Props to the Association for Washington Cities for inviting another point of view to their February 2013 legislative conference in Olympia. I represented the Washington Coalition for Open Government in expressing concerns about proposed changes to the Washington Public Records Act.

A bill in front of the Washington Legislature, HB 1128, would be a lousy deal for the public and a sweet deal for city governments. Having been an elected official for eight years, I’m sympathetic to people in city governments. But the public always has to come first. That’s why I stand with the Washington Coalition for Open Government on this one.

The bill comes from the Association of Washington Cities, a trade group that represents cities. Their stated concern is that some citizens are using the public records act to harass cities. There’s no question this is true. The public records act is a tool. Tools can be used in many ways. Tools can be used for many reasons.  You can use a tool like a hammer for something good, like framing a house, or something bad, like hitting a kid.

Of course, most uses of a tool are usually good. With the public records act, some people request public records from government to discover information and sometimes uncover abuse or other issues that deserve to be known to the public. Yet like a person who might use a hammer to hurt someone, other people file public records act requests because they are angry at a person or city. They are unhappy with government, and a deep overly broad public records act request is a great way to create discomfort and disruption.

Meanwhile, still others compulsively seek records because this is how their craziness comes out. One thing you learn about serving in government is that power attracts the attention of the kind of people who used to be buried in anonymous graves outside Western State Hospital.

But exceptions should not drive the rule. And the rule, also known as the First Amendment, is clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To the discomfort of anyone supporting HB 1128, the First Amendment does not say this…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances unless someone in the government thinks the person is creating inconvenience or being nasty.

If it did say that, HB 1128 would be constitutional. Meanwhile, here’s another rule. This is what the Washington state law actually says:

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected.

To the discomfort of those supporting HB 1128, state law does not say this:

The people of this state yield their sovereignty to the people in the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, will receive information if they ask nicely and don’t offend anyone in government personally or professionally. The people will wait to be told in case any information might be uncomfortable to anyone in government and certainly wouldn’t want to trouble anyone in government to provide the information if it’s a lot of work. This chapter shall be liberally construed for the convenience and personal satisfaction of those employed by government so they may enjoy their experience in civil service or public office.

The poster child for people who want to limit your potential access to records is a city councilwoman from Pasco who was the subject of public records act requests after voting a way someone didn’t like. Do I think it’s cheesy to retaliate against someone in public office that way? Absolutely. Very much so. But does that mean you limit the unhappy citizen’s right to ask for records? You can’t. Because when you do that, you limit everyone’s right.

This brings up a final thought that I can share having been a city councilman. I learned this the hard way. There is one other thing the law does not say. Nowhere is it written “Your experience as a local elected official will be pleasant.” Fact is, people can make you very miserable as an elected official if you let them. People get personal. People get nasty. When you are an elected official, you are a target. The way you address that is to deal with challenge and stress like an adult – not try to gut the public’s right to know what’s going on in government.

My humble list below – certainly very subjective – offers 41 ways that Booker used social media during the crisis. The situations below are familiar to any of us who’ve been involved in government and used social media – though it’s pretty rare to run into all these situations within one event!

It’s no secret that Booker is a Twitter superstar, and he’s already considered a role model for local elected officials and social media. Here’s my analysis. This is worth looking at if you are an elected official thinking of using Twitter more. There are many reasons to do so, but you can also see it’s a lot of work.

1. Providing useful information

2. Repeating useful information

One thing you find time and time again is that people don’t want to read through your social media stream for advice or information. They want the info for themselves at the moment they think it’s useful. So, for example, Booker tweeted the phone number to report problems and needs more than 110 times during a period of several days. Just a few examples:

3. Answering basic questions from people directly involved in the situation

4. Answering questions from people concerned about other people

5. Providing resources to people affected by a situation

6. Telling people that sometimes you don’t know the answer

7. Deflecting questions that make no or little sense

I mean, maybe it makes sense to ask your mayor what to do with spoiled food, or let him know that your needs mean the buses need to start running; but I don’t see it.

8. Dealing with smart-asses. You get bonus points if you use wit.

9. Providing inspiration in times of trouble

10. Urging someone on

The above Tweet might take a bit of translating. There in the middle of the storm, someone says they are dropping out of Newark Public Schools; Booker says, “Let’s talk…”

11. Articulating common sense

Yep, in an emergency you should call 911; but in a crisis, sometimes it takes a leader to know that with confidence.

12. Accepting the concern that pours from others

13. Getting reports of trouble, and getting the government involved

14. Reassuring people who are concerned about others

15. Trying to identify who really needs help right away and who’s just making a fuss

16. Deciding where and when to go out and talk with people

17. Reporting on what you are doing as an elected official

18. Articulating common sense in the middle of a situation

19. Addressing frustration and rumors

This is just one example of the streams of folks who wanted acknowledgement of dire situations and rumors.

21. Telling a funny story

22. Making puns

23. Being pleasant to those with weird ideas

24. Re-Tweeting or sharing other posts with useful info

25. Giving people bad news

26. Calming the over-excited

27. Addressing the paranoid

28. Sharing the history of the community

Mostly elected officials share history through social media during calmer times; I give Booker credit for remembering this historic date in the middle of the crisis.

29. Listening to the angry or upset

These are not Booker’s Tweets; they’re from one citizen within a short period of time. Just imagine what his Twitter stream looked like.

30. Trying to sort out confusing information and situations

 31. Addressing assholes

And yep, they come out – if that’s the right term – in times of crisis.

32. Thanking others for what they do for community

33. Mobilizing volunteers and help

34. Telling volunteers in the situations when they can’t help yet

35. Mobilizing and acknowledging the business community for what it can do

36. Acknowledging outsiders who communicate during a situatoin

This is an interesting one that I noticed myself when my city, Lakewood, was dealing with the murder of four police officers in November 2009. I and we received many social media posts and written notes from people who had one or another connection to Lakewood, and thus felt touched personally by our own version of disaster.

37. Acknowledging the good in your community

38. Educating people on how your government works with other governments and officials

39. Fielding questions that technically belong to other governments

The average citizen has no reason to care whether the mayor has anything to do with schools; he or she just wants answers. Part of the job of the local elected official is to relay what she or he knows from other governments (with great caution, as if you’re wrong, people assign you the responsibility)

 40. Rejoicing with your community when something good happens

41. Accepting the thanks of the community

And that last one is very sincere. I was always amazed how many people, including complete strangers, thanked me for serving on a City Council; and I sure never had to deal with a hurricane.

So there you go … there are 41 things you can do for and with your citizens on Twitter. Why wouldn’t you be part of the conversation?

You would think that in a democracy, all you have to do to participate in public policy is find out when people meet and then attend. You would think that all you have to do to see the records that government produces is simply ask to see the records.

You would, of course, be wrong. Some meetings are not announced. Some records prove difficult, or impossible, to get access to.

And of course that’s why I am so proud to be on the board of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, which advocates on behalf of access to government for all people.

What this means in practical terms to someone in government is, don’t let your personal social media stream touch your government social media stream. Government officials are likely to have both personal and private social media accounts. It is much easier than you’d think to accidentally share a personal message on your social media account, or a government message on your personal account. As Fifelski notes in the video, a tool like Tweetdeck, where you manage multiple accounts side by side,  makes it very easy for you to send a message from the wrong account. That can be very bad if your personal message doesn’t belong on a government account.

On my phone, where I use Hootsuite, small icons indicate whether a Tweet is going to come from my work accounts or personal account. Whenever I share anything from that phone, I look three times to make sure I have the right icon. You would be amazed how often a Tweet coming from my work account suddenly magically jumps to a work account, and vice versa. It is very important to get into the habit of checking at least twice to make sure you’re sharing from the right account. The definition of an accident is that it’s something you didn’t plan. And accidents happen.

Besides the risk of embarrassment that Fifelski explains, there is another reason to avoid crossing the streams. That reason has to do with public records laws. Let’s talk Facebook. A lot of politicians still use their personal Facebook accounts to share government information and talk to people about public policy. In many states, that means the personal Facebook account has now become a public document, and people can request access to it. For many politicians, this could be a disaster. For others, it could be an embarrassment. For others, it might just be the cost of doing business as a politician in 2012. Wherever you come down on the topic, this is something to be aware of.

In Washington state, the public has every right to be confused about how politicians cross streams or don’t cross streams. That’s because different rules apply to different politicians. If you are a city council member, your social media account becomes a public document if you use it for government purposes. But if you are a state legislator, exempt from the public records act, the rules does not apply. So I often had to explain to people why I as a city councilman worked vigorously to have a separate government social media account, and keep public business off my personal account, while my state lawmaker friends posted all sorts of government news from their personal accounts.

Here’s the full video:

On a council, you may want your colleagues to fail miserably. One gets a kick out of this account of a meeting of the McKeesport, Penn., City Council.

Citing Segina’s decision to draft the committee legislation himself, McCall accused Segina of failing to communicate with other members of council. 

“That’s not true, Mr. McCall,” Segina said. “I just don’t like you.” 


When I first got elected, our council had a lot of verbal fireworks. The wiseguy in me really enjoyed them. But at the end of the day, verbal fireworks are ineffective and poisonous. The problem is that from the public’s perspective, any one performer is rarely 100 percent right or wrong. Darryl Segina may think he’s God’s gift to politics, and maybe he is, but that does not matter. The public assumes he shares a responsibility for what is going wrong on that council. 


I rarely refer people to the trolls who leave anonymous comments, but in this case, they are worth reading in that post. People blame both council members for the problem. It may well be one is more dedicated to the public good – I’ve no idea. In a way, it does not matter. When you engage in public fireworks, everyone shooting off fireworks gets burned.

This is a classic case of how bad practices make for scary court cases. The story began with a former Shoreline council member who did something that most of us would never even think to do: eliminate part of an email that was being provided for a public records act request. She’s off the Shoreline council now, and thank God for the people of Shoreline.

The case is complex, but here’s there the court landed: the public is entitled to see the underlying coding involved in producing electronic messages. That *could* mean that the public is entitled to see the coding involved in posting one of my update on my Facebook page. I might change my Facebook posting in reaction to public comment; the court is saying I need to not just have a printout of the before and after, but the original electronic coding.

Here are some selected comments from the court’s ruling, which you can of course also read in its entirety: Here’s how metadata is defined in the court decision (citations for the various definitions are in the decision:

Metadata is quite simply data about data,or hidden statistical information about a document that is generated by a software program.

Metadata’ is ‘informationdescribing the history, tracking, or management of an electronic document.

Examples of e-mail metadata “include, among about 1,200 or more properties, such information as the dates that mail was sent, received, replied to or forwarded, blind carbon copy . . . information, and sender address book information.”

Metadata from electronic files can include “‘information about a particular data set which describes how, when and by whom it was collected, created, accessed, or modified and how it is formatted (including data demographics such as size, location, storage requirements and media information)

Holy Sugar. I don’t have access to the coding that produces Facebook. I also don’t have access to the underlying coding of Blogger, which I’ve been using five years for my city council blog. Neither does any elected official or government entity.

I’m eager to hear what lawyers think. This would not be so urgent but it’s *mandatory* to pay a monetary penalty if a court says you violated the public records act. A court can’t rule ‘Well Walter Neary wasn’t trying to hide anything when he used Facebook. In fact, he was trying to be more open on Facebook, alerting people to what’s going on so they can know and participate if they want. So we will tell him to stop using Facebook, but not charge him a penalty.” They have to charge a penalty, if I understand the law correctly, and a court decides I need to have the underlying code of Facebook on file.

Yikes.

The Washington court says …”Metadata may contain information that relates to the conduct of government and is important for the public to know. It could conceivably include information about whether a document was altered, what time a document was created, or who sent a document to whom. Our broad PRA exists to ensure that the public maintains control over their government, and we will not deny our citizenry access to a whole class of possibly important government information. We agree with the Supreme Court of Arizona that an electronic version of a record, including its embedded metadata, is a public record subject to disclosure.”

What an odd twist. Of course the public is entitled to records. I use Twitter, Facebook and my blog to tell people information that they like to know about government. That’s to encourage participation and education. I recently asked people if I should continue the blog. I got back comments like …

I appreciate the information I get from your blog which shows up on Facebook from time to time. Don’t stop communicating with us in some way, whether by blog, Suburban Times, Facebook or something else!

While I do not read it 100% of the time, it certainly is of use. I
travel to your blog on the internet when there is something you are
talking about that is of particular interest to me. Additionally, it
helps connect you to the people you serve. There are other members
of the City Council who while are excellent and hard working, slip
from the public’s mind. The blog also makes you seem more
approachable for issues related to the city.

I definitely follow your blog. It helps me to see a bit behind the curtain of City Hall without having to attend council meetings. Plus, it’s another local voice to listen to online.

But if I can’t control the metadata …. do I have to stop using these vehicles?

So now I await the word of lawyers and others as this case gets interpreted. If elected officials and government entitles get quiet in social media, this case would be why. This decision is not a surprise; the next step may be to ask the Legislature for some clarification. The public is entitled to see the records of its government: I’ve been fighting for that in one form or another since I became a newspaper reporter in 1983. Social media is a great way to communicate, but no one’s going to use it if it means paying big penalties out of tax dollars.

PS – You’ll note that the case also involved access to a personal computer, which was the subject of a dissent by some of the judges. They didn’t argue about the metadata matter, just about the access to the home computer, which to me is a separate issue. I’m not even getting into that topic: My main concern is, can government and elected officials in Washington use social media when we don’t have access to all the metadata involved but would still be expected by a court to produce it?

That insight was a surprise to me. I didn’t begin this blog thinking that. I began my city council blog years ago sort of naively approaching my content as a former newspaper reporter. “People would appreciate a window into the decision-making process,” I thought. “People would participate in the decision-making process,” I thought, and appreciate the chance to do so.

There’s no question people do want to participate in their democracy through town halls, committees, even blog forums on news sites. But they don’t necessarily want their elected officials involved. They just want to know whether they disagree or agree with the elected official.

What I found over time was that after I described how I was making up my mind, and asked for feedback, people said I was being wishy-washy or indecisive. Sure – if you asked people in the abstract, they’d say they want their politicians to be open and thoughtful. What people have been trained to expect is for politicians to manipulate and deceive them. So it’s a pretty long road to take if you try to involve the public in your decision-making process.

This comes to mind after reading a fascinating exchange on the blog of a fairly new city council member from Massachusetts, Ari Herzog. He’s clearly a bit frustrated, and titles his blog “This Blog is for You, Not for Me.” I’m not familiar with the specific issue referenced in the post, but it sounds like Ari had to vote on something where he had not heard from citizens. Apparently some citizens did not approve of his vote, and contacted him. He writes:

If you don’t share your thoughts with me before votes occur, it’s harder for me to appreciate a complaint after the fact … if you don’t tell me what you think I need to know until after a vote occurs, how should I respond?”

His point in the blog post is, If you want an elected official to know something, tell them. The idea of a blog is to have one more way of exchanging information.

If you read down the page a bit, you see one of the comments to the blog perfectly summarizes what I’ve heard from a lot of citizens here on the other side of the United State:

In the end, we voted Councilors into office to make decisions even in the absence of our input. We don’t expect you to vote for each item based on a poll. We want you to make a conscious decision based on fact and then if/when appropriate explain your reasons. We reserve the right to disagree and obviously we’ll let you know! If we agree more than we disagree by the end of your term, maybe you can stay

Isn’t that how this works?

The citizen is right. That’s how this works. Citizens have been trained to think that a politician asking for feedback is taking a poll – not honestly asking for help or collaboration.

That’s how this works. Those of us who blog often wish there was another way.

By presenting twice now to my fellow city council members at the Association of Washington Cities …. by being in a “how to” webinar last January … by helping in my own modest way with OpenGovWest … I thought we’d help current elected representatives find new ways of using social media and other aspects of the so-called “Gov2.0″ movement.

The brutal truth the other day in Vancouver at the 2010 Association of Washington Cities meeting was that co-presenter Everett Asst. City Attorney Ramsey Ramerman and I had probably a fourth of the people we had at the 2009 meeting of the Association of Washington Cities. Honestly, I’m not surprised. If you talk to a lot of city council members, they don’t get it. They were elected without social media. They were elected without Gov. 2.0 Why bother? People are clamoring for more services and lower taxes. Isn’t that enough of a challenge?

There are a few exceptions – the moderator of our panel, for example, City Councilwoman Jennifer Gregerson of Mukilteo. But in general, the currently elected folks are pretty ambivalent about diving into these waters. After the workshop, I spoke with two city council members thinking of blogging. Both are motivated by a lack of competent news coverage. So there’s interest but …

What I’m left to wonder is whether it’s better to focus on the people who got elected last year who practice new forms of communication, and those of us few ‘old fogeys’ taking a swing at a better world of communication and democracy. Maybe we can share examples of how this stuff helps. So I’m going to take more of a focus on sharing best practices than trying to convert anyone. Maybe if those of us using the tools use them better, and share how that strengthens democracy, it will matter.

I sort of went down this path with the collection of city council bloggers I began on Friendfeed. But we need to share more aggressively. And of course there’s a lot lot lot more to digital democracy than blogging, which is really a communication vehicle of last result for more politicians.

Still, blogging is what I know best. As part of prepping for the AWC meeting, I got a great note from Spokane Councilman Jon Snyder that explains why he blogs. I’ll post that next week after the holiday, and try to do a better job of highlighting how a new generation – regardless of their chronological age – is using digital tech to strengthen public policy and democracy.