My Goal in Blogging

I started this blog in May of 2008, shortly after my election to the School Committee, because I believed it was very important to both provide the community with an opportunity to share their thoughts with me about our schools and to provide me with an opportunity for me to ask questions and share my thoughts and reasoning. I have found the conversation generated on my blog to be extremely helpful to me in learning community views on many issues. I appreciate the many people who have taken the time to share their views. I believe it is critical to the quality of our public schools to have a public discussion of our community priorities, concerns and aspirations.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

My Response to the Shutesbury School Committee Chair's Oped

Although I really hate devoting more space to discussing my blog (as opposed to discussing actual education in Amherst), I thought the oped in today's Gazette by Michael DeChiara (Chair of the Shutesbury School Committee) merited a response -- since it clearly implies that my blog might perhaps not be "fair and legal." You can read his full piece at: http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/06/08/needed-rules-road-officials-blogs.

Michael raises 6 points that call into question my blog (and indeed all blogs) -- I'll list and quote those points (in bold), and then give my response (in italics).

First, he notes that "While a few public officials have created their own blogs (driving into the rotary), many others are waiting for legal guidance before participating. This creates a partial, unbalanced and potentially illegal forum for discussion and deliberation."

I'll just note here that no one has said it is illegal for a School Committee member to have a blog -- which I checked with the head of the MA School Committee Association two years ago when I started my blog. So, if he, or others, would like to start a blog, they should feel free to do so.

Second, he states that "If we presume that every public official has a right to free expression, it is unclear how to balance this right with the need to comply with Open Meeting Law.
Let's assume that on a committee of five people, all the members have their own blog. Even if these blogs did not allow comments, each committee member would still be able to read the others' posts, thereby exchanging information among the committee members outside of a legal public meeting. Whether this is illegal deliberation is a valid question."

So, I have two responses here. First, I believe that learning other people's opinions is not the same as deliberating about those opinions. In fact, the point of a meeting is to have that deliberation in public, and that is precisely what occurs. Sometimes people's opinions (including my own) change as a result of that deliberation! Second, the point of the open meeting law is to make sure that people don't discuss issues in secret. Blogs are the opposite of secret -- so, people could know that whatever other SC members know about each other's opinions, they at least have that information!


Third, Michael writes "There is also a core concept in Open Meeting Law called "serial discussion," which is strictly forbidden. This occurs when official A talks to official B about an issue concerning their committee's business; then official B talks to official C. On a committee of five people, these three members constitute a quorum (they can vote and do committee business).

Their serial exchanges (A to B to C) result in deliberations outside of a public meeting. In the online world, if official A posts on a blog, official B comments on that post and official C simply reads what is posted (without anyone even knowing), this may be an online serial discussion. If so, it could be illegal."


If this is illegal, then so is the case that two School Committee members are quoted in the same article about a topic, and this article is then read by a third School Committee member. Similarly, it would be illegal for two School Committee members to post on anyone else's blog (e.g., a non-School Committee member, or a newspaper). It would also be illegal for two School Committee members to write a newspaper column, since if a third read their opinions, they would have committed this violation.


Fourth, he writes "If a public official allows comments on her or his blog, there is an assumption that all comments by others are visible. While private citizens who host blogs can determine whose comments may be accepted and seen by the public, there is no guidance for public officials? Is there an expectation that they are hosting a public discussion and therefore all comments must be visible to the public, similar to a "public comments" at physical meetings?"

At a public meeting, sometimes there is not enough time for all members of the public to talk, nor is there any obligation that equal time (or any time) be given to members who want to talk. A blog operates precisely the same way.

Fifth, and related, he writes, "At a public meeting, people who comment must identify themselves for the minutes. Is there a similar expectation that comments on blogs should be identified with real people's names?"

Although people are asked their names for the minutes, these names are not verified in any way, and are sometimes misrecorded in the minutes. Similarly, a blog could require people to give a name (as masslive does), but that doesn't mean it is a person's real name.

Finally, how about the content on a public official's blog? Is "reporting out" about past meetings qualitatively different than sharing opinions about topics for future deliberation by the committee? When does sharing information or opinions by a public official regarding an upcoming issue become influencing debate outside of a public meeting?


The ACLU speaks to this point very clearly (and based in already established law): "An elected official has the right to express his or her opinions and convictions prior to, and after, a scheduled open meeting. The Massachusetts appellate court decisions are clear that the Open Meeting Law does 'not require elected officials to maintain a vow of silence before a hearing on a hot subject." Indeed, elected School Committee Members, prior to a vote, may express their convictions on the precise public policy point that will come before the meeting." I don't think it gets a lot clearer than that.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why don't you just publish his entire editorial instead of picking and choosing what to publish? If you read the entire editorial you come away with a different feel for why he and the other chairs asked for a clarification.

This blog has turned into your very own propaganda tool, Catherine, which is actually quite fine since it is your blog. But people need to be aware that it is just that..a propaganda tool.

Catherine A. Sanderson said...

Anonymous 2:20: I didn't publish his entire editorial because the Gazette has asked me not to -- hence I've changed and just publish the link, which is fully available to my readers. If you'd like to ask the Gazette to change their policy on allowing my readers to have free access to stories, feel free to do so, and have them get back to me directly.

And if by "propaganda tool" you mean opportunity to share my views and respond to even anonymous critiques (like yours), you are right.

TomG said...

This formulation is indicative of polemic:

"If we presume that every public official has a right to free expression..."

It's not a presumption, it's a fact that NO ONE disputes it.

"... it is unclear how to balance this right with the need to comply with Open Meeting Law."

The open Meeting Law is its own standard, there is no balance. DiCharia structures an argument to construct the need for a balance. It's polemic and its transparently thin gruel.

I'll note that DiCharia writes an oped and submits it to the newspaper and doesn't once question whether people reading it and talking about it is a violation of open meeting law. Why no concern about balancing free expression and deliberation? How is DiCharias' expression so different from doing so on a blog?

I cant help but conclude that he's eagerly defending the inquiry to the DA but without reason that makes sense to me.

I too wish the dialogue would return to school policy and curriculum and away from 'who can say what where.'

May reason or a response from the DA give DiCharia and his four colleagues the guidance they so clearly require.

TomG said...

anon@2:20 Can you explain and give examples?

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:20 here

Catherine, I stand corrected. You did post the link to the entire editorial. My apologies.

I hope your readers will take the time to read the entire editorial.

Anonymous said...

I thought the oped article did a good job of identifying some of the concerns about public officials having blogs. It's not because there may be a problem with the public official sharing her or his opinion and thinking on an issue. The concerns happen in the aftermath of that expression - in the give and take discussion, in the advocacy, the clarification, & the deliberations which could ensue. It would be foolish to dismiss these concerns. Blogs are new formats for public discourse and looking at them closely couldn't hurt.

Catherine A. Sanderson said...

Anonymous 3:10 - it is a very slippery slope ... newspaper columns and articles also allow for public discourse and for elected officials sharing of information and views. So do other blogs (not owned/operated by SC members). If we are to eliminate all options for elected officials to share opinions with the public, advocate a position, engage in give and take, etc., we would need to eliminate school committee members writing opeds (like Michael's), being quoted in a newspaper, attending public meetings/forums in which their views are shared PRIOR to a School Committee meeting, and commenting on other people's blogs. Does that sound like in the best interest of the public? I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

I don't question the sincerity of most people endorsing the scrutiny of blogs as a vehicle for public discourse, especially by elected officials.

But I would hope that SOME of those people, on further reflection, would realize that what we are ultimately dealing with here is FREEDOM, freedom of expression. And, on the blogs, we are simply witnessing freedom of expression more fully realized (in all of its eloquence and its ugliness) than in any other prior medium of communication.

This new degree of freedom is jarring to many people, and frightening to others (thus, the number of anonymous posters), and therefore some just can't embrace it. And that gut sense that there must be something ethically wrong with all of this dialogue is what we're seeing played out here.

This too shall pass.

Rich Morse

Joel said...

I have no idea why the Shutesbury chair wrote the op-ed, which I read this morning, along with the ACLU's much more reasoned and logical response. I won't get into motives.

The problem with his complaints or worries about "blogs" is that he is confusing the medium with potential messages. Blogs are simply a semi-interactive form of web-based communication. They can be about anything. They sometimes are about nothing.

They are a lot like email. Not all blogs are completely open. Not all email is freely circulated. They are ultimately like newsprint or even bulletin boards. Blogs are a medium, not a message per se.

DeChiara's arguments about blogs -- he cannot provide a single example of someone on a local blog that even might have violated the open meeting law; indeed, he doesn't offer any real life examples-- could apply to any medium of communication.

Why not outlaw pads of paper? SC members could write on them and then circulate them among themselves. They could forward emails only to each other -- time to outlaw email. God forbid anyone has an active party line on their phone or uses the multiple chat feature on Mac OS X's iChat. Should they all be outlawed as well?

The point is that there are communication media and there are actual communications -- comments, statements, questions, and so on. Outlawing or restricting an elected official's blog is no different than outlawing or restricting that person's use of email, the phone, or even papers that might be posted in the public square anonymously -- which to DeChiara might be members of the SC hiding out as "paper anons."

Ed said...

ENOUGH!!!!

Not all laws are equal. The US Constitution takes precedence over Massachusetts law. There are at least two valid sodomy statutes on the books (there may be more, I just have found these two) and while they are valid Massachusetts law, they can not be enforced because SCOTUS says that they violate the US Constitution.

Catherine Sanderson has rights of free speech and Massachusetts can not take that away from her. And to all of those of you who want that, I ask if you want the next Republican Governor to have that authority to take it away from you.... Hence:

Second, he states that "If we presume that every public official has a right to free expression, it is unclear how to balance this right with the need to comply with Open Meeting Law. Let's assume that on a committee of five people, all the members have their own blog. Even if these blogs did not allow comments, each committee member would still be able to read the others' posts, thereby exchanging information among the committee members outside of a legal public meeting. Whether this is illegal deliberation is a valid question."

First, forgetting both the zoning laws and her respect for both her family and her neighbors, if she was to get a really big electronic billboard and start typing messages on that, would it violate the open meeting law?

Second, if she was to climb up on the roof of the house and start screaming her opinions at the very top of her lungs, would that violate the open meeting law? If she got the mega-maga PA system powerful enough for her to be heard in Hadley, would she be violating the open meeting law?

Third, if she was to take a can of spray paint and paint her opinions on every car in the school parking lot, would she violate the open meeting law?

No. There likely would be a lot of OTHER laws she would be violating, but the open meeting law was designed to address the situation where people were trying to preclude the public from hearing what an elected official was saying. And she is doing the exact opposite - having what one person described as "propaganda." Well, folks, propaganda is inherently public...

Now there is one other issue -- many of the people who oppose Catherine are UMass employees. When they go to an all-campus meeting, when they go to their union meeting, when they talk about educational matters on campus, are they not themselves doing the exact thing that they are accusing her of doing?

Yes, lets raise the open meeting law, but lets address the real violators as well...

Ed said...

0ne other thing - as to requiring identification at a public meeting, I am not so sure it would pass muster. SCOTUS ruled a while back that one had a Constitutional right to post anonymous political fliers, and that would imply that one has a right to make anonymous political speech in general.

Now you could argue public safety but you would be hard pressed to show a greater danger from those speaking than those not and if somoeone wanted to push this, my gut feeling is that while you can ask those speaking at a public meeting to identify themselves, you can't make them do so.

And thus if you can't do this, if you *definitely* can't make people sign paper statements, how can you be obligated to make them identify blog comments???

Ed said...

0ne other thing - as to requiring identification at a public meeting, I am not so sure it would pass muster. SCOTUS ruled a while back that one had a Constitutional right to post anonymous political fliers, and that would imply that one has a right to make anonymous political speech in general.

Now you could argue public safety but you would be hard pressed to show a greater danger from those speaking than those not and if somoeone wanted to push this, my gut feeling is that while you can ask those speaking at a public meeting to identify themselves, you can't make them do so.

And thus if you can't do this, if you *definitely* can't make people sign paper statements, how can you be obligated to make them identify blog comments???