When I received a “Dear Friends” email last night from an at-large City Councilor endorsing Jake for Congress, I had a similar reaction to my friend (undecided before the email), but he put it in writing back to that Councilor:
I appreciate that as a City Councilor, you are entitled to publicly endorse any candidate you wish. However, in my specific case, you have my email because I am one of your constituents, and my expectation is that you will use my email for communicating “matters of city business” to me and the other members of your ward. We do not have any relationship other than that of resident and their implicit connection to their City Council.
I would request that you keep a different email distribution for your political endorsements and matters that do not pertain to your role as my councilor.
I hope this request resonates as a fair approach and our desire as citizens to avoid giving candidates unreasonable advantages by allowing members of our city government to use their “standard communication” channels to also provide personal endorsements that are in no way related to the city of Newton.
To which I would add, why would any Newton City Councilor take sides between two of their colleagues in this race, knowing that at least one of the contestants will remain in the Council chambers after the voting takes place? How does that encourage comity in future debates and votes?
Now that you brought it up, Paul, I have heard from many people in Newton that they are on Jake’s campaign list which they NEVER signed up for – and the only connection they can identify is that they have sent PUBLIC CITY BUSINESS emails to the City Council and then immediately were added to Jake’s campaign list. Isn’t this ILLEGAL? Has anyone ever asked Jake this on the record? Seems like an egregious ABUSE OF POWER.
Probably the same email I received yesterday and I felt the same.
“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.”
I am shocked, shocked to learn that my free Internet isn’t protecting my right to privacy (which appears where exactly in United States law?)
It’s total BS. Thanks for raising this point, Paul!