There is a serious story here about an elected official blocking users on Twitter. There’s also a bit of Twitter drama. And, there’s an important debate about what municipalities can and should be doing to combat global climate change.
We start with the Twitter drama.
Turns out, getting blocked on Twitter is sadly uneventful. No notification email. No jarring popup as you log on to Twitter. Just some subtle signs. I noticed I hadn’t seen anything in my timeline from @_emilynorton in a bit. And, when I tried to add her handle to a tweet, @_emilynorton didn’t show up in my type-ahead list. I dug a little deeper and got the Keytar Bear and the cold reality of how much City Councilor Emily Norton values our Twitter interactions. Apparently, not as much as I do.
To the extent that I interact with Councilor Norton on Twitter, probably half of my @_emilynorton mentions are retweets that sincerely endorse her positions. She and I are highly aligned on a lot of progressive causes, including most of the environmental positions she stakes out. I’m happy to retweet her to my dozens, nay scores of followers.
(I’d show an example or two, but those retweets don’t show up in my thread anymore, because, well, Councilor Norton blocked me.)
The other half of my @_emilynorton mentions won’t surprise regular readers who a) are aware that I am pro-housing and Councilor Norton is rather-less-pro-housing and b) have read my unsparing criticism of her positions. Adding housing density is the single biggest positive impact on climate change that a town or city can have, especially one, like Newton, in the first suburban ring and served by transit. Councilor Norton’s strong resistance to greater density stands in stark contrast to her otherwise nearly* impeccable environmental leadership. So, I have retweeted many of the pro-density tweets that come my way and cc: @_emilynorton in the hopes that she reads the thread or the article linked and comes to appreciate how environmentally harmful her anti-density position is.
cc: @_EmilyNorton https://t.co/nRgQGLSnue
— Sean Roche (@seanroche) November 12, 2017
By blocking me, Councilor Norton is missing out on my considerable ability to help her spread the word on many of the important issues she champions and she’s shutting herself off from information that might make her question her resistance to housing development. Sad and slightly worrisome.
But, much more concerning is the implications for transparency. An elected government official has blocked someone who vocally disagrees with her from viewing her public comments. That’s troubling. Another elected official who doesn’t like to be criticized on Twitter and blocks those who do is the subject of a First Amendment lawsuit. Not good company for someone whose Twitter banner features a Martin Luther King quote about the arc of justice.
I reached out to Councilor Norton for comment. What follows is the complete email chain:
Sean Roche <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:30 PM
To: Emily Norton <[email protected]>
I noticed today that you’ve blocked me on Twitter. That’s troubling. I’ve drafted a V14 post discussing your blocking me.
Before I post, would you like to make a statement? If so, I’ll add it to the post.
I’ll hold the post until tomorrow afternoon or until you reply
Thanks.
Sean
—
Emily Norton <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:33 PM
To: Sean Roche <[email protected]>
I block people for being waaaaay less jerky than you Sean!
When responding, please be aware that the Massachusetts Secretary of State has determined that most email is public record and therefore cannot be kept confidential.
—
Emily Norton <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:35 PM
To: Sean Roche <[email protected]>
Seriously, anger management. You should consider it.
—
Emily Norton <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:36 PM
To: Sean Roche <[email protected]>
Or maybe AA?
—
Emily Norton <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM
To: Sean Roche <[email protected]>
In fact feel free to share this whole exchange! Or never mind, I will after you post it.
—
Sean Roche <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:54 PM
To: Emily Norton <[email protected]>
Which would you prefer?
If you do comment, please do include an example of my being “jerky.” I know I don’t shy away from snark here or there, but I do try to stick to your positions and not attack you personally. As, say, compared to accusing someone of being an alcoholic. ;)
Have a nice weekend.
Sean
—
Emily Norton <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 7:03 PM
To: Sean Roche <[email protected]>
Your anger comes from somewhere. Perhaps it’s a cry for help. I know people with alcohol problems. They have a lot of anger.
—
Sean Roche <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 7:24 PM
To: Emily Norton <[email protected]>
Would you prefer that I include your thoughts in the post or will you comment?
Thanks.
Sean
—
Emily Norton <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 7:44 PM
To: Sean Roche <[email protected]>
I do not care. Done emailing you
—
Sean Roche <[email protected]>
Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:12 PM
To: Emily Norton <[email protected]>
Thanks for your time.
Sean
—
You know, I think Councilor Norton is onto something. I tried to keep this post reasonably light-hearted. But, I am angry. I’m angry at public officials who have no sense of urgency about climate change that is ruining the planet for our children. I’m angry at environmental hypocrites. And, I’m specifically angry that a woman who has (legitimately) earned a platform to advocate about climate change is in denial about the social and environmental justice of increasing housing and is using that well-earned platform to spread the denial.
That said, I can’t help but being amused by a woman accusing me of being “jerky” and then, three minutes later, unprompted, insinuating that I have a substance abuse problem.
*I’m not sure that she is as eager to reduce car traffic as I would hope, but I just don’t know.
Fuhgawdsake, Sean…gedoffayurhihorse, please…Emily has a right to her opinions and her tweets. You can always put in a FOIA request for them if you feel left out.
Emily strikes me as someone too thin-skinned to be in politics. I agree with her on many issues and I disagree with her on some (development), but it seems like she has bad relationships with a lot of people in Newton. I even overheard a conversation she was having with someone at L’aroma a few months ago with someone referencing their arguments with her on V14. I generally think her heart is in the right place, but she really shouldn’t shut out constituents. When I first saw the headline of this post, I thought maybe this post was an overreaction on the part of Sean, but once I read the exchange I no longer think that’s the case.
Councilor Norton blocked me from Twitter months ago (might have been a few years ago). Not sure if I’m more or “less jerky than you Sean.”
But it is pretty outrageous for an elected official to accuse a constituent of being an alcoholic.
As with most social media/internet squabbles, I suspect in a few days or weeks you may regret making such a public show based on a twitter block and a snarky email exchange. Trust me, I’ve been there—you get a high from being able to vent in a blog post, but often it’s followed by a low as you realize you would never talk to someone from your neighborhood this way in person.
I don’t know Ms. Norton, but these things are best handled offline, or in private forums. Don’t mean to preach, just speaking from experience.
Are we really whinging about being blocked on Twitter now?
Not sure if I’m more or “less jerky than you Sean.”
Probably a toss up ;-)
I agree with MMQC that Emily is being way too think skinned and the aspersions she was putting out there were indeed petsonal and objectionable.
Even more so though I agree with the wise Devanshu Mehta. This is definitely not the best way to handle a personal and unpleasant online interaction between people who know each other and have a lot in common.
Proceed down that path and no good will come from it for anybody.
Sean, the truth is you can be, well ‘jerky’. An elected official is under no obligation to communicate with every jerky constituent.
I also think posting a personal email trail such as you did is childish – And lacking of journalistic integrity.
We all know there are two sides to every story, and this sounds like it has history. Rather than an embarrasing attempt at public shaming, pick up the damn phone and work it out.
I know counselor Norton. We don’t always agree, but I can’t imagine having an exchange with her resembling the tenor of the exchange you posted.
It just wouldn’t happen.
@Mike: are you accusing Sean of fabricating those emails?
Agree with many of the above. That said, Councilor Norton would do well to follow the advice given by a judge in the other Twitter suit mentioned above, and use “mute” rather than blocking people. If you don’t want to see what someone’s saying, that’s fine, but your Twitter account is a public record. It’s not like the person you’ve blocked can’t ask a friend to show them your tweets, and you shouldn’t put anything on Twitter that you wouldn’t be willing to see published elsewhere.
Surely there’s a very clear line between complaining about mean emails, and complaining about being called an alcoholic by an elected official?
@greg No, I’m accusing him of using your blog to score points in a personal matter. I think it unlikely Emily is accusing Sean of being an alcoholic out of nowhere. There is obviously more to the story and I think we are all better off to not have this conversation here.
Like I said, I know Emily, we argued over an issue just this week, but we would never have a conversation such as that. It just wouldn’t happen.
@Sean
In my opinion you were essentially mounting an attack on Emily.
What did you expect?
@Sean What I find more interesting is your use of the word ‘woman’ instead of ‘Counselor Norton’ in the below two sentences of your post.
Are you uncomfortable with a women in power being assertive? Just seems an odd word choice
“I’m specifically angry that a woman who has (legitimately) earned a platform” ….
“That said, I can’t help but being amused by a woman accusing me of being “jerky”
I have been in public life on and off since 1991. In that time I have ticked off a LOT of people. (A guy in Vermont named his gun after me because I led an effort to oppose a moose hunt.) And in all those years, every now and then I have encountered people whose anger seems unbalanced – mostly men – and I choose to stay away from them. Sean strikes me that way. Often anger is linked to problems with alcohol. And for those who consider it an insult to suggest someone is an alcoholic or a problem drinker, I would remind you that alcoholism is actually recognized by modern medicine to be a disease of the brain – i.e. not a personal weakness. But untreated it most certainly leads to outsized anger. I have no idea why he is the way he is, and I don’t really care. I simply choose to protect myself from people like him.
Sean, you know that being “blocked” doesn’t prevent you from seeing public tweets, so that’s not what this is about. Honestly, you seem incensed and somewhat incredulous that Emily’s views on density don’t align with yours – even a little bit obsessed with it. I’m sure you believe 100% in the absolute correctness of your positions, but you seem to take it as a personal affront that Emily takes a different one. I agree with several others that “mute” is probably a better option for excessive @-ing; I’m sure I’d have muted you long ago if I were in her shoes.
I agree with Sean about the environmental hypocrites in Newton. You know, the PTO mom who hates Donald Trump, but struts around in her fibrous yoga pants washed in pefumed detergent, carrying her disposable Starbucks cup, while feeding her kid special smoothed fruit in a non recyclable plastic container. Her husband drives a 6 cylinder BMW that he gets detailed every weekend and he has a case of plastic water bottles in the trunk for his super star 6 yr old athlete. He uses scented garbage bags for his kid’s apple core and dog’s poop and won’t bring home recyclables if the park’s bin is overflowing as to not mess his car. He also blames Donald Trump for ruining the environment. The husband voted Democrat after all so he did his part. The Environmental Hypocrites of Newton drive me crazy.
However, to post an email chain on a public blog regarding an ongoing feud is the worst of the Hypocrites. Sean Roche, who proclaims to be steward of the environment of the highest caliber, just polluted our bandwidth with a mean-spirited, cruel attack on a longtime ally of the environment. So what if she blocked you on Twitter, Sean? The account is her personal account and she has a right to choose who follows her. She did not write a blog post about the day she blocked you, though that might be an amusing commentary. She did not post your nasty emails to her.
While I do not agree with turning Newton into Hong Kong, I thought Sean had some valid points. Now I just think he’s just an angry, bitter guy. Too bad.
A “little bit” obsessed?! (Obsession is one of the hallmarks of the disease) (of alcoholism). I call out the underlying narrative of the ‘need’ for higher density housing, which is “the invisible fist that is pinching and twisting” here: the antibiological imperative on the part of greed to secure it’s objective.
Emily (or anyone) has every right to erect a barrier to it.
The blocking a follower on Twitter isn’t the problem here. That an elected official would accuse a constituent of being an alcoholic, in an email no less, is simply outrageous.
Wow, SoccerMommy, that was a very weird and detailed tangential rant.
Mary Mary are you a Newton Environmental Hypocrite? Do you compost? Do you buy your coffee in a disposable cup everyday? Do you get your nails done? Do you throw organic waste in the trash? Do you take long, hot showers? Do you put your dog’s poop in a plastic trash bag? Do you use scented shampoo and conditioner? What about lipstick in non-recyclable tubes? Mascara? Do you put your fruit in plastic bags at the grocery store? Do you mow your lawn with a gas-powered lawn mower?
Do you agree that every single person, including people in Newton and you, contribute to the earth’s destruction? What if we could easily change our habits so that we could all help the earth by taking innovative suggestions, from say, experts in these matters?
What if one expert, who was helping to change these habits to better the earth, became the victim of pettiness from another person, who was also passionate about the environment?
This unfortunate, petty action of posting an email exchange on a public forum will result in a chain reaction that will make the fight for the environment overall less effective and “followers” of either party will think twice about reading their posts or Tweets. I put this on Sean. Very sad.
Believe it or not, I don’t do any of those things you listed (we even have a push mower!) and my family generally lives a pretty eco-friendly lifestyle, but I found your weirdly specific rant to have no part in the conversation.
Mary Mary, oh contraire, you read and digested my comment. That’s all that matters.
Congratulations to Councilor Emily Norton for being a strong woman willing to stand up to (male) bullies, including one who threatened via email to publicly shame her for blocking him on twitter and then carried out his treat. Councilor Norton is a role model for young women everywhere not to be intimidated by this kind of behavior.
This morning I have a newfound appreciation for soccer moms
Mike and SoccerMommy (and others),
I did not decide to publish a personal email exchange. As a courtesy, I asked a public official (Councilor Norton) for a statement on an action she’d taken. She emailed back her suggestion that I am an alcoholic and told me to “In fact feel free to share this whole exchange!” As a courtesy, I gave her the option to have me include that as her response or put it in a comment. She reiterated that the exchange was good for publishing publicly.
Her words, basically that I am a drunk, as a response to my request for a statement on why she blocked me seemed so, well, unusual, that I was at a loss for how to frame it in a way that would make sense. “I asked Councilor Norton for a statement about why she blocked me. She responded, among other things, that I’m an alcoholic” was sure to raise more questions than it answers. So, out of an abundance of caution and in pursuit of utter transparency, I took her at her word and published the exact words of an elected official with the entire context of the exchange.
Please understand that this is not some snippet of a private feud. Reviewing my email, I have emailed Councilor Norton exactly twice. The first time was a suggestion to put stickers near the doors of households with guns. Every word of the second exchange is above.
All of my criticism of Councilor Norton’s positions are a matter of public record. They can be found on this blog or on Twitter. Yes, I have been unsparing in my criticism of Councilor Norton’s anti-development position. But, I feel pretty confident that you will not find a single ad hominem attack in the entire body of that work.
I agree that Councilor Norton’s words suggest that it is a personal feud. But, the “personal” and “feud” part are coming from one side only.
To be clear, I did not post the email exchange for your sympathy. I am not offended that Councilor Norton called me a drunk. (Ironically, between my email to her and my first response, I was at vinodivino picking up some wine. Excellent local store (with bigger ambitions). ) I’ve been at this online thing for a long time, through at least four local blogs. As my father likes to say, I’ve been called worse by better.
I do, however, think that it is noteworthy that an elected official, when pushed on her positions, would respond by attacking me personally. I’m not the only one she does this to. People do not have legitimate differences with Councilor Norton. Anyone who supported Yes on the charter, for instance, is in the pocket of developers. I passionately believe her public policy preference is contributing to global warming. Her response is that I must have a substance abuse problem.
If you feel calling me a drunk is acceptable behavior in a request for a public statement and then again in a public forum is acceptable behavior for an elected official, that’s fine, I guess. But, please do not make the mistake of characterizing this as a personal feud. Every word of criticism of Councilor Norton I have directed at Councilor Norton is out there (my twitter handle is @seanroche). I’m pretty sure you will find that I have not written a single sentence that attacks her personally.
I’m of two minds on this. Let’s separate any consideration of Councilor Norton’s personal opinions from her role as an elected official. Does her personal twitter account constitute official communications? Her email certainly does, as it comes with a qualifier at the bottom that it’s public record.
So is she required to make sure that her communications lines remain open to all? Is it just best practice? Technically her only constituency is only in Ward 2 (she is not an at-large councilor) so would it be different if Sean lived in her Ward?
Moving away from local politics, I know that I believe it’s wrong for the President to block access to constituents, but I don’t believe the courts have ruled on this just yet. But in that case he represents the whole country, so would it matter if he blocked someone from a foreign nation?
Tricia and SoccerMommy,
Twitter users have two choices. They can create a private account, visible to only select people or a public account which is, at least initially open to all. You can take a private account public and a public account private, but at any given time, the account is either public or private. Councilor Norton’s is a public account. If you were to sign up for Twitter today, you would have access to her account.
If you have a public account, you also have the option to selectively make that account unavailable to certain other Twitter users. You could block a user you didn’t like. Councilor Norton blocked me, so she now has an otherwise public account that it not available to me (or, it turns out, to Greg).
Twitter (and other social media, like this blog) are the 21st-Century public square. Imagine that Councilor Norton held a public event in either her capacity as a City Councilor or in her capacity as Executive Director of the Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club and blocked someone from entry because that person disagreed with her previously. We would, I hope, find that disquieting, at the least.
Sean -This post focuses more clearly on the problem = a city councilor called a constituent an alcoholic. If Councilor Norton thought you had a drinking problem and wanted to confront you with her concerns, she should have set up a time to discuss this with you privately.
Sean- Emily did not say you were a drunk, but rather offering an opinion for why she thinks you have been acting like a jerk:
“Your anger comes from somewhere. Perhaps it’s a cry for help. I know people with alcohol problems. They have a lot of anger.”
As for you not having any responsibility for her response, do you really think emailing a public official to their public email address and threatening to create a blog post about their choices over their own Twitter account would not provoke a response? If someone had done that to me, I would also be pretty ticked off too. In a sense, you emailed her in a way that could be interpreted as threatening to humiliate her in some way. Why did you do that?
@Jane Frantz
Emily did no such thing. In fact, if she thought that he had been drinking prior to sending out an email to tell her he was going to create a blog post about her (which is a crazy, mean, childish thing to do to someone), she was offering him a way to improve his situation by attending an AA meeting.
@Sean, At a public event unruly, inappropriate, disruptive, overly angry individuals can be ‘managed’ by the group or booted out by security. So, yes, you can be blocked from the public square. Phone calls can be sent to voicemail; letters can go in the trash unread.
It sounds like you have a prolific history of sending ‘jerky’, angry communications to Emily – And by conveniently omitting your prior communications in your post we can only believe to be true that Emily has felt harassed by your communications.
‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks’
“As a courtesy, I asked a public official (Councilor Norton) for a statement on an action she’d taken” … for yet another blog attack the author was drafting.
The two founders of this blog seem to go to great lengths to use this blog to attack any inconsistency they perceive between positions Councilor Norton takes representing her Newton’s constituents and her day job role. I can’t think of any other councilor serving Newton who has the livelihood so frequently (or ever) mentioned, let alone threatened on this blog.
While pointing out legitimate financial conflicts of interest in a policy debate is fair game, going beyond seems pretty close to crossing the line to personal attack.
Then again, maybe some policy positions are not that inconsistent… See this article in New York Times yesterday:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/business/energy-environment/climate-density.html
“… it was surprising to see the Sierra Club among the bill’s opponents, since its policy proposals call for communities to be “revitalized or retrofitted” to achieve precisely those environmental goals. The California chapter described the bill as “heavy-handed,” saying it could cause a backlash against public transit and lead to the displacement of low-income residents from existing housing.”
…
“Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club’s national organization, said Mr. Wiener’s bill went too far in overriding residents’ say over neighborhood development.
…
“We are hopeful that this legislation could be designed in such a way that is successful at increasing urban infill but does it in a way that doesn’t eliminate local voices,” Mr. Brune said. “It can be challenging to get this right.”
@Jack: Thanks for sharing that link. Fascinating and worthy of a separate thread, which I will try and get to later this weekend.
As for this discussion, I believe Sean made one mistake on this thread. Instead of a headline that read:
he should have written…
No matter how annoying a constituent might be, that’s never acceptable behavior for an elected official. If Councilor Norton was genuinely concerned that Sean had a drinking or other health or mental health issue, she might have sought to intervene privately (perhaps via a family member or public health care professional). If she just felt that Sean was being “jerky,” a simple “no comment” (or merely ignoring his email) would have been a more mature and prudent, professional response.
Ken,
You were a public official for a long time. And, you were the subject of plenty of critical articles and blog posts written about you. I’m guessing that, along the way, some of the authors invited you to make a statement before publishing. Did you consider those threats? It seems like a weird way to characterize it. It suggests that I was trying to extract something (beyond what I explicitly asked for: a statement).
Again, the topic of public officials blocking social media followers is widely discussed and is even the subject of a federal law suit. On our little hometown blog, I thought it interesting that a local public official would do so.
I see the “insight.” I disagree with Councilor Norton. She blocks me. As part of my ongoing campaign to discredit her, I grab onto being blocked as yet another thing to criticize. Case closed, Watson!
But, if the issue of social media blocking were going to arise in Newton, it was inevitable that it would concern a public official blocking someone with (strongly) different policy preferences than theirs. If I were going to the occasion to write about being blocked by a public official, it wasn’t going to be about being blocked by one of the city officials with whom I agree.
As for sexism, again, there’s a record. I’ve been at least as critical of Lisle Baker, Paul Coletti, Brian Yates, and a certain former alderman-at-large (ward 6) on inarguably less consequential topics. That puppy won’t hunt.
As for role models, I have a fourteen-year-old daughter. I try to discourage her from calling people who sincerely disagree with her drunks. Your parenting philosophy may be different.
Michael,
Your analogy to disruption in the public square is exactly on point. I’ll get to it in a moment.
First, as a simple objective matter of fact, as far as I can tell, I have written to Councilor Norton exactly twice. Every letter of the second exchange is published above. Here is the full first exchange (with only my phone number omitted).
Sean Roche Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:51 AM
To: Emily Norton
I have had this idea for years: require home owners with guns to put signs/stickers on/near every door to that effect. “This house protected by Smith & Wesson.”
Gun proponents claim that having guns at home make them safer. Okay, then they’d be even safer if the bad guys knew about the guns before they went into the house. “Hey, let’s not rob this house, the owners have guns!”
I think this would be a great Newton ordinance. If nothing else, it would promote a very healthy debate about gun safety and homeowner responsibility. You wouldn’t need to register, just put up a sign or sticker.
What do you think?
Sean Roche
[phone number omitted]
—
Emily Norton Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:08 AM
To: Sean Roche
Hi Sean, I love the idea, but I’m afraid it would meet the “why are you trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist” and also, though maybe this is crazy, would non gun owners oppose this bc they might think it ups their chances of being a target for thieves? One way to approach it might be this though, just require the signage at the homes where children age 0-18 live. With this recent Abington case (and I’m guessing there are other examples in Mass of children getting ahold of unlocked guns), I could say it’s as a result of this, we want to take steps to avoid that happening in Newton. Emily
—
If I remember correctly, she had made a statement of some sort regarding guns that I agreed with and thought she might be receptive to an idea I’ve had for years.
So, whatever cause Councilor Norton has for blocking me, it’s been on this blog or on Twitter. Again, I’m troubled by a public official blocking access to public information. You may not be. You seem to at least acknowledge that it would be problematic, but suggest that if Councilor Norton decided to block me, it must have been for good reason. I think the burden of proof should run the other way.
As it’s tough to prove the negative — nothing I’ve written rises to the level of disruption in the public square that you nicely analogized to — I look to you (and Councilor Norton) to identify the comments that rise to that level.
Let’s try to find some sort of rule that applies beyond the scope of the policy disagreement between Councilor Norton and me. Commenters on this site were blistering in their criticisms of Ruthanne Fuller during the mayoral campaign, at a very personal level, challenging her integrity at the most fundamental level. Would you be okay to learn that then Councilor Fuller or now Mayor Fuller had blocked them from her Twitter account (she has one)? I would not. (If anyone has been blocked by another city official, please let me know and I’ll be happy to write a separate post.)
Jack,
Your citation of the Sierra Club article is, if I may repeat the phrase I used above, exactly on point. It was in the context of the Sierra Club’s position on a pro-density bill pending in California that I discovered that Councilor Norton had blocked me. I did a small tweet thread and intended to follow up with a V14 post. I decided to do the blocking post first.
Without writing the whole Sierra Club post here, let me preview by saying that the Sierra Club’s position highlights issues that I have been writing about for well over a decade, most notably density around transit and the fact that positions on many very local policy issues (like land use) do not divide neatly along recognizably Democratic/Republican or progressive/conservative lines.
Councilor Norton embodies this. Inarguably, she is doing God’s work on renewable energy, recycling, disposable plastics, and long list of other topics. But, she is also a powerful local voice local against density. This matters. So, I intend to keep writing about it. As long as Councilor Norton is in the vanguard of the anti-development forces in Newton and as long as she is a leading voice on environmental policy at the state level, she will inevitably be part of the conversation.
Gee Sean, thanks for explaining The Twitter to me. Yes, when an account is public, if they block you their tweets won’t show up in your feed. But they’re still accessible to you because they’re public – just log out of your freaking account. Of course, when you’re blocked by an account you can’t @ them, and I suspect that’s what your real issue is – you’re annoyed that you can’t continue to use this particular communication channel to publicly correct Emily on her views.
Soccer Mommy,
I had missed this in previous passes (emphasis added):
“In fact, if she thought that he had been drinking prior to sending out an email to tell her he was going to create a blog post about her (which is a crazy, mean, childish thing to do to someone), she was offering him a way to improve his situation by attending an AA meeting.”
Let’s be clear. While there are some former professional journalists on this blog, I am not under any delusion that what I post is formal journalism. But, I do try to hew to some journalism-like standards for news-like and commentary-like posts. On occasion, I will reach out to the people who figure into the post to ask them questions or get a statement. What I intended in my email to Councilor Norton is really no different than a journalist asking for a statement prior to an article being published.
I’m not really clear on how that’s a threat. Did you understand me to be saying, unblock me or else? Not the case. I had the whole post written and ready to publish before it occurred to me that it might be a more interesting post if Councilor Norton gave her side. So, I reached out to her sincerely requesting her thoughts. (Everything is time-stamped, I’d be happy to provide you the chronology, if you’d like.)
These comments have, as they usually do, gone completely differently than I imagined. And, the pro-Sean forces are distinctly outnumbered and are being completely outplayed by the anti-Sean forces. (Have I no friends beyond Greg? Maybe they just sleep later on Saturdays.) But, however much I enjoy Councilor Norton’s tweets, I would much rather we have the conversation we’re having here. So, no, I was not threatening Councilor Norton.
Perhaps when you come back to this thread with some distance, you can re-read this sentence and realize how things might have gone differently:
“I had the whole post written and ready to publish before it occurred to me that it might be a more interesting post if Councilor Norton gave her side.”
Sean may go over the top to express his views and get people agitated by the way he does that and I often don’t agree with him but to imply that he is an alcoholic is a completely unacceptable response by Ms.Norton.
Ken – I would never want my daughter to act that way. I would expect my daughter to be smarter than that. Attacking someone else is not an appropriate way to address someone you disagree with. Ms Norton could have approached this matter in a much better fashion….a “no comment”or an explanation that he is able to view her tweets but she didn’t want to get into a twitter war with him and she felt blocking him was the best manner to approach this.
As someone who has extended family members who have dealt with addiction I find her comment extremely offensive.
@CraigR,
What part of personal email communication is not private? Sean wrote to Emily using her City email and she smartly used her gmail account to respond. Sean’s email was inappropriate because it not City business as Emily’s Twitter account is hers. It was Sean’s choice to post her comments publicly. So that’s all in him.
It is also not Emily’s responsibility to take steps to alleviate Sean’s issues. He contacted her with his childish pronouncement that he was posting a thread on V14. She had every right to be ticked and respond, as a private citizen, as she wished.
WOW! This thread is out of control! I too get tired of people ganging up on Emily and this Greg and Sean need to get over themselves
Disclaimer: I haven’t read every ugly comment
@ Sean – RE: “Let’s be clear. While there are some former professional journalists on this blog, I am not under any delusion that what I post is formal journalism. But, I do try to hew to some journalism-like standards for news-like and commentary-like posts”
That is an unfortunate statement.
My expectation is that I can rely on and trust V14 the same as any other news source. I scroll through my Facebook feed many times a day, I get stories from NYT, Boston Globe, Fox News, CNN and V14. – V14 isn’t a digital game where you get to play journalist for fun. It’s not a public forum where anyone can introduce a topic for discussion. For me, it’s a valuable source of local news and information – And given that spend 99% of my time in Newton, it’s arguably the most valuable of all my news sources.
I know you all are not trained journalists, but “Emily blocked me on Twitter or “Emily called me an alcoholic” just isn’t news in my opinion n- And posting the email trail is like posting smelly vomit.
What could have been a great post? “A public official blocked me on Twitter, In light of the recent Federal court ruling what do we think about that”
In my opinion, you should always be wary of any story that is about you specifically.
SoccerMommy,
“What part of personal email communication is not private?”
I emailed Councilor Norton at her official city email address asking her in her official capacity to make a public statement. She replied, multiple times. Then, unprompted, she encouraged me to post every word: “In fact feel free to share this whole exchange!”
I initiated a conversation expressly and unambiguously for the purpose of making it public. Councilor Norton twice acknowledged that intent.
How is that personal or private?
Whatever issues one can have with this post, it seems tough to make the case that I unilaterally disclosed a personal conversation.
Sometimes it seems best just to end discussions like this since they are going nowhere.
Every person who comments get a retort from Sean.
@Greg, time to have the last word here and close comments.
Is anyone else is favor of Nuking this thread?
A post that started as what looks like a thinly disguised personal attack – that received an overt personal attack in response, has continued to degenerate. The biggest offense imo, was the reckless insinuation of alcoholism thrown in as a knee-jerk way to strike back. I’m hoping this community is better than this, or aspires to be better than this.
Blogs where personal attacks are tolerated tend to lose more and more credibility over time. I encourage the moderators to delete the entire thread and reiterate the need to discourage personal attacks and to stick to the issues.
Attack pieces on public figures are necessarily part of legitimate reporting and even public discourse, but should only be based on proven facts of a serious nature. Getting blocked on Twitter hardly qualifies. If anyone here wishes to block me, I won’t take offense – here’s the link https://twitter.com/RFSaunders
SoccerMommy, it appears that most councilors use their newtonma.gov addresses as forwarding addresses. Councilor Norton replied from her “councilornorton” gmail account with the standard Secretary of State disclaimer. I don’t understand how anyone should consider this exchange personal or private (or “smart”).
Ken, would you consider Councilor Norton’s response appropriate if it came from from a male elected official, or should we hold her to a different standard based on her gender? Why should she be immune from criticism or not be held responsible for her written responses?
Many people in this city think I’m on drugs. Now that I know about the block button on twitter I can take care of them))))…all my problems go away)))).
Seems like Councilor Norton needs to apologize. This exchange was completely unbecoming of an elected official.
She knows Sean well. Anyone who attends public meetings does as well. He is usually one of the most well spoken people in the room. He has every right to hold an elected official accountable for positions and other things said and done. We need more of this not less.
City Councilors have been empowered after turning away a 20 year effort to reduce the size of that board and install term limits. They feel a sense of impunity. It’s no surprise to me that Norton would block a constituent on Twitter. Or that she would refer to a constituent as an “alcoholic” [a disease] in a public forum. Norton and the rest of the Council have zero respect for the voters. That was made quite clear when they blocked implementation of the voter approved cannabis law.
This post and thread makes me think twice about reading or participating in this site any longer. Bye for now-
How commenters can read Sean’s post and come up with a threat being made to Emily is totally beyond my understanding. It takes a mind that desperately wants to create a conspiracy theory to believe that this email exchange was prompted by anything but a desire to offer a public official the chance to make a statement before an article about them was published. It’s an offer not a threat.
For Emily to respond the way she did is reprehensible. Sean says to her he’s going to publish X but wants to give her a chance to say whatever she wants and he will include it – she replies, in 4 separate emails, one right after another, “I block people for being waaaaay less jerky than you Sean!” “Seriously, anger management. You should consider it.” “Or maybe AA?” “In fact feel free to share this whole exchange! Or never mind, I will after you post it.” The one displaying anger, making personal attacks and an accusatory tone is Emily Norton.
Speaking this way to a constituent, she votes on issues covering the entire city so he is her constituent, (although he has no right to vote her out) is just plain wrong.
Councilor Norton uses tactics like these whenever she’s confronted with opinions that are different from hers. She doesn’t engage on the topic, she resorts to pointing fingers, name calling and deflection. She certainly has many times on this blog.
But her merry band of followers strive to protect her from anyone that shows disloyalty to her. An oh the lengths they will go to.
@SoccerMom – “Sean’s email was inappropriate because it not City business as Emily’s Twitter account is hers.”
Actually, it looks like Emily’s Twitter account is meant to be at least semi-official, since her full description on it is “Mass. Sierra Club Director, Newton Ward 2 City Councilor”.
This post is ridiculous and Village 14 is off my reading list. Since I’m sure there are rules prohibiting obscenities and name calling for regular readers, I’ll leave it at that……so long and thanks for all the fish!
@Meredith-
You’re allowed to put your job titles on your Twitter description of yourself. It doesn’t mean that account’s Tweets are on behalf or representative of those employers. So Sean had no right to write to Emily using her Newton.gov account regarding her personal Twitter account. Her gmail correspondence is no one’s business (and does not come with City disclaimers), but hers. If Sean chose to post their personal email conversation, that’s his problem. Emily compared his anger to someone with alcoholism. So what?
I can only imagine what else he said to provoke her.
What a ridiculous made up controversy. Sean realizes that he’s been blocked by a handle on Twitter and decides to make a thread about it on Village 14. S.M.H.
Enough with the witch hunt. And I’m referencing anyone, not just Emily, who posts or has posted views here that are (gasp!) anti development; as soon as someone hints/has hinted that they might want to slow things down a bit, that they don’t necessarily want to see Newton go the way of Somerville or Cambridge, Sean and Greg close in like sharks who smell blood. Enough!
A comment has been removed for violating our engagement rules.
I read the comment that was removed. It was no worse in tone than than the farce of a post that spawned this trainwreck. While I will ride this comment thread to the end, I’m done with this blog otherwise.
Fun fact Re. Denis’ comment: By my count at least three people who have commented on this thread (they know who they are) have said at one time or another that they were forever “done” with Village 14.
Ok folks, carry on.
Sean, I’m sure you know that the federal lawsuit you keep referring to hinges on whether Trump’s personal twitter account, which he uses almost exclusively (instead of the POTUS account), is being used in an official capacity – whether it can, in fact, be considered “the government”. Although it was his personal account before being elected, he uses it now almost exclusively to talk about national issues and even make announcements (e.g. what “sad” thing some notable person or country said or did, or who was fired), leading the judge to assert that it was “overwhelmingly” used for official purposes. (And the main issue for the blocked plaintiffs is not that they no longer have access to information posted by Trump, but that their tweets were no longer being seen by as many other people – that’s the “public square” argument.) I think you would be very hard-pressed to make an argument that Emily’s personal twitter account is used overwhelmingly for official city business.
As far as the email exchange, no one comes out of that looking good.
@Tricia: Can you please explain what Sean wrong did in that email exchange? Please be specific, thanks.
This post concerns a public official both removing differing viewpoints expressed by a constituent from sight and positing that a constituent who asked her to comment on why is a jerk, needs to go to AA, has anger management issues. This is unacceptable from a local public official – at least it should be to every constituent. Would you want an official in local government to debase you for just asking “why” instead of answering your question? Do you want to be dismissed in this way when you question a public official’s actions?
Those who attempt to find fault with the constituent in this exchange are condoning public officials’ closing themselves off from differing opinions, staying in a safe bubble where they are not questioned on why they have the views they do, avoiding any type of discourse but with those who agree with them and reading only news that supports them and their positions
Often on V14 commenters complain about having comments removed by saying V14 only allows viewpoints they agree with. This complaint is unfounded as reading multiple threads will easily prove it wrong.
Why is it acceptable for a local public official?
SoccerMommy,
“I can only imagine what else he said to provoke her.”
Here’s the thing. You don’t have to. Imagine, that is. You can read every word I have ever written about Emily to her personally or in a public forum. Every. Single. Word. Either here (this post or V14 generally) or on Twitter. (I’m pretty sure this is about what I’ve written. I don’t think I’ve had any more than two or three conversations with Emily, ever. Nothing more than pleasantries.)
You don’t seem quite as curious as I am, but it might add some important color to this conversation to know exactly what words justified a public official blocking me on social media or provoked her to accuse me of substance abuse.
If searching Village 14 and Twitter seems like too much of a burden, you could do what I did: ask Councilor Norton what the specific tweets, posts, or comments were that prompted her to block me. (I didn’t ask that question exactly. I asked in two parts: First for a statement, then for clarification.)
As you can see from our email exchange and this thread, she was not responsive to me. Maybe you’ll have better luck.
Soccer Mommy, “I can only imagine what else he said to provoke her?”
What is your reasoning behind this statement – which in essence says this poster is lying?
Is it because this councilor is so easy-going that it would take more than asking her for an explanation for her to act this unprofessionally?
Is it because you think the poster generally lies?
Is it because this poster is “too” passionate about certain issues and that warrants this councilor’s unprofessional conduct?
Would it be an appropriate reply from city councilors, in your imagination, if you emailed them asking for a statement regarding their actions instead of an answer to your request?
What a disgrace of a thread.
From top to bottom.
Newton is so much better than this.
OK Greg, I’m really done with V14…starting now)))))
Trish, for your claim of it being her personal account to be true, I would suggest that since Councilor Norton’s only descriptions on her twitter account are for her professional and public official positions, she add “tweets are my own” to avoid confusion.
I like Greg am waiting to read your explanation of specifically what Sean said that prompted your saying “no one looks good” in the email exchange.
Paul, really?
Read the threads full of the personal attacks of Ruthanne Fuller.
What about this thread is Newton better than? Abusing a constituent who posted an egregious reply from an elected official? A City Councilor abusing their position to attack a constituent?
Denis and whoever liked his comment, while you’re still here I want to point out that comments containing personal attacks on individuals are not allowed on this blog.
The post is about a public official, city councilor, attacking an individual she represents but who has no democratic recource to vote her out. How is that fair?
The city councilor plainly says she would post the email exchange in the comments if he doesn’t put them in the post.
@Marti,
Elected officials have personal lives and accounts on social media. Nobody, including Sean, has a right to invade Emily’s private life. She doesn’t need to follow your advice on how to run her Twitter account because it’s hers, not yours. It’s not the City’s. It’s not City business. If she chooses to block a fellow citizen, that is her right. Sean is not her ‘constituent’ in her private life. She does not serve him, you, or anyone else with her private social media accounts.
@Greg – Seems to be common theme any time there’s a remotely critical topic or post. If this is what’s considered disgraceful then I’m not sure how people deal with state/national level politics.
To the topic – While we’ve only seen Sean’s side of the story, I’m not seeing anything particularly outrageous or out of line. The emails were sent to councilor Norton’s government email, not her personal account, and short of something missing in the conversation I’d say her responses are in poor taste considering he’s reaching out as a constituent. She’s a public official and her (public) positions on density vs climate change mitigation are fair game to be questioned.
The whole Twitter thing is a bit more of a gray area, IIRC the issue with Trump revolves around the fact that he uses his personal Twitter account to make official announcements as POTUS. I don’t feel like digging through Emily’s tweet history but unless she’s using it to make official communications as city councilor it’s not quite the same as the Trump challenge. Still poor taste unless there’s something else that Sean isn’t including in his story.
Councilor Norton has never been shy about commenting on Village 14. If there is indeed “more to the story,” I urge her to share that.
@Soccer: Did you actually read the email exchange between Sean and Counselor Norton? Do you dispute that she gave him express permission to quote her? And given that she did consent to being quoted how is that an intrusion into her private life?
Checking in on this thread this morning. So glad to read Marti Bowen’s comments. I agree 100%.
Also, whether I agree with someone on Village 14 or not, I have way more respect for the comments from people using their own name rather than an alias.
I think it is time to close this thread. It is truly ugly. I have pro- and anti-development neighbors. We would never dream of speaking to each other this way.
I’m still waiting for someone to specifically quote when Sean spoke disparagingly towards Norton? Really please provide specifics.
@John White – I agree
Soccer, my points have been about this public official reacting to questioning by demeaning the individual for questioning her actions and asking for a statement as to why she might have acted that way.
I’m much more concerned about a city councilor attacking an individual living in the city she represents and about those who defend the city councilor’s reply as appropriate. We should all be alarmed that anyone in public office considers these attacks appropriate. It seems that you and others forget that the councilor is the one with the power here – not the individual.
Is this the type of reply you would expect to receive if you emailed any city Councilor asking for a statement?
Why do I think no one came out of the email exchange looking good? Let’s see. Sean wants to tweet @Emily about the Sierra Club’s (her day job) position on a bill in California and realizes he is blocked. His first response is to draft a blog post in order to publicly discuss the fact that he’d been blocked. He then sends an email to Emily’s newton.gov to let her know he’s going to publish said post, and asks if she wants to comment – not if she wants to explain or discuss the situation, just if she wants to take a perceived Twitter beef public on a different platform. Why is it so important to Sean to hash this out in public? Why not start with a simple (and private) “Hey, why did you block me?” email? Looks like both grandstanding and pettiness to me, which is not a good look. As for Emily’s response, if I were in her shoes I hope I’d have had the presence of mind to either ignore Sean’s email or reply that I was not going to comment. But barring that, while I think everything through the “anger management” comment was a reasonable combination of snark and “I’m not going to get into this”, in my personal opinion the AA comment was decidedly not. (I do miss the old Gmail Labs “delayed send” feature that provided a 30-second window in case of sudden regret when a “heat of the moment” response suddenly seems way too hot.)
So, IMHO, no one comes out of this looking good. But I’m not going to play the “who started it” or the “who looks worse” game.
Tricia: Good and persuasive answer. Thanks!
Tricia,
“He then sends an email to Emily’s newton.gov to let her know he’s going to publish said post, and asks if she wants to comment – not if she wants to explain or discuss the situation, just if she wants to take a perceived Twitter beef public on a different platform. Why is it so important to Sean to hash this out in public? Why not start with a simple (and private) “Hey, why did you block me?” email?”
You make some good points here. I certainly could have framed the question differently (more on that in a second). But I do think you are making an assumption that is not correct. The point of this exercise is not to get Councilor Norton back in my timeline. She tweets some interesting stuff. As I wrote in the post, I have retweeted plenty as endorsements. But, I can live without her tweets.
What struck me as noteworthy (and still does) was the fact of her blocking me. Given that, I have a tough time understanding what the point of a private discussion would be. To get her to unblock me? To understand what I could do to prevent her from blocking me in the future? Neither would unblow the bugle that is a public official (Councilor Norton) having blocked someone (happens to be me) that I think is inappropriate. I realize that you don’t share the view that this is a problem. Happy to engage on that topic.
So, back to my original email. I invited her to comment. I tried to do so in as neutral a fashion as I could. I didn’t lead with any questions. I could have asked, “Why did you block me?” I could have asked, “Do you think that a public official should block followers on Twitter?” I could have asked, “Have you blocked any other followers?” Instead, I gave her an open-ended opportunity to answer whatever question she thought relevant. Maybe it would have been more illuminating if I had asked other questions. (Though, she did reveal that I am not the only one she’s blocked.)
But, to be clear, I thought that the fact of blocking itself was an issue and I’d still write the post.
I’m also concerned that this ward councilor spoke so inappropriately to a resident in another ward. Would she have questioned whether a Ward 2 resident who could hold her accountable with his/her vote in the next election had a drinking problem? Maybe on occasion she has, but certainly not to the same extent that she speaks in such a way to those outside her ward. This is not an isolated incident and in part may be why it’s gotten so much attention.
@Tricia, I think you mostly nailed it, but there is no question in my mind that Emily Norton comes out of this looking worst. Read her post above. On what planet is it excusable for an elected official to suggest repeatedly and publicly that a media critic is a deranged alcoholic?
@Greg Reibman, do you worry that the development skeptics will desert Village 14, leaving it an echo-chamber for the smart-growth crowd? I do, and encourage you to promote posts from those who can make the anti-development case respectfully. Finally, do you have a formal policy that ad hominem attacks from public officials are left standing, while those from private citizens are deleted? Otherwise, I think your rules dictate that you remove Emily Norton’s post above.
82 comments on whether or not someone(s) rude. 0 comments on the issues. Perfect example of political discourse in America today – it’s not just Trump.
Lucia – In the last 2 years, it’s become acceptable for public figures to say anything to anyone and have his/her supporters completely support the inappropriate comment. This trend has gone way beyond rudeness – insinuating someone who is not a close personal friend is an alcoholic is in another category altogether.
The lack of common decency or self-control in political discourse has become a major issue addressed in the mainstream media so I’m frankly glad to have this conversation in a local public forum. I suspect it will give people pause before they press the Send button.
Lucia, how elected public officials treat their constituents is as important as policy. As you have brought Trump into the conversation, it’s important that we not allow local electeds to act toward public individuals as our national elected president does. I detest Trump’s crude behavior, using “fake news” to describe things he doesn’t want to discuss and his accusatory name-calling toward anyone who doesn’t agree with him. It wouldn’t surprise me if he called anyone an alcoholic, needing anger management or some other help.
However it does surprise me when one of Newton’s elected city councilors does! It should be publicized and criticized until it stops. We should expect more from our city councilors in Newton – regardless of who the public official is or what individual is being spoken to.
I’m glad this thread has continued. It has brought about public discourse of which we should all be equally mindful. This issue isn’t something that should be taken lightly – but should be discussed. Conversations like this one will help determine what we as voters are willing to put up with.
So now you clowns are equating Emily to Trump? Peace out….
Denis, it was Lucia that brought up Trump.
I like how Denis has come back not once but twice after his histrionic declaration that he was done with V14. You just can’t quit us!
I went to a LWVN meeting this afternoon to meet new members and apparently missed some good comments. I will read them soon.
I am hoping that Emily has apologized (probably wishful thinking on my part).
@Marti Bowen wrote:
“The post is about a public official, city councilor, attacking an individual she represents”
No, actually, this post is about someone getting ticked off because he was blocked from sending unwanted tweets to another person on Twitter, and then pestering that person privately about why she blocked him. Put another way, Twitter is a megaphone. Just because you put a tweet out into the Twitter-verse doesn’t mean you can demand that others hear/see/read your tweet. And, just because Emily is a Ward Councilor does not make her, nor any other local elected official, public property. The public square has not been closed. Emily, like many other local elected officials here in Newton, holds regular office hours (along with a regular job) where she may be addressed by constituents in person, or by email. As Tricia very capably pointed out, the case involving Trump is wholly different on so many levels that it’s simply absurd to draw the comparison.
As for the tone of the email exchange, I’d suggest anyone offended by Emily’s private comments to Sean re-visit Sean’s comments here after Emily appeared on Boston Common. If someone here is “thin skinned”, it certainly isn’t Councilor Norton, and I fully expect that Sean can take as well as he gives.
I did say I was gonna ride this thread to the end, but I’m retracting that and taking my leave from this toxicity as of this comment.
Sean, I wonder what the actual intent of your post is. From reading different posts on this blog, it seems overwhelmingly clear that you and Greg are engaged in a basic harassment campaign against Emily Norton, and for the life of me, I can’t figure out why. While I do not know her personally, I have a lot of respect for Emily Norton; she’s a dedicated public servant, and as a Newton resident, I’m very pleased that she is representing me. I do not necessarily agree with every viewpoint that she’s ever held, but I think that’s how life works. I understand that you would have liked her to support both the Austin Street development and the Orr Block development. She didn’t support either, but it’s her right as a representative to listen to her constituents and choose how to best serve the people she’s representing.
I do not throw around the term “harassment” lightly; there have been several posts on V14 that aggressively target Councilor Norton, to the point that I don’t think I can successfully recall them all from memory. There was the post noting her absence at the Austin Street ribbon cutting. Another post because she questioned the fiscal responsibility of paying a large amount for a study of Washington Street. There was the post dedicated to claiming she was a phony environmentalist. Now there’s a post about her blocking you from twitter. I find all of this very unsettling – this is by no means elevated political discourse; rather it is, as I said, a sad pattern of harassment. Councilor Norton is a public servant, not a public doormat, and should not be treated as such. As a parent, if any of my kids were engaging in this type of behavior, I would step in to shut it down (assuming that they weren’t first identified as cyber bullies and shut down by their school), and teach them the error of their ways. For the record, if you sent me an email asking me to comment on a public post that continued this pattern of harassment, I would have stronger language for you than “jerky.” If you can’t honestly recognize your behavior for what it is, then you’ve gone to far to follow.
While I’m on my soapbox:
Greg, you should think twice before engaging in/giving a public platform for character assassination and harassment. Again, I would question what your motivation is for doing so. I’ve been following your blog since you first set it up for the Tab, and have been reading since the early days of V14. At one time, I thought you handled these blogs with a certain degree of integrity. I would like to feel that way again.
For those of you feeling some type of moral indignation of the way Councilor Norton responded to Sean Roche (which he actively chose to make public), please remember that she is not just part of city government, but an actual human with feelings. I find it strange that is something that people need to be reminded of.
There are real problems in this world, this country, this state, and this city. Emily Norton is not one of them.
Brendon,
If you would like to know the actual intent of my post, I would start with the words of my post. I think it is a serious issue that a publicly elected official would block someone on public media. A couple of thoughts on this topic.
Point one: This is a small, citizen-run blog. We generally post about our personal experiences with the city. The example of a public official being blocked that I became aware of is my being blocked. I realize that makes me part of the story and opens me up for the kind of criticism that has been leveled here the last few days. That’s fine. This isn’t my first controversial blog post, or my last. I accept that’s part of the territory. And, you can accept my explanation of the intent of this post or not.
Point two: the fact that Councilor Norton has blocked me is related to the fact that she and I are on opposite ends of a very emotional issue in the city. So, it’s undoubtedly difficult not to read into my post that I have a personal axe to grind. I knew that this would be an issue, too. But, it would be hard to imagine a scenario in which someone I agreed with all the time blocked me.
Point three: not everyone agrees that an elected official’s public social media are subject to different standards, but if you do, then presumably the standard for blocking someone ought to be higher than he @ed me with content that is inconsistent with my views. Plenty of folks have asserted that I’ve written something that justifiably given Councilor Norton offense, but so far, nobody has cited specific language, likely because I have assiduously stuck to highlighting our policy differences. (As they say, you can look it up.)
Point four: I have probably not been clear enough in the comments about how I feel about Councilor Norton’s allegation of my having a a substance abuse problem. Many commenters are most offended by that. I’m not. Maybe I should be. That’s the kind of allegation that can get legs in a small city. It smacks a little of McCarthy-ism. But, for now, I find it more humorous than not. If anyone is offended on my behalf, don’t worry about me. If someone is taken aback, as a general matter, that that is how a public official would respond, that’s another thing.
Point five: as I inelegantly tried to convey to Mike above, I’m not a professional journalist. It’s not my day job. But, I do try to be fair. Before I posted, I thought it would be fair to give Councilor Norton an opportunity to comment. I’m sure that I could have worded my email better, but I was sincerely giving her an opportunity to provide her side. When she responded as she did, Id idn’t feel like I had any good choices. I could ignore her comments, but that seemed like I was hiding the ball. And, certainly, I would be open to criticism that I asked for her comment then didn’t publish it. I could paraphrase her, but any paraphrase that I could think of was going to look like I distorted her words. So, I took her suggestion and just printed the exchange for folks to read themselves. But, again, posting the exchange was at her request, which I made sure to confirm.
As far as a pattern of harassment, I have written repeatedly about the urgent moral issues of the need for more housing in Newton on social justice and on environmental grounds. What I have not done is target Councilor Norton. In fact, I have not written a single post before this one in which I even mention her. Not a single post. Not one. I have engaged with her in the comment section, but have not, except for the recent post about her appearance on Boston Common, criticized Councilor Norton herself before she weighed in.
Now, on the substance, Councilor Norton is deeply, deeply wrong about a matter of critical importance: the role that increased density can play in alleviating the impact of global warming. What I understood to be an incongruity of some local and maybe state-wide interest is reflective of, it turns out, what is shaping up to be a national issue: the role of the anti-development left and specifically the Sierra Club’s opposition to transit-oriented development. I expect that there will be plenty of attention given to Councilor Norton’s roles as a public official opposing development in Newton and as Executive Director of the Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club, because it really brings home the issue.
As long-time readers know, across now four different local blogs, I have been advocating for increased density in Newton for over a decade, well before Councilor Norton was locally active (or active in any way that hit my radar) and certainly well before she chose to carry the flag for anti-development forces in the city. That she became the face (and the active voice) of the opposite side of a battle I had long joined does not make my continuing to fight that battle harassment.
A few thoughts:
1) Fundamentally, it is hard to be our best selves every day. I wish that was not the case. But I’ve been alive long enough to see folks I really admire slip up, respond in anger, respond with sarcasm where honesty would have been better, respond in frustration. I know I have.
2) Electionics make this worse, we say things online, or via twitter or email that we would never say face to face. Face to face or even via phone we have a lifetime of experience in reading cues, the subtle glimpse of anger or hurt, the change in tone. Online we are increasing tone deaf and blind, stumbing along.
3) Doing this in public, items 1 and 2 become worse. Now there is an audience, sides to be taken, positions to be buttressed.
4) We don’t pay our city councilors enough. I may not agree with Emily, but she is a vocal advocate for her positions, some of which generate controvesy and pushback, and it must feel like the job never ends and that there are a lot of angry and upset people trying to communicate with her. It is a tough job.
5) Many of us focus on Emily’s day job at the Sierra Club and point out inconsistencies in position. I’d imagine that this is frustrating for her, as other councilors don’t have a similar focus on their day jobs. I think it is understandable since Emily has two public positions that are at conflict with each other at times (at least in my view, I realize she has posted her successes on evironmental issues she’s taken up in Newton, and while I acknowledge those, I do believe she’s got a bit of a blindspot/hypocrisy regarding the interplay between smart growth and the environment. Perhaps that defensiveness relates to how she responded to Sean, who has pointed this out very recently)
6) From my interactions with Sean, I have not found him to be angry. Passionate for sure. Dogged, yes. Annoyingly so at times….maybe also yes. Folks could say the same thing about me and my long posts. I’ve been told I’m an acquired taste. It seems that Emily and Sean don’t see eye to eye on some topics recently, and Emily wants to limit her interaction with her online.
7) I’m actually ok with that limitation. There are lots of ways to get in touch with Emily, and Sean being blocked on twitter doesn’t seem to me to be the end of the world. I’m not on twitter so perhaps I’m underplaying this, but Emily isn’t so important to our Newton community that her line of communication to the general public needs to be accessable to all. She clearly responds to emails…
8) In a perfect world, that would have been the end of it. Emily blocks Sean, Sean inquires why, Emily says I believe I’m in the right to do so, have a nice day. Sean says I’ll be letting folks on Village14 know because I don’t agree. And that’s where it ends. No personal attacks from Emily, and no posting of the personal attacks by Sean. But see thought #1. We aren’t always our best selves.
9) So here we are. And the same folks that support Emily’s positions are defending her and the folks that agree with Sean are defending him. And while I would have preferred this was handled privately by the parties, I do think that part of Emily’s job is to interact with folks as passionate as Sean. And she could have handled this better, even if she was upset with Sean or if his passion for his issues got in the way of the interaction.
10) The suggestion regarding AA was upsetting to me. It didn’t feel like it was meant to help, it felt like it was being used to provoke a response. Suggestions of someone needing to go to therapy or to AA in a argument are a classic use of a loaded question or statement, a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
I’m guessing that is part of the discussion that Emily would want to take back if she could. I know I would if I had said it in the heat of the moment. And I do wish this was all resolved privately. Again, sometimes we aren’t our best selves.
Life goes on. Hopefully Emily continues to post here, Sean continues to post here, and all of the various faux outrage folks continue to post here, and we start discussions on something more important next week.
What Brendon said. All day long. I know for a fact that she does feel harassed. I don’t pay enough attention to know first-hand but it does seem that others support this notion.
Greg asked earlier what Dean did wrong. Answer? He shouldn’t have posted at all.
If there is a story here, Sean doesn’t have the journalistic chopps to execute it properly. As he said, he’s not a journalist.
If same situation was between a President and Times reporter. Do you think their approach and resulting story would resemble what Sean published? I don’t.
Say you were a manager and Sean and Emily were team members, how would you approach the situation. Publish it in the company newsletter?
V14 is billed as a volunteer non-profit blog with a collection on guest writers. However, probably because of your success, you resemble a news organization. Be careful with that.
Brendon:
Yikes. I’ve got to say, your suggestion of blog posts being “harrassment” is just off base here. Emily is a city councilor. She takes public positions. Folks here comment on those positions. It is mystifying to me how several of Emily’s defenders feel the need to defend her by decrying criticism or commentary as something more sinister. This is how democracy works. Susan Albright and Jake gets criticized all the time on the blog. There were dozens of posts about Ruth Anne Fuller a few months ago. If she was a private citizen like you or me and there were multiple blog posts, that would be really weird. But as the issues of the day seem to be the environment, development, and the housing crisis, and the village of Newtonville is the center of the latter two issues, and Emily is an outspoken advocate of positions on all three, well, hence why there are blog posts.
Sometimes watching someone you respect and admire get criticized or focused on is difficult, and it can make the blood boil if you think it is unfair. And I fully understand the need to defend someone you feel is being picked on. But part of why these types of blogs are important, especially with the loss of the Tab as a newspaper of daily record, is that local govt doesn’t get criticized or examined enough. And as always, it isn’t bullying to call someone out on their bull, which applies to Emily, to Sean, and to Greg at various times on this blog. But never to Jerry, who is awesome at all times.
I do think you are correct in one way. To me, there are probably too many posts here about these specific issues right now, and the various discussions regarding what one particular city councilor believes or doesn’t believe aren’t all that interesting anymore. When a new project comes up like Orr Block, I would welcome further discussion, and we can all discuss what all the city councilors believe regarding an actual project.
The reality of it is that what one city councilor believes or doesn’t believe isn’t worthy of this much attention, not because too attention is “harrassment” but because any one city councilor just isnt’ all that important in the scheme of things, even Emily. She is just one vote out of 24, and thus far the coalition of the anti-development folks haven’t been able to stop any project in Newtonville, even the ones that I disagree strongly with (Court St.). I’d much rather discuss what Mayor Fuller thinks about these issues, or the new Senator Majority leader from Newton. Because it is those two folks that will have a bigger effect on the big issues that impact the city, and have a bigger say on project development.
So with that, I look forward to those actual discussions on the next project or major issue, and I hope you and Denis and Jess and others post on that blog topic as well. This particular topic is a little played out, and we can all go back to trying to be our best selves tomorrow (see my prior post).
Cheers,
Figgy
Thanks, Fig.
@Figgy,
This thread should have been shutdown a long time ago.
The reason it hasn’t is because Greg is trying to egg Emily on.
Greg continually uses V14 as a platform to attack people. Quite frankly I am surprised the Newton Needham Chamber of Commerce have not asked him to resign.
A quote from their mission “Our mission is to champion, encourage and cultivate success through advocacy, education and networking. We’re here to help you, your business and our region prosper.”
This thread and many others do the opposite.
Mike C:
I’m not quite sure I understand. Be careful with what exactly?
Sadly, there isn’t much these days in day to day coverage of city events. Every local govt I’ve ever known has decried the media, and lately it is much worse on the national level of course. But there HAS to be a happy medium. A blog like this doesn’t make sense if it is just posting about events to go to or the latest election. In the absence of a newspaper of record that has daily reporting staff, places like this are new town square. And calling city officials out on inconsistencies is part of what a platform like this does. Folks certainly did that with our two mayor candidates. And it got a bit heated at times, but I’d like to think it had a real effect on folks viewpoints and opinions.
That’s the great thing about the town square. Everybody gets to pull up a soapbox and start talking. But if you don’t like what someone else says, you don’t shut down the public square, or accuse it of harrassment or make vague threats about the need to be careful. Instead, post a logical response and let your argument carry the day. At the end of the day what matters is convincing people and our community. And you don’t influence the former or aid the latter by shutting down discussion.
Ok, I’m off to bed.
I don’t think it was a good day for Emily, for Sean, or for Village14, or for me for that matter. Here’s to hoping tomorrow will be a better day for all of us.
In the meantime I’d love to see the plug pulled on this thread so we can all start again with, as Fig says, “our better selves” tomorrow.
Simon:
In the same way I’m not entirely comfortable with folks using Emily’s day job as a argument point, I’d say the same thing about Greg and his day job. And Greg is less of a public figure than Emily (although as a former newspaper editor for the community and head of the Chamber, if isn’t entirely private either)
And for the record, this is another example of why many of us try to stay anonymous.
Because your blog post reads like more of a threat than a post. I think Greg can have his job at the chamber and run this blog and I think Emily can have her day job at the Sierra Club and be a city Councilor. And some of us don’t feel like getting attacked in our personal lives for our posts here…
For the record, I think this blog does wonders for the community. This particular post may not be the best example, but absent a few angry responses, most of the responders have been respectful and I think it is useful conversation to have. That said, as I said earlier, it is a bit played out at this point and I’d prefer to move on to other topics.
Fig I didn’t intend a threat, vauge or not. My point was that given the success of V14 and how it V14 appears to a user, they could be more careful of how more sensitive stories are presented. V14 isn’t a community blog where anyone has equal ability to initiate a topic. It’s structure is more that of a news organization where stories are presented. So it can be seen by the public as a journalistic entity. I think I had the expectation that V14 writers had a certain level of journalistic professionalism …. But learned that they actually do not. That is all I was saying.
Mike:
Point taken. The format is certainly structured. I think that is why Greg has invited a number of folks to be moderators, but it isn’t perfect. I’d offer to be one, but you can’t be anonymous and do it.
I can disagree on your point on the professionalism in part. It certainly isn’t the Globe. Folks make stuff up, and it is up to the community to police itself. It isn’t always easy. But I better understand your post now, so thank you for the clarification.
Ok, really it is off to bed for me.
I have stumbled across my share of dead horses over the years, but this is perhaps the most badly beaten of them all. :sigh:
ummm, back to your discussion . . . sorry for the admittedly needless interruption.
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what Sean wrote to or about Councilor Norton that was derogatory.
Yes, some folks differ over whether an elected official blocking someone on Twitter is thread worthy. As someone who was blocked on Twitter many months ago by Councilor Norton and decided not to start a blog thread about it, I understand how there can be differing views here. But having differing views is kind of what this site is all about.
(Conversely, folks can indeed point to comments over time I’ve made about Councilor Norton that I’m not particularly proud of but that’s a thread for another day.)
Meanwhile, it is indisputable that Councilor Norton gave Sean explicit permission to quote her so I’m not persuaded by any arguments here that he violated her privacy (which I’d also argue doesn’t exist, when the email address is [email protected]). Also, Norton is savvy enough to know that everything an elected official says to a reporter or blogger is on the record, unless agreed to otherwise.
Which brings me to my final point for now: Emily Norton is a smart and savvy modern-day politician. I’m not sure why people are feeling sorry for her.
By day, she leads the Massachusetts Sierra Club and is an effective, high profile, spokesperson for environmental issues. By night, and on weekends, she is the de facto leader of the opposition to high density, transit-oriented housing.
I happen to find those two roles deeply contradictory, as do others (including Sean) but that’s been discussed elsewhere and a topic for another thread too.
In addition, Norton effectively employed modern day political tactics to lead the defeat of the charter. Strategically, she ran a brilliant campaign, perhaps the best ballot campaign I’ve ever witnessed in Newton. And look at this thread: She has gained the allegiance of a base of supporters who are willing to defend her calling a constituent an alcoholic!
And while Councilor Norton might be privately protesting how mean Sean or I am to her, I can only imagine that all this attention is great for her politically because it strengthens her base and –- like it or not — base politics is the name of the game these days. She might not acknowledge that publicly, but privately I’m suspect she realizes this too.
@Greg — Re: derogatory comments/personal attacks
@lisaP shared a link above. You clearly don’t find any of the dozen comments in that thread by Sean personal or derogatory or questioning motives without facts.
Funny thing though when you look for other threads — the V14 site has had a tag cloud on the sidebar for years with dedicated hashtags including one for Emily and her employer. It suddenly disappeared this weekend along with the tags on this post. Was this a strange coincidence, a response to feedback, or desire to not make it too easy to see the past patterns here?
If you or the people running the site had any interest or expertise in search engine optimization, you might think there was an agenda with all the tagging and linking in past articles like this. I personally found your 12/2/2015 “people are saying” post a work of SEO art.
The twitter link below is the tweet thread that caused Sean’s most recent concern, and per quotes I included earlier, part of his alarm seems to be that the national leadership of the Sierra club may be more in line with Emily’s approaches than his. This seems to be an issue between Sean and the Sierra Club.
https://twitter.com/seanroche/status/974612788093038592?s=21
So what I don’t understand is why Sean didn’t choose to contact Emily professionally through her day job email? And if he felt the need to call her out with his bull horn here to the local community, why not call her out in the title of the post in context of her day job role rather than her local role title?
Does the fact that someone has a public service position in this city entitle residents to exert special pressure on how they do their day jobs? Or conversely, is it fair game for us to actively threaten someone’s daytime role to pressure them to into the local role votes we want? That seems to be the jist here and its not the 1st time.
If I’m finally getting around to commenting on this, I think you can officially pull the plug on this thread.
Greg, you keep asking what was derogatory in Sean’s initial email. I don’t think there was anything. I don’t think that was his intent. And it wasn’t just the emails, or tweets, or comments on V14, it was probably an accumulation of all of them.
I think he was looking for a fight or at least a strong reaction (hence his decision to post the Twitter story before Emily’s response) and he got one. I disagree with Sean when he says that the AA reference was worse than the Twitter block. The AA comment was much worse and without it, I don’t think this thread would have been worthy of posting. It simply wouldn’t have been that interesting.
Regardless of Emily’s use of a public or professional email account to respond, this really wasn’t a public exchange. I suppose by letter of the law it was. But it wasn’t about such a big issue that it needed to see the light of day.
But Emily’s response regarding AA took it to another level. It’s too bad — Had she stuck with “jerky” she’d have the high ground. But the AA suggestion is out of bounds. She could also make it more clear on her Twitter account whether it’s a personal one or part of one of her roles.
So I’d say Sean was, well, jerky by pestering Emily over something pretty minor (being blocked on Twitter) and Emily responded far too harshly. Being wrong isn’t a zero sum game.
And I hope people don’t leave the blog over this thread. For good or bad, it is interesting. And if you don’t like it, focus on the other threads. It would be a pity if this turns into an echo chamber as someone (in a comment too far above for me to find) already said.
I’m interested in Jack’s comment above. Were tags recently removed or have they been gone for a while? If they were deliberating removed to make it harder to look into past comments on this thread that would not be good.
@Jack et al, I’m the site administrator, website hosting provider and web developer for Village14. I removed the tag cloud because it was defective and actually caused the server to crash recently. The plugin url is: https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-category-tag-could/ (spelled wrong) and if you visit that url you will see it has not been updated for more than 2 years. (And thus incompatible with the current version of WordPress.)
That is the sole reason it was removed.
I’m looking for a replacement.
If anyone has any questions about this issue, please place a comment here and I will reply.
I hope this clears up any questions as to the motive of removing the tag cloud.
Thank you.
I’d also like to add that many of the Village 14 bloggers don’t tag their posts and others — including me — often forget or just don’t have the time.
We could dock everyone’s pay or at least give them a bad performance review for failing to tag but, alas, we don’t pay or do performance reviews either.
We do, however, keep a watchful eye on anyone who blocks us on Twitter! ;)