Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 171

Thread: Is the website WaylandSchoolCommittee.org legal and appropriate?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Broken Link?

    Thanks for quick reply...

    The link http://www.wayland.k12.ma.us/distric...ch_reports.htm seems to be broken.

    So your saying that your personal site was able to collect 250 email addresses that you can see and have access to?

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Sorry, link working now

    When I pasted it... the parens went away and that was this issue... Now I see it. Thanks.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    So your saying that your personal site was able to collect 250 email addresses that you can see and have access to?
    I don't have a "personal site" with any school-related email addresses. The Wayland School Committee's email address list, compiled using only private funds, has on the order of 200 addresses. As the site's web master, I have access to the list, using it only at the direction of the WSC, and only per the terms on our newsletter subscription page (updated yesterday to clarify its use with respect to ballot questions).

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Private Funds?

    You keep mentioning private funds... this makes me curious?

    What are the names of the people who pay for this site?
    How much do they pay?
    How often do they pay?
    How do they make their payments? (ie. check, cash etc..)
    Who do they make their payments to?
    How long have they been making these payments?

    Assuming that the people making the payments are somehow associated with the SC then this brings up another set of questions...

    If the SC were to get a newly elected member would that member be required to also make payments? and
    What would happen if that newly elected member decided not to make payments?
    Would that member automatically be disqualified from being mentioned on that site?
    In order for the site to be the *private site of the SC* do all members have to pay for the upkeep of the site?
    Do you require any fee from the town or the SC members to upkeep the site?
    Does any administration personnel contribute to the financial upkeep of the site?

    The site is privately funded ... ok so lets hear how it works.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post

    3. I see no need for a private site calling itself a government committee site connected to the town's name, reputation and server equipment.
    Alan, you mentioned that no other department does what the School Committee does, but there it has been for quite some time, separate from the town site: www.waylandpolice.com, which by the way, shudder, has collected email addresses (http://www.waylandpolice.com/reverse_e-mail_list.htm) and is, get this, privately registered. It's our public police department, and we the taxpayers can't even see who owns the domain! Wayland Fire, however, is located right on the town site. Hmmm, I wonder what's with those rogue policemen!

    There was also for a while www.waylandwater.com, but that was never maintained, and seems to have been moved back onto the town site.

    There's www.waylandlibrary.org, too (as opposed to Sudbury's implementation: Sudbury's Goodnow Library).

    I have to admit Alan, all this has me wondering if you are complaining because it is the School Committee doing this, not because you really think it is the wrong thing to do. Otherwise, you should be getting your pen ready for those complaints to the Police and Library.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Kim,

    I'm not going to attempt to answer for Alan. I'll let him do that.
    However, I'd like to interject my answer to the question you asked.

    One has to choose one's battles.
    I don't have any reason to believe that the Wayland Police is acting improperly, just because their website is off of the Town's site.

    And it wasn't that long ago that I wouldn't have questioned, or even noticed that the SC site was not part of the school's site.

    However, considering some of the inept processes and mysterious decisions I have seen come from our SC these last few months, there are many people - not just Alan Reiss, and certainly not just me - who have begun to question everything about this board.

    When a group of seemingly very intelligent people on a board start to behave in illogical ways and make decisions that seem to defy common sense, one begins to wonder. And when the answers to questions asked don't seem to add up and only lead to more questions, one begins to, naturally, ask even more questions.

    And when one witnesses an innocent, obvious question asked at a public meeting of this board (as seen here), and sees an orchestrated simultaneous chorus from 2 members of said board, telling the Assistant Superintendent not to answer the question, one gets even more curious.

    I could go on......
    John Flaherty

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

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    The WSC web site is funded entirely by WSC members to the tune of about $120 per year for hosting and domain registration. Each year, I ask each WSC member to make a voluntary payment of 1/5 of the cost. If there's a legal obligation to disclose who pays, I'll do so.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Thanks Jeff for the Clarity

    So each member of the school committee pays *you* 1/5th of $120 so you can be reimbursed for 4/5ths of *your costs* of the domain registration and the ISP hosting.

    Personally, if I were doing this... I would have just sucked it up and not asked for any money. Asking for money gets very messy.

    So *I conclude* from any legal perspective, including ICANN rules, you Jeff are the owner of the URL and you control the ISP hosting. You get reimbursed for most of the monies you pay but from the point of view of Register.com or Tucows (whichever it is) you are the man of the site.

    If the site ever gets turned over to the town, it will be by your hand and your permission that because its your personal site.

    You can howl at the moon that its not... but it is.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Kim's Answer

    Kim,

    John actually put it well but i'll take a short stab at trying to answer your question.

    The last time I checked, Chief Irving or Chief Loomer or the library or the water department didn't use town resources to broadcast email to a proprietary town list the fact that an override was tomorrow and these would be the dire consequences if you don't go for it.

    "What you reap is what you sew"

    I think that sums it up.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Alan, I certainly don't recall where I got various emails urging a YES vote for the override (did the School Committee send such an email? probably...), but I don't think there's any question as to whether this would be legal, or even moral.

    The School Committee's job is to advocate for the schools and the budget they develop, and they should be urging the public to support their budget. That they do it with private funds, well that's the law, isn't it? If they did it with public funds, well, then, of course you'd have a gripe. Geesh, you really can't have it both ways!

    As for your comment about other towns not doing it this way, I'd recommend you check out (as just one I found in a quick search) Norton. Another town with an interesting approach is Franklin.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Then Disconnect it...

    Kim, if the WSC wants to advocate for their budget they have ample opportunities using public forums and presentations which are done as a matter of course during the budgeting cycle. They get to be on TV on channel 9, they get to interact with the FinCom and BoS...

    The issue is that a private site is connected to the town's server and that private site collects emails and that private site is also linked to ... well you.

    All of that electronic communication is done via the graces of www.wayland.ma.us and www.wayland.k12.ma.us and that is not private money but PUBLIC money. All of those email lead don't belong to the private entities... they belong to Wayland.

    If WSC.org wants to operate as privately funded and advocate then it should disconnect itself from the towns website and not use the power, prestige and good name of the town of Wayland to bring people in to a town link which links to a private site that ultimately links to enews.

    At the end of the day, the OCPF will provide the final answer.
    So I'm not trying to have it both ways, only one way.
    Separation of private and public.

    It is what it is.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Kim, if the WSC wants to advocate for their budget they have ample opportunities using public forums and presentations which are done as a matter of course during the budgeting cycle. They get to be on TV on channel 9, they get to interact with the FinCom and BoS...
    Alan, be serious -- what percentage of the Wayland population attends or watches the public forums during the budgeting cycle?

    My problem with this whole thing, and this is all really an aside to the current debate, is that the law seems to guarantee that we will be educated by those taking a pro- or anti-positions on these questions. Those clearly advocating have very few constraints, but those merely trying to inform are tightly regulated.

    An override is a very important community decision, and people should be well-informed about both the costs of the override and the implications of its failure. Everyone should want that, so that we can all make an informed choice.

    The real question is: How do you propose that the town's population as a whole be legally and adequately informed about both the costs and benefits of an override?

    Is it your preference that such things only be handled by ballot question committees, such as SOS and RSVP (the latter of which has in the past distributed information that is inaccurate)? I wonder what happens in towns that don't have advocacy groups? How do people become well-informed? Or perhaps they don't, and that explains their low voter turnout...

    I'm not suggesting the School Committee to be the vehicle (because they too would be advocates), but I am disappointed that the law seems to provide no way to send out publicly funded documents that legally and adequately describe the real implications of an override and simultaneously provide information on where and how to vote. Just the facts. This seems to me to be in the public interest.

    But all this is an aside, and really has no bearing on the SC website debate. There really is no easy answer to this problem. Public funds cannot be used to advocate, or often even to inform. So it will be private funds that provide that information. And herein lies the problem - as the law exists, we are guaranteed to be educated by those with a stance.


    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    At the end of the day, the OCPF will provide the final answer.
    So I'm not trying to have it both ways, only one way.
    Separation of private and public.
    You're right, we have to hear from the OCPF. I'm sure that if the OCPF finds that what the School Committee is doing is inappropriate, that the School Committee will abide by the decision and change their operation to conform with the law.

    You suggest that you want it "only my way" and apparently that way is "separation of private and public". But what if the OCPF finds that what the School Committee is doing is fine -- are you willing to fully recognize that decision as well?
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 07-09-2008 at 11:52 AM. Reason: to fix typo Alan points out in next post

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default A serious answer for you

    Kim,

    Obviously I have you somewhat distraught here and that is not my intention.
    Just one correction, if I may, you said "only way way" and you probably meant to say "only my way" .. I point this out only to confirm that I seriously get what you are asking me.

    An ambiguity exists here, the OCPF Anderson ruling clearly tries to separate public and private monies for ballot questions but then they seem to create other ambiguities which may leave a crack in the door open... my read is that what is going on is still not right... but I am trying to keep an open mind and that is why I'm spending my time right now trying to understand this and get to a resolution.

    Jeff has this massive ambiguity going with the SC site. Its, by ICANN standards, his personal site. He wants to call it the SC site and tries to do that by asking the SC for money and getting the SC to agree to its content. So thats an ambiguity. Then what happens if a new SC member doesn't agree to this concept and won't pay? Then by the operational definition here it would no longer the be SC site because it would no longer be all of them and all of them are no longer paying. This is a problem and this is why I brought this angle up.

    If it is a SC site then its a governmental site and its clearly under the ruling of Anderson. But Jeff said originally that he wanted it to be a private site so that he could advocate for overrides... now he's changed his mind to it being a public site and he's only doing this for convenience. This is a problem because the law has not changed on this. But Jeff has done quite a rapid metamorphosis on this position.

    If it is a private site then being connected to the town and advocating and masquerading as the actual WSC site is a problem.

    If it is a private site then being connected to the town and collecting any number of emails including a link through to enews is a problem.

    If status quo stays and enews is connected to WSC.org then I think that this is wrong and equal time should be given to WVN as a hyperlink.

    If status quo stays then this leaves the door open for other ballot question groups to link right to the towns web launching page which also links to WSC.org... keep that in mind. This open pandoras box on an equal access theory.

    Kim, you need a secret decoder ring to understand this mess.
    Jeff, I have to say that you really went out of your way to create a convoluted set of circumstances.

    He's the deal from my perspective.
    Jeff is making a case to the OCPF. I'm making a case to the OCPF.
    In the end the OCPF will rule, if they rule against me then (I won't like it) but I will live with it but it should be very clear as to what the rules are going forward and under what circumstances lines are crossed. If they are crossed then I will be back... that is until I retire to Key West (and hopefully that is not too far off).

    If it goes against Jeff then I would hope that the SC would obey and not try to appeal it since this would create bad publicity and cause the town to spend money.

    Like you and everybody else, we all have better things to do with my time so I want a resolution to this as much as anybody does.

    In my opinion, there is not alot more to argue about on this.
    So I won't keep this going if you or Jeff lets this go into the hands of the OCPF.

    I therefore now call a truce.
    All parties are welcome to contact me privately henceforth.

    I hope I have been clear in my position on this.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Kim, Obviously I have you somewhat distraught here and that is not my intention.
    Not distraught at all. I find this conversation really interesting. Thanks for the concern though. You seem a lot more upset about it, actually, so I certainly don't want to add to that. :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Just one correction, if I may, you said "only way way" and you probably meant to say "only my way" .. I point this out only to confirm that I seriously get what you are asking me.
    Yes, thanks. I edited my post to fix that.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    If it is a SC site then its a governmental site and its clearly under the ruling of Anderson. But Jeff said originally that he wanted it to be a private site so that he could advocate for overrides... now he's changed his mind to it being a public site and he's only doing this for convenience. This is a problem because the law has not changed on this. But Jeff has done quite a rapid metamorphosis on this position.
    I think it reduces the number of reasons the School Committee would have had to have a separate site, but doesn't eliminate all of them. Certainly one good reason could be sufficient, if there were not valid reasons not to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    If it is a private site then being connected to the town and collecting any number of emails including a link through to enews is a problem.

    If status quo stays and enews is connected to WSC.org then I think that this is wrong and equal time should be given to WVN as a hyperlink.
    You cannot realistically compare WVN to WaylandeNews. WVN is an opinion newsletter, and offers no mechanism whatsoever for people to correct its many errors. When WVN opens its doors to enable people to provide feedback, then it can be more seriously considered as a news source. WaylandeNews does not take positions other than on this very Discussion Forum, a forum that is open to all.

    Another aside, you may see one town resident complain about having to provide a name, address and email address to join this forum, which the owners can then "use as they please" (among other unfounded complaints). You who use the forum know: (1) you do not need to provide an address, (2) you need to provide a real name because that is a virtue of this forum, that by requiring identification, we require accountability, and (3) the owners do absolutely nothing with the email addresses provided. You can join the forum without subscribing to the newsletter or visiting the website, the email addresses provided are for use on the forum only, to enable users to communicate with each other via private posts (which does not identify email addresses), and for the forum to send messages to posters when there is a response to a post of interest. Those email addresses are never used for anything else.


    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    He's the deal from my perspective.
    Jeff is making a case to the OCPF. I'm making a case to the OCPF.
    In the end the OCPF will rule, if they rule against me then (I won't like it) but I will live with it.

    In my opinion, there is not alot more to argue about on this.
    So I won't keep this going if you or Jeff lets this go into the hands of the OCPF.

    I therefore now call a truce.
    All parties are welcome to contact me privately henceforth.
    I'm done, too. Sorry, couldn't let that WVN comment go without response though...

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    117

    Default Confused

    I may be the only one that is confused by this chain, so please excuse me if that is the case, but there appear to be a huge number of links from our town websites to other private and commercial websites. Some of these links are even to religious organizations - isn't that a huge no no? Isn't the town or the school the one who puts the links on their websites? If they should not be doing it why are you asking the people they "link to" to remove the links?

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
  •