City Council member Mike O’Brien and Seattle Port Commissioner John Creighton got into a minor scrap yesterday on Facebook over the Port’s promise to put $300 million toward the deep-bore tunnel viaduct replacement project. O’Brien has expressed concern that although the Port has committed to spending the money, it has not identified where the $300 million will come from.
In a post on his Facebook wall, Creighton wrote that if O’Brien had concerns about the Port’s contribution, he should have testified at the Port Commission meeting where the Port signed a letter committing to spend the money. Additionally, Creighton wrote that he didn’t appreciate a Seattle City Council member telling the Port how to do their jobs. O’Brien responded by echoing what he told Port Commissioner Bill Bryant at a council meeting earlier this week: He appreciates the Port’s commitment, but wants to know where, specifically, the money will come from—taxes? Spending cuts? Some combination of the two?
I’m paraphrasing from various accounts of Creighton’s post, because as of this morning, the post was gone, as was O’Brien’s response.
Why does this matter? Because both O’Brien and Creighton are elected officials. Under the city’s social media public-disclosure rules, all communications by city elected officials on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites are subject to the same public disclosure laws as emails and written communications. O’Brien, in other words, is supposed to archive all of his Facebook communications in case a member of the public wants to read them in the future.
The Port, according to spokesman Peter McGraw, has no such rules in place. “The port doesn’t have a [public disclosure] policy for commissioners because they are private citizens,” McGraw says. “The Port of Seattle doesn’t have any policy on social media” use by port commissioners, who aren’t port employees, he adds. “Like a lot of folks out there, we’re still getting our heads around it.”
In a more recent (and less heated) post on O’Brien’s Facebook wall, Creighton writes, “I believe that your concerns over the Port’s commitment to carrying through with its agreement with the State and its ability to fund its $300M financial commitment will fall away once you’ve had a chance to sit down and look at our modeling.”
Tweet
Is the Port's “modeling” as good as the traffic modeling in the draft draft EIS that doesn't even include tolling on the tunnel; even though tolling is part of the financing package for the project?
Port commissioners are paid and regardless, they are elected public officials and certainly fall under the Public Records Act. Social networking private messages would not be disclosable, but when communicating with another elected about a public issue there is no question.
Is the law that PAID elected officials have to be available under disclosure rules, or that ELECTED officials have to be available under disclosure rules?
is it even possible to archive one's facebook comments if the original post-er–Creighton in this case–delete's the instigating post? what if a councilmember commented (nay, even “liked”) a post from a private citizen. is both the “liking” and the original post part of the public record? privacy v. public disclosure questions: a brave new world, friends, a brave new world.
So does this mean that once a person is elected, every bit of personal communication, done on personal time, is subject to disclosure? An e-mail sent from an iphone that is paid for out of pocket to a collugue is public information? Wouldn't it be easier to just forbid public business on private computers, phones, etc. and just be done with it?
If the communication is about work, yes.
If I was a Seattle City Council member (God help us all) and I posted on Facebook or Twitter my theories on Inception, my trip to the vet, or my lovely hike in the Cascades, no.
If I posted my thoughts on the viaduct legislation, that I met with the Friends of Seattle about a pending road diet, or that I'm over for dinner at Paul Allen's house to discuss zoning, then yes. If I get into a twitterfight with McGinn about a bill, then yes.
Those are Federal regulations so a bit different, but I seem to remember Cheney getting into trouble for using a campaign email account for official business.
There has to be a break somewhere. Some line beyond which we cannot cross, even if we really, really want to.
Even if we REALLY want to.
Let's call it a soul, for lack of a better term.
And let's say that even if we're paid by the citizens, they don't cross it.
No break, no quarter. Not when it comes to those we give power over our lives.
Unless they are humans, too.
Who else would we give power to?
Picture Anc with no place to hide, no place to think, no place to kiss.
Who would want such a job? Nobody should have to cease to be human just to serve. Except in-human people. Politicians.
And you should know that. You're one of the good guys.
Sorry, but you are barking up the wrong tree here.
I had to give up my 'right' to privacy to take my current job. And that is just so I can have access to certain decisions and actions taken by those higher up the chain. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that those people that actually get to make decisions deserve it.
Now, I realize that the tunnel isn't exactly National Security, but the principle still applies in my mind. When we give officials both elected and appointed power over our lives, they give us access to theirs. All in all I think they get the better deal.
What about Superpokes, i.e. “CM Godden has called you a birther?”
I'm still not convinced, Anc.
Nobody but nobody gives up the right to a bit of privacy, even if they choose to use that time to conive and contrive.
Better that they didn't, but if I choose to toss off that is my business.
I don't give up any right to privacy if I choose to hold office.
Sure, when I'm on the clock I do. But not 24/7.
And neither do you.
I get that this is an opinion blog, not a news blog. I get that Erica and Publicola strongly oppose the tunnel and advocate for the the surface option.
I get that Erica has incentive to ham things up to bring eyeballs to her pieces, but I saw the comments and would hardly classify them as a “fight” or a “flap.” I saw the comments and both of their comments may have been pointed, but they were polite and hardly “heated.” Did anyone bother to contact O'Brien or Creighton anyway?
In his comments Creighton noted the port commission approved its agreement with the state, not the city, and that it was a legally binding commitment to the state. He also noted that the port commission's vote was a 5-0 unanimous vote because they had all looked at the modeling and determined that the surface, and he noted that the commission's job was different than the Seattle city council's because the commissioners were elected King County-wide and are charged with looking out for the interests of the entire region.
Creighton did take issue with O'Brien's attacks on him and his fellow port commissioners when O'Brien said in his press conference that the port commission's commitment amounted to “vaporware” and that for all he knew the port was going to pay for its commitment through “bake sales.” I would hardly call any of this a flap though.
Much Ado About Nothing.
I read the posts on Facebook. They were all consistent with what the two have been saying on a practically daily basis.
Chief the ado is not about this particular exchange, but rather the bigger issue of using social networking sites to communicate and then erasing them from sight. We should have the right to look at communication, between electeds and government workers, dealing with public issues.
If government can communicate and erase, they may choose that technology instead of another that can be archived.
They can always talk in person or by phone without any written or taped message.
The argument that they can't have a private life is a straw man.
Enjoy your free agree, thought I was hitting Reply. :p
Anyway, we might just have to agree to disagree, then b/c I am most thoroughly convinced.
Are you a native perchance? If not where do you hail from?
B/c I come from one of the most corrupt/dysfunctional states in the nation. Our last governor is in jail, we've had a Supreme Court CHIEF Justice disbarred a couple years ago, our largest county is bankrupt over a new sewer system that has two dozen people on corruption convictions, and just this spring there was a confrontation between the Governor (Mississippi Indian money) and a County (local Bingo parlor) that saw the entire County government deputized, armed and called out to thwart the 100 Alabama State Patrolmen sent by the governor there. Big Timber and large landowners have so much power that you could DOUBLE our property taxes and still have the lowest in the nation. The head of the Alabama Educator Association owns enough legislators (and until recently was Vice Chair of the Alabama Democratic Party) that he has publicly stated he is the most powerful man in the State (which explains why when you think of educational excellence Alabama immediately springs to mind). And it's not just the top, it's rotten all the way to the core. Auburn University (think WSU) almost lost it's accreditation while I was student there b/c of pervasive corruption on the Board of Trustees. You've got county commissioners in Mobile committing straight up murder down to powerful school board members and other local politicians having DUI charges just vanish off all the books (well almost all, caught up about 10 years later).
Say what you want about Washington governance, but it is FAR from the worse, partially or mostly b/c of our transparency laws. If politicians giving up their privacy is what it takes to KEEP this relatively good government then I have no problem with that whatsoever. I don't want my new home to turn into my old one.