Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________ I draw the line at private individuals - like doctors and other advocates of particular points of view. Surely you don't believe I would support picketing and harassing of private citizens engaged in an activity that some find controversial and abhorrent. I recognize your particular sensitivity to the issues you raise with Sarah's position at PPM. Hers - and the organization's positions remain private in my view.
Public officials are another matter. These are people who have chosen to be public people and whom are accountable to a specific constituency, members of which deserve access to them. Bill, how do you prevent violence? How do you prepare for possible stealth harm? Build a fortress around your house and your life? Impossible. By the way, I was not alluding to picketing, but to visits. I was also careful to point out what I did not consider appropriate. However, picketing on a public sidewalk is precisely the sort of test case for freedom of speech we must confront on a Constitutional basis a much as we would our right to dissent from war and other rotten public policy. Picketing is not necessarily life-threatening, but I can see how fears of same can rise when the groups picketing have had members convicted for killing and other damage. But I ask again - how, in a free society - can we link current behavior to history without becoming paranoid? How can we live a life if we're forever looking over our shoulders and out our windows for those who would just as soon see us dead as not? I cannot live that way. This country cannot afford to shut itself - and its very reasons for being - down over perceived threats of possible harm to come at a time uncertain. This is precisely what our current clan in DC would have us do in the name of national security. Have I drawn the line distinctly enough for you? Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill ------ > From: "Willis Stoesz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:17:51 -0600 > To: "Andy Driscoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "St. Paul Discuss" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [StPaul] Privacy of Elected Officials > > Andy, where do you draw the line when it comes to picketing homes of > individuals especially when it comes to fringe hate groups like the > prolifers...? It has happened and could again. And where is the line drawn > when some of their affiliation and resource for rhetoric is from > organizations that praise the killing of doctors...? Where does the right > of privacy lie in such cases? > Bill Stoesz > Highland Park > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andy Driscoll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "St. Paul Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 10:07 PM > Subject: [StPaul] Privacy of Elected Officials > > >> Index of SPPS Budget Discussion >> http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html >> _________________________________________ >> >> >> I suspect I shouldn't be surprised that Tim and I would disagree on this >> issue. >> >> The private home of an elected official is no more out of bounds for a >> constituent than a constituent's home is for the elected official. >> >> Now that's a black and white statement that fails to consider the >> appropriateness of timing and behavior in the act of visiting the > official. >> The mere act is perfectly appropriate in light of the official's chosen >> vocation as a representative of all other residents of his district (I'm >> purposely widening the arena beyond City Council here). >> >> Appropriate times would not be late at night, during mealtimes, etc., and >> obviously, the personal call should show respect for the official called > on. >> >> A great deal of insulation stands between elected officials and their >> constituents. Getting the ear and attention of elected officials who may > not >> want to hear what you have to say can become impossible, what with >> gatekeepers (aides and secretaries) and such. Frustrations over a refusal > to >> return calls (no matter the reason) or be otherwise unavailable for > contact >> beyond letters are legitimately resolved by personal visits. If nothing >> else, it may elicit return calls in the future. >> >> No citizen is immune from personal visits, and I suggest elected officials >> are less deserving than most for privacy over and above that accorded any >> other citizen. The official has the choice of acknowledging or not >> acknowledging the doorbell or the knock, or to put off the the caller in > any >> way s/he sees fit within legal bounds, or to listen to the issue and >> concerns of the caller and offer answers in whatever form. >> >> All in all, I find it altogether too encouraging for officials to stay out >> of touch with constituents and their concerns when most citizens have >> neither the time nor resources to call on their representative(s) during >> working hours - unlike, of course, professional lobbyists of one sort or >> another, whose access to those same officials is a given in the business > of >> politics and policymaking. >> >> No. The door of elected officials, be it at the office or their houses, >> should be open - at least to those they represent. >> >> Andy Driscoll >> Crocus Hill >> ------ >> >> >> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 10:42:50 -0600 >> From: Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> This post is intended to reflect my opinions as a >> citizen and not as the list manager. >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> >> Yesterday, someone in this forum, suggested that they might drop by >> their council members private home to register disapproval over a >> city council vote. They made it clear, that they do not know this >> council member. >> >> This caught my eye and I've since had some offline exchanges with >> several individuals about the ethical considerations or >> appropriateness of a constituent dropping by an elected officials >> home unannounced to complain about their job performance. >> >> The responses have been mixed, some of those I exchanged emails with >> thought it was reasonable, others agreed with me, that it might be >> inappropriate. >> >> I'd very much like to hear what others have to say. >> >> For me, this is a serious breach of an elected officials privacy. >> Most of our elected officials provide phone numbers, email addresses, >> and offices where they can be reached. For constituents to visit >> their home, without an invitation, feel to me like a serious and >> unnecessary intrusion into their private lives. >> >> Some have pointed out to me, that elected officials regularly knock >> on other peoples doors while campaigning. However, in my opinion that >> is something very different. Reaching out to random constituents by >> door knocking does not feel the same. A constituent can easily turn a >> politician away or refuse to speak with them, the politician is very >> unlikely to press an uninterested citizen to speak with them. >> >> An angry citizen, on the other hand, has come to the elected >> officials home with one purpose in mind. The elected official is >> going to be under some pressure to drop whatever personal business >> they were engaged in to respond and the constituent is much less >> likely to take "I'm not interested" as a legitimate response and move >> on. >> >> When elected officials or candidates visit private homes, it is often >> because this is the most convenient means for that interaction to >> take place. However, there are many more appropriate and sufficiently >> convenient opportunities for citizens to contact their elected >> officials. >> >> At the very least, I find the idea of dropping by an elected >> officials home unannounced to register an opinion to be very >> disrespectful at the worst an illegitimate invasion of their private >> and personal lives. >> >> I welcome feedback on this and am completely open to changing my >> position. I'd be curious about how often this kind of thing takes >> place and how elected officials feel about it. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Tim Erickson >> Hamline Midway >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> _____________________________________________ >> 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/ >> > > ------ End of Forwarded Message _____________________________________________ 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/
