Posts Tagged ‘city council’

I had high hopes for Greg Ridgley, the 18-year-old Spokane city council candidate.   He was young, nervy, and full of new ideas for the Lilac City.  And lets face it, he would have provided lots of things to blog about.   I wrote about him last month here.  At 11:05 a.m. an individual named “bonzai” posted a comment on that article predicting: “Today is judgment day for young Mr. Ridgley. I bet he gets only 3 or 4% of the vote in today’s primary.”

Well, right you were, the results were released at 8:00 p.m. by the Secretary of State, and Mr. Ridgley only received 3.34% of the vote.  Mr. bonzai made a good prediction.  The results of the election are here.

The 3.34% that Ridgley received was way lower than lawyer Steven Eugster received at 16%, and he ran for election after having been suspended from the state bar.   Eugster was known for suing the city of Spokane.    Ridgley, did however,  soundly beat (by a 3-2) margin David Elton, a candidate for city council who recently was arrested for threatening to kill the council president, according to news stories.  Maybe that was the problem – the protest vote was split this year.  If you are really fed up with city government, do you vote for:  1) an attorney that sues the city,  2) a man who allegedly threatens to kill city officials, or 3) do you vote for an 18-year-old out of protest?

Maybe the protest chic of voting in an 18-year-old has worn off.  18-year-olds can and do win election races, according to news stories.   But I started to worry about Greg Ridgley’s chances when he never really developed a strong internet campaign.  It seems if you are young, you at least have to use the medium that favors your demographic.  Also, when I would travel to Spokane for court, I really didn’t see his campaign signs up.  He made a lot of campaign appearances, and I am sure he really got a lot of public speaking experience.  He seems to be taking the election loss in stride.  His latest posting on Facebook is “Greg went all in and lost in Texas Hold ‘Em Poker.”

Indeed you did Mr. Ridgley.  We hope to see you again.

It must have been a slow news week for West-side news reporters covering city council meetings in the Seattle area.  The talk of the town was Jennifer Gregerson, a city council member for Mukilteo who posted on Twitter the following message:

City staff and some council now Debriefing and relaxing at ivars for late night happy hour. Time for dinner, I think!

The council member posted this message on the way to Ivar’s restaurant, and it raised eye brows because it turned out that a total of four council members showed up and thus the informal group constituted a quorom of the council. The Open Public Meetings Act makes it illegal to discuss business unless a meeting of a quorum is open to the public.   When I read the councilwoman’s Twitter post, it was pretty clear to me that no official business was discussed, and that going to a to a “late night happy hour” for “debriefing” was a euphemism for getting a little drunk with friends.  But this ambiguous term “debriefing” led the Snohomish County HeraldNet to lead with the headline: “’Tweets’ bring possibly illegal meeting to light.”  Huh?  Don’t people realize that city council members might enjoy talking about something else besides council business?  It turned out another council member, Kevin Stolz saw the get together, and rather than join the group, he called the media.   An Assistant Attorney General who was consulted for the story explained that it is not illegal for public officials to get together as long as they do not discuss official business.  A city lawyer was present at Ivars that evening and confirmed that no business was discussed.  The council member who complained also commented: “And the Twitter thing? That just should not have happened.”   But why would it be wrong for a council member to post on Twitter what is going on with city business?    It turned out Councilwoman Gregerson posted 28 updates on Twitter during the meeting earlier that evening.   Twitter is a transparent medium and any member of the public can follow what is going on with their government.   Contrast this with private emails that might be circulated among council members.   Even the HerlandNet (in a follow-up article) stated: “We applaud Gregerson for ‘tweeting’ from the hearing — it’s a step forward in government transparency when an official shares her thoughts and observations with the public in real time.”

For those not familiar with Twitter, it is a “micro-blogging” service that allows users to posts short updates of about 30 words at a time.   Twitter is a medium that has a reputation for being somewhat trivial, and it is true that some celebrities use it to post the most inane details of their lives.   But Twitter has the capability to transform government.   It is through Twitter and other social media that the world has had a steady stream of information on the Iranian election protests after all the journalists had been deported or jailed.  See “Twitter Tells Tale of Iranian Election“.   Here at home, wouldn’t Twitter posts during a meeting alert the public when a certain topic came up on the agenda?   How many times have you sat through a meeting for hours waiting for a certain subject to come up?  The meeting that was occurring on the night in question in Mukilteo was not even a city council meeting, it was a meeting of the Boundary Review Board.  Zzzzzzzzzz………  Who would want to sit through three hours of that?  Do we really think the council members would want to talk about that meeting in their spare time?

Despite the HeraldNet’s headline about “possibly illegal meetings”, the online readers seemed to recognize that the matter was largely overblow.   Many readers commented that it was a tempest in a teapot.   It is apparent that councilman Kevin Stolz had an ax to grind, and was using the media to go after his rivals on the city council.