LETTER: Concerned Citizens Trumped by Mayor’s Facebook
TO THE EDITOR OF THE FALLS CHURCH TIMES
In an amazing turn of events at last night’s City Council debate over changing the election from May to November, Mayor Gardner pulled out the ultimate trump card. She cited multiple comments on her Facebook page supporting moving the election to November, nearly silencing the unanimous crowd of concerned citizens that came out to speak against the measure.
“I went onto Facebook and here’s the question I asked,” said the Mayor, “and I sent this to quite a number of people, some who are engaged in community activities, some who aren’t …” She seemed reluctant to deliver this crushing blow, but nonetheless proceeded to quote multiple Friends and nameless comments in support of the measure. This gauntlet was thrown down after ten concerned citizens and community leaders spoke in person, and nine written messages were read, all posing thoughtful concerns and reasons why the Council should vote against the ordinance and instead take the time to study the measure before doing something so rash. But the crowd was completely silenced by the unexpected due diligence of the Mayor.
“Facebook? How can you compete with that?” commented one observer, “I’m guessing some of those responses may have actually been Falls Church City residents, and in that case it’s overwhelmingly in favor of the election change.”
Another member of the opposition who wished to remain nameless so the mayor would not “un-friend” her from the Mayor’s page, “I had no idea she would bring up Facebook comments. I need to go back and check what I have on my Wall so she can’t use that at the next meeting.”
“I’m just happy she didn’t end her comments with “Booyah, how you like me now?” she noted further, which would have dealt a fatal blow to the opposition.
And if the Facebook retort weren’t devastating enough, Mr. Webb quoted an email that he solicited from a friend, Mr. Sze cited comments he received at Panera, and Mr. Lippman cited Richard Nixon and his defense of the “silent majority” for reasons to support the ordinance. Using Nixon was especially demoralizing to opposing arguments, as we all know how successful he was as president. Collectively, these remarks served to humiliate the otherwise thoughtful, practical and reasonable comments from Falls Church citizens.
In a glowing sense of victory, one silent supporter of the ordinance noted “This is democracy at its best…Council first raised the issue publicly at their worksession on November 2nd, and they’re now poised to vote it into law on Dec 14th. That’s over six weeks to consider the issue, well five if you don’t count Thanksgiving, but regardless it’s more than enough time to research, discuss with the Community, and make the best decision for the City”.
Stop. Do you feel like you’re reading The Onion at the moment? Sadly, you’re not. This is the state of affairs in Falls Church, where “reason” seems to be squandered and “agendas” go to the top of the list. In fairness, I’ve taken liberties in my quotes from those in attendance, but the quotes from the Mayor and references to Council Members are 100% accurate. If you don’t believe it, watch the video for yourself. (Visit www.fallschurchva.gov, select City Council Meetings on left, then see video for Nov. 23.)
I personally like having the election in May. There are a lot of advantages to it, and I think it makes Falls Church a more special place for having the election then. But I’m not opposed to having a real dialogue about it, and then letting the people decide it as a referendum.
The one reason that every supporting Council member uses to support this measure is to increase voter turnout. But as I understand it, we’ve had a lot of unopposed elections in the past…I’m guessing that’s the real reason for low voter turnout. So is this really an assault on the CBC? Perhaps endorsing only enough members for open seats is backfiring in a way? What happens to CBC when the elections change to November, and political parties start to play more of a role? To be honest, I’m a bit disappointed there weren’t more CBC members out last night to speak against this.
Perhaps new parties need to be formed to help provide that opposition? G*d help us if it’s partisan groups, hopefully not, but maybe there needs to be another party that supports alternative candidates? My guess is that will fix low voter turnout in May in a hurry.
Be that as it may, come December 14th the Council plans to pass an ordinance to change the election to either Nov 2010, Nov 2011 or Nov 2012. This is now a “back room” deal to be cut among the five supporting council members. Democracy at work.
I would urge everyone to come out and speak against it on the 14th, but I’m not sure if I will turn out myself. Before deciding I’m going to try and “Friend” the Mayor first and see what’s happening on her Facebook page . . . this could unlock the secrets to what will happen next.
MIKE NOVOTNY
Falls Church City
Letters to the Editor should be submitted to contact@fallschurchtimes.com. They may be on any subject relevant to our City. Writers should include their full name and city of residence. All submissions are subject to editing.
By (see byline)
November 24, 2009
Are we moving to rule by Facebook?
Hmmmm. So it’s okay to write a letter to the FCT that disparages the Mayor because she talked about Facebook at a council meeting, but it’s not okay to disparage the FCNP in a comment. Ok…I think I’ve got it now.
As I was reading this, I was thinking, gee, this is unusually slanted for the Falls Church Times. Then I checked back up at the top and saw it was a letter. Ah. Gotcha.
I must admit I agree with the sentiments expressed by the letter writer, but nonetheless, as the previous poster notes, it DOES break the rules the FCT has established for commentary: thou shalt not make personal attacks.
Dreamin22046 and Hendrik,
I am not speaking for the staff of the FCT but the policy seems clear to me.
Mike Novotny has written a letter to the editor speaking his personal opinion with respect to the issue and he has identified himself. Moreover, he spoke directly to the Council on the very same issue. The Novotny letter is nothing different than you would see on the Op-Ed page of the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc.
I think a point you both fail to grasp is that anonymous comments are held to a higher standard. Based on my understanding of the FCT policy, Hendrik and I are given greater latitude by the FCT staff to say what is on our mind than say Dreamin who is anonymous.
The other point is that Novotny is critical of the Council including the Mayor in their official capacity that is a matter of importance to the public. If he were critical of the Mayor owing to factors not impacting her role as a public official — her race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., it seems to me that is different.
I was one of the people that commented on the Mayor’s facebook and i have to say that a lot of people had written very thoughtful and detailed responses with 99% in favor of the move. I am surprised that the writer of this Op Ed finds Facebook offensive, when I am sure more people are reading it and commenting on it, than this forum or any other in the City.
I am fine with November as long as it does not push local elections to be partisan. But I believe charter changes that affect our voting rights should be decided by referendum. I sent my comments in officially through the City Clerk. It took me five minutes.
If I had known Facebook comments had more weight I would have sent my comments by Facebook. I think that is the real issue for me – the council has always considered official comments by letters, email and in person. And, those comments are not anonymous. If comments in Facebook will have equal weight it should be mentioned on the council page and there should be an official City of Falls Church Facebook page.
To be clear, I always assume the CC has individual conversations with citizens prior to a vote and those conversations can and do affect voting. But to read anonymous comments from Facebook is not legitimate. CC members should have told their Facebook friends, Panera friends and silent friends to send in an official comment or to come and speak.
I am the Mayor’s Facebook friend and I did not get a Facebook email asking my opinion. I wonder why?
Also, I applaud Dan Maller’s statement that he would not vote to extend his own term. I hope if this ordinance passes on 2nd reading it at least does not extend the current terms — a move I find unethical with the budget crisis.
Melissa, you were a Facebook Friend of Mayor Gardner’s at the time she asked people for their input and she didn’t ask you?
I know a lot is being made of the Mayor referencing her Facebook friends, and I have a similar feeling about it (it would be great if these folks would stop by the Council meeting or send an email to cityclerk@fallschurchva.gov), but I’m not against using all avenues to get feedback on an issue.
However, the Mayor made it sound like she threw it out as a general question to everyone, and that the people she was asking didn’t know her position on the issue. Now it looks like that wasn’t the case. She didn’t throw it out as a general question. It’s also hard to imagine that everyone she asked didn’t know her position on the issue (she made her position pretty clear at the work session the other day so it was pretty common knowledge). It’s also not clear at this point if all the people she quoted during the City Council meeting are residents of the City.
I’d rather the Council members take Mr. Lippman’s stance – that he’s willing to make this change without the vocal support of the people because he thinks it’s important – instead of trying to convince us that there are a bunch of people out there who support the ordinance.
I think there are plenty of people who like the idea of moving the election to November, but I haven’t heard anyone (mentioned by name) who supports moving it via an ordinance passed by Council. I’m guessing there are people who do support that move; hopefully they’ll speak up at/before the next City Council meeting.
One other thing – I also respect Mr. Maller’s strong stance against passing an ordinance that extends his own term. However, I’m not sure that going along with helping other members extend their terms (which he would be doing if he votes for an ordinance that moves the 2012 election) is much different than extending his own term.
I favor a referendum – let the people decide how long their elected officials will serve.
In a pinch, we’re electing (hopefully) 4 Council members next May. Those 4 could then pass an ordinance that moves the 2012 election to November and the 3 members who would be impacted by such a move could abstain.
I received the invite via facebook- it did look like it went out to everyone. Melissa- did you check your spam folder, or do you have notifications turned off? It takes a lot more work to selectively send things out to some people rather than to all friends.
One point about not voting to extend one’s own term- unless you go the referendum route (and there are very good arguments to do things like this via referendum), unless you make it effective at least 3 years out, half of the counsel by definition will be voting to extend their own terms, if my math is correct.
Ron, yes the only way to not be extending one’s own term is if they change the 2014 election. Four members currently serve until May 2010 (or whenever it is after the election that the new members take their spots). The other three were elected to serve until May 2012.
They could move the 2014 election up to 2013 – which would give those elected in 2010 a 3.5 year term instead of the normal 4 year term. Or they could move the 2014 election from May to November, giving those elected in May 2010 a 4.5 year term.
As I mentioned, the four people elected in May 2010 could pass an ordinance that changes the 2012 election to November and the three people impacted could abstain – so I guess in that scenario the 2012 election could be moved without anyone voting to extend themselves. But they would have to wait until after the May 2010 election to do something like that.
Maybe all the council should resign effective the next election date and run for re-election for their unexpired term plus the extra time that the change would require.
It is hard to believe that we are more concerned about some council members extending their terms (it’s like extending torture) than the budget bleeding red ink.
Gary, that was funny! Especially the part about extending torture….I agree, I would rather poke a sharp stick in my eye than be on the city council, and the thought of being the mayor too makes me ill.
I would love to be the mayor’s friend on Facebook, however, but the problem is you can’t be an anonymous friend on Facebook, as far as I know. Darn!
I want everybody to know that I tell everybody I know that they should read the Falls Church Times on the internet because it has the best coverage of news and issues in Falls Church that I have ever seen, bar none.
Ron,
I do have notifications turned on and received other facebook communications in my inbox during the time period. I think my stance was already known, so my comments were not needed.
Melissa
What is going on here? C’mon folks, get real. The City Council is GOVERNMENT entity. It is the legislative branch of the Falls Church City Government. A legislative entity is supposed to deliberate before it acts. One form of deliberation is a public hearing, at which the Council is supposed to consider information RELEVANT to a legislative proposal in the form of DOCUMENTATION OR TESTIMONY OFFICIALLY submitted ON THE RECORD by IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS OR ENTITIES. Anything else is hearsay, irrelevant and worthless. That is why, Ron and Melissa, the question whether all of the Mayor’s Facebook friends received her invitation is utterly beside the point. Of course, if the Mayor wants to submit all of her Facebook correspondence for the record, she can. However, if she does that, so can all the other Council members and, for that matter, all of us citizens. And while we’re at it, we ought to put on the record all emails on the subject, from all of our friends and relatives. What a farce that would be. It is instances such as this, where Councilmembers offer up at official public hearings as evidence for or against a legislative proposal the Facebook comments and breakfast opinions of friends, that cause the Falls Church City Council to be viewed as a laughingstock by citizens who live in neighboring jurisdictions. It evinces a fundamental lack of understanding of the legislative process and their roles in it.
James Hennessey’s point about criticizing public officials for what they say or do in their OFFICIAL CAPACITY (there is hardly anything more official than speaking from the dais at a public hearing), as opposed to criticizing them PERSONALLY, is very important. Mr. Novotny made tongue-in-cheek fun of Ms. Gardner for what she did and said in her official capacity as a member of the City Council at a formal City Council public hearing, not for anything she did or said as a private person. Such criticism is perfectly legitimate. It is in fact a bedrock constitutional principle of our form of government. Just ask Messrs. Clinton, Bush or Obama. Unfortunately, however, it is a distinction that the four members of the majority on the Council have had great difficulty understanding during their tenures, which, hopefully, are nearing an end.
Lou nails it here and should not be dismissed:
“…Council is supposed to consider information RELEVANT to a legislative proposal in the form of DOCUMENTATION OR TESTIMONY OFFICIALLY submitted ON THE RECORD by IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS OR ENTITIES. Anything else is hearsay, irrelevant and worthless…”
If a President said something like this, they would be skewered. In fact they have, and they were:
“I am the decider.”
“We work hard, everyday, even Saturdays”
“It depends on what your definition of is is”
“Read my lips, no new taxes”
All good points, but I do disagree about saying the elected officials should “only” consider comments made on the record about anything. While comments made at public hearings are one means of communication, elected officials also spend a great deal of time listening to people all over the place- via email, on the street, at the schools, when we are at the grocery store or restaurants in town and, and via all sorts of online and offline social networks. We should always remember that any such information is anecdotal, and not reliable as a statistically valid sampling, but it is still useful to hear the full range of opinions wherever you can.
I have spent some time recently giving talks at conferences about differences between generations- about how gen x vs gen y vs boomers communicate and about their expectations. We are at one of those crossroads where communication among citizens and elected officials is evolving. Some people like to communicate by showing up for a hearing, some communicate other ways, but all the opinions are useful. I generally do not give as much credence to anything I receive that is anonymous, but, one nice thing about Facebook or many other social networking sites is that you do know who is submitting the comments- it is actually more secure in many ways than a letter on paper that could have been written by anyone claiming to be anyone (and yes, there are ways to hack someone’s Facebook or Twitter account, but it is usually pretty obvious when that happens and not that hard to verify).
I used to think I should only listen to people who take the time to show up at meetings, but I have learned that some people in our society are simply not able to take the time to do that, or there are cultural or other reasons why they do not.
BTW, if anyone does send comments about any agenda items to the school board, we post all such emails on BoardDocs so anyone can see the comments in connection with the meeting or topic for which they were submitted. Maybe it would be helpful if the council did likewise, then everyone can review and decide for themselves about the public comments.
Ron
Ron: Given that the School Board elections would be changed as well when will the SB weigh in with an opinion? Is this on the agenda for the CC-SB retreat Monday?
I agree with Mr. Mauro’s comments but would add that it is not only citizens in neighboring jurisdictions who look on the Falls Church City Council as a laughingstock. If one talks to many of citizens of our City, they will find that they too feel the Council and, in particular, the Mayor is a laughingstock. They have good reason to think this, the latest being that the Mayor, an elected public official, thinks it is okay to elicit opinions about a legislative issue on her Facebook page and then to read them at an official City Council meeting. To me this is completely inappropriate and demonstrates either ignorance or naivete on her part. Maybe It’s time for a change in command?
In the words of Hal Lippman….the ‘vociferous minority’ is now fully awake and paying attention. I am anxiously waiting to see how the City Council navigates through the murky waters of our pending tax increase. Change the date, but not for the May 2010 election. Someone at City Hall has been asleep at the wheel and it’s time for change. In my opinion, there is a higher probability that 1) incumbents will not run unopposed, and 2) incumbents will not be re-elected. No one on the current City Council, including the Mayor, was elected with a mandate. As a twenty year resident who probalbly has trusted ‘the process’ too much, I’m not happy with what looks like a 25 cent tax increase. I am interested to see what happens on December 14th, maybe after that we will become a vociferous majority and vote out these folks that speak, but not in a manner the represents the citizenry as a whole.
Mr. Bledsoe:
I think you ought to wait to hear out the logic behind a tax increase before you start railing against the council. There is no way to avoid a tax increase this year. The question is how much, and how much of that will be in real dollars vs. how much is to compensate for the decline in property values. There is going to be pain everywhere – it needs to be spread to all – homeowners, businesses, operating budgets, staff salaries and benefits, and on and on. When we see where the plan is lopside, then we can complain.
John-
The issue was raised at two school board meetings, but the board decided not to spend much time on it and did not take a position. Based on the conversation so far, I do not think the board will be taking a position.
Mr. Anderson,
I apologize. I thought Mr. Shields and Mr. Tuohy’s doomsday memo to the City Council had already forecasted a $7.6M shortfall for 2011. To the degree in which City employees and representatives missed the mark on the 2010 budget, proper due diligence is in order and I would expect nothing less. Given that, I have to trust that Mr. Tuohy is somewhere in the ball park with his 2011 estimate. Notwithstanding the reason, at the end of the day, it’s all real dollars to me. At issue here isn’t whether I’m railing against the Council, it’s why.