4 ms·

This is why city council member Dan Strauss, when going door to door campaigning, gives out his personal Gmail address rather than his city of Seattle address.

by patja 3y ago

This is why city council member Dan Strauss, when going door to door campaigning, gives out his personal Gmail address rather than his city of Seattle address. Is this legal? It sure doesn't seem ethical

ajcp 3y ago
He's implicitly admitting that he conducts civic business via his Gmail account. That means his Gmail account contains public records and is thus subject to FOIA requests. I'm not sure if city councilors are subject to such public scrutiny but it's still really stupid.
- QuercusMax 3y ago
  Is door-to-door campaigning "civic business"?
  - ajcp 3y ago
    Nope, you are correct, I completely over-looked the "campaigning". Campaigning is actually supposed to be kept very separate from civic business. Updating my comment.
QuercusMax 3y ago
Sounds like he's trying to keep campaign activities separate from work activities. Doesn't sound necessarily unethical to me. Using your position as a public servant to use public resources for campaign purposes is what strikes me as unethical.
dragonwriter 3y ago
It's generally illegal for public employees or officers of any kind to make more than incidental use of public resources for any personal, rather than public-business purposes (political or otherwise), and further its even more illegal for public officials to use public resources for political campaign purposes. So, yeah, using a non-city email address as his campaign contact email seems not only legal and ethical, but probably legally and ethically mandatory. EDIT: the applicable Washington state statute on political campaign uses of public resources is: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.52.180 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.52.180 The main body of the rule is "No state officer or state employee may use or authorize the use of facilities of an agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of a person to an office or for the promotion of or opposition to a ballot proposition. Knowing acquiescence by a person with authority to direct, control, or influence the actions of the state officer or state employee using public resources in violation of this section constitutes a violation of this section. Facilities of an agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of state employees of the agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the agency." EDIT AGAIN: Looking at that again, that is specific to state officers or employees, so may not be applicable to city officials, but represents the kind of rule that is commonly in place.
- patja 3y ago
  He's the currently serving incumbent. When he gives me an email address, it's not as if I'm going to be contacting him inquiring about the details of his campaign. It's more likely I'm going to contact him about why the police are dragging their heels to assign more patrols around Ballard high School where more than five students have been mugged, some at gunpoint, in recent weeks.

by patja 3y ago

ajcp 3y ago

He's implicitly admitting that he conducts civic business via his Gmail account. That means his Gmail account contains public records and is thus subject to FOIA requests. I'm not sure if city councilors are subject to such public scrutiny but it's still really stupid.

QuercusMax 3y ago
Is door-to-door campaigning "civic business"?
- ajcp 3y ago
  Nope, you are correct, I completely over-looked the "campaigning". Campaigning is actually supposed to be kept very separate from civic business. Updating my comment.

QuercusMax 3y ago

Sounds like he's trying to keep campaign activities separate from work activities. Doesn't sound necessarily unethical to me. Using your position as a public servant to use public resources for campaign purposes is what strikes me as unethical.

dragonwriter 3y ago

It's generally illegal for public employees or officers of any kind to make more than incidental use of public resources for any personal, rather than public-business purposes (political or otherwise), and further its even more illegal for public officials to use public resources for political campaign purposes. So, yeah, using a non-city email address as his campaign contact email seems not only legal and ethical, but probably legally and ethically mandatory. EDIT: the applicable Washington state statute on political campaign uses of public resources is: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.52.180 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.52.180 The main body of the rule is "No state officer or state employee may use or authorize the use of facilities of an agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of a person to an office or for the promotion of or opposition to a ballot proposition. Knowing acquiescence by a person with authority to direct, control, or influence the actions of the state officer or state employee using public resources in violation of this section constitutes a violation of this section. Facilities of an agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of state employees of the agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the agency." EDIT AGAIN: Looking at that again, that is specific to state officers or employees, so may not be applicable to city officials, but represents the kind of rule that is commonly in place.

patja 3y ago
He's the currently serving incumbent. When he gives me an email address, it's not as if I'm going to be contacting him inquiring about the details of his campaign. It's more likely I'm going to contact him about why the police are dragging their heels to assign more patrols around Ballard high School where more than five students have been mugged, some at gunpoint, in recent weeks.