Mayor Vince Gray yesterday, the D.C. Open Government Coalition expressed its displeasure with the arrests and stressed that even though the right to record isn’t written into the city’s Open Meetings law, it doesn’t make sense to prohibit it:

Mrs. Reed pointed out in a statement that the newly revised Open Meetings Act does not specifically grant a right to record public meetings. That is also beside the point; plainly the right to engage in non-disruptive recording goes hand in hand with a public meeting. The absence of an explicit statutory mandate to allow recordings of open meetings does not translate into a prohibition; we believe that a government committed to transparency should understand the importance of allowing recordings that will inevitably facilitate more accurate reporting and improved public understanding of what transpired during the meeting.

In a conversation with DCist last week, Councilmember Muriel Bowser (D-Ward 4), who originally authored the Open Meetings law that went into effect in late April, said she’d be willing to clarify parts of the law to prevent such incidents in the future. Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), who chairs the committee that would oversee any such changes, has been quiet on the issue so far, though. The law does call for the creation of an Open Government Office, which would likely advise boards, commissions and agencies on matters like these are mete of consequences for violations.

Regardless of what Reed may have intended with her actions and the subsequent arrests, there are likely to be many more people at the commission’s July 13 meeting — and lots of them will likely recording the proceedings.