So I was reading Village Green/Town Squared this evening, where the author of that esteemed blog wrote about blogging and its relationship with journalism.
Now perhaps "Christine" from the comments section was playing a bit fast and loose with the lingo. Maybe if she added the word "citizen" before "journalist" she(?) might have hit a bit closer to the mark. Just a bissel.
That said, I don't read http://53beersontap.typepad.com/ for straight-up reporting. I peruse it for the blend of fact, analysis, and opinion. I would imagine that most of his readership understands the nature and purpose of that blog. I might be overestimating the level of media literacy at work among some consumers, I don't know.
I was sitting next to a current Board of Education member at a local event recently. We were chatting, pleasantly enough, about local media content creators. The reality is, in this era of sharply reduced traditional media resources, bloggers play a more important role when it comes to being chroniclers of our time and place. This is particularly the case in HoCo, a county-sized 'burb sandwiched between Baltimore and DC, belonging more to the former than the latter within the greater media market, yet still under-reported upon. Despite knowing a great deal about The 53, I don't know how much time and attention this individual gives to thinking about blogging as a means of sharing news and information.
Yes, many bloggers do not undergo any formal training as journalists. Moreover, I doubt that any of us in Howard County signed a pledge to abide by the SPJ Code of Ethics. That said, I believe, whether intentional or not, most of us follow the general principles found within that Code.
It might be helpful for the citizenry in general, and elected officials in particular, to think about the role of blogging within our communities. Rather than post defensive-sounding remarks in comments sections, perhaps there are other ways to engage with those of us who practice some variant of citizen journalism. We aren't going away any time soon.
Stay tuned, as more will follow.
Showing posts with label Code of Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Code of Ethics. Show all posts
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Friday, May 9, 2014
The Wincopin Steamroller
The deal went down last night.
Mr. Reg Avery sits, officially, as the Columbia Association
Representative from Oakland Mills.
The Code of Ethics provision that fueled the controversy
[about a Board Member not being able to be a candidate for public office while serving as a CA Representative] was changed to limit the applicability to a
“Board Member sworn into public office.”
It is noteworthy that the new Harper’s Choice CA Rep, Alan Klein, pushed
to strike the original, apparently controversial, language from that provision entirely
but his motion was defeated by a 5 – 4 margin, with the minority position held by
the three new Board Members and Ms. McCord. Mr. Swatek abstained.
So Mr. Swatek suggested amending the language to cover a CA
Board Member when he or she actually assumes office. His motion passed by an 8 – 2 majority, with
Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Schwind in the minority.
There were some hard truths spoken and tough questions
asked. One of the Board Members in the
aforementioned two-person minority, joining the discussion via telephone,
wondered aloud if some future Board Member, seeking elective office, might
jeopardize the Association’s 501(c)(4) status. Bill Woodcock, graciously
congratulating Mr. Avery on his election, also raised concerns about the
possible future implications of allowing Board Members to be candidates for
office simultaneously.
Meanwhile, there was a heated debate occurring directly
behind my seat. The janitorial service
was just outside the door of the meeting room, making the sounds one would
expect of a cleaning crew…a bit annoying but sporadic…and not 120
decibels. A former CA Representative sitting
in the audience wanted the glass door to be closed, to help shut out the
noise. Another person (according to my
sources, a CA employee) insisted that the door stay open, in keeping with the
spirit of an “open” (read: not closed) meeting.
So voices were raised as tempers flared.
Frankly, their debate made as much sense as anything else
last night. Many of the arguments in
favor of seating Mr. Avery or revising the Code of Ethics had much to do with
the circumstances surrounding the election of a specific individual….and not
the application of a specific policy.
Remember the whole, “a government of laws and not men” philosophy? Not
many people did in the Columbia Association Board room last night. One gets the feeling that – had a candidate
with a perspective different from theirs been elected – some members of the
audience who supported seating Mr. Avery without the need for a waiver and/or the
Swatek Amendment - would have instead pushed for a rigorous adherence to the
existing policy.
Am I saying there was a certain paucity of intellectual
honesty and an abundance of disingenuousness in the room? Absolutely.
Oh yes, and Mr. Stack is going to be the Chair for the first
six months of the year, and Mr. Swatek will assume the Chair for the second six
months. This came following a 5-5 split
on the election of the Board Chair. I
left before this vote occurred, but my understanding is that there were no
surprises regarding the composition of the two voting blocs.
I have a feeling we will see the same coalitions emerge on
other issues over the course of the next 12 months. The calendar says 365 days, but it will seem
longer.
Stay tuned, as more will follow.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Skulduggery in Oakland Mills?
Subtitle: Open (Village) Covenants...Openly Arrived At
For the record, I am not stating that there was any illegal or otherwise nefarious goings-on involved in the decision by Alex Hekimian to not seek re-election as the Oakland Mills Representative to the Columbia Association Board of Directors, and the...presumably 11th hour... decision of current Oakland Mills Village Board Member Reg Avery to seek said post.
But secretive? Perhaps. Hence the use of the word "skulduggery" and the question mark.
Neither person was under any affirmative duty to disclose their electoral intentions in advance of the filing deadline. Their actions, neither technically nor physically, prevented other candidates from filing for that position.
However, as they say in the public relations business, the optics are bad. Moreover, Mr. Avery's decision to run for another office, the Howard County Council, puts the Columbia Association...specifically the Board of Directors...in an awkward position.
In recent years, the CA Board in general (and certain members of the Board in particular) have adopted "transparency" as a watch-word. A letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun from April 2013 touts Mr. Hekimian as the candidate of "openness and transparency." [The letter can be found here.]
So it does seem incongruous for such a person - someone committed to such values - to inform another person, privately and shortly before the filing deadline, "Hey, I am not going to run, but why don't you go ahead and put your paperwork in?" Because, from the outside, that looks exactly like what went down.
Would other candidates have run if Mr. Hekimian announced that he was not running for re-election? I am not a resident of Oakland Mills, but I am inclined to believe there would have been a contested race.
At this point, there is no apparent wrong-doing. Even if there was a matter of collusion - which has not yet been proven - well, they played within the rules, right? It might be neither just nor fair but politics is politics. Not exactly what one expects in civic-minded Howard County, but "oh well," right? Or no?
So now Mr. Avery, as the sole candidate for the office, is poised to win election....however....
This brings us to the second major point of contention. Mr. Avery is also a candidate for the Republican nomination for the Howard County Council (Second District). The Columbia Association's Code of Ethics would seem to indicate that Mr. Avery, as a candidate for another office, would have to make a choice: either forgo your campaign for County Council between now and the election/the beginning of the new CA Board term, give up your quest to sit on the Columbia Association Board of Directors this time around, or apply for a waiver that would allow you to be seated. However, that third option doesn't resolve the issue that the Columbia Association's Code of Ethics is intended to prevent: eliminating the possibility of a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropiety.
Mr. Avery's statements regarding the ability of other candidates to seek multiple offices (found in this article) are...disingenuous at best. In those circumstances, the relevant state statutes permitted those candidates to run for two federal offices simultaneously. Here, we have a case where the Columbia Association, a nonprofit service corporation that exercises quasi-public functions, seems to have clear rules in place that would prevent a member of the Board from running for another office.
Mr. Avery's interpretation of his attorney's perspective on the matter is not dispositive.
If he continues with his course of action, running for County Council after being elected to the CA Board, he will require the Columbia Association Board of Directors to decide whether or not to seat him...or whether or not to grant him a waiver. Beyond rewarding a decided lack of transparency, how will it look for the Board to ignore its own clear rules in such cases? When others faced a similar situation, they did the right thing and stepped down from the Board.
If elected and seated, how can Mr. Avery - with a straight face - extoll the virtues of transparency given how he arrived at the Board?
The answer seems to be clear: he should either vacate his current candidacy for one position or the other. If he opts to give up his long-shot County Council race, he can take his seat on the CA Board (granted, he got there in a somewhat unseemly manner, but that matter can be addressed in a future election). If he decides to end his candidacy for the CA Board, it appears as though there would need to be a new election for CA Rep from Oakland Mills. Then, Mr. Avery can proceed with his quixotic and ultimately doomed District 2 campaign.
Definite shenanigans, which is too bad, given the energy that needs to be spent solving real issues.
Stay tuned, as more will follow.
For the record, I am not stating that there was any illegal or otherwise nefarious goings-on involved in the decision by Alex Hekimian to not seek re-election as the Oakland Mills Representative to the Columbia Association Board of Directors, and the...presumably 11th hour... decision of current Oakland Mills Village Board Member Reg Avery to seek said post.
But secretive? Perhaps. Hence the use of the word "skulduggery" and the question mark.
Neither person was under any affirmative duty to disclose their electoral intentions in advance of the filing deadline. Their actions, neither technically nor physically, prevented other candidates from filing for that position.
However, as they say in the public relations business, the optics are bad. Moreover, Mr. Avery's decision to run for another office, the Howard County Council, puts the Columbia Association...specifically the Board of Directors...in an awkward position.
In recent years, the CA Board in general (and certain members of the Board in particular) have adopted "transparency" as a watch-word. A letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun from April 2013 touts Mr. Hekimian as the candidate of "openness and transparency." [The letter can be found here.]
So it does seem incongruous for such a person - someone committed to such values - to inform another person, privately and shortly before the filing deadline, "Hey, I am not going to run, but why don't you go ahead and put your paperwork in?" Because, from the outside, that looks exactly like what went down.
Would other candidates have run if Mr. Hekimian announced that he was not running for re-election? I am not a resident of Oakland Mills, but I am inclined to believe there would have been a contested race.
At this point, there is no apparent wrong-doing. Even if there was a matter of collusion - which has not yet been proven - well, they played within the rules, right? It might be neither just nor fair but politics is politics. Not exactly what one expects in civic-minded Howard County, but "oh well," right? Or no?
So now Mr. Avery, as the sole candidate for the office, is poised to win election....however....
This brings us to the second major point of contention. Mr. Avery is also a candidate for the Republican nomination for the Howard County Council (Second District). The Columbia Association's Code of Ethics would seem to indicate that Mr. Avery, as a candidate for another office, would have to make a choice: either forgo your campaign for County Council between now and the election/the beginning of the new CA Board term, give up your quest to sit on the Columbia Association Board of Directors this time around, or apply for a waiver that would allow you to be seated. However, that third option doesn't resolve the issue that the Columbia Association's Code of Ethics is intended to prevent: eliminating the possibility of a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropiety.
Mr. Avery's statements regarding the ability of other candidates to seek multiple offices (found in this article) are...disingenuous at best. In those circumstances, the relevant state statutes permitted those candidates to run for two federal offices simultaneously. Here, we have a case where the Columbia Association, a nonprofit service corporation that exercises quasi-public functions, seems to have clear rules in place that would prevent a member of the Board from running for another office.
Mr. Avery's interpretation of his attorney's perspective on the matter is not dispositive.
If he continues with his course of action, running for County Council after being elected to the CA Board, he will require the Columbia Association Board of Directors to decide whether or not to seat him...or whether or not to grant him a waiver. Beyond rewarding a decided lack of transparency, how will it look for the Board to ignore its own clear rules in such cases? When others faced a similar situation, they did the right thing and stepped down from the Board.
If elected and seated, how can Mr. Avery - with a straight face - extoll the virtues of transparency given how he arrived at the Board?
The answer seems to be clear: he should either vacate his current candidacy for one position or the other. If he opts to give up his long-shot County Council race, he can take his seat on the CA Board (granted, he got there in a somewhat unseemly manner, but that matter can be addressed in a future election). If he decides to end his candidacy for the CA Board, it appears as though there would need to be a new election for CA Rep from Oakland Mills. Then, Mr. Avery can proceed with his quixotic and ultimately doomed District 2 campaign.
Definite shenanigans, which is too bad, given the energy that needs to be spent solving real issues.
Stay tuned, as more will follow.
Labels:
Avery,
Board of Directors,
CA,
Code of Ethics,
Columbia,
Columbia Association,
Conflict,
County Council,
Elections,
Hekimian,
Oakland Mills,
Representative,
Transparency,
Village
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)