Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Facts and Falsehoods: WVN #245

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default Facts and Falsehoods: WVN #245

    The latest edition of Wayland Voters Network is an interesting compilation of facts and falsehoods, which are combined to give an impression of impropriety where there was none. The intention is clearly to discredit the good name of WaylandeNews, and as the Executive Director of the site, and the one who was personally attacked, I feel a need to issue this response. Shown below are some excerpts from WVN issue #245 in red, and my commentary in black. The full WVN issue is available here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waylan...rk/message/271

    The selectmen, the School Committee, SOSWayland and WaylandeNews have collaborated in recent years on an agenda including a high tolerance for overrides, a new or significantly renovated high school, a large shopping center and a more vertical, top-down form of governance.

    This is flatly wrong. WaylandeNews has not worked jointly with either the School Committee or SOSWayland on any agenda. The one instance in which we did collaborate with SOSWayland and the Selectmen was on a campaign to fight for more local aid for Wayland. As far as the other items go, we rarely take positions (we did not, for example, take any position on the DPW article), and when we do, we do so on a public forum to which all other residents are welcome to post, including Michael Short. (Note: in contrast, no one else can respond to WVN articles, even to issue corrections or clarifications).

    After 2006 Town meeting approved zoning to permit the Town Center on Route 20, the developer, Twenty Wayland, sent a May 11 email invitation to a celebratory barbecue. Those invited included Selectmen Bill Whitney, Michael Tichnor and Joe Nolan, the entire Finance Committee, several leaders of SOS and Kim Reichelt of WaylandeNews.


    This calls to mind an earlier WVN issue in which an unsavory implication was made of my talking to an SOS-chair. Nobody mentioned that I also spoke at length with Alan Reiss during Town Meeting, or that I sat with a group of unhappy Loker parents who voted as a group against the DPW for most of Town Meeting. Apparently a WVN "reporter" chose to imply improper behavior based on his view from across the room - more evidence of the "accuracy" of WVN's newsletters. I have friends throughout the town of Wayland, some of whom have views on a variety issues that vary from my own. I have been thanked by people before, such as Gary Burton and here, Twenty Wayland. When I receive such thanks, I tell people that no thanks are due. My job at WaylandeNews is to help keep people informed.

    Similarly, it may have been lawful for Middle School Principal Charlie Schlegel to send parents an unsolicited email before the election about the importance of voting. He attached a list of budget cuts should the override fail and sent the email on the school system's distribution list. (A citizen's complaint about the email was sent to the state campaign finance office.) Schlegel didn't recommend what and whom to vote for, but the reminder certainly wasn't designed to stir anti-establishment thinking.This fits into a picture of influential groups and favored candidates, office-holders and even employees working toward a common goal.


    Is the suggestion here that it is inappropriate for a school to let the school community know the implications of a vote that will affect them? I've seen complaints that the Loker PTO and principal did not do enough to alert that community to the effects of the school reconfiguration. But here, the principal provides facts regarding the override and WVN says it "may have been lawful" implying that it may not have been, and even if lawful, that it was questionable. The principalís emails are not unsolicited in that parents SIGN UP for the school listserve. Just because someone complains doesn't mean there is a reasonable complaint. Why does WVN even make such a snide insinuation if they know there's no legal basis to it? WVN suggests that the reminder "wasn't designed to stir anti-establishment thinking". But is stirring ďanti-establishment thinkingĒ really what WVN thinks the school principal should be doing? Why does WVN object to a school community knowing the facts? Shouldn't parents know the impact of a failed override on their school? Isn't WVNís stated mission, by the way, to promote voter education and participation? Hmmm....

    INFLUENCE OF WAYLANDENEWS

    The influence of WaylandeNews is more subtle. The website is a wide-ranging source of information and discussion, but it consistently takes positions aligned with the establishment and is controlled by Kim Reichelt, formerly the head of the registered political committee that campaigned unsuccessfully for replacing the high school in 2005. Former School Committee member Steve Perlman recently became a member of the WaylandeNews editorial board. Reichelt, who often sits with SOS activists at public meetings, supports the current selectmen and School Committee and is a voluble critic of dissenting positions, candidates and even news sources that fail to reflect establishment views. She attacked Selectman Alan Reiss during his unsuccessful campaign for reelection. Reichelt has called WVN "propaganda" and described one newsletter as "typically preposterous."


    The assertion that I "control" WaylandeNews is just plain false. I am responsible for site development and maintenance, period. The Editorial Board has ultimate responsibility for both website and newsletter content. Moreover, WaylandeNews does not take any political positions except on its discussion board, where it invites public comment, and those editorials are written by the Editorial Board, and not by me. Any editorializing is clearly labeled as such, and we do not try to camouflage opinions in the guise of objective reporting. There have often been posts by others who support positions or candidates that members of the Editorial Board or I do not personally support. We welcome that sort of dialogue - unlike WVN, which seeks to express a view without any public feedback. A review of our recent newsletters leading up to the election will reveal that none advocated for or against any position on the override or any candidate. Further, our public endorsements pages contained more resident endorsements for write-in candidate Jeff Baron than any other candidate. How can that be blindly "pro-establishment"?

    I do sometimes sit with SOS leaders at public meetings (our kids went to pre-school together), sometimes I sit with other people, like my father or my husband, or sometimes strangers. I am a critic of one "news" source that "fail(s) to reflect establishment views" and that is because it is (as correctly quoted above) "propaganda".

    WVN #245 was also "typically preposterous". As for attacking Alan Reiss, I can't recall doing that, and neither can Alan. I have asked him. I have great respect for Alan, think his opposing view was useful on the Board of Selectmen, and have told him so on countless occasions. Apparently, WVNís attack reference is to my politely noting factual inaccuracies when Alan presented an analysis at Candidates' Night that was based on inaccurate data (actually Chris Riley noted the inaccuracy, I merely followed up and found the correct data). Alan graciously redid his analysis and posted it at WaylandeNews. If WVN thinks this is an "attack", it makes you wonder what sort of debate they deem appropriate.

    I am not clear on why Steve Perlman's membership on the School Committee over a decade ago is relevant. But if they are going to mention that, perhaps they should also mention my job as Voter Services Chair for the League of Women Voters. That position's role is to encourage voter participation.

    The School Committee severed member Jeff Dieffenbach's blog from the site after accusations of inappropriate partisanship, but treats WaylandeNews a (sic) an unimpeachable resource.


    The Wayland School Committee links to WaylandeNews as do many others. There are links to WaylandeNews from a myriad of other sites (including among others: www.ajreiss.com, www.waylandgop.org, www.waylanddems.org, www.americantowns.com, www.wikipedia.org, www.libertypizzawayland.com, www.davidvreganod.com)

    On June 12, 2006 the Finance Committee voted unanimously to "support WaylandeNews and (Town Administrator) Fred Turkington's efforts to write the Legislature endorsing an increase in state aid to Massachusetts towns." This seems to consider WaylandeNews an adjunct or partner in town government.

    I am pleased to be viewed as a partner in the sense that we are here to help the town however we can. We ran a survey for the Selectmen helping them get feedback regarding the Sunday Town Meeting. We helped advocate for more local aid (as noted just above). We look forward to finding other ways to serve the town in such a capacity.

    The character of Town Meeting is changing. Attendance is high when SOS asks voters to show up. But there seems to be an increasing tendency to cut debate short by calling the question, even when several voters are waiting to make their arguments. Kim Reichelt of WaylandeNews frequently moves to end debates.

    Of the last 25 years, the 2008 Town Meeting had the 8th highest time spent per article (at 20 minutes per). I believe I moved to terminate debate twice in this last Town Meeting, both motions overwhelmingly passed. I do not seek to terminate prematurely, the Moderator has the authority to opt to continue debate anyway, and the people of the town have the option (requiring only one-third of the vote) to vote down the motion. While I like participating in the process, there are times when the debate gets unnecessarily long, and it is clear that nothing new is being said. In the end, we do need to finish at some point.

    It is truly ironic that WVN is working so hard to paint WaylandeNews as a biased news source, when (1) the site is so much more than just news, (2) WaylandeNews does not create the news that is posted and therefore cannot craft any story in a biased manner, unlike WVN which makes it its practice to misinform and in this case smear, 3) we make significant effort to be as fair as possible in providing equal public access to all political and nonpolitical groups in town, and (4) we allow and encourage feedback and open discussion on a publicly available forum.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics

    I thought perhaps these extracts from the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics might make an interesting read:

    "Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

    "Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."

    "Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."

    "Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant."

    "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

    Journalists should:

    "Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct."

    "Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media."

    "Admit mistakes and correct them promptly."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Guess I need to eat my socks regarding one issue. I understand from WVN's latest issue that the OCPF issued an opinion that Charlie Schlegel did violate campaign finance rules. WVN quotes the finding:

    "Accordingly, this office has concluded that governmental entities may not expend public resources or contribute anything of value to influence or affect the outcome of a ballot question," OCPF Director Michael J. Sullivan wrote to Schlegel.

    "Public resources may not, therefore, be used to distribute information regarding a ballot question, even if it is intended to be objective and factual, unless expressly authorized by state law.

    "It is my understanding that the Wayland Middle School, with your authorization, used its server and e-mail list to send an e-mail advocating for passage of the override. Public resources, namely use of the school server, the e-mail list and the time of the school staff, were used to distribute the document. This activity did not comply with the campaign finance law and the Anderson opinion.

    It is not clear from the way this is written whether the OCPF actually investigated and read all the relevant material, or whether they took the complaint as fact ("it is my understanding that..."). I have queried the OCPF for more information, and will post back if I learn anything more.

    If the OCPF does not allow such communication, I wonder what would be allowed? How are residents to learn what the impacts of a failed override are? Was their objection to the inclusion of the override impacts, or to the reminder to vote, both of which seem pretty innocuous?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Was their objection to the inclusion of the override impacts, or to the reminder to vote, both of which seem pretty innocuous?
    Perhaps both.
    When you put those two things together and have them put out by the same source, it sounds too much like, "Don't forget to vote, and oh, btw, I hope you realize what the impact will be if you don't vote a certain way...."

    It sounds too much like a threat.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    46

    Default Loker rental

    Does anyone have any inormation about The Tech Collaborative, apotential renter of the Loker School building?

    What do they do, and what will they be paying in rent?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    84

    Default

    It just seems so wrong that stakeholders involved (eg teachers, administrators etc.) should not be able to advocate for what they feel is best. They are the voice that truly understands the impact of cuts and how they do/do not affect their capabilities. I understand the limits that must be set regarding telling parents which way to vote, but to inform of the vote and list the potential cuts, seems fairly basic and even necessary.

    Along the same lines are those who live in town and also work for the schools. Many are hesitant to be involved in any way "because they work for the town". I'm never sure whether they are contractually obligated to be muzzled, or whether it is just pc. Here again, it seems that they would be the very people who could tell us, as an "insider", what the "real" impacts would look like. Such a fine line for those wearing many hats around town!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    There are good reasons for laws like that.
    Think about it.
    Would you want the Chief of Police calling you up telling you that you'll be less safe if you don't vote for some new crime fighting device?
    Would you want the Fire Chief hounding you to vote for new fire trucks?

    It's just not appropriate.
    It's a conflict of interests.

    I have no doubt that they firmly believe it's best for the town, and I might even agree with them. But it doesn't make it alright for them to do it.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default But look at what he actually sent out

    I am attaching a PDF of the email that went out. Before drawing any conclusions, I urge people to read it. I am very surprised that the OCPF didn't consider this lawful. It makes it unclear to me how the schools are supposed to communicate the impacts, and certainly it is to everyone's benefit if people understand what they are voting for.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Would you want the Chief of Police calling you up telling you that you'll be less safe if you don't vote for some new crime fighting device?
    Would you want the Fire Chief hounding you to vote for new fire trucks?
    I think being "hounded" and "called up" are very different from an email reminder to vote and consider all outcomes.

    And yes, given the choice, I'd prefer to get the facts regarding what the cuts will look like from the administrators who are making those very decisions. I believe that in order to make an informed choice when voting, that this type of information is critical. I'd find info. given by Police, Fire, Library, School Admin, COA, and others to be far more pertinent to translating what a "cut" actually looks like. Seeing an fte cut by .3 on a budget sheet can appear to be harmless, until the folks who will have to accomodate that cut show us how that will be accomplished.

    I'm not in support of a "vote yes/no" message. I am speaking only of a reminder to vote and clear outline of ramifications should the budget not be level serviced. That seems to be of a factual nature and should be widely publicized and clarified by those who will implement them.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •