During a discussion of the Comprehensive Planning Ad Hoc Committee at the Feb. 2 village council meeting, Commissioner Sean Durkin called for a rule that would deter committee members from blogging.
“I would like to see, through council action or staff, that any member who is on the commission refrain from any sort of blogging until after this council votes on this matter,” Durkin said.
“There are certain members of this committee who have blogged, blog or have their own Web sites,” he said. “So, I’m not pointing a finger at any specific person or person, but I just ask that whatever is discussed at this stays at the level it is and not on the internet.”
This is, to my knowledge, the first time such a concern has been floated by a member of the village council. Maybe because DGreport contributor Mark Thoman was about to be appointed a member of the committee?
Thoman is surely the most active blogger on the committee, which also includes Bill White and Marge Earl of the Zoning Board of Appeals; Alan Jirik, Audra Hamerik and Gregg Beggs of the Plan Commission; Mike Davenport of the Architecture Design Review Board, John Wendt of the Traffic and Parking Commission and at-large member Paul Jacobs. Two additional at-large members are yet to be appointed following Tuesday’s vote to increase the committee.
White, of course, was the publisher of the now defunct Wired Grove blog before assuming his current roles as chairman of the ZBA, D99 school board member and, as of Tuesday, chairman of the CPC. While a regular commenter during the 2007 campaign, he has offered only a very occasional comment on the DGreport since.
Marge Earl also has commented here on limited basis, most recently to report on last month’s Community Events Commission meeting, while Mike Davenport has commented just once.
None of their comments have been strident, indiscreet or otherwise objectionable. Thoman, on the other hand, has certainly come in for some push-back for his posts. However, he’s made it clear he is stepping back from blogging on the DGreport and focusing his attentions on the CPC.
“Mayor Sandack knows I continue to be appreciative of the opportunity to serve the village, and appreciative of his appointing me to what everyone knows to be a key undertaking of the village,” Thoman said.
While I have no problem with Durkin raising the question of blogging in conjunction with boards and commissions — in fact, I think it should be raised — I would have appreciated a larger discussion of the issue.
As it turned out, commissioners Geoff Neustadt and William Waldack were the only ones to weigh in, although Durkin said he “had communications with several colleagues and there were no objections” to his proposal.
“I think there’s a different kind of respect and professionalism that comes once on an acting board or commission, Neustadt said. “I fully expect all of our appointees to respect and follow rules of conduct for the municipal organization and that board and commission.”
It took Waldack to point out that the council was framing the question in the narrowest possible terms by focusing on blogging to the exclusion of other social media — of which local officials including the mayor, Neustadt, and commissioners Bob Barnett and Bruce Beckman make regular use.
“I know the rules apply, we have legal standards we have to meet and I know there’s a concern,” Waldack said. “Keep in mind it doesn’t mean no blogging, because keep in mind we have council members up here always Twittering and blogging, Facebooking and everything else .
“The standards that apply to us would probably apply to them as well. It doesn’t put a kibosh on blogs,” he said.
Waldack’s point speaks to the universality of social media. This is an era when members of Congress Twitter from the U.S. Capitol during the president’s State of the Union address, policy discussions flourish on local Facebook pages and the Village itself makes regular use of Twitter and TribLocal, and also posted an official statement on the “Bring Back the Heritage Fest” group’s Facebook page.
So where to we draw the line? At all digital media? All blogs? Or just the DGreport?
I wrote in yesterday’s Sun column about the difficulties and challenges digital media present to the dinosaurs among us — journalists, government officials and consumers of the “news.” Falling into two of those groups myself, I’m certainly sympathetic to the third.
However, at the risk of sounding self-serving, I’m going to suggest it could appear that public officials are personally motivated when they single out one tiny corner of the digital universe as off-limits and apply that criterion to a single committee.
By all means have a discussion — a far-reaching, all-inclusive discussion — of what the explosion of blogs and other digital and social media means to government business as usual. But, please. Be fair.
Loading ...
I didn’t hear the original discussion, so I don’t know the context of the call for Durkin’s Rule, but it strikes me as both undefined and very odd. To whom and to what is the gag order supposed to apply? As someone else here noted the other day, anything that happens or is said at the public meetings of this committee will be, well, very public. So, it can’t possibly be a “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” kind of thing.
Is it supposed to be a reminder of the requirements of the Open Meetings Act or a polite request that the committee members restrict all discussion of their business to the formal meetings of the committee? Can’t be, because if so, why just single out blogging and this particular committee? Why not request that there be no discussion or communication whatsoever outside of the meetings of any of the committees? Well, because that would be impractical and a little silly. Are we to think that none of the members of the council or any other committee are discouraged from individually discussing public business with regular Joes outside of their formal meetings? Of course they aren’t, and they do it all the time. And, like policymakers everywhere, some of them blog, tweet, update, post or email about it, too.
Is it designed to limit awareness of the goings on at the committee meetings to only those who attend them in person or to what is summarily captured in the meeting minutes? Can’t be, as that wouldn’t be very pellucid. (Sorry, had to break out the Thesaurus because we’re not allowed to use the T-word here any more.)
Or, is it designed to suppress criticism or contrary viewpoints concerning the committee’s efforts until the council votes on the matter? Can’t be, as that would not be an example of following good process.
So, I just don’t get it. The surest way to get people to blog about something is to tell them not to.
Regarding the Open Meetings Act requirements:
In the context of the discussion, which Durkin introduced, Commissioner Schnell suggested that committee member be apprised of OMA prohibitions concerning e-mail, in particular, (i.e.: don’t reply to “all”).
However, as she did not comment directly on the question of blogging so I did not include her comments in the post.
I read with interest, “…I just ask that whatever is discussed at this stays at the level it is and not on the internet.”
As far as I know, all the committee working papers and minutes are going to be on the internet. That’s what the Village routinely does, because the Village strives for transparency and public access.
If they were not posted on the internet, anyone could use the FOIA process to obtain them, and they could put them on the internet.
Will the Comp Plan Committee meetings be recorded for podcast? I think they should be. It will be interesting to see what background materials are prepared by staff for the committee to use as a starting point for discussion. I hope we can think big and not be afraid of examining bold ideas for future decades. (Burnham-like?) Asking committee members to not participate in online discussion about committee business is silly. It’s a good way for the members to get continuous input and feedback from the community.
Do committee members take an oath of secrecy?
Are the committee members Masons?? If so, shouldn’t meetings be held across the street from the post office?? Does Commissioner Sean Durkin know where the Holy Grail is hidden??
Oh wait, that’s the Knights Templar, nevermind.
Kelly, secrets are basically illegal in government in Illinois. There is a short list of exceptions, but they would not apply to a committee like this, only to official Executive Sessions of the Village Council.
Look up the Illinois Freedom of Information Act and the Illinois Public Meetings Act.
“Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them as public officials and public employees consistent with the terms of this Act. Such access is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties of discussing public issues fully and freely, making informed political judgments and monitoring government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interest.”
“It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business. In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
Luddites.
isn’t this going against the First Amendment and their constitutional rights? I don’t think the First Amendment stops applying to you because you were appointed to a civic committee
There is another basic question that arises here relating to the decisions of various committees, forums, etc covered by the FOIA. Once a public decision is made within the rules of the government body and the proponents and opponents are on the record, should the principals continue the discussion on social media?.
I believe that anyone who signs on to a board/commission/etc with a clear decision process has an obligation to respect the decision process as defined by the organizational rules (or not to oppose “constitutional” decisions). And if in such complete disagreement with an outcome, the individual needs to withdraw before using social media to advance a disparate point of view.
This is right back to EJ’s earlier post on public service and politicians. Public servants use the processes afforded them to express points of view. Politicians work outside of those processes and the rules of common decency to obtain their ends. (EJ- I am sure I just grossly misrepresented your post – sorry!). Public servants work openly to improve flawed processes. Politicians exploit flawed processes to their advantage.
Everyone has a right to blog. Free speach is wonderful. But people entrusted by the public to observe established rules of order need to respect their public obligation. .
Durkins Rule: Suspend the First Amendment prohibition on government limiting freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and repeal the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that applies the above to state and local governments.
Mayor Sandack is a lawyer. He may decline to pursue that.
Well said Punto DeVista!
A council that ran on transparency?….quite frankly I am dumbfounded.
Confidential information is one thing. But the Limitation of the flow of information from public actions – controversial or popular – is something we would expect out of the People’s Republic of China.
I don’t get it. Sean Patrick Durkin was blogging on another site concerning DG business less than 1 week ago. Why is it ok for him to talk about Village business but volunteers can’t?
I don’t think the motion would pass anyway. Ron, Geoff, Sean and Bob use social media all the time. There isn’t much difference between facebook and a blog.
Durkin needs to chill. More laws to regulate behavior are insane. Public forums have an historic link to liberty as far back as the Greek Agora.
“Refrain from any blogging until the Council has voted.” What a laugh. We might as well say “No discussion on judicial matters until the Supreme Court has ruled”. That road leads nowhere.
Durkin might as well yell at the sun if he hopes to stop the sea change of social media communication online. Mr. Durkin…this includes communication about the real beliefs of our public servants and elected officials.
Ask yourself…is the rise of the internet happening because people desire more transparency, connectivity and access to information? Or is it rising because we seek less?
We all know what “pushback” is, and if Thoman “has certainly come in for some push-back for his posts.”, that’s very telling.
“Durkin said he “had communications with several colleagues and there were no objections” to his proposal.” What’s disturbing is:
1) There’s backroom or closed session discussions on village policy the public knows nothing about.
2) There’s more than one clueless council member on this.
Maybe those secret backroom discussions need to see the disinfecting light of day.
Red Fred,
You bring up a good point. Who on the council is having off line conversations?
Did Durkin just acknoweldge violating the “Open Meetings Act”?
They all do it, and it’s not necessarily bad for them to sound each other out and try to obtain consensus.
If it’s email, Twitter tweets, or Facebook notes, they are theoretically subject to a Freedom of Information Act inquiry.
But if it’s face-to-face or telephone conversations, there’s no audit trail. Just their own admissions, as Durkin recently, that it occurred.
It’s my understanding that there is no violation if commissioners are discussing a matter one-on-one and thereby avoiding a quorum. It’s not only unrealistic to expect that commissioners to never discuss matters of council business on a limited basis, but it’s perfectly legal. Durkin could simply and appropriately have floated the idea to colleagues one-on-one.