I see you're shown chatting away here at 8:26 this evening; is this for real?

Best,
Thad

I second Thad's question: Is this real?!

Secondly, I wonder who the "idiot" is.

I'm pretty certain that Jeff's middle name is not "Hussein".  Are we sure this really is Jeff, or is it an impersonator?

The Canaanite's Call

Upon examination of the meeting video, it appears that Kingsbury might have been referring to Jim Reeve (A.K.A. "Moses") who was, by the way, speaking on a racist and derogatory rant.

So here's an idea...

Rather than speculate, get the laptop (city property) or its history through a public records request.  If you really want to dig in you could do some social engineering on Facebook yourself.

It's his secret (used to be) disdain that disturbs me:

"Idiot"

"lol...you should hear these folks..."

"I can look directly at them and type at the same time..."

Neat.

This mole hill just keeps growing and growing.  It's going to need a rezone pretty damn soon.

I think it's foolish for Jeff to be on Facebook during a council meeting.  Even more foolish for him to let his personal feelings interfere with city business.  I'd prefer the city setup a RT blog for council members if they want to communicate the meeting's topics and minutes.

But I also think it's disingenuous to raise an issue about the comment when each of us at a time or two have mocked or made light of someone we disagree with.  If you don't fit in this category (I do), then more power to you.

...and do some damage control blogging.

Why?

It's dramatic.

It's like a little detective story puzzle...

1. I don't understand why the timestamp on the OlyBlog post reads 7:13, while the Facebook timestamp of the first comment reads 7:23 and the Facebook timestamp of the last comment is 8:28. If both these clocks were right, wouldn't that mean this post to OlyBlog was made 10 minutes before any of this Facebook chat conversation happened?

2. The first comment at 7:23, "Who's the idiot?" clearly implies a previous comment (presumably by Councilmember Kingsbury), in which he referred to somebody as an idiot without naming them.

3. It wasn't Arthur West. He doesn't start talking until 30:18 of the city's video tape, so this initial exchange happened well before that (unless the Council began the meeting well before it was scheduled to start at 7:00.)

4. Councilmember Kingsbury says he's referring to "a citizen who doesn't like our policy." That doesn't seem like a very likely description of Jim Reeve (aka Moses). He talks about the end of the world, not the Council's policies.

5. So Councilmember Kingsbury's probably talking about one of the people speaking against the city's scheme for doing a quick first phase of the isthmus park study the nearly 4,000 citizens' initiative signatures mandated, and then deciding whether or not to do the rest.

6. Whatever you think of Councilmember Kingsbury's attitude (or his discretion) it's somewhat ironic that he's heard in the background a little later, angrily criticizing Arthur West for his public remarks putting down somebody who used to work in the Planning Department. Kingsbury says, "That's an insulting personal attack, Arthur, and we both know it, so get out of here!"

Of course, I don't suppose it occurred to him that his Facebook conversation was public, and about to become a lot more public! (This seems like one more of a whole new class of embarrassing social slips made possible by electronic media.) People hit the "Reply All" button instead of "Reply" and suddenly find that some remark they thought they were just making casually to a friend has been broadcast to the whole company, etc...

Best,
Thad

No. Not unless you have permission:

Q: Is it permissible to share content taken from Facebook?

A: No. Facebook released a statement regarding Caldwell's actions saying, "Facebook users agree in the sites terms of use and policies that they will not reproduce other user profiles without permission from the user in question and Facebook. Permission was not granted in this case, and Facebook has disabled the offending account." Caldwell broke the site's Terms of Service when she reproduced a screenshot of Giuliani's profile on Slate. Facebook is not looking to take legal action, and Caldwell has expressed no regret over her actions, despite being banned from the site. The question isn't so much whether or not it is permissible to share personal information taken from Facebook, but whether it is ethical.

full disclosure

I would have to agree that this is not a big deal. Not nessesarily the best judgement, but in the grand scheme of things affirms that everyone involved is human. Humans have this habit of reacting without thinking first, it is one of those survival skills that evolution pounded into us. Sometimes is a good thing, sometimes it is an embarassing reminder of the fact that we are social creatures vying for approvial from our peers (in this case the social network known as facebook). 

What I am baffled by is why is it that some Olyblog posting attracted so much attention, but not the one about the Public Lands Commissioner race (which is rather close at the momment and determines the managment of millions of acres of public land and puget sound). I would consider that a big deal. Ok, sorry for the side rant... 

Not being an Olympia resident, I'm unfamiliar with the personalities here. But it seems to me this episode brings up a more general issue about City Council members or other public officials communicating with the individuals in the Outside World during public hearings to the (intended) exclusion of everyone else.

This particular case is a pretty harmless, if embarrassing, one. But this form of back row whispering could've easily been with some lobbyist or special interest Svengali. The potential for major ethics violations seem ripe.

After seeing this blog post, I requested to be added as a friend on Jeff's Facebook account. My request was accepted, but when I went to check out his profile, I was unable. Presumably, I was also removed as a friend.

I have emailed Jeff personally about this incident. He remains adamant that his comment was specifically and solely in reference to Moses (aka Jim Reeves.)

However, that does seem to conflict with his commentary about "them" and "these folks."

It is sad when people let political differences get in the way of relationships.

Just because the comments span over a period of time doesn't mean he wasn't talking about who he was talking about.  I do that on facebook comments a lot.  Say something, leave, come back later, respond, leave, come back and so on.  It's like any message board where you revisit a topic over and over even though it's long past.  I don't really know how to explain it and who knows if that's the case.  Just my rambling thoughts. 

Music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life. ~Ludwig van Beethoven

On Councilmember Strub's blog...

He also says it's intended only for readers and posters on that blog, prohibits any copying or pasting of the text, and says that anyone who wants to comment may do so by getting an account on that blog. As far as I know, there's no legal basis for prohibiting comment anywhere on something that's posted on the Internet, but since this has been discussed at length here, and since he includes a link to this discussion at the very beginning of his, it seems to me that if there's anybody who's interested in discussing his comments it would be polite and a good thing to do it over there, not here.

Best,
Thad