Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________
Elected officials are often very public and personable people. They often are friendly with a large group of people, and therefore, a large number of people often see elected officials as friends or close acquaintances. With that in mind, I am sure elected officials get more people approaching them as a buddy to express their approval or disapproval with an action or vote. This is because there are approaching a friend, not an elected official. However, no matter what elected position they have, the privacy and personal life of the elected official must be protected from the spread of complaints of their official duties into their personal lives. Mr. Driscoll is wrong in his assertion that there is no difference between a citizen directly confronting an elected official and the official (or candidate) canvassing a neighborhood. The difference is in the scope. A candidate for office is not making a direct appeal to a specific citizen. This is general contact, and it does not make it into the personal nature of a direct contact. For example, a telemarketing call is a general contact, but the call of a distraught ex-boyfriend is direct. One is appropriate (even if it is not desired), the other is not (even though there exists a previous relationship). The contact of an elected official to the represented citizens is necessary. That is why we exempt political contacts from laws banning solicitation. Of course, this doesn't allow an elected official to target a single citizen for harassment, but that wouldn't be covered by the exemption anyhow. Once the appeal is personal in nature, there must be more of a relationship between the parties than representative/citizen. Of course, Mr. Driscoll is correct that any contact with an elected official should show respect and not interfere with their families. However, I don't believe intruding on their personal life is justified except in the most serious circumstances. Elected officials make themselves available at their offices, to and from city council meetings, and at campaign and official events. Furthermore, they have mail, email and phone. With all of these avenues, I cannot believe that any official would need to be reached at home. But, in the event that an official was neglecting their constituency and not available through the other means (and I mean, not available, not just disagreeing), than I might support a letter to the officials house, maybe a phone call, and lastly a visit. But, I can't imagine that it would ever get to this point. Officials are personable people, and are available in a wide-range of setting away from their personal lives. Jim Mogen Lex-Ham St. Paul _____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
