Newmarket council debates merits, role of social media
Councillors and former council candidate debate the merits of 'blocking' residents on social media

YorkRegion.com
Feb. 23, 2016
Chris Simon

Every politician has a right to use social media in any capacity he or she deems fit, even if it means blocking some constituents, most of Newmarket council members argued Monday.

In probably the liveliest portion of this week's committee of the whole meeting, Newmarket council members debated the merits and role of social media as a method of communicating with residents. They did this during a deputation from John Heckbert, who ran unsuccessfully for the Ward 5 seat in the 2014 municipal election, and who called on councillors to consider a provision in council's draft code of conduct regarding social media.

Basically, he wants to prevent politicians from blocking or censoring a resident's ability to see their posts, specifically referring to the privately operated social media site, Twitter. Each member of council has an account on that platform, but he's currently barred from seeing posts made by Councillor Dave Kerwin and Mayor Tony Van Bynen, Heckbert said.

"I base my comments around democracy being one of the key tenets for the right of citizens being able to question and engage their elected representatives in any manner they choose; any attempt to prevent citizens exercising this right is undemocratic, unethical and unprofessional," Heckbert said, though he did applaud the town's current effort to update its code.

"Social media is here to stay. The mayor has specifically identified people he chooses not to share information with, even though he does identify himself as the mayor. He communicates information about the town through this channel. If I were using the mayor's Twitter feed solely to determine the availability of blood donor clinics, I would not know enough to go donate blood. All residents are not treated equally. Twitter is a great tool for emergency communications."

The discussion was also part of an overall debate on the draft document, which council plans to approve next week. The document is an update to the existing code and is an attempt to set standards that prevent council members from using town resources, or their positions as elected representatives, for private or political advantage.

As part of that update, council is considering setting a $200 limit on gifts a member can receive, placing a 60-day timeframe for the filing of integrity commissioner complaints and establishing rules around charitable fundraising and the disclosure and dissemination of information over social media.

Heckbert said only one form of harassment should warrant a “block” — an "overt sexual advance" and suggested town staff help run council accounts.

Councillors used that opening to pounce.

"Social media is becoming very important," Regional Councillor John Taylor said. "If someone came into your office and on three occasions swore and yelled at you, would you, on the fifth, sixth and 18th occasions say, 'Yes, I'll book you a meeting next week'? You're recognizing there are exceptions, but how do you know the exceptions (we’ve) chosen to block someone? Only your criteria of sexual advances apply. You're allowed to make exceptions, but we're not. I have a family, a wife and a life and I don't think I should have to start my day, every day, having the same two or three people tell me I'm a liar, a horrible person or scum of the Earth. I have a right to block that out of my life."

Others questioned why more forms of harassment covered under the Human Rights Code, such as race, ancestry, colour, handicap, marital status and sexual orientation, for example, were excluded from Heckbert's list.

"A code of conduct is really based on a lot of ethical principles," Councillor Christina Bisanz said. "There's also a degree of legal parameters included. I found it interesting you mentioned sexual comments, while the code, in definition, actually goes on to describe… harassment, which goes far beyond sexual innuendos. I can accept there is a right to have a voice in democracy, except where it infringes on human rights."

She also took exception to the concept that Twitter should be used specifically to find out emergency information. There are many senior citizens who have never used social media and rely on other ways to find out about developing situations in town.

"They would not know Twitter if they fell over it," Bisanz said. "To suggest there is some kind or moral or legal requirement… is a bit of a stretch. With so much information passing so quickly on Twitter, that as a source of emergency information is a very dangerous element to rely on."

When a social media comment is directed to a specific individual, friends, family and constituents can view it regardless of merit or accuracy. It's akin to giving space to residents on an official mail out or other forms of traditional communication, Councillor Tom Vegh said.

"Anybody has the right to vent, but they don't have the right to vent on my page," he said. "They can send me an email or write letters to the editor. They can put whatever they want on their own social media. Social media is just one form of communication. I don't have a right to go express myself on their social media. No democratic rights are being threatened in any way here; you have so many other ways to communicate."

Significant consultation took place during the development of the updated code, deputy town clerk Lisa Lyons confirmed.

"The code review process included extensive consultation," she said. "We are confident the code being presented today is a more progressive code, which reflects input from the community, council, various consultants and the town's integrity commissioner."

The next term of council may also want to set up an accountability and transparency committee, Lyons said.

To review a copy of the draft code, visit newmarket.ca.

SIDEBAR

What they said

It was clear former Ward 5 councillor candidate John Heckbert hit a sore spot with council members when he called into question their use of social media, specifically the platform, Twitter. Many have had issues with social media in the past and the subject is rarely discussed around the council table.

So here's how several members reacted:

• Mayor Tony Van Bynen: "My page represents my views. I don't feel, in the slightest way, obligated to advance an argument that's contrary to my views. So, I don't apologize for blocking certain people. I set standards for what I allow on my site. If you want to have something to say, set up your own site and contacts and send out your own messages."
•  Tom Vegh, Ward 1: "I've blocked people for attacking my family. That's reasonable. To say any member of the public can say anything they want on my communications is the equivalent of me opening my e-newsletter to them. Even my community drop-in I wouldn't let people come in and start taking over and abusing it. That's my form of communication with my constituents. That has zero impact on anyone's right to self-expression."
• Jane Twinney, Ward 3: "We do this because we want our community to be better. I do have some… blocked for a certain reason. I felt harassed by them. My son has access to seeing this. I don't need to have my 11-year-old see comments made to me that I find are harassing, unethical or disturbing. We're people, too. People feel they can't get through on Twitter but they haven't picked up the phone, used email or any other way. They're not sincere about speaking to me."
• Tom Hempen, Ward 4: "Recently, I decided to block one person. I've never blocked anyone before. This person has decided to attack me at 9, 10 o'clock in the evening and continue until 12 o'clock at night. I will continue to block people if they continue to call me a liar or dishonest."
• Joe Sponga, Ward 5: "I just recently decided I had to block some people. There have been some comments about my choice of style and the way I dress at council meetings, (and) a picture of me reading emails where I'm 'taking a nap'. I've had people driving by my house taking pictures. I'm not a movie star; I'm a representative of this municipality. I take exception that my family, because I'm elected as a part-time councillor of a ward, has to be exposed and that our homes and bedrooms should be open."
• Christina Bisanz, Ward 7: "It's not right, morally or legally, to be subjected to harassment. Some of the exposure some of the members around this table have had, and members of the public have had as well, to bullying behaviour by people who hide behind the democratic right to have a voice, is clearly an infringement."