Commentary: Councilors who own closed social media site hold discussion on city issues. Is this a fair poll to bring to a public meeting?

By GEORGE CUSTER/Editor/The Herald  —  There was a lengthy discussion on Facebook a week ago about issues near and dear to all Oakridge residents. The discussion was initiated by an Oakridge city council member. This discussion continued to be bantered about on Facebook, and then into the recent regular session of council – for nearly an hour.

Most of, and I do mean most of, the residents in Oakridge were not part of this discussion on the social media platform. Regardless of the debate that ensued on the Oakridge chat forum, it is not the place for councilors to encourage specific responses to debatable topics that are a concern to ALL residents, and not to just those who are allowed to join in a private chat.

Upon reading the threads, it sounded much like the councilors were conducting an opinion poll. The topics discussed and commented on will eventually be before the city council. According to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, this is not necessarily a big deal. The fact that a quorum of councilors ended up posting during the thread is sort of a big deal. It was admitted in the open council meeting and placed in the record. I guess that makes it go away.

Upon research, it states that the commission can fine a person or entity subject to their standards up to $1,000 for a breach of ethics. The commission has never imposed a fine anywhere to date. Warning letters are almost always vague.  The State ethics commission, from my experience, seems to always side with “let sleeping dogs lie”. Oakridge is a small town and a long way from Salem.

I have been told by many locals that they have been kicked off of this site, the Oakridge chat forum page, for no apparent reason. Residents having civilly engaged in a discussion topic but having an opinion counter to the site’s general leaning gets them banned. Or, that the owners just don’t want you chiming in on their page. One resident reported that that they were kicked off for being too “writerly”.

Did the page owner think that they were going to run out of page space? Or was the person just trying to interject an opposing opinion to the discussion? Like any other medium, if you don’t like the opinion, you can skip a thread on Facebook. It’s not that difficult.

I was informed by competent authority that because the topics on the chat forum were not specifically being brought up currently in an upcoming meeting that it was OK. Well, technically that may be true. The “reasonable man” theory holds that those topics are appropriate to all citizens, and they should be notified if being brought up, whether now or later. Entering these discussions into the record at the meeting is like closing the barn door after the horses are out.

Some of our councilors cry “first amendment” and “I’m a private citizen”. That doesn’t cut it when you are an elected official. You don’t lose those rights. However, you are corralled a bit. Elected officials are held to a higher standard. And you don’t get to take off your councilor hat when it pleases you.

You are a councilor – a representative of your constituents 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A governor can’t beat someone up at a bar and say “I’m off hours, I can do what I want”. Not how it goes. Likewise, councilors can’t show up at an official committee meeting that they are not assigned to and join the conversation because they think that they have a right as a private citizen. That muddies the process.

The city of Oakridge has a Facebook page. Why do all councilors not use this for posting? The city’s page is open to all, regardless of your opinion. No swearing or name-calling, though.

The State does require, however, that all conversations by elected officials be available to be entered into record and not deleted at the fancy of the official. Accountability and transparency. It has previously been brought to the attention of the council that a social media policy be instituted. The city’s attorney agreed with this policy. It was rejected outright by the then current council and mayor.

Oakridge’s small-town cronyism has been a laughable topic at many of the county and state level agencies for some time now. It would seem obvious that many of the decisions made at open council meetings are the result of closed-ended discussions outside of their voters hearing range. Oakridge was well known for its backroom decisions by the “good old boys” back in the day. You would think that we should have grown more ethically prudent by now.

Just my thoughts.