At the council meeting this week, City Plan Commissioner Said Deep’s re-appointment was denied by a single “no” vote from Tafelski. To help explain why that happened, click this article from the Dearborn Patch. The article mentions a concern by the Mayor that Deep was blogging about the Goodwill issue while he was on the commission that was making the determination of whether Goodwill would get a special land use request and be able to move into the space they wanted in Dearborn. After four months and three different meetings, the Plan Commission finally approved the request. This article from the Press and Guide speaks a little more to what happened.
Said Deep, along with being the City Plan Commissioner, is a well-known Dearborn blogger. On his blog, deepsaidwhat.com, you can find information on upcoming events and interesting discussion and commentary about ongoing issues. Deep sometimes offers his opinion and sometimes puts it out there for others to discuss.
As a fellow blogger, I know that a blog is a great way to share your opinion without getting the message muddled. I can say what I want on my own blog and then people understand where I’m coming from. We often complain about how we wish we could get more information from the city on different issues and areas of interest. I have often said of our elected leaders, people probably wouldn’t be so upset about some decision they have made if we understood the information and reasoning behind it. A lack of information is one of the main reasons that Dearborn Residents for Accountability was formed in the first place.
I am a firm believer that, if a decision maker or leader simply tells others what their thought process is and what lead to a certain decision or action, there would be much more trust of the process and direction. Then the public will simply be able to decide if they thought it was the right or wrong decision, without having to question the motives behind it.
This is why, I was glad to read Said Deep’s blog and thoughts on the Goodwill issue as it was unfolding. I recognize he was using his blog as a way to explain his process and reasons for why he was voting the way he did. While there is always a bit of marketing one’s side in that forum, it’s simply a benefit of having your own blog as well. I didn’t agree with his opinion but I understood where he was coming from. His blog and the overwhelming local news reports created a conversation about the purpose and scope of the commission, and the values of the City of Dearborn (from all perspectives). I fail to see how that is a problem.
However, the concern about Deep’s blogging was echoed by Tafelski in this Dearborn Patch article. The article actually focuses on the controversy (…or not…) surrounding the Mayor’s comments that if he knew there wouldn’t be more than four council members, he would have pulled the issue from the agenda. This alone is an important issue to discuss but I think the blogging concern is a legitimate one as well. One commenter on the first Patch article questioned what confidential information Deep revealed and discussed the value they found in reading his comments as the issue progressed. This point lead me to question what the rules really are in regards to commissioners.
So, I turned to the charter. If you are unfamiliar, the complete City Charter, Code of Ordinances, and Zoning can be found here.
First, and probably most expected, the term “blog” does not appear at all in these documents.
The City Plan Commission details are found in the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article III, Division 2. It outlines how people are appointed, their duties, etc. Interestingly, Sec 2-384 says that the commission shall adopt its own rules and regulations of procedure. I couldn’t find any such thing on the city website but I would assume that if it included a ban on discussing any commission activities or blogging, then Said Deep would have been very aware of that. The only other rules indicate that they should hold public meetings, what quorum is, and other such details.
A look through the rest of the code and charter come up with nothing. Not one mention of confidentiality or discussing issues. In fact, Section 19.6 outlines some pretty harsh penalties for violating the charter:
“Any person found guilty of an act constituting a violation of this charter may be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not to exceed ninety days, or both, or as otherwise provided by law…”
These penalties certainly weren’t put into place against Deep, and it seems there is no ban in the city’s rules against blogging. I invite you to find the rule that has it or even suggests it because it’s lost on me.
So, then, what’s the problem and why did this issue become the thing that denied Deep his re-appointment?
The same commenter on the Patch suggested that perhaps the city was unhappy with Deep’s blog shedding light on the actual process or potential back-room agreements. Remember the concept here is that sharing information about why you do things helps to build trust and eliminate speculation? Yet again, the city has proven my point. There is no prohibition against blogging while on a commission, it doesn’t appear that Deep’s comments violated any unspoken ethical or confidentiality expectations of our commissioners, yet his actions were cited as the concern that eventually led to him losing his re-appointment without any specifics. Here comes the speculation!
Regardless of where that speculation takes you, the problem is that this action makes a statement and sets a dangerous precedent. It tells people that if you are a commissioner or work in a capacity for the city, less information is better. Also, don’t share your own opinions on current issues because that’s a fast way to being kicked out of your position.
As a resident of Dearborn and a person who has attended multiple meetings on various issues, not only do I think this is wrong but I demand better. I think we should have a designated blog for every commission in the city. Instead of attending a meeting where they vote to accept the last meetings’ minutes but you can’t see them and you only get a copy of what they are looking at if they made extra, we should be able to read complete minutes online and get a sense of the opinions of different commissioners on issues they are dealing with. And maybe actually understand what the heck is going on at all of these meetings.
Instead, the city has effectively silenced a very well-spoken and direct commissioner by taking away his appointment because he attempted to inform the public about what he was doing and why.
What do you think? Has the city gone too far? Is the blog issue a smokescreen for something else? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
I wanted to share some of the comments I have received about this post because they offer an important perspective. A few people have said that they agree with the premise that it’s important for commissioners or the city to be open and transparent, but that the freedom to do so is a matter of degrees of appropriate. For example, one commenter shared that they are glad to read about a commissioner’s vote and the reasons why after the fact, but when a commissioner posts what they will vote before the meeting has happened, it has gone too far.
While my blog post is more about the concept of the issue than exactly what Deep said in his blog, the commenter sent me a post Deep made that underlies the point made about degrees (this post has since been removed from Deep’s site).
Here is an excerpt from the comment:
“Tonight at 7 p.m. at City Hall, the Dearborn City Plan Commission will once again hear a request for a special land use from Goodwill Industries to open a second-hand store in downtown West Dearborn.
Like the first meeting, I do not plan to support the request for a special land use.”
What are your thoughts?
Wayne County Commissioner Gary Woronchak weighed in on the discussion with some good points:
This will go against the grain among these comments, but if the question really is, “Is Blogging Forbidden in Dearborn?” it must be rhetorical because clearly the answer is no. As Kristyn points out, there is nothing in the charter or other written guidelines that officially prohibits the activity. More importantly,the suggestion that the city made such a statement in the failed reappointment of Said Deep just doesn’t hold up.
It wasn’t the city, it was Council President Tafelski’s skilled and procedurally proper use of the council’s rules of order that denied the reappointment. I assume the council would have approved the reappointment 6-1 with full attendance. It certainly would’ve passed 4-1 if Councilwoman Sareini had not fallen ill.
It wasn’t the city, because the Mayor, who recommended the reappointment, attempted to get the item pulled from the agenda when he realized it was in jeopardy, but as council president, Tafelski was able to ignore that request. So no one else who had a say in the matter had enough of a problem with Deep’s prior actions to keep him from returning to the commission.
Whether Deep’s blogging about the issue while it was before City Plan was appropriate or not is fodder for legitimate debate. Kristyn’s points are valid. But Council President Tafelski likewise has the right to believe otherwise, and an argument can be made for his view. I didn’t follow Deep’s blogging about this issue enough to have an opinion on its propriety.
I agree that openness, transparency and communication by decision makers has great value in the political process. I disagree that the nixed reappointment of Deep makes a statement or sets a precedent. It was a single action that required a perfect set of circumstances at a certain time. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, that vote goes 6-1 to reappoint Deep and no anti-blogging sentiment is subsequently discussed.
Because I never really know what to edit out and what to show, here is a similar conversation I had with Doug Vos, Editor at Dearborn Free Press, on this post:
Douglas Vos: Blogging is OK in Dearborn, Michigan. Open and transparent communication is essential to resolving issues in the city. You make some good points Kristyn – but it’s not clear that Deep was pushed out for blogging, or just a bad day at City Council… Forced out by one vote? What’s up with that? What ever happened to ‘a quorum?’ I’d feel a lot better if the vote had all City Council members present. Just seems fishy to me… someone forced out with only one vote… hmmm…..
Kristyn Taylor: Good point, Douglas Vos. The procedure did seem a little off that day and I agree with you about the full council vote being better. However, the Patch reported that: “O’Reilly said that he agreed that what Deep had done was “inappropriate,” but added that this issue was unprecedented and unfamiliar. He added that he met with Deep, who verbally agreed not to blog about issues at hand in the commission if he were to be reappointed to it.” So, I guess whether he was allowed to stay on or not, he would have been silenced.
Douglas Vos: Seems like O’Reilly was viewing Deep’s blog as an unfair media advantage (not sure what else the motive would be), whereas most people just want more open and honest communication. Remember the example I gave of Justin Amash – using Facebook for better communication with his constituents. Seems like local government needs to take better advantage of Facebook and blogs – and not fear open dialogue.
Kristyn Taylor: Again, good point! I have had a few people respond to me with the same idea – while the concept of being able to share opinions on a blog is important, the message is subject to degrees of appropriateness. Discretion is definitely necessary and its use should be fair.
Please feel free to comment on this post, Facebook, or Twitter and I will do my best to share the different perspectives out there!
Michael Bsharah echoed some of the comments above and added to the conversation:
Guys… I think it’s great when folks post to voice their opinions, especially when our city is at such a critical crossroads… every voice is needed. I, however, must disagree with my good friend, Kristyn Taylor, whom I admire a great deal. Referencing her earlier comments on blogging criticisms — I agree freedom of expression is about as fundamental as it gets and must thrive. But the point of Council President Tom Tafelski was that Said Deep, as a blogger, should refrain from blogging/ persuading readers, voters and the like of issues that he or anyone as a member of a City Commission must be cautious of a conflict of interest. It’s the same as if any journalist were to work on or present a story where he/ she has a personal or political interest. It would be a blatant conflict of interest and not tolerated. Tafelski expressed his gratitude to Deep for his service but said that Deep, should serve the City, if he wished to, on a different commission and refrain from blogging about any issue it happens to take up.
This point was made earlier in the conversation by Donna but before I started posting to these comments so I thought I’d add it in:
I agree with you about blogging and I feel that Deep had his say on his blog page and people had the opportunity to support or go against the things he commented on – I see nothing wrong with that. The city would be so much better if everything were out in the open and available to the taxpayers before they happen. Perfect example of this is the city hall move, ‘resort like’ cabins at Camp Dbrn, etc.
Michael Bsharah: Please let me add, that no one is calling for a policy to prevent blogging on a issue with which an elected or appointed official is involved. Doing so, is abridgment of freedom of speech; However, it is common sense and the responsibility of a good citizen to use discretion – especially when discussion of an issue becomes contentious, as it did with the Goodwill Store matter. Some rather ugly views were expressed by Commission members and did nothing to serve our City regardless of their views on the Goodwill Store. With responsibility, comes discretion .