The Observation Deck

Hi Mark Kindt,

May I/we use your letter as a template? What attachments do you recommend we attach?

pam wetula

Matthew Lee wrote:The "rules" of that community state clearly:

"NO POLITICAL POSTS:
This is a Lakewood-centric group with the purpose of promoting community. Therefore, political posts and photographs, no matter how innocuous, whether party, candidate, or issue focused, will be removed from this page."

Whether one agrees with those rules or not can be up for debate, but it always has specifically called out political posts and doesn't allow them for any party or politician.

Mr. Lee,

I’m sorry. But that Fakebook site is totally “political” —you and Jenn PAe prove it with every key stroke you touch. O

If Jenn Pae cared about community she would display courage not cowardice.

Every time Jenn touches the “delete” key on the Fakebook site she makes a political statement for City Hall and divides the community.

If she cared about community and was honest she would post on the Deck and unify and be part of community. But she does not care.

“Everything is politics.” ~ Thomas Mann

Brian Essi wrote:[
Mr. Lee,

I’m sorry. But that Fakebook site is totally “political” —you and Jenn PAe prove it with every key stroke you touch. O

First, not sure what the "O" means in your post. Was it supposed to be a smiley face?

Second, how on earth do I prove that the site is political with every key stroke I touch? I very rarely post there and am simply pointing out their rules. Is it because I disagree with things on this site? Is this site only for people who agree with everyone else?

The vitriol on this site is amazing. If you even show an ounce of logic against someone's belief, suddenly you are part of "them". I never, ever, ever have posted anything political on that site so have no idea where this attack comes from. But, feel free to carry on if it makes you feel better.

Thank you, Mark

And note the ACLU speakers at the Dem club meeting 11/30 as detailed in Matt's post.

Matthew Lee wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:[
Mr. Lee,

I’m sorry. But that Fakebook site is totally “political” —you and Jenn PAe prove it with every key stroke you touch. O

First, not sure what the "O" means in your post. Was it supposed to be a smiley face?

Second, how on earth do I prove that the site is political with every key stroke I touch? I very rarely post there and am simply pointing out their rules. Is it because I disagree with things on this site? Is this site only for people who agree with everyone else?

The vitriol on this site is amazing. If you even show an ounce of logic against someone's belief, suddenly you are part of "them". I never, ever, ever have posted anything political on that site so have no idea where this attack comes from. But, feel free to carry on if it makes you feel better.

Mr. Lee,

Don’t play victim while defending the victimizer.

Your political views are welcome here and you express them freely—I was writing about what you do here but there.

Your posts above discuss the Jenn Pae “rules” that she openly violates by the the fact that her City Hall site exists. If the rules are not enforced against the City Hall operative—and they aren’t —then that is political too.

It is Jenn Pae that is intolerant of the beliefs of all but the chosen few.

Messrs. Grosetti and Mann made my point in spades—Pae’s subjective filter promotes City Hall’s views and quashes all “others”

Brian - All

I have no idea who does what with the Lakewood Community Page.

I feel it is sad, adults need to be in moderated conversation if it is city or not.

But there are people associate with that page I know that have nothing to do with City Hall, nothing might be somewhat of an understatement, but are not on the city's payroll.

Brian

Matthew Lee, has been a long time LO supporter and critic both of which is always welcome here.

While City Hall has fought for years to release computer logs of public employees using public equipment, I find it hard or disheartening to throw Me. Lee into the cabal.

There is not doubt, that the Community Page was started as a City Hall opp, and a place to stifle dissent and open conversation I find it hard to fault those not involved with city hall directly for running the site they way they choose.

If a connection is made to City Hall, and they delete, or edit one post, then it is truly yet another attack by this administration on every resident's first amendment rights.

FWIW

.

One general comment:

To the extent that independent citizens want to have a social media page that has a "good news" focus for a city on a social media site, that's wonderful.

That said, it would also be prudent to ensure that there is no connection with the government, so that government employees or other governmental participants or their proxies do not enforce "good news" rules at the expense of reasonable and open comment on public issues.

The prohibition about discussing the adverse pet ordinance, seems to epitomize this problem, since it appears to have been done by a public employee, hence my letter to the ACLU.

Please feel free to use the letter as a model, but make sure that it describes your personal experience.

I would not be making such a big deal of this if there wasn't overwhelming documentary evidence that the city administration has, on a routine basis, ignored its fundamental legal obligations.

We have a city administrations that seems to believe that compliance with law is solely at its discretion and convenience.

My goal is to prompt them to get back on the ranch, if they can.

Finally, the new Charter comes into play here:

"in the interest of preserving the public trust, these officials shall avoid any [...] action likely to give the appearance of impropriety in the execution of their public duties."

See, Third Amended Charter, Section 8.1(c)(1).

A little amplification on how the Charter applies here:

1. If the public employee is using a city computer with city internet connection on city time to participate personally on a social media site, then Mr. Allen's observation applies about the improper misuse of government assets for personal use in violation of Ohio law.

2. If the public employee is using a city computer with city internet connection on city time to participate on a social media site with city authorization, then Ms. Conant's observation applies about the potential regulation of citizen public speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Each path of conduct is a potential violation of the Charter provision that I have quoted above.

This would not be a big deal issue if the city administration had not just lost tens of millions of dollars through neglect, mismanagement, incompetence, illegality or some combination thereof.

In fact, I wouldn't even be writing on the Deck. I'm only writing here as a witness to the hospital debacle.