Not sure what to think about Facebook in Council

Mon, 11/03/2008 - 10:46pm — zeet

I saw this on my Facebook updates, and though I'm not sure what to think about it, I suspected other people would have some idea. Was anyone watching Council at ~~7:23 PM?~~ (Edit: 7:13PM) Interesting how the Internet is really everywhere.

UPDATE: Wow, didn't know this had even made the Olympian! Yes, it's real. I still don't know what to think of it, but glad people found it interesting. Oh, and Jeff has apparently deleted me as a Facebook friend. Perhaps others, too?

UPDATE: This is an interesting contrast to the comments in this Olympian story, where Jeff says:

"I'm alarmed that there are people that believe that this is acceptable political discourse," Kingsbury said. "It isn't."

He called those responsible for the vandalism cowards.

"People who want to have a conversation with you look you in the eye," Kingsbury said. "This was an act of cowardice."

zeet's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 5:58pm — OlyDowntowner

People like to talk about

People like to talk about the things that happen in their community, especially when someone gets their richly deserved "comeuppance." No need to read this thread, FRESH, if you don't see the point.

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 9:33pm — OperaGirl

Just a thought

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

Fri, 11/07/2008 - 11:29am — OlyDowntowner

nt

Mon, 11/17/2008 - 11:09am — Thad Curtz

Councilmember Kingsbury discusses this incident

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

Mon, 11/17/2008 - 2:02pm — Guglielmo

...

"This posting is intended for readers and posters on rhenda.com ONLY. Those who wish to comment may do so by obtaining an account on rhenda.com. Copying and pasting this post, in whole or in part, is expressly forbidden." Oops...

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 11:33am — Bert

"Idiot"

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.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 12:25pm — FRESH

Timestamp on the comment says 7:23pm

Should be able to figure out who was speaking from the video on the website.

Tue, 11/18/2008 - 9:51am — Guglielmo

...

Nevermind. I'll save it for the next thread.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 1:52pm — Guglielmo

Looks like a front pager to me...

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 1:55pm — The Original Yoda

Moses appears in the video clip...

...at about 14 minutes. Maybe that's who is being referred to.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 2:27pm — Ehver Green

So here's an

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.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 2:28pm — rainy gray

We pay Jeff Kingsbury's salary

As taxpayers, we are paying Jeff Kingsbury for his servce on the city council, and I am not paying him to make fun of citizens and to make jokes on Facebook during city council meetings. Does he play videogames and check his email during meetings to? This is a very sorry display of unacceptable behavior by a public figure. It doesn't matter to me whether he is ridiculing someone who is mentally ill or another citizen who has a concern to present to the city council. It's just inappropriate, and it's not what he is paid to do.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 3:31pm — Guglielmo

I don't care if he blogs during meetings

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.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 3:35pm — The Original Yoda

I called Jeff after the "Sister-City" council meeting...

...and he sounded like he was listening to me. Maybe he thinks that I'm an idiot, too.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 4:30pm — Ehver Green

This mole hill just keeps

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.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 4:32pm — The Original Yoda

I think Jeff should get an account...

...and do some damage control blogging.

Why?

It's dramatic.

Wed, 11/05/2008 - 12:42am — Thad Curtz

Who's who? And what time is it?

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

Wed, 11/05/2008 - 8:58am — jlw

The Zero weighs in

The Olympian covered this issue in an article, although the story gives Jeff a boost by describing how racist Jim Reeves (whom Kingsbury is now claiming is the "idiot" in question) is without referencing the fact that Reeves is apparently mentally ill.

Wed, 11/05/2008 - 1:04pm — rainy gray

Picture worth 1000 words, etc etc

The Olympian story was kind of weak without the picture of the thread. Maybe it was in the print edition, but I just read the article online. Many thanks to zeet for having the courage to publish the screen shot.

Wed, 11/05/2008 - 1:12pm — The Original Yoda

OlyBlog got the scoop...

...again

Wed, 11/05/2008 - 3:06pm — emmettoconnell

Is it ok to share something from Facebook?

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

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 1:10am — cynorkis

Not a Big Deal

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...

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 1:31am — The Original Yoda

I feel it's kinda a big deal...

...I think its obvious he wasn't talking about just Preacher Jim and I think this unfortunate turn of events deserves to be addressed further by Mayor Pro-Tem Kingsbury.

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 6:19am — stevenl

Interesting

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.

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 2:49pm — Bert

Lost a Friend

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.

Mon, 11/17/2008 - 12:01pm — Mary Baker Eddy

The prohibition is a Term of

The prohibition is a Term of Service for creating a facebook account.

Mon, 11/17/2008 - 2:34pm — jlw

There's no such thing as an accident!

Oops, my arse. Looks like your id just made a break for it...

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 11:57am — FRESH

It doesn't matter...

...who it was or what they were saying. It is unbecoming of a council person to call a member of the public names, especially while in a council meeting, it's uncivil and council members should be setting a better example than that. Also, perhaps there should be a council rule against computer use during public commentary, so that the people can be assured that at the very least they are being listened to.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 1:35pm — jlw

Actually, 7:13 p.m.

The timestamp on the status update is 7:13 p.m.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 2:33pm — emmettoconnell

its ok to blog

I think its ok to post on facebook, twitter, or blog during a city council meeting. I'm not so sure about calling names, but writing about what's going on in front of you and then posting it says two things:

1. You're paying attention.

2. What's going on during the meeting is important enough to share.

full disclosure

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 3:15pm — Laurian

Or just ask Council person Kingsbury about it.

His email and phone number are on the City of Olympia web. This is a tempest in a tea pot. And yes, some of his constituents are at times idiots, myself included.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 4:20pm — rainy gray

Chilling Effect on Public Communication

I certainly won't be contacting him if he is going to snicker at me behind my back with his facebook friends. And like I said, I certainly won't be voting for him again either.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 4:38pm — emmettoconnell

unless i forget

He does have an account here. He's one of the old timers, been around since practically three years ago.

full disclosure

Wed, 11/05/2008 - 9:54am — Meta Hogan

One of the commenters on

One of the commenters on that article pointed out that although Jeff is quoted in the article saying he's generally only on facebook "for a minute or so" (paraphrase), he posted three comments over the course of a half an hour during the meeting. They definitely need to rethink their policy on the use of laptops. I understand the paperless meeting (cool) and the ability to do research during meetings, but the laptops should be closed during comment. I also disagree that councilmembers should be able to blog during meetings. It's their job to be present, to be the meeting. Citizens can cover the during-the-meeting blogging (I'm thinking of you, Emmet), or council can get online post-meeting to discuss issues. This council was going to bring in a new era of professionalism and responsibility, and I think this demonstrates that they have a long way to go.

Wed, 11/05/2008 - 11:02am — jlw

About Time

Thad, the way it looks on my screen, the time stamp on the Olyblog post is 9:46 p.m. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Facebook, so forgive me if I over-explain this. Using Facebook, people have the option to update their status on their profile, by answering the question "What are you doing right now?" (For instance, today my Facebook status update reads "jlw is glad the election is over.") Jeff Kingsbury apparently answered this question at 7:13 p.m. on Monday night by typing "listening to an idiot." So his status update was refreshed to read "Jeff is listening to an idiot at the moment" as you can see at the top of the .jpg zeet posted. All of Jeff's 402 friends would find Jeff's "status update" in their Facebook "news feed." One's Facebook friends have the option of commenting on their friend's status. At 7:23, Jeff's friend Erik Butler commented on Jeff's status by typing "who's the idiot?" And so forth.

I have to agree that Moses/Jim Reeve doesn't quite seem like a "citizen who doesn't like our policy." Seems a bit more like a convenient scapegoat to me. After all, who can criticize if Jeff's passionate abhorrence of racism just got the better of him?

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 12:02am — zeet

It wasn't courage - I found

It wasn't courage - I found something interesting, and figured other people would. If Jeff has a problem, it's his based on what he wanted to post on the Internet. I still haven't made up my mind completely; in fact, I'm happy for things like liveblogging when they provide useful information and commentary. This does seem a bit disrespectful, however.

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 12:13am — zeet

Hmm, interesting. Jeff

Hmm, interesting. Jeff probably thinks I'm against him; I'm not, really. I think he's a bit of an asshole, but at least he usually seems to say what he means, and he supports great things like Camp Quixote. However, now I'm not sure if it was OK to post this screenshot. The linked article talks about 'profile' information but never mentions status updates as part of the profile. I don't have the time and energy to read the Terms Of Service. Anyone more informed think this should be taken down? It also seems to meet their definition of something 'of note' that is mentioned in that Slate article, since the Olympian felt it was worth publishing. I figured it would just be one of the many barely-noted threads on Olyblog, otherwise known as Not A Big Deal. My bigger problem with the Council is that they seem to ignore citizen input on a regular basis.

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 8:17am — OlyDowntowner

This wasn't just about

This wasn't just about Moses. Jeff Kingsbury was commenting over a period of nearly a half hour (and maybe longer). If he's calling folks idiots, so much for the appearance of fairness.

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 3:05pm — FRESH

You are a conundrum Whitlock

You drag him through the mud on a public blog and then expect him to trust you with friendship? Even a Facebook friendship requires trust. C'mon. I think calling someone an idiot was unbecoming of his office, but people make mistakes, and we don't know what kind of stress Jeff is under right now, or what exactly all of the details around this are.

This feels like a witch hunt. If you disagree with him on an important issue, then attack him on that. At least it would have some relevancy.

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 3:59pm — OlyDowntowner

A witch hunt? Hardly.

A witch hunt? Hardly. Witch hunts usually involve hysterical villagers and innocent old crones. Jeff Kingsbury actually did something that was both nasty and disrespectful during a council meeting, it was documented, and he admitted it. If he's been dragged through the mud, there's only one person to blame.

Sun, 11/09/2008 - 9:58pm — Bert

Does like policy

Jeff says that Moses doesn't like the city policy of restricting public comment to matters of city business.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 12:03pm — Bert

Yes

This shows very questionable judgment on the part of one of our city council members.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 1:40pm — FRESH

that's what I meant

thanks for correcting my failed attempt to correct the original post

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 4:33pm — jlw

You'd make a great defense attorney, Emmett

But the fact is, "lol, you should hear these folks. I can look directly at them and type at the same time" does not qualify as sharing something important, and I'm not even sure it proves he's paying attention.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 4:45pm — emmettoconnell

3 years 3 days

Here.

full disclosure

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 9:32am — Mary Baker Eddy

Maybe he learned about

Maybe he learned about fairness from this website.

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 5:30pm — FRESH

usually

So what's the purpose of continuing to talk about it here? He's not a part of the discussion, so how is it helping anybody come to any resolution? Sending him an email telling him how you're feeling would go a lot farther than spewing anonymously on a blog he maybe doesn't even read, don't you think?

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 9:50am — Guglielmo

What is unfair?

Fri, 11/07/2008 - 7:27am — Meta Hogan

Hey now.

I agree that the conversation would be served immensely by Jeff's presence in it. But I beg to differ that we are "spewing anonymously". I see several issues that have been distilled in this thread, and discussed productively. How should council members spend their time during meetings? What is the appropriate response to an apparently inappropriate public comment? How important is it for council members to be professional, versus being willing to "tell it like it is"? What role does blogging play in the council's public relations/public education efforts? There has been disagreement on all these issues, and the thread has been relatively free of the kind of ad hominem drivel that sometimes haunts disagreement online. These are, I believe, very important issues for us to think about, write about and discuss. The fact that this discussion came about because of an embarrassingly candid slip by a council member should not take away from the value of the conversation.

Thu, 11/06/2008 - 6:19pm — Laurian

Jeff had the audacity to whisper the truth

This whole kerfuffle began a screen grab with questionable time stamps and speculations over wording. As well reasoned as Thad's speculations are they are only circumstantial. It is up to his accusers to prove his account is wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Without a smoking gun Jeff deserves the assumption of innocence.

Jeff acknowledged his semi-private comment was impolitic and ill-advised. Good on him but that does not make his observation wrong. The real issue here is Mr. Reeves' comments to the council. Jim Reeves is not an idiot, he is a flat out racist, sexist homophobic asshole who gets a thrill out of unearned attention and intimidating people. Referring to him as an idiot is an understatement.

"Lesson learned." What more does anyone want? Sensitivity training followed by outright banning from the council aka Council member Greene? Screw that. If you paid attention during his campaign you would have known he has an acerbic whit.

What makes Jeff a good council person is he will speak him mind directly and unambiguously to your face. What makes Jeff a great council person is he weights the evidence and when the facts merit it he will change his mind. Camp Quixote anyone?

Fri, 11/07/2008 - 9:14am — OlyDowntowner

What passes for wit

If I had voted Kingsbury in expecting "acerbic wit," I would be sorely disappointed by his Facebook comments displayed above. If I thought acerbic name-calling was funny, I guess I'd be pretty happy with him.

Fri, 11/07/2008 - 11:07am — Laurian

Come on

Calling Jim Reeves an idiot is fuckin' funny.

Fri, 11/07/2008 - 11:28am — OlyDowntowner

Right up there with tripping

Right up there with tripping a cripple.

Fri, 11/07/2008 - 1:06pm — Laurian

No, not like tripping a cripple

The difference is Jim is not handicapped. He is in control of his emotions. He consciously uses his the street preacher persona to avoid being held accountable for his racist, sexist, and homophobic bigotry. I know this sounds like a stereotypical condemnation of homeless persons with debilitating mental illnesses but that is not the case with Jim.

Jim is not crazy: He is an right wing asshole. I know, I've wasted far too much time talking to him.

Fri, 11/07/2008 - 4:54pm — OlyDowntowner

Thanks for the diagnosis.

Thanks for the diagnosis. But calling him an idiot still fails to strike me as "wit".

Sat, 11/08/2008 - 5:29am — Meta Hogan

In that case...

Jeff's snide online asides were far from an effective accountability measure. I'd say, if Jeff wants to take on someone's bigotry (and more power to him!), talking to the person would be a good start. Otherwise, one risks sinking to the bigot's level of dialogue. And we see where that leads.

Tue, 11/04/2008 - 12:22pm — The Original Yoda

I agree...

...I'm not sure exactly what time it was but when I saw this post I thought it was refering to the exchange the Mayor and council had with Mr. West.

Wed, 11/05/2008 - 10:16am — Laurian

Moses is no more insane than any other right wing bully

He plays the religious nut so to say outrageous sexist and racist things and not be held accountable for his words.

At first I fell for the nut job act but after seeing him intimidate young women and make a particularly ugly racist comment about a black man out walking his dog I understood his tactics. When I called him on his racism he quickly backed down saying he was just joshing. The man is clearly in control of his thoughts.

Don't be fooled by appearances. Moses is an unrepentant racist, sexist, attention seeking asshole.

Mon, 11/10/2008 - 12:06am — Thad Curtz

PS

I've thought about this some more since Councilmember Kingsbury told The Olympian that he was talking about Jim Reeves, and realized that there is a Council policy Jim Reeves probably doesn't like - the one about sticking to Council business that Mayor Mah used to cut his comments off. This explanation makes sense to me now.

Unfortunately, that doesn't at all explain who Councilmember Kingsbury was laughing out loud at considerably later in the meeting. See my later post below... if you're still interested in the annals of detection.)

Correction - November 9th - I'm sorry to say that it looks as if I made a mistake in the post above when I said that Councilmember Kingsbury later told Mr. West he was being personally insulting and should get out. Someone who was there told me today they believe that Councilmember Hyer said that. The voice is all that's on the tape; the camera's on Mayor Mah, and I thought the voice came from the Mayor's right, where Councilmember Kingsbury was sitting, but apparently not...

I don't understand why I can edit this comment and not the other one a few entries up the page, which is where I'd actually like to post this correction@!?.

Mon, 11/10/2008 - 6:26am — Rick

When comment has been replied to...

...it is no longer possible to edit it.

Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt

Mon, 11/10/2008 - 1:39pm — Bert

Sorry about that...

I totally hear you that Kingsbury's explanation was / is inadequate. Whether or not he was solely referring to the likes of Moses and A. West, who were objecting to the council's interruption of their public commentary, he owes the people a fuller explanation, and an apology.

Sun, 11/09/2008 - 9:53pm — Thad Curtz

PS

Wed, 11/05/2008 - 10:46am — Thad Curtz

Hmmm...

I'm sorry to say that the explanation of his remarks that Councilmember Kingsbury gave The Olympian about his comments doesn't cover the whole conversation. Having thought about it some more (and been usefully educated about how Facebook works and the timeline by jlw's comment above - thanks!) it seems that he might well have described Jim Reeves as "a citizen who doesn't like our policy" meaning the Council's policy about restricting public comment to city business, which Mayor Mah invoked to cut Reeves' comments short. (This also fits with The Original Yoda's observation that Reeves' comments are at about 14 minutes into the meeting.)

Unfortunately, it's 24 minutes later when he writes

"lol" [laugh out loud]...you should hear these folks. I can look directly at them and type at the same time."

Councilmember Kingsbury certainly wasn't still talking about Reeves then. In fact, he was clearly talking about several people, since he writes "you should hear these folks."

Best,
Thad

Sun, 11/09/2008 - 9:57pm — Bert

Election

Both Joe and Jeff's seats are in play for the next election cycle. Do you (or anyone else) know if they are seeking re-election? Will these candidates be challenged for re-election?