Run for office!

John, haven't you heard? Andy Griffith passed away last week. No more Mayberry RFD...not even here!

Susan,

I believe that Andy Griffith was star of the Andy Griffith show, which took place in Mayberry. Mayberry RFD was a spin off show that starred other people.

What I especially enjoyed about Robert's posts was his constant recognition given to student groups, civic initiatives, and general good work done by Wilmington residents. He gave more highlights on school-sponsored events than the individual school's offered on any of their web pages! I only hope this entire debacle hasn't tainted his interest in continuing to be involved in public service.

Great post!!!

If we don't engage the youngest then we can forget about the future

The discussion actually needs to be up-leveled to "What is Wilmington's social media policy, and how are we going to use technology to better serve our constituents?". Wilmington Public schools are already using social media tools like Twitter and Facebook to communicate to students and parents, so if Wilmington doesn't have a social media policy (which I could not find on the Wilmington site or by googling it), then it should, because there needs to be policy around what town employees can/can't use social media for, and what they can/can't discuss in these forums, for liability sake. Typically, the disclaimer stating that the opinions and views on this site/forum do not necessarily reflect the views and values of the town suffice, and there are a number of cities/towns (like Cambridge: http://www.cambridgema.gov/socialmedia.aspx) that can provide excellent examples of how to use social media to better communicate out to constituents.

As for the School Committee, it's a little scary that the body of government that intends to provide our children with a "21st century education" would categorically disallow the use of the very kinds of "21st century tools" we will need to use to communicate out to this very technologically-savvy generation of students (and parents). :)

Oh no, you broke out the Cambridge example! HAHA - gotta love Cambridge and as a former member of the People's Republic of Cambridge, I applaud them of recognizing what needs to be done and doing it. Maybe Wilmington can shake off the cobwebs of their thinking and jump into the future.

Melissa,

You joke about the 'People's Republic of Cambridge', but even that comical term indicates a different government than we have here. I might argue that Wilmington is the great place it is not because of similarities to Cambridge, but because of the differences.

Remember, you USED to be a member of that republic, and you chose to move here. Why? Perhaps there are things here that are different, and that you liked.

I like Wilmington cobwebs, and would endevour to keep Wilmington as Wilmington, and not make it into New Cambridge.

Oh please stop reading into things that aren't at all or even close to what I am saying....Cambridge has been called the People's Republic of Cambridge since my dad grew up there in the 40/50/60s. It isn't a different government it is a way of life/attitude there - and the reasons I moved to Wilmington are all inclusive of the old and the new ways. What I don't like is when the new ways get pushed down b/c of the non-forward ways of thinking. I will keep saying it - Wilmington needs to look forward and not back.

Melissa,
I agree, it is a different attitude and way of life. I happen to like Wilmington instead. You say we should look forward, not backward. I say we need to do both. If you don't look backward, you do not learn from history, either good or bad.

Those who do not look back and learn about history (even recent history) are doomed to repeat the mistakes.

I only picked Cambridge as an example because I knew with MIT, all the tech and bio-tech companies and VCs in their backyard they would HAVE to be using SoMe and would absolutely have a social media policy in place. :)

"But, in the end, it is my voice and no one can control how or where I use it." Truer words have never been spoken, no one can control how you use your voice or how LONG, LONG, LONG you use it. I'm on the fence on a few other issues...you?

Christine,

You say that social media was how the new school was marketed, but that is not complete. There may have been social media marketing to some, but not to the whole town, and I was never marketed that way. I think there were some cliques that enjoyed sharing their opinions thru that medium, but there was no debate there, just one group marketing their opinion. (and successfully too, but that does not make it fair or appropriate)

I work for a living, and do not have time to check in with Facebook, Patch, yahoo, blogs and twitter. I go to a public meeting, and expect to get the information that is current and appropriate. It is Illegal for committee members to meet (and an online continuing thread in a forum is a 'legal' meeting) without public scrutiny, and many people will not join this service or that service and therefore would be excluded from the type of debate you suggest is how we should 'preach' the school system.

There are lots of people out there, and not all are tied into social media. You cannot ignore the laws about public meetings, simply because you have decided that it has a value to you. No one can.

I am not a particular fan of Mr. Lingenfelter, and we do not agree on much, but you cannot call him a coward for leaving a meeting if you do not know of any family or other commitments he may have had.

I believe this kind of name calling is what sends many reasonable people away from social media. It undermines your very argument.

Lol yes Kevin, people voted to raise their taxes because of "terminology" , you really have a superiority complex you need to get in check... I am completely confident the leadership in this town is on track, so many great educational improvements have already happened in the few short years I've been here.. Looking forward to more positive change..

Lol so right! You would think the poster previous to you would be jumping on board to support Rob since he's invoked freedom of speech so many hundreds of times-- I think I've wasted a full day of my life listening to his drivel.... Lol

Melissa,

Are you not suggesting a fence against those who do not use social media?

I am not saying that social media should stop, or that these topic aught not be discussed there, but you cannot ignore public meeting laws, so committee members cannot participate.

And people who simply do not use social media, or do not consider it a source for news, but rather a source for opinion, as I do, would be fenced out by depending on it as a primary force in opinion forming for a town.

You feel that forward thinking people are being poorly treated by following the laws, but are traditional folks, who do not use facebook not being treated just as poorly by those who do not include them in the discussion?

UH - NO - I am not suggesting a fence to people who don't use social media. That is not what I said even in the slightest. In fact, I said just the opposite. Considering I feel like sometimes as a non-legacy Wilmington person that I crossed the invisible fence with my outside views and opinions which are not easily embraced in this town at all. I feel like the legacy Wilmington folks would have preferred a fence around the town to keep it just the way that it was. Well, to my delight that is not what is going to happen and us "newbies" are going to ram that fence down because like it or not us "newbies" are here, we are the ones that are living here, paying our taxes (with NO complaints b/c that's what you need to do in order to have resources and programs) and where our children will grow up and be the future of this town once we are all long gone. The changes are going to happen despite the resistance that is always out there because if the town does not embrace change, it will not move forward. I am also not saying only use social media and forget the old ways, I am saying we have to adopt all mediums and social media is the future (for now until something new comes along). It has to be incorporated as part of the whole.

The truth... And clearly articulated.....I would like to hear from other town leaders on this, anyone else?

On my page, for example, I recap meetings and events I attend…. and notify folks of meetings and school events… and post links to agendas & minutes…and post school-related news from the Patch, Crier, Advocate, Sun, and other media sources… and post video of meetings and school-related events from WCTV… and share posts from Facebook pages of various school and community organizations… and notify folks of what’s happening with certain educational issues at the state level (I also serve on the Massachusetts Association of School Committees).

I do NOT deliberate with other committee members via social media. Even despite the fact that committee members purposely do not “friend” my page, I still choose NOT to offer my opinion on substantive school-related matters (e.g., discussing or signaling which way I’m going to vote on an issue before a meeting), precisely because of the Open Meeting Law.

I’m not sure if you were speaking in generalities, but I just wanted to clear up any confusion surrounding my page.

(And everything I wrote above I’ve stated previously – although perhaps not as articulately – at open meetings. What I can't and will NOT discuss on this forum, however, is the policy/guidelines for social medial use by board members that’s currently working its way through the committee’s normal policy process and has yet to be discussed and voted upon by the full committee.)

Mr. Hayes,

I stated in the very beginning of my posts that deal with social Media that I never read your page on Facebook, and got from the tone of this thread that it was now shut down. I am very much speaking in generalities.

I have also said that I feel it a constitutional right for you to post your opinions on social media, and to solicit or not opinions from others, as you see fit.

I just said that when a committee has a social media site, it can run afoul of the open meeting laws.

I had not read your facebook page, because I did not know of it. I do, however, know of many of your publically stated positions on many topics. As you know, I do attend many meetings, and you may or may not know, that I observe many more on WCTV.

I also respect your position and your presentation on a great many more topics, even several where we do not come to the same conclusions. I have found you to be a respectful and worthy asset to the town and school committee.

All this having been said, if on your private page on facebook, if enough members of the school committee weigh in on a topic that later comes up in meetings, you could find that you have violated the rules regarding quorum having been reached sequentially, without having had that as your intention. This is where my admonitions lie.

One last thing. When a member of a committee reports to people that were not in attendance at a meeting what happened there, it is not the same as when a member of the press, or even an observer does it. It is a statement of facts as you saw them, not as they were. Hopefully, the image will seem the same to everyone, but realistically, we all see and hear things with a subjective slant. And no one can see and hear all the same things another in another part of the room may have seen or heard.

Because of this, and while you may say and feel that you are simply reporting on what happened, it is not necessarily the same as if a person who is not on that same committee did the page or posting.

Honesty or integrity have very little to do with what I am speaking about, as a person may mislead others as to what has happened, but I highly doubt that would apply here, simply because of my respect for Mr. Hayes. Still, he cannot help but be subjective, as we all are, to one degree or another.

I meant to write: "Electronic messaging (including posts on social media sites) should be not used to discuss Committee MATTERS that require public discussion under the Open Meeting Law." Sorry that didn't make any sense.

I appreciate the overwhelming support I’ve received from folks over the past couple of weeks. I now understand the old saying – “no good deed goes unpunished.” While no one is angrier about how this process played out than me (trust me!), I respectfully request that folks stop taking shots at members of the School Committee. I REALLY wish the meeting where this was discussed was televised. You’d realize there was no such censorship – the board came to a consensus that it was fine for me to continue having a Facebook presence while a policy for social media use for board members is developed. The entire board (including me!) wants such a policy/guidelines developed! Just because a board member may not feel comfortable yet with having colleagues use “social media” as another constituent communication tool – in addition to phone, email, letter, face-to-face, etc. – shouldn’t make this person People’s Enemy #1. You can vote for whomever you want for whatever reason – that’s your right – but let’s not discount everything a board member has ever done on behalf of the school system over one issue.

Jacqueline,

What vote are you speaking of? I do not understand.

I was under the impression this was a private effort by Mr. Hayes, and while he has some support, there was also some negativity from his committee.

I believe she is referring to the poll/vote that started this article. Although self-described as unscientific, it still shows where the majority lies on this issue.

Melissa,

You may be correct, but it was a poll, not a vote as she said. Appealing a poll makes less sense to me than Jacqueline's post. Perhaps she was speaking rhetorically about the appeal, and happened to use the wrong word when she said vote instead of poll, but it seems that this is a long way to go to justify a posting.

Again, you guess may be correct, but you may be wrong. How about it Jac? What are you speaking of?

The interesting bit for me is the ability for someone to "weigh in" on a situation who admittedly did not take the time, nor have the desire to even see what Robert was doing with his Facebook page, and yet has the gall to even suggest that there may be a subjective twist applied to the content, seems a bit holier than thou to me. As someone who actually paid attention and did at time engage in the discussion started on said page I can say with certainty that there was no "opinion" offered, simply a sharing of links to relevant stories with at most a one line header announcing the subject. I do not recall Robert ever even getting involved in the discussions which leads me to believe this was one person (Mr. Lingenfelter) who got their undies in a bunch because they didn't like the opinions of other constituents towards presumably his appellate action and the powers that be in the committee knee jerked to this by forcing Robert to censor constituents by forced moderation.

Christine,

I am not sure what your problem is with me stating my opinions. If I call for civility, I am wrong? How about when Katie Curley-Katzman calls for civility? Is she equally wrong?

This forum could be considered social media, and clearly you do. I was referring to facebook, and defended Mr. Hayes's right to post his opinions and request comments, or not request comments, as his right.

I did say that there are problems with a committee doing the same, and the law supports my position.

As far as Hayes or anyone else posting subjectively, it is impossible not to. To say that any one person posts regularly and that it is not subjective is silly and immature. Any person can try to be as objective as possible, but that is not saying that their own opinions or the fact that one person cannot possibly hear or process each and every thing said at a meeting, makes it subjective, as I have explained in the past. There are even laws dealing with meetings and committees about individuals on a committee reporting. All I said is that having a member of a committee report on a meeting is different than having a reporter, who is not on the committee report on that meeting.

You surely don't need to like me.

Civility has to do with reading what another says, any you may not agree with, but not feeling the need to attack him personally, as you have done.

Karl,

I have no reservations about labeling anything as "subjective" if I feel it is truly presented in a manner that would/could convey one's opinion...however in this specific instance, and knowing from having witnessed it first hand how Robert ran his page I have a very hard time with anyone, especially those who never saw or cared to see his page suggest that he was in any way interjecting his personal "bias"...simply reposting links that are related to the high school project or other school activities from the patch, sun or whatever and then inviting constituents to discuss without contributing to the discussion does not allow for a personal "slant"

possibly if he was adding commentary, or if he was selectively deleting posts which he disagreed with, but nether of those things had occurred.

Possibly if you actually had seen the page in question before feeling compelled to critique?....just a thought.

Karl,

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you write the word "subjective" a number of times above?

Again I stress, unless you took the time to actually read Mr. Hayes' previous facebook page and witness first hand how he delivered content I fail to see how you can assert anything, unless of course you would prefer to preference your posts with the text "it is my assumption...."

I have no lack of understanding with regards to your position, I simply take issue with someone making statements of "fact" when the reality is they don't have any first hand experience with the topic at hand.

Mathew,

I have already explained 'subjective' and given you many examples. I cannot do more if you are unfamiliar with what that means.

I had said, and thought, that the facebook page was down, as per the discussion earlier in this thread. I don't need to read it. I have no gripe with it. That does not make it non-subjective. Read my many examples and then look up the word.

If he facebook page is still up, that is wonderful, but has nothing to do with what I have actually said, not the paraphrasing that some, including you, have said that I said. Lots of people are saying and reacting to what people have said that I said. Not what I actually said.

I can read his page and like or not like, or feel they make me feel like warm milk and kittens, it would not change the statements I have said.

You are trying to fight with me, and are accusing me of saying things I did not say, or accusing me of meaning things I did not mean, because I did not say them.

If I understand the meanings of words in English, I do not need to read his facebook page to apply my own subjective assessment as to if it is objective or not, to be able to speak to the issue.

He himself said that he posts "re-caps" meetings and events he attends. If he does not repeat the entire meeting, and everything said, it means he has to pick and choose the bits he reports on, or includes in his "re-cap". So, who chooses the bits he does not include? Who decides what was important?

John, Is there any case law example that you know of that supports your theory? The theory sounds pretty good. I would suggest that even though it sounds logical it may be argued that not everyone goes online and those who don't who want to introduce evidence on a subject may have an issue basically decided before all the facts are in. I for one totally believe that the residents of Wilmington did not have all the facts when they voted for a new school.

Here are the simple facts about the new school. We need one. We want one. We voted for one. It's done. Get over it already. Don't come back to me with all the other details. I'm putting my hands over my ears. Heard it/read it/reviewed it already...don't want to and do not need hear it again. You just want to be able to spout off the same drivel we've been hearing for a year. Enough about it. STOP IT. The high school is not what this topic is about.

The use of Social Media is covered by the Open Meeting Law. It is not prohibited at all, but it is limited as described by Mr. Hayes, elsewhere on this thread.
There is a potential for violation of the Open Meeting Law both in specifics and in spirit, when Social Media is used, but it is not automatic and violations can be managed with a functional policy about what can and cannot be discussed.
If a couple members of the committee go to the same Dunkin Donuts, the same problems can arise.
If too much is discussed or decided upon using Social Media, than those who do not use it, or missed that not published opportunity to express themselves, may feel left out, because they would have been.
This is also one reason there is a requirement to post meeting times, so any interested party can attend if they wish. If the conversation were happening on line instead, how do you know that all interested parties that wanted to express themselves had the opportunity?
This is easily exampled by the fact that I did not know of Hayes' page on Facebook before this thread. I do generally pay attention to what is going on at public meetings. This is the kind of places where Social Media can run afoul of the Open meeting laws.
Again, I need to express that I support Hayes' right to his page, and do not like the fact that he was forced to change it. I am happy to say this, even though I never saw his page. ( I take it on faith that he is aware of the laws and was in compliance)

Mathew,

Let me see if I can help you out with this again. I said there is a need a policy for a committee page or a committee member page. I never said a committee member shouldn't be allowed to have one. I simply said that the committee needs a policy of some kind to go along with social media use by the committee or its members. The School Committee is a policy making committee in conjunction with the primary responsibility of hiring the Superintendent. Bottom line is if Mr. Hayes or anyone else wants a social media page, there should a School Committee policy to go along with it. Mr. Hayes should want that as that covers him for the future as well. I don't know where you read or should have implied that I said he was doing something wrong, shouldn't have a right or that the committee should decide permission for him. I simply said a policy is needed. Hope this clarifies it for you a little better. Once again, think we should move on and this is getting blown out of proportion. Freedom of speech and individual rights....I have no issue with, but policy and procedures need to be in place. Simple as that!

Wayne,

I have observed that Mathew will read a post, assign it his own interpretation, and then complain about what he thinks you wrote, based on his limited understanding of the English language. Then he will post over and over his opinion about what he feels you meant, even if you never said it.

Correction has proven irrevelient for me. He has no desire to understand, just to bloviate about what he will assign as what you said.

I agree that they should have a policy, because while Hayes did nothing wrong with his first Facebook page, because there was no policy, the chair could come down on him like a ton of bricks, and stifle the who thing. If there was a policy, she would not have been able to do that.

The reason the committee (and I have been on several) does not want a policy in writing, is that it limits their ability to react. It is kind of like a lease, good for the tenant, but limits the potentially outrageous reactions of the landlord. In this case, the committee and its chair do not want their hands tied by a policy. If they make one, it will have a broad elastic clause that the chair will want to use to control the situation as they see fit.

Still, public outcry and maybe even member outcry will force a policy.

Then some on this forum will lie about your position anyway, and then condemn you for it.

Based entirely on this last comment, you do not understand the definition of "subjective", and that is fine. You need not.

There is no "concern" that I have nor one that I have ever expressed. I support him expressing himself as he sees fit, and condemn those who attempt to stifle that.

It is nice that you have decided we should agree to disagree. The problem is that once you said that, you went on to misrepresent my opinion.

How about instead, we agree as to Mr. Hayes and his pages on Facebook, before and now, and agree to disagree about how you will represent what I have said, over and over.

And the next time you speak of 'baseless assumptions' we will all know it is you, and your constant harassment and complaints against what you say that I said, instead of what I actually said. That of course, and the display of ignorance about a simple word that you say you need no definition of, that you display that you also do not understand.

Mathew - we can agree to disagree. You are so caught up on being right and defending what isn't in question here all over a big bad word called "policy". If you want a personal page then call it a personal name - "Robert Hayes". If you want to be called into question as to whether or not your page is personal or not then don't title it "Robert Hayes School Committee" and expect for people to not ask questions or have trouble identifying what is personal commentary or perhaps commentary that can be perceived as coming from a Committee. If it's personal then strip your title off and just be yourself if you don't want a policy. You can talk about town topics, school committee updates and provide updates about other items and whatever, but don't say it's all personal when an elected official puts their title on the page. Can't have it both ways without people right or wrong possibly taking issue with it.

Mathew,

A post is a single entry. A Thread is a series of them, like we are making now. You stated that " in this post alone there have been a number of other contributors " . I believe you meant that was true in this thread, not a single post.

If a person says a thing that is not true, it is a lie. A person who tells a lie is a liar.

You said' "much like your stating that I am pompous " which I never did. By posting that I said that, you are telling a lie.

I know it was a lie that you posted about me. What I don't know is why. It is so easy to prove that I did not say that. (Just go back and read all my posts in this thread) What I don't know is why you would do it. It makes no sense to me to say something so obviously incorrect.

For the record, I am a bit pompous at times and know it. So what?

I have explained why I think a policy would have protected Hayes's right to free speech. I have also served on town committees. I know how they work. Can you say the same? How about the Open Meeting Laws? Have you read them, or how the impact Social Media? There are rules and policies that you swear to adhere to in order to serve. Something you may want to consider.

I’m sending you a postcard with a picture of the earth on it.
On the back I will write, "Wish you were here."

Hey Suzy,
Are you going over Mr. O’Reily’s house tonight to plan your next move? Jeez Suzy you seem to keep track of who’s friends with who on Face book I noticed your are friends with him and Mark Nelson. So tell us… What’s the next move? You are such a hateful person. I hope no one with a hat cry’s to Matt to have this post removed. A pessimist is a person who has had to listen to too many optimists.

What post are you talking about Mr. Hayes? I was a big fan of you face book page and I still for the life of me can’t figure out what post you are talking about. You said yourself we are all responsible for our words and I agree. If Mr. Hayes does not have the courage to post the comment he is talking about, perhaps someone else will re post it here. I guarantee it will not be deleted because there was NO THREAT. I am up in my years and all this talk of free speech is amusing me. If it does not suit there view, the nay sayers are crying foul. Freedom of speech works both ways..Weither they like it or not. I hope you are having a great vacation Mr. Schooley.

Worth noting, like the "old" page, the “new” page is open -- folks who aren't "friends" can view it, even folks who don't have a Facebook account can view it. You are correct -- I did de-friend one individual and "block" another. That said, one of those individuals is already "friends" on my "new" page. (I could name names and talk about this gentlemen as it relates cyberbullying, but I won't!) After reading this comment, I just invited back the other individual - whom I have the utmost respect for - to be "friends" as I didn't realize this was even some sort of issue. (By the way, I accepted this individual's "friend" request AFTER the comments about the appeal were made. I wasn't concerned with "leaking!") I think which “friend” requests I accept and don’t accept (or accept and have second thoughts about) is getting into the minutia where even I am ready for this thread to end.

Soapbox time: The purpose of my page was not to make news, but to disseminate news and information and listen to constituents. Hundreds of school committee members in this state are using social media to do exactly what I’m doing. I’m involved in the Mass. Association of School Committee – forget social media, I’ve met countless SC members who have their own blogs, websites, email newsletters and (even!) local access TV shows where they communicate with constituents. It’s not that I’m ahead of my time, it’s that our policies are behind the times.

Speaking for myself and not as a member of any committee:

Mary D.: I'm assuming the particular egregious comment was "If these handful of people continually are thwarting the overwhelming sentiment of the town WE NEED TO PUBLICIZE THE NAMES. They have a right to do what they are doing, but we have a right to know who they are. AND REMEMBER THEM. Suzanne held elected office. Others in that group have run. In my opinion they have forfeited any right to represent or run this town. They should be marginalized the useless malcontents they are." Shortly followed by.... "Suzanne Sullivan is a nobody. The town ran her out and will do it again." Later, the same gentleman referred to some of the appellants as "nuts" -- which I did delete.

While I found those comments and a few other comments on that post as "disrespectful" (that's what I'm referring to when I say "haunts me"), I wouldn't classify them as "threatening" as others did. I also don't think me "liking" a reporter's status about the appeal project or inviting folks to the joint BOS/SC meeting where the appeal was going to be discussed should be viewed as "threatening" either!

And to come full circle, here’s one of yesterday’s post from my page about the appeal news: http://www.facebook.com/RobHayes01887/posts/359462670790207. 100 likes. I deleted every single comment – all respectful and positive.

Daniel,

I do not know why you posted this last quote, but thank you. Sage words are sage words, and even off topic comments from 9 months ago ring true with wisdom.

I have been away on business, and return to the same ole' same ole'. The vitriol on this site is incredible. I hope everyone gets what they give.

Mr, Roberts,
I do not understand what your current complaint with me is. I have never said that Daniel does not have freedom of speech. Everyone does. The Constitution guarantees it. This is not the same has having good judgement. I believe Mr. MacDonald proves this. But one person's judgement is no substitute for another's rights to free speech.

I do not recall ever saying that people should not say what is on their mind. All I ask people to do is be respectful and civil. I do not see the value in name calling.

As far as receiving a post card, no I have not. I find you rude and disrespectful on all your posts to me. If I were to get a post card from you, I would not receive it well, and find the very thought of getting one from you creepy. If I ever found you trying to contact me outside of this forum, I would get the police involved right away. If ever you present yourself, the way you do to me and about me on this forum, in front of my family, then I will do all I can to protect them from the likes of you. Just do not go there. And I will share this with Matt and the management here.

How is it that people can complain when Mr. MacDonald is accused of contacting people in person, yet when this person who has been so vile toward me says he is doing the same thing, no one seems upset?

So, Steve, let me see if I get this right.

You believe that nobody cares about my rights to privacy and safety because I am not well liked? Nice.

I hope that people like you the next time you need your rights stood up for.

If you represent the values of the people who post here, then I feel sorry for the future of our nation, and wonder who will stand up for the rights and safety of those who have different views than the majority.

As far as my sense of humor, Al Roberts has lied and said many hurtful things about me that are simply not true. If he threatens to contact me I will see him responded to accordingly. If he threatens to contact or harrass my family in the way he has treated me here (And been centured and edited by the managers of this site because of his uncivil and malisious postings against me) I will not find it humorous.

When most of the bomb throwers here are treated poorly, like they have said was done by some of the less popular individuals here, they cry foul. When one of the bomb throwers do the exact same thing, I am told I have no sense of humor.

So, Steve, answer me this, "are civil rights only available for those whom you like?"

Steve,

Perhaps you are right. I did leave the site, and got an email asking me to return. It turned out to be a less than sterling idea. I will have to consider if there is a place for me here.

It seems that there are no boundaries on some people here, and the way they treat others, even when they do the exact same thing they whine and cry about other people doing to them.

Since you are explaining things to me, how about the other Lies and hateful things Al has said about me? Are they okay too? Were the editors of this site wrong to make him remove them? I am curious.

Don't bother Steve, All I've been trying to say is that Mr. Hayes should stand his ground. It was a great vehicle for residents to get information. As for Mr. Hat... I have not posted any none truths about anyone on this sight or any site. I do however enjoy your post.

Thank you for your comments. I will consider them. Have a nice day.

Mr. Hat Boy,
Once again you are insinuating that you are smarter than the people on this forum.. Can you please explain how anyone on Mr. Hayes's facebook site violated any open meeting laws? There were none. Also what lies and hateful things did I say about you? Again there were none, as I stated before I have never posted ANY lies about anyone. Also I don't think I ever "whine and cry about" about anything anyone has said about me on this site. If the editors of this site felt they had to delete some of my comments, (it was probable because I called someone a name AS A JOKE) then so be it. That is there job. Everything I post is the truth, and I can prove it. Have a good night.

Mr. Roberts.

I will let your words and your postings speak for themselves. I do not agree with your statements here.

I dont wish to go off topics here and out of respect for Matt I will not do so but i just have to say one thing in order to defend myself I now have documents obtained at public sources to prove I am not lying about anything I have posted on this site. If Hat Boy or anyone else says I am not being truthful I will upload and post the documents here on patch

You all got, I say I got that boy as fidgety as a bubble dancer with a slow leak

Mr. Hayes posted how the open meeting laws interact with social media. There are laws that govern how public officials and members of public boards can interact within social media. A person on this forum may be unfamiliar with these laws, but members of these committees are required to be familiar.

Hi Matt,
Great job as usual keeping control of this site. I'm not kissing up, but the Patch has become a very popular site to keep on top of issues in the town of Wilmington. Also the comments are extremely entertaining.

Steve,
Let's please refrain from attacks. If you have any other comments on town officials using social media, you are welcome to share them. Thanks!

Matt

Steve H,

I never said I wonder why people don't like me. It is not something that is a concern to me, especially in this context. But thank you for your concern.

Karl I say we call a truce here. There is no reason to get personal. It would be nice if we all went out for a beer and became friends.

Mr. Roberts, you must be kidding. Read your own posts about me, and tell me how they foster any kind of friendship.

Mathew,

You posted that there are no laws that affect an individual and social media, and I responded to say that Mr. Hayes himself has posted that there are open meeting laws that have an affect. You were simply wrong, there are laws that apply, but that does not mean that Hayes violated them.

However, I never said in this instance he was violating any law, and have non-waveringly said I support his right to have that site up. The only opposition to that site being posted that includes my name are your mis-characterizations of what I have said, or your outright incorrect responses to what you say I said, when I did not.

I have said that the rules are different if a committee has a page or site, but I have never said, nor do I believe, that an individual should not be able to post his opinions, and solicit or not other people's opinions. How many times do I need to say this same thing before you stop saying I said something else?

Did you read the article that you linked? The majority decision from that court said that the content of the comments was not even a factor, if the employer believed that the existence of the comments were detrimental to their mission.

Your whole defense against your fantasy argument from me was that he was not posting his own opinions. Right or wrong, this case says that your defense is moot.

The committee decided that his page on Facebook, as it was, hurt their mission. I am not agreeing with them, as I never have on this issue, but this case does seem to offer them support for what they did.

Besides, they did not fire him, they simply asked him to remove it, and he did. (He did change its characteristics)

They have not restricted the public at large from doing anything. They asked a member of their committee to do something, that he did.

Speaking for myself and not as a member of any committee:

I actually perceive Karl's comments on this thread as mainly supportive. I will say that the committee did NOT decide that my page hurt their mission. They did NOT ask me to remove it, but - in order to comply with certain desires (e.g., no comments) - I did - for all intent and purposes - have to start the page over. Re-read Jayne Miller's article -- perhaps I'm not objective (!) enough in my reporting of it -- but I think Jayne got the story right. ("In the end, the board largely supported Hayes and his efforts to increase transparency with residents and encourage positive participation in the schools.") I do wish the meeting was televised -- I think a lot of misconceptions would have been cleared up.

http://homenewshere.com/wilmington_town_crier/news/article_99bfe0e2-c6a7-11e1-bf4f-001a4bcf887a.html

Mr. Hayes,

Back a long time ago, I stated that much of what I know of this topic I learned on this forum, and clearly, reacting to people who said they know what is going on has left me mistaken as to what happened in that meeting, at least as you perceive it.

I did not mean to categorize how you were treated in that meeting as specifics, as I was not there, and did not have the opportunity to see it. I was mostly trying to differentiate your situation from the one in the linked court case, which has some parallels, but is not really exactly germane to your case.

I have not seen your facebook pages, and do not know that I am able to. (DO people need to be 'friends' to see each other's pages? )

Anyway, do what you see fit, as a private citizen. We do not always come to the same conclusions, but I have no desire to see you muzzled in any way. If you pose a perspective I do not agree with, I will happily debate you on it.

Mr. Sagal: My Facebook page is right here -- http://www.facebook.com/RobHayes01887. Anyone can view it.

Great Post... See how its done hat boy!

You gotta understand Mathew, I Love that Karl ….. love that dog... boy’s about as sharp as a bowling ball...Now that, I say that’s no way for a kid like you to be wastin’ your time, readin’ that long-haired gobbledegook written by such an angry...I say ANGRY cowboy...

Hi Mat -- I understand and I appreciate your support. When comparing comments vs. private messages, I would say that while the quantity of interactions is down, the quality of interactions is up. (Folks tend to speak a little more freely in private messages.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg... but here's a sample of 10 school committee members in Massachusetts using TWITTER to communicate with their constituents.
- https://twitter.com/kristinforsc
- https://twitter.com/JimBlatchford
- https://twitter.com/mascipioni
- https://twitter.com/JasonPalitsch
- https://twitter.com/cascadingwaters
- https://twitter.com/MikeforSchools
- https://twitter.com/RickMetters
- https://twitter.com/GalloForLynn
- https://twitter.com/PattyNolan1
- https://twitter.com/MarcGov

It is undeniable that social media, particularly Facebook, is being used across this state by locally elected officials to engage constituents. When you vote in November, I would bet the vast majority of the federal and state candidates on the ballot will have engaged constituents via social media. This practice has "trickled down" to the local levels.

From a recent Lowell Sun article:

Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, said such debates -- some also intense -- are taking place at a lot of school committees statewide.

"But this isn't a legal question, because the rights for School Committee members to have a blog or Facebook page is a right of unrestricted free speech," he said. "No one can tell that committee member that they cannot communicate with their constituents.

"The dispute is one of diplomacy and not one of law," he said."

I think he was on a committee but he resigned

Where the heck is responsibility for telling the truth? Where have I ever said that I want to muzzle people on committees? I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES THAT I SUPPORT HAYES HAVING THE RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING HE WANTS, AND ANYONE WHO TRIES TO MUZZLE HIM IS WRONG. Anyone saying otherwise, like Mr. Roberts, is telling lies.

That is AWESOME!! SOOO very funnnny!!! Good one!

Did someone remember to bring the cheese?

I for one want to thank Mr. Sagal. I have always considered him a thoughtful individual with keen insight and a fresh perspective. Im glad he is my friend.

+1

Wow...I say WOW, that is quite an endorsement you got there Mr. Hat Boy... Pay attention to me boy! I’m not just talkin’ to hear my head roar

Mr. Sagal did a very good job explaining why the new high school project is a DISASTER and if the rest of you were like Karl and opposed the project we wouldnt be looking at a TAXPAYERS NIGHTMARE. Thank you Mr. Sagal for being brave in the face of all these lunatics and cronies and sheeple and minions to STAND UP and SPEAK OUT and VOTE AGAINST the school like you did. I respect you Sir.

Great post Christine! But it sure does get boring listening him OVA and OVA....

That's a great...I say great post young lady.... I especially like the line.." We all have a choice to opt in or if you can't take the heat.........opt out." You sure got ...I say got your stuff together... You hear that hat boy? You can opt...I say OPT out if you can't take the heat... Pay attention to her boy... this smart young lady will teach you a thing or two...educate I say

Clearly its because Karl is whining and crying and complaining. He is always saying on here how he is going to report a post to patch, the management, Matt, etc over and over. He is a grown up version of the wimpy little hall monitor. He loves to pontificate on both sides of every one elses posts and comments and issues like he is a know it all about everything but he cant take being criticized or questioned. He is a thin skinned crybaby internet tough guy.

I offered my friendship but it was rejected.

Al Roberts,

You are a liar and act in a cowardly fashion when you tell people that you offered friendship and were rejected. You call me names on almost every post, and tell lie after lie, then say we should be friends. I did not believe your post, as most include lies, but even if you were telling the truth, what kind of friendship could you offer, considering the names you call me, and the lies you tell.

When you're down and troubled
And you need some loving care
And nothing, nothing is going right
Close your eyes and think of me
And soon I will be there
To brighten up even your darkest night

You just call out my name
And you know wherever I am
I'll come running to see you again
Winter, spring, summer or fall
All you have to do is call
And I'll be there
You've got a friend

Al Roberts,

I do like those James Taylor lyrics, but again I ask, as the recipient of your many insults, what have you ever offered me in the way of friendship, other than your political and worthless joke of asking for it. Earn my friendship by redacting your insults, and apologize for your name calling, sound like you mean it when you do it, and I will consider it. Till then, you need to earn what you get, my charity to you is exhausted.

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again (on a scooter)
your heart is true you're a pal and a confidant

I'm not ashamed to say
I hope it always will stay this way
My hat is off (a big black cowboy one), won't you stand up and take a bow

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see, the biggest gift would be from me
and the card attached would say,
Thank you for being a friend

Thank you for being a friend
Thank you for being a friend
Thank you for being a friend

If it's a car you lack
I'd surely buy you a cadillac (with big longhorns on it)
Whatever you need, anytime of the day or night

And when we both get older
With walking canes and hair of gray (or bald)
Have no fear, even though it's hard to hear
I will stand real close and say,
Thank you for being a friend

(I want to thank you)
Thank you for being a friend
(I want to thank you)

Christine,
Thanks very much for your feedback. I don't necessarily want to speak for other editors, but I know that I have seen cases on other sites where editors step in with a friendly reminder when debate beings to get contentious. My goal on the site is to make sure everyone feels comfortable commenting and sharing their opinions about issues. The best way to do that, in my opinion, is to try and keep personal attacks to a minimum. I let many comments remain on the site, but I also do have to figure out where to draw the line, which is what I am doing my best at. Thanks again for checking in, and if you ever have any questions don't hesitate to reach out. Have a great weekend!

Matt

If you had any integrity at all, you would do more than wear your tie to public meetings. You would have a name, and be honest enough to stand up for your views.

Since you offered to hit me where my feathers are thinnest, I invite you to try. You will find it harder than your meager abilities can muster.

That bromace above just makes my heart soar like a hawk....so touching..

I cannot imagine who you could be speaking to. I have not noticed a person named Seagal posting here. I hold people accountable to their statements, but do not categorize people or call them names. If a person does a cowardly thing, I may call it so, but I do try not to call them a coward. There is a distinction.

Mary D,

I do not know why you feel I was offended. I simply did not know who you were insulting. Are you saying that the insults to me are not balanced by my insults back, or are you saying that I insult people, and they do not insult me back enough? I am having difficulty following you.

Consider all the names I am called, and all the insults and lies told about me, then again say how you will not post, because I asked you who you were speaking about.

To everyone else:

Mary D. does have a great point. Look how easy it is to scare away people who would post, except that they feel they will be attacked when they do. This is what I say when I call for civility. Apparently, my saying that I could not imagine who SEAGAL was, was too insulting for Mary D. I think that a less acrimonious environment would foster more debate, not less.

Don’t let him be bothering ya Ma’am he’s a nice boy but he’s got more nerve than a bum tooth …Look sister is any of this filterin’ through that pretty little blue bonnet of yours

Gibbering Idiocy seems to be your specialty. Before you say that cartoon characters are not allowed into public meetings again, I suggest you take a good look at some of the past meetings in Wilmington. Town meetings of all sorts are populated by cartoon characters. Many are sitting behind the tables, others are standing at the mics.

Most participants are concerned and relatively mature adults, but there is no lack of cartoonisms to be sure.

Mathew,

I agree. Them pesky constitutional rights are really annoying, ain't they!

I want to know the details of the appeal before I decide if it is worthy of it's cost, in my opinion. (Of course, my opinion is not the one that counts here.)

Hat boy you are a buffoon. These are your friends and pals who are causing all of this damage in town. I guess blowing millions on the cost overuns and delay of a project doesnt matter to such a "fiscally responsible" person such as yourself. HAHAHAHAHA

Al, My would be friend, you think I am a buffoon? Why would you want to be friends with a buffoon?

Mathew,

I believe the 5th amendment to the Constitution includes the following text, truncated by me, but not changed, "No person shall be held ..., nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

These appeals are the due process of law. You do realize that our property includes our money, and our homes, and things that affect the value of our homes.

I am glad I am able to provide you with laughter.

Asked and answered. I am sorry if you cannot comprehend.

A while back, someone suggested:
"I strongly suggest you bone up on basic reading comprehension before asserting you are correct when clearly you have no clue of what your talking about,..."

And Mathew,

It should be 'you're' not 'your' when you speak of what "you're speaking about"

type slower for him

Your is a possessive pronoun. Like your car.
You're is a contraction for you are, as you said.
You cannot possess a verb, like speaking. You are speaking. Your speech.
Do not trust me. Type both into a proper word processor like Microsoft word, and see what you get.

You can type as slow as you like. It does not change the English language. And I do make plenty of typos. There, you are correct.

I was the one that said it was a form letter. You got that information from me, and one of your simple minded clique insisted I was telling a lie, which is something I do not do.

You do not have to believe me. That is fine. You ask questions, and i answer them, and you deny the data. That is fine, makes you look brilliant.

If you do not understand my posts, it may be because I am a dummy as you say, or it may be because you choose not to understand, or are incapable of understanding them. Either way, so be it.

be nice, he might get upset

LOL , u are so right

All I ask for is civility. You are wrong in your arguments, and trying to be insulting, but have not made it up to the level of annoying yet. Keep trying.

i guess it is more arrogance than knowledge