Facebook without Comments? How can you not give people the ability to have a voice to feel
part of the community.....Feedback equals transparency.

One of the problems of the BOE is its self imposed insulation.It hears what it wants to hear and makes public only as much as it feels the public needs to know.Facebook should be open to all comment and the only thing declared "inappropriate" should be vulgarity.

I dont think all the board members feel that way but are unfortunately clumped together as a group and viewed that way. Hopefully the new board will be able to promote the change that is needed in this town and residents will finally see that the board members "are not created equal". The Facebook page should definitely be open to comment and as AJB said the only thing inappropriate is vulgarity. Im sure that there would be a couple board members more than willing to monitor and handle the comments if that is what Dolan and Walker are concerned about.

What an insight into the thinking of BOE President Julia Walker it is when she says her "main concern is the moderating of comments on a Facebook page, saying it would be “overwhelming” for the staff to review comments and delete ones that are unacceptable." Consider that her primary concern and objection to the page relates to the burdens that will be placed on the BOE to censure the feedback debate that would occur on a Facebook page. Censorship of the page should not even be an option. Whenever censorship is introduced, the first of many issues is what is deemed “unacceptable.” Beyond that and many other such concerns, I hate it when someone in an elected position thinks that I/we voters are too stupid to understand and comprehend what we see. What is there to be afraid of? It must be criticism of the BOE. If censorship was allowed, I am sure that a BOE censurer would view BOE criticism as unacceptable. No, if you want to get credit for a transparency initiative, let it rip unfettered. Most readers of the pages will have enough intellect and interest to wade through the inevitable praises and criticisms, lies and truths that will be told on the site. Please do no insult my intelligence with a censured version. I would prefer no version at all than to have a propaganda site.

The whole idea of a Facebook page is to allow the public to provide feedback in the same way that the public has the right to voice opinions at the BOE meetings. By blocking feedback they are blocking the opportunities for good ideas to be surfaced. Sure there will be those that will use the board just to air grievances but by blocking all feedback all you have is a bulletin board. The BOE can use their website for that. We don't expect to have those sensitive matters that are decided behind closed doors posted on the page but we have asked for greater transparency on those issues that are discussed in the public forum. This town is full of concerned citizens that want to help on these issues. We're all in this together!

A.John: There are other forms of discourse that should be edited from postings, too. For example, slander or accusations not supported by substantiated data or facts. All one has to do is look at some of the things people post on The Patch to be concerned about what could be posted.

To those who are insisting that a Facebook page would not require time, monitoring, and the like - you are not fully informed about how organizations should design, build, implement and maintain social media. The Westfield BOE page should not be like a personal Facebook page. Branding, the purpose and mission of the page, monitoring the content, ensuring its accuracy,etc. all require time and effort.

The Facebook page should be presented at a BOE meeting and time given for the public to respond. The page can be tweaked after that. That's it.

Richard, don't only point out Ms Walker here. Read the article and you'll see that even those who have presented themselves as "change candidates" did not support the public comment on the page option.

There is no doubt that mistakes in fact will occur.Slander requires malice. Accusations without support will be judged for the trash they are. That is what an open society is built upon.
If you hear sensationalism in the media, you change channels or get a different newspaper. If you see a posting by someone you disbelieve, then respond and say why he is wrong or skip over his post.You cannot censure all comment to avoid some stupid posts. The only censorship should be vulgarity.
The BOE only certifies it's own postings.It should read all other postings to open the window to it's ivory tower and listen to some different views. If everyone else is wrong, let the BOE respond with facts to refute.
The "mission"of theBOE page should be to fully inform the people whom they represent. The only "monitoring" should be vulgarity because anything else is censorship.If you have a public comment section, the BOE is not responsible for accuracy, and your wish to "monitor the content"certainly says volumes about your attitude on openess and transparency.
I cannot imagine a valid reason why any public body would not advocate a completely open dialogue with its constituents.
A.John Blake

To Southside Transplant
I thought I read the article pretty clearly the first time. While several members had "concerns," several also wanted the Facebook page to be two-way. Also, Ms. Walker was the only one who expressed her solution to the “concerns” which is censorship. That is what I particularly objected to. Who could not have concerns? I would have concerns. But other than setting the site up to automatically to scan for vulgar words, I would let it rip unfettered. You are obviously sympathetic to the concept of censorship. I am not. When I hear the word "branding" thrown out, that is a code word for propaganda. There was a lot of "branding" going on during WW II - on both sides.

I agree with newly sworn-in member Mark Friedman that the place to brand is the web site. That is a one-way media and everyone knows it is a one sided presentation of the Board. Do not do it on Facebook.. Again, I for one feel confident that I will be able to figure out the truth.

When I refer to "branding", I am talking about it in a corporate sense, like a way an organization brands its communication, advertising, marketing, announcements, public relations and now its social media pages. I have no complete way of getting around the censorship accusation, because whenever content is filtered, monitored for appropriateness and the like, it is technically a form of censorship, but so too is filtering vulgar words. If you support letting it rip, then let it all go and watch this site denegrate into the toilet. I would be disappointed if this BOE Facebook page, turned into a free-for-all comment dumping site where comments like some of the ones that appear here can be displayed.

A.John, you have more faith than I do that people will know the difference betwen trash and fact. We're in an MTV, National Enquirer world now.

Allow me to jump in on one point- The conversations I have been having with other School Boards that have dipped their feet in the Facebook world has shown me that their experience has been very positive-not a "free for all" and in fact- has had very few fans considering the enrollment in their towns. Their sites are not "branding" and don't come close to replicating their websites- It is truly more of a public communications piece with administrators that are performing news feed functions on education related stories. I appreciate all of your feedback as we go along the process- It is very helpful indeed to hear all of your thoughts and concerns. That is what two-way communication is all about.

Southside Transplant
I said let it rip with a qualification for the screening for vulgar words. You made a valid point that screening anything is still a form of censorship but even the Supreme Court allowed for exceptions to our First Amendment. In 1919 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote in an opinion involving a First Amendment case that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech. Screening of vulgar words would be a minimal way to maintain some degree of civility on the Facebook site – but not arguments, facts (right or wrong), or opinions (right or wrong).

I have to tell you that your comment to A. John continues to reflect your elitist tendencies typical of those that support governmental censorship. Clearly your comment indicates that you have little faith that us ordinary people would be able to tell the difference between trash and fact. But in so doing, your support of the idea implies that you believe and accept that there are superior intellects who have this ability on the BOE who you think can be trusted to protect us from trash and allow us to see what is only the truth. Do you think you would have such superior intellectual powers? Do you see how dangerous this is? Wow! Even if the censorship is done with the best of intentions this is dangerous. Whose truth is the true truth? This concept goes way beyond the Westfield BOE setting up a Facebook site to all situations of governmental censorship.

Richard, you don't know me well enough to make judgments about what I feel. I have yet to see anyone, even those on the BOE who support this who demonstrates he/she has the knowledge about the power of social media, how it can be abused and the damage it can cause. If I cannot trust BOE members to disseminate information properly, then that goes for all the members of the current BOE - all of them.

Mitch, while I am cynical about the effectiveness of a BOE Facebook page, I hope you're correct when it becomes a reality. I also hope that you look at more than how other BOE's are doing it and also extend it to researching how organizations, like the one you work for go about it. I think if you speak to those who are responsible for designing, implementing and maintaining any social media page, the comments and warnings I am providing here will make sense. I am not "elitist" - I am responsible.

Even from the exchanges here about this topic, you can see how messaging can be twisted or misunderstood - electronic media is not perfect and its major flaw is that without face-to-face interaction, messaging can be miscontrued. I am very close to how Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter and other forms of social media are used in my company and how content is monitored and screened. My organization is a knowledge based and progressive one, so we are very creative with regards to social media. Proceed if you must, but don't underestimate the importance of careful planning.

Mr. Southside- Excellent points and I hope you will consider reaching out to me "old school" and share your knowledge and experience in social media- I certainly agree about careful planning and learning from other citizens like you is a win-win for everyone. Being responsible, as always, is the best way to go.

Southside Transplant - You do not seem to appreciate that I am concerned about governmental censorship. Corporations can lie and screen anything they want. Most people with any sense will realize it is biased. It is different when it comes to the government. Think about the dangers of the governmental censorship you seem to support if it is not done with the best of intentions.

I appreciate that social medias are quite powerful and are subject to abuse but I also appreciate that most people are smart enough to figure out the truth provided they have access to a balanced debate on the issues. It seems to me, you favor the idea of some greater being having the responsibility to put their thumb on the scale of a free exchange of ideas which can result in an unbalanced debate. It even sounds like at your company, you may be one of the greater beings that is in control of the messaging – which may account for your perspective. What I do not want is for the site to have centralized command and control messaging – that should be the difference between public and private social medias in my opinion.

Not sure if anyone found this on-line, but here is something that might be of interest to those developing the Westfield BOE page. Here is something Littleton, CO does.

https://sites.google.com/a/lpsk12.org/boe-social-media/resources

In the same spirit, you can also check out this list of to-do's for a school facebook page (the kind that allows comments):

http://nextcommunications.blogspot.com/2009/10/facebook-fan-page-rules-for-school.html

However, this resulted in a page that was rife with things, well, that would be examples of why you would not want a school Facebook page with comments. You'll have to take my word on that, as this post explains (it was shut down a few weeks back):

http://nextcommunications.blogspot.com/2011/05/closing-school-districts-facebook-page.html

Overall, a good blog to read for those interested...

As well stated in an earlier comment by Mr. Blake it should all be about" Open Dialogue" -which is exactly the model that the New Jersey School Board Association is advocating for Social Media for School Districts- as you can see here by 2 recent webinars run with New Milford High School and at a Superintendent Forum held yesterday in Atlantic City.

http://njsba.adobeconnect.com/p13932108/

http://njsba.adobeconnect.com/p10132295/

Thanks, Gary, for the link to the very informative blog about the problems with having comments on a FaceBook page. I also checked out the Princeton School District's FB page since our BOE members used it as an example. It doesn't provide the opportunity to add comments. II'm curious whether they previously allowed comments and then changed, or whether they never had them.

Easy there Betsy- I see comments on the Princeton Facebook Page!
Check you facts next time !!

http://www.facebook.com/mslater#!/pages/Princeton-Regional-Schools-Board-of-Education/109501319075663

Monday at 4:26pm · LikeUnlike · · Share

6 people like this.
*
o
Susan Castellano Evans Yes! What's the next step in final passage?
Monday at 5:33pm · Like

I agree we need more "open" dialogue between the BOE and the community. A Facebook page would allow the community to join the dialogue. It should not be a one way monologue. Thanks!

Excellent point Mr. Lorenzo. With over 750 Million users( including non profits and Schools) all over America Facebook, with open discussion of course,,makes perfect sense.

I just look at the people that are posting here, and I am glad they block them. If you want a facebook page where you can put comments, make your own. Last thing we need is someone highjacking the page to complain about their kids going to a different middle school or why there should not be a traffic light in front of their house

Ms. McBride,

Perhaps you should follow you own advice on complaining.

Ms. McBride,
Sorry I did not finish. Mr. Slater is trying to make things better! Can anyone say the same of you?

Haha Lorenzo. Way to restart this thread just to make fun of someone!

TK,

That sounds like your agenda, spoken anonymously (i.e. - not so boldly).

Thomas, the fact that anyone posts with an anonymous screen name does not lessen the validity of the message. Take the message he is giving you - that your comments "sound" condescending, and at someone's expense. For someone who is so anti-bullying, you have a lesson yet to learn yourself. Watch yourself on Channel 36 and you will hear what others hear when you speak. Your verbal swipes at some on the Board are subtle, sarcastic, insulting and passive aggressive. You sound like a bully yourself.

Now that I know anyone can post a comment using the very same name I use, I would never consider using my real name.

I am sorry my alter ego called Mr. Lorenzo a bully. That was uncalled for considering he has volunteered his time and effort to help. I would rather call him a role model. But thats just me.

"Southside", you have given me a huge clue as to who you are and I cannot believe someone in your position would sink so low. I know who you are and I will call you out in time.

Whatever your name is,

You are entitled to your opinion, but, your refusal to come forward does negate your argument. For all I know you can be anyone and who knows what your agenda really is.

Like you I have an opinion and what I say is hard to hear for some, but, someone must say it.

Are you going to stand up for these children?

I invite you to do so at the next BOE meeting. I will be there.

If you know anything about bullying you would know it requires a imbalance of power, not a power struggle. I do not have any power, just the truth to back up my statements and the courage to stand up and give my name.

In typical bully fashion it is easy to attack and blame the victim (or the person who speaks out on their behalf), which is what you appear to be doing.

If you want to finish the discussion you should step forward, but, I know you won't.

Go click on Lorenzo's name and look at all his posts. I get it, he says bullying is a major concern. However all of his posts are negative in some way, shape or form. In addition, after a topic has been done being commenting on, he has tried to re-start three topics in the last week. Then he throws his negatives comments back in there. Am I being negative? Sure, but at least I'm not going to pretend that I'm not.

TK,

Maybe you missed my intention, as I am not intentionally trying to be negative.

I am just trying to bring this issue to the surface, as It comes up and is dismissed and then gets pushed to the side by nonsense.

There are many positive comments I could make, but, the focus needs to be on what needs to be improved not on what we already do well.

As President Roosevelt said "you may think I am giving you hell, but, I am just telling the truth".

So, you can call what I say negative as but I do not pretend it is positive or hide behind anonymity.

So posting on a website visited by a few hundred people is bringing this issue to its surface. If you want to change something, go to a real meeting. You will accomplish nothing on this site besides getting back and forth banter.

TK,

Right, whatever you say.

The Truth