City Hall
The Disappearing O'Brien-Creighton Facebook Flap
City Council member Mike O'Brien and Seattle Port Commissioner John Creighton got into a minor scrap yesterday on Facebook over the Port's promise to put $300 million toward the deep-bore tunnel viaduct replacement project. O'Brien has expressed concern that although the Port has committed to spending the money, it has not identified where the $300 million will come from.
In a post on his Facebook wall, Creighton wrote that if O'Brien had concerns about the Port's contribution, he should have testified at the Port Commission meeting where the Port signed a letter committing to spend the money. Additionally, Creighton wrote that he didn't appreciate a Seattle City Council member telling the Port how to do their jobs. O'Brien responded by echoing what he told Port Commissioner Bill Bryant at a council meeting earlier this week: He appreciates the Port's commitment, but wants to know where, specifically, the money will come from—taxes? Spending cuts? Some combination of the two?
I'm paraphrasing from various accounts of Creighton's post, because as of this morning, the post was gone, as was O'Brien's response.
Why does this matter? Because both O'Brien and Creighton are elected officials. Under the city's social media public-disclosure rules , all communications by city elected officials on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites are subject to the same public disclosure laws as emails and written communications. O'Brien, in other words, is supposed to archive all of his Facebook communications in case a member of the public wants to read them in the future.
The Port, according to spokesman Peter McGraw, has no such rules in place. "The port doesn't have a [public disclosure] policy for commissioners because they are private citizens," McGraw says. "The Port of Seattle doesn't have any policy on social media" use by port commissioners, who aren't port employees, he adds. "Like a lot of folks out there, we're still getting our heads around it."
In a more recent (and less heated) post on O'Brien's Facebook wall, Creighton writes, "I believe that your concerns over the Port's commitment to carrying through with its agreement with the State and its ability to fund its $300M financial commitment will fall away once you've had a chance to sit down and look at our modeling."
In a post on his Facebook wall, Creighton wrote that if O'Brien had concerns about the Port's contribution, he should have testified at the Port Commission meeting where the Port signed a letter committing to spend the money. Additionally, Creighton wrote that he didn't appreciate a Seattle City Council member telling the Port how to do their jobs. O'Brien responded by echoing what he told Port Commissioner Bill Bryant at a council meeting earlier this week: He appreciates the Port's commitment, but wants to know where, specifically, the money will come from—taxes? Spending cuts? Some combination of the two?
I'm paraphrasing from various accounts of Creighton's post, because as of this morning, the post was gone, as was O'Brien's response.
Why does this matter? Because both O'Brien and Creighton are elected officials. Under the city's social media public-disclosure rules , all communications by city elected officials on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites are subject to the same public disclosure laws as emails and written communications. O'Brien, in other words, is supposed to archive all of his Facebook communications in case a member of the public wants to read them in the future.
The Port, according to spokesman Peter McGraw, has no such rules in place. "The port doesn't have a [public disclosure] policy for commissioners because they are private citizens," McGraw says. "The Port of Seattle doesn't have any policy on social media" use by port commissioners, who aren't port employees, he adds. "Like a lot of folks out there, we're still getting our heads around it."
In a more recent (and less heated) post on O'Brien's Facebook wall, Creighton writes, "I believe that your concerns over the Port's commitment to carrying through with its agreement with the State and its ability to fund its $300M financial commitment will fall away once you've had a chance to sit down and look at our modeling."
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
