The Observation Deck

Every member of Lakewood City Council should already be aware of the mayor’s “blog” post that has garnered over 140 comments on the City of Lakewood Municiosl Government Facebook page.

Beyond the chilling statement that the city “monitors” social media, there are clearly issues with the city finance director running a Facebook page purporting to be a source of information for the community.

The employee spends time on this pursuit while at work - therefore being paid by the city for this social media work. While purporting to be disseminating City Information, a role that implies she is running a city sanctioned page, this person also selectively removes posts and bans users from participating. When questioned, she then claims she’s a private individual expressing her views so that she can claim she has the power to delete posts. And yet again, the mayor claims he backs her in this activity and allows her to do it on City time.

So you see the problem - either she’s a private citizen running a private group, and should be doing this on her own time, or she’s doing this as an extension of her city job responsibilities and is “informing” the city. In that case, she CANNOT be removing posts and blocking users from commenting.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Claiming it’s a private page so that you can remove people us just a way to subvert the law.

People are questioning this on the city municipal page. It’s an issue that is not going to go away.

I posted this on the page and I think it’s time members of council woke up. If you want constituents to engage with the city and it’s leadership, is this how you want it done? Recognize that as a council member, your duty is to serve your city. What is going on now is not only angering a lot of people, it is putting the city in yet another legal bind.

Time to convene and assess the current situation. Perhaps a written policy in social media usage is in order.

Putting all legal questions aside, do you want your city to use an employee to communicate with you who, if you ask a question or make any remark that is viewed as even remotely “negative” toward the mayor or administration, has the authority to delete your comment and exclude you from the conversation? That’s what this boils down to. If Pae believes she’s merely acting as a conduit of information about the city, then she has no business being the judge and jury of whether a constituents question is “appropriate.” She and the mayor are clearly mistaken and confused over her role, and they need to clarify and codify precisely the role she plays as a city employee. I would suggest that this is a perfect time for the current city council to get involved. If the goal is transparency and community involvement, then these are issues that all of council should be aware of and be part of the solution. How this ridiculous “she’s a private citizen/no she’s an employee sharing information” dichotomy is allowed to continue reflects poorly on council. Step up, council, and clear this up once and for all.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh please do not mention ethics, transparency, accountability or even honesty right now, council meeting in session.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, have you seen the Solstice Steps? Had a craft beer?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh meeting in session....



So all of City Council sits silently as the Mayor spends all his time and $$$$ of Social Media, controling the message errrr getting news out, and this goes unmentioned for a month!

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... 56#p184956

This is reminiscent of other violent crimes happening in the area that the Mayor just feels he should not warn residents about. Westside Rapist comes to mind. To the Mayor over a month to warn Lakewood women about that predator. Through all of that Mayor Summers was tweeting all the good news(?)

City Hall and Council sat quietly through all of that too. Another story we had to break.

.

This Is Another Invitation For Public Interest Litigation Against The City

Government regulation of citizen free speech is obnoxious to constitutional rights guaranteed by both the Ohio and the United States Constitutions.

I have attached a legal brief that explains why. You should feel free to contact the authors of this brief. Their contact information is on the brief.

Bridget Conant wrote:Every member of Lakewood City Council should already be aware of the mayor’s “blog” post that has garnered over 140 comments on the City of Lakewood Municiosl Government Facebook page.

Beyond the chilling statement that the city “monitors” social media, there are clearly issues with the city finance director running a Facebook page purporting to be a source of information for the community.

The employee spends time on this pursuit while at work - therefore being paid by the city for this social media work. While purporting to be disseminating City Information, a role that implies she is running a city sanctioned page, this person also selectively removes posts and bans users from participating. When questioned, she then claims she’s a private individual expressing her views so that she can claim she has the power to delete posts. And yet again, the mayor claims he backs her in this activity and allows her to do it on City time.

So you see the problem - either she’s a private citizen running a private group, and should be doing this on her own time, or she’s doing this as an extension of her city job responsibilities and is “informing” the city. In that case, she CANNOT be removing posts and blocking users from commenting.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Claiming it’s a private page so that you can remove people us just a way to subvert the law.

People are questioning this on the city municipal page. It’s an issue that is not going to go away.

I posted this on the page and I think it’s time members of council woke up. If you want constituents to engage with the city and it’s leadership, is this how you want it done? Recognize that as a council member, your duty is to serve your city. What is going on now is not only angering a lot of people, it is putting the city in yet another legal bind.

Time to convene and assess the current situation. Perhaps a written policy in social media usage is in order.

Putting all legal questions aside, do you want your city to use an employee to communicate with you who, if you ask a question or make any remark that is viewed as even remotely “negative” toward the mayor or administration, has the authority to delete your comment and exclude you from the conversation? That’s what this boils down to. If Pae believes she’s merely acting as a conduit of information about the city, then she has no business being the judge and jury of whether a constituents question is “appropriate.” She and the mayor are clearly mistaken and confused over her role, and they need to clarify and codify precisely the role she plays as a city employee. I would suggest that this is a perfect time for the current city council to get involved. If the goal is transparency and community involvement, then these are issues that all of council should be aware of and be part of the solution. How this ridiculous “she’s a private citizen/no she’s an employee sharing information” dichotomy is allowed to continue reflects poorly on council. Step up, council, and clear this up once and for all.

This is simply a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Mark Kindt wrote: This is simply a lawsuit waiting to happen.[/size]

Mark

A few years ago a couple residents that track these things, had gotten political propaganda to their home using an address that they had only used at City Hall.

When City Hall was questioned they responded they did not have to explain anything that their mail system was constant contact, and as such was not a public documents nor searchable. I believe I still have the letters from City Hall when Ed FitzGerald was Mayor. As such, the list could be used by people they wanted to give it to for p[political or other purposes.

I believe it revolved around a couple John Litten lit drops over in Ward 3.

As we hear all the time, "Take them to court..." We hear on the streets, "Well why doesn't take them to court..." Well as a person that went and won, it is a bad system for all. We want court to be the last solution, not the first. Again it has been a constant stream of BS, but I think I remember Law Director Butler giving lessons to other Law Directors about how to handle public record requests.

These people are out of control with a desperate need to control all. So that you never see The Emperor and friends have no clothes.


.

Lakewood a typical Democrat run city with vested interests, inept and inert management and paying public employees for personal business while being on the city's public funds payroll.
The mayor better clear it up, because a complaint for misappropriation of funds, new word for Democrats, to the attorney general's office will react a lot quicker than a worthless Democrat city council. However, I just realize there are two layer of worthlessness, city and state so I guess we are screwed. I'll file a complaint tomorrow, and we can see where the mayor is going with allowing public employees being paid for personal business.

Bridget Conant wrote:Every member of Lakewood City Council should already be aware of the mayor’s “blog” post that has garnered over 140 comments on the City of Lakewood Municiosl Government Facebook page.

Beyond the chilling statement that the city “monitors” social media, there are clearly issues with the city finance director running a Facebook page purporting to be a source of information for the community.

The employee spends time on this pursuit while at work - therefore being paid by the city for this social media work. While purporting to be disseminating City Information, a role that implies she is running a city sanctioned page, this person also selectively removes posts and bans users from participating. When questioned, she then claims she’s a private individual expressing her views so that she can claim she has the power to delete posts. And yet again, the mayor claims he backs her in this activity and allows her to do it on City time.

So you see the problem - either she’s a private citizen running a private group, and should be doing this on her own time, or she’s doing this as an extension of her city job responsibilities and is “informing” the city. In that case, she CANNOT be removing posts and blocking users from commenting.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Claiming it’s a private page so that you can remove people us just a way to subvert the law.

People are questioning this on the city municipal page. It’s an issue that is not going to go away.

I posted this on the page and I think it’s time members of council woke up. If you want constituents to engage with the city and it’s leadership, is this how you want it done? Recognize that as a council member, your duty is to serve your city. What is going on now is not only angering a lot of people, it is putting the city in yet another legal bind.

Time to convene and assess the current situation. Perhaps a written policy in social media usage is in order.

Putting all legal questions aside, do you want your city to use an employee to communicate with you who, if you ask a question or make any remark that is viewed as even remotely “negative” toward the mayor or administration, has the authority to delete your comment and exclude you from the conversation? That’s what this boils down to. If Pae believes she’s merely acting as a conduit of information about the city, then she has no business being the judge and jury of whether a constituents question is “appropriate.” She and the mayor are clearly mistaken and confused over her role, and they need to clarify and codify precisely the role she plays as a city employee. I would suggest that this is a perfect time for the current city council to get involved. If the goal is transparency and community involvement, then these are issues that all of council should be aware of and be part of the solution. How this ridiculous “she’s a private citizen/no she’s an employee sharing information” dichotomy is allowed to continue reflects poorly on council. Step up, council, and clear this up once and for all.

Ms. Conant.
You put out the call two weeks ago, the suspense is killing me, who responded?
Did O'Leary, Litten, Bullock, Anderson respond?
The Gang of Four. Compromised and cheapened by the choices they made. Did you hear from them?
Did you hear from Meghan George?
Did you hear from Tristan Rader? I've heard he's big on ethics.
Did Dan O'Malley respond? He's all about truth, transparency and accountabilty.You must have heard from him.
Please share.

Bridget Conant wrote:Every member of Lakewood City Council should already be aware of the mayor’s “blog” post that has garnered over 140 comments on the City of Lakewood Municiosl Government Facebook page.

Beyond the chilling statement that the city “monitors” social media, there are clearly issues with the city finance director running a Facebook page purporting to be a source of information for the community.

The employee spends time on this pursuit while at work - therefore being paid by the city for this social media work. While purporting to be disseminating City Information, a role that implies she is running a city sanctioned page, this person also selectively removes posts and bans users from participating. When questioned, she then claims she’s a private individual expressing her views so that she can claim she has the power to delete posts. And yet again, the mayor claims he backs her in this activity and allows her to do it on City time.

So you see the problem - either she’s a private citizen running a private group, and should be doing this on her own time, or she’s doing this as an extension of her city job responsibilities and is “informing” the city. In that case, she CANNOT be removing posts and blocking users from commenting.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Claiming it’s a private page so that you can remove people us just a way to subvert the law.

People are questioning this on the city municipal page. It’s an issue that is not going to go away.

I posted this on the page and I think it’s time members of council woke up. If you want constituents to engage with the city and it’s leadership, is this how you want it done? Recognize that as a council member, your duty is to serve your city. What is going on now is not only angering a lot of people, it is putting the city in yet another legal bind.

Time to convene and assess the current situation. Perhaps a written policy in social media usage is in order.

Putting all legal questions aside, do you want your city to use an employee to communicate with you who, if you ask a question or make any remark that is viewed as even remotely “negative” toward the mayor or administration, has the authority to delete your comment and exclude you from the conversation? That’s what this boils down to. If Pae believes she’s merely acting as a conduit of information about the city, then she has no business being the judge and jury of whether a constituents question is “appropriate.” She and the mayor are clearly mistaken and confused over her role, and they need to clarify and codify precisely the role she plays as a city employee. I would suggest that this is a perfect time for the current city council to get involved. If the goal is transparency and community involvement, then these are issues that all of council should be aware of and be part of the solution. How this ridiculous “she’s a private citizen/no she’s an employee sharing information” dichotomy is allowed to continue reflects poorly on council. Step up, council, and clear this up once and for all.

Ms. Conant,
It's been a month since you called out Lakewood City Council.
What started out as a moment brimming with expectation and uncertainty has now dissolved into a matter of idle curiosity. But I'll ask. Who responded?
Did The Gang of Four respond. O'Leary, Litten, Bullock, Anderson. All of them compromised and cheapened by the choices they made. Did you hear from them?
Did you hear from Meghan George, who apparently wants to be our next mayor. Did you hear from her?
Did you hear from Tristan Rader? He's big on ethics and the committees that follow.
Did you hear from Dan O'Malley? That champion of truth, transparency and accountability.You must have heard from him.
Please share.

Ms. Conant,
It's been a month since you called out Lakewood City Council.
What started out as a moment brimming with expectation and uncertainty has now dissolved into a matter of idle curiosity. But I'll ask. Who responded?
Did The Gang of Four respond. O'Leary, Litten, Bullock, Anderson. All of them compromised and cheapened by the choices they made. Did you hear from them?
Did you hear from Meghan George, who apparently wants to be our next mayor. Did you hear from her?
Did you hear from Tristan Rader? He's big on ethics and the committees that follow.
Did you hear from Dan O'Malley? That champion of truth, transparency and accountability.You must have heard from him.
Please share.

Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. Crickets. Zippo. Diddly Squat.

That’s all we ever got from them.

Bridget Conant wrote:

Ms. Conant,
It's been a month since you called out Lakewood City Council.
What started out as a moment brimming with expectation and uncertainty has now dissolved into a matter of idle curiosity. But I'll ask. Who responded?
Did The Gang of Four respond. O'Leary, Litten, Bullock, Anderson. All of them compromised and cheapened by the choices they made. Did you hear from them?
Did you hear from Meghan George, who apparently wants to be our next mayor. Did you hear from her?
Did you hear from Tristan Rader? He's big on ethics and the committees that follow.
Did you hear from Dan O'Malley? That champion of truth, transparency and accountability.You must have heard from him.
Please share.

Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. Crickets. Zippo. Diddly Squat.

That’s all we ever got from them.

Oh! Ms. Conant, I did not see this coming. You can't fathom my shock and disappiontment.
Let's set aside The Gang of Four. O'Leary, Litten, Bullock, Anderson.They're beneath contempt. All of them compromised. All of them cheapened by the choices they made.
Let's focus on the wannabes. The Agents of Change. George, Rader and the intrepid Dan O'Malley.
What are we to make of them ? And their silence. And their silence. And their silence. All that gutless silence.
What are we to make of that? How do we excuse that? How do we look the other way on that?
" Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
I'm left wondering where do I go to get my vote back?