posted by Mike Madison at 9:29 AM /
Lebo School Board Director James Fraasch has additional posts up at his blog about matters before the Board (including, but not limited to, the coming decision on reconstruction or renovation of the high school). Check them out here, and again here. Board Director Jo Posti’s blog post about the Board’s considering a “public comment policy” (or not considering one), which I linked to earlier, drew this email from Dave Franklin. With Dave’s permission, I’m printing much of his comment below. I don’t agree with all of it, but it’s thoughtful and provocative, and I think that it warrants some public conversation here.
The topic: The Internet and related technologies enable elected politicians and constituents to engage in conversations about public policy about that are frequent, detailed, and interactive like never before, or like nothing we've seen since pre-Revolutionary New England or the golden age of Athens. How does this improve the quality of governance and civic life? How does this harm it?
Here’s Dave:
After I wrote back to Dave that I don’t think that “shareholder/firm” is the right or best analogy here, and that in other political contexts the losing pols often air their disagreements with the outcomes and vow to continue the debate, he replied:
Thoughts?
The topic: The Internet and related technologies enable elected politicians and constituents to engage in conversations about public policy about that are frequent, detailed, and interactive like never before, or like nothing we've seen since pre-Revolutionary New England or the golden age of Athens. How does this improve the quality of governance and civic life? How does this harm it?
Here’s Dave:
I was glancing over the Lebo Blog recently and stumbled across the entry re: public comments at school board meetings, which included a link to Jo Posti's own blog where she authored a lengthy post about what went on at the meeting in question. Interestingly, she filed the post under the tag line "Truth" and included a sentence that read, "While the discussion about how to improve public comments has ended, it is, in my opinion, an unresolved issue." I've also followed Dan Miller's posts regarding the decision to place a Lebo cop at KOHS and the subsequent reversal of that decision, presumably due to considerable public pressure.
Then I got to thinking . . . is it really good practice to have individual school board members or commissioners posting their opinions on blogs - especially after a vote/decision has been made by the body as a whole.
Let me state at the outset that I applaud any school board director or commissioner who wants to host a website to stay in touch with his/her constituents. I think that is a noble and worthwhile effort. However, blog entries (especially those coming post-board/commission action), which question or oppose the board/commission's action seem like a slippery slope to me. For example, one thing that I counsel all of the boards that I represent is the obligation to ultimately set aside one's personal opinions and acknowledge/support the decision of the board, whether you voted for it or not.
I wholeheartedly agree that during consideration of an initiative or motion, every board member who has something to say on the issue should voice his or her opinion and attempt to convince others (in good faith, of course) to see it their way. However, once the vote is cast, the board must come forth with a unified voice on the outcome. It is okay for a dissenting director or commissioner to say nothing after a vote that he/she disagrees with, but I think it is a dangerous precedent for such individuals to continue the discussion on personal blogs/websites. Frankly, I think it undermines the process to a degree and could possibly create confusion, distrust or other problems down the line.
Think for a moment if the individual board members at Heinz or PNC posted their opinions regarding decisions that were made at a board meeting. Conceivably, these personal comments could create public disclosure issues and actually impact the stock price and completely ruin the public's confidence in the process. For these reasons, you'll never see it happen.
I see myself as a shareholder in Mt. Lebanon, and I question whether these personal blogs are a good practice in the government sector.
After I wrote back to Dave that I don’t think that “shareholder/firm” is the right or best analogy here, and that in other political contexts the losing pols often air their disagreements with the outcomes and vow to continue the debate, he replied:
I think one difference between local (township) government and the legislature is access. These folks aren't doing this for a career and we all see them at the ball fields or the Giant Eagle.
I certainly see myself as a shareholder - or at least something close. Like a shareholder, I have made (and continue to make) a financial investment and I voted for certain people to lead. It doesn't seem like whining post-vote advances the ball, regardless of what side you're on. There needs to be finality. We elected these folks to lead, not whine to the populace if they lose. Otherwise, let's put everything to a referendum.
. . .I fully support politicians having websites to better communicate with constituents. My concern is simply surrounding the post-vote stomping.
I suppose I should also mention[] that I am concerned that these blogs may replace attendance at meetings. For example, like the police issue, I think its very bad practice to take a vote, and if the result is not what you wanted, go to the public at large and drum up support for a reversal. While I certainly agree with the reversal of the police decision (in fact, I wrote a stern email to my Commish Raja), I think the practice of working for a reversal is a slippery slope.
Thoughts?
Labels: can we talk?
8 Comments:
I almost completely disagree with Dave.
It seems to me that the points he raises have more to do with the decorum and stewardship that public office entails, than the necessity to stifle disagreement in and of itself.
Certainly, to see any elected official whining about not getting their way puts a good deal of doubt into the reputation of that person, as well as the body on which they serve.
However, we live in a representative democracy where the sort of open disagreement over decisions made that Dave decries happens constantly.
Would it be better if we could just get those pesky moderates/cat-lovers/bus-riders/(insert hated political group here) to just pipe down and go along with our nefarious scheme?
No.
There is a fine line between sour grapes, and a worthy cause that has been overruled. And we should evaluate our elected officials on how carefully they respect that line.
Mike,
Dave brings up a good point - one I agree with. While I agree that good boardsmanship asks that we support a decision once a vote has been taken, in my case, discussion was cut off before a vote was taken and in Commissioner Miller's case, the ramifications were not fully apparent until after the vote was taken. I've developed a more detailed analysis of the issue on my blog here.
Mr. Franklin said he doesn't think that a school board member should post opposing opinions on a blog after the vote...the problem with this instance is that there was no vote.
Ms. Posti asked for a discussion to address the possible formation of a board subcommittee to discuss public comment at meetings. There was limited discussion regarding the subject at the meeting during which 4 board members stated a willingness to discuss the formation of a committee.
Board President Hart stated he had the power to set committees and that he didn't want the subcommittee.
He then refused to allow a vote on the subject. I think one board member asked if they could vote on the discussion to have the committee and he refused to have a vote.
So, when Mrs. Posti says the subject is unresolved I see what she means.
While I essentially agree with much of Mr. Frankln's comments, that once a body has a chance to discuss a topic and vote on its merits, the individual members should accept the consensus and move on. The problem is that in this specific instance, there was no vote. In a recent conversation I had with a board member who seems to agree with governance by fiat, he said that he agreed with the decision to cut off all discussion and not allow a vote on the matter, because he "felt" that a majority of the board agreed with him. When I asked him what method of communication he used, whether ESP or body language, or something else, he stuck to his "feelings". Whether the measure would have been voted up or down is something we will never know, because there was no vote.
I also disagree with some of what Dave has said. I do not think that Commissioner Miller's posting regarding the KOHS/police issue was not sour grapes at all. As an elected official (and my commissioner), I think that his postings served to state his opinion on the matter so that his constituents knew where he stood and why he voted the way he did.
There was significant opposition to the vote that was made by the commission as a whole and fellow "shareholders" in town made a point to contact their fellow residents and ask them to support a reversal of the decision which ultimately happened.
I think it is great that Dan, James and Jo have taken the time to set up web sites to communicate with the people that elected them. It's a shame that more elected officials in this town, county and region haven't done the same. There needs to be more transparency in politics, not less.
Let officials enjoy a little frankness with the Community - it is refreshing and we are better for it. Lest we forget, MTL has its share of special interests with "bat phones" to elected officials.
As for revisiting issues - Thank heavens some folks have the tenacity to make things right - it is refreshing and we are better for it.
The National School Boards Association Council of School Attorneys says, “School boards are more likely to face legal challenge when they attempt to regulate the content of the expression, rather than merely the time place or manner, An example of a valid time-place-manner restriction would be a reasonable time limit for public statements at board meetings”
Mr. Hart properly protected the board from legal challenge by stopping discussion and not recording a public vote. The same admonition from NSBA attorneys is there for all board members.
John Ewing
Using Mr. Ewing's logic, nothing would ever come up to a vote because someone might have a legal challenge to the issue. In this instance I believe the issue was to have a discussion concerning what is appropriate to discuss in a school board forum. I would think that if the board decided to to ban the use of profanity, racial slurs and other outrageous language, they should openly and courageously accept whatever legal challenges may ensue. Apparently Mr. Ewing and some other timid souls would do anything to avoid a legal confrontation, including disallowing voting.
Post a Comment
<< Home