Comments on: To blog or not to blog

By: Elaine Johnson

Elaine Johnson — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:31:32 +0000

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.

By: John Schofield

John Schofield — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:23:17 +0000

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.

By: Dazed and Confused

Dazed and Confused — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:29:52 +0000

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”?

By: Red Fred

Red Fred — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:48:21 +0000

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.

By: Scott Theisen

Scott Theisen — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:34:08 +0000

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?

By: Chad D. Walz

Chad D. Walz — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:23:38 +0000

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.

By: Dazed and Confused

Dazed and Confused — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:39:29 +0000

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?

By: MikeK

MikeK — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:50:30 +0000

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.

By: Liz Chaplin

Liz Chaplin — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:32:27 +0000

Well said Punto DeVista!

By: Sideline Observer

Sideline Observer — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:51:28 +0000

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.