SPIFfeedback Notepad

SPIF feedback
All posts in the topic Concerns over Forum Management

No later topic All TopicsEarlier topicSummary
•There are 82 posts — by 22 authors — in this topic.

• 1 file in 1 post
Posts with files From File Date

Martin Owings ProposedSPIF_Rules_Owings_Sept_2010.pdf Dec 30 17:56 CST
•Latest post made by Jack Ferman at Dec 31 19:17 CST
From: Rick Mons Date: Sep 01 12:23 CDT

Dann Dobson and Martin Owings have expressed some concerns over my
management
of the forum and my interpretation of forum rules in the thread originally
intended to collect feedback on the recently concluded "online debate for SD
67" Their posts are here (Dobson's: http://bit.ly/9yCHlM and Owings:
http://bit.ly/9xRDi6).
I'll respond first to Mr. Dobson and then to Martin.
Mr. Dobson complaint comes on the heels of my suspending him for two weeks.
He complains that forum managers "act as policeman, prosecutor, Judge Jury and
executioner" and take action "without any outside control ... or any lack of
appeals." He also complains that I am "heavyhanded" in my management of the
forum.
The role of the Forum Manager is pretty well defined in the rules (see
http://pages.e-democracy.org/Rules) and I agree that the rules require managers
to often act as policeman and judge. (Nobody has been executed, however.)
And, those were the rules when Mr Dobson joined e-Democracy. In fact, those
are the rules that Mr Dobson is expected to follow when he manages his
neighborhood e-Democracy forum.
Anytime a member is suspended, notice of that suspension is sent to a forum

read by e-Democracy leadership including other forum managers (there are more
than 20 of us by last count). This serves as a review mechanism to guard
against wildly capricious forum management. If a member receives his/her third
formal warning within a year and is suspended for six months, that member can
appeal to the e-Democracy board. Any such appeal requires the board to review
all three formal warnings and assure that they were legitimately administered.
I suspect what's really behind Mr Dobson's accusation of being "heavyhanded" is

that he's suspended for two weeks. And, I suspended Mr Dobson because he's
received two formal warnings within 12 months.
Under our rules, a two week suspension is required upon receiving a second
Page 1
SPIF feedback
formal warning within 12 months. (A six month suspension is required upon
receiving a third formal warning within 12 months.)
I don't believe Mr Dobson's first warning is under contest. He acknowledged to

me at the time that he knew he was violating SPIF's rules.
His second warning came as a result of a post he made that was not local in
nature. I'd warned Mr. Dobson about posting "off-topic" several times before
issuing this second warning and, in fact, had placed his account under
moderation for several weeks as a result of making yet another non-local post
and after his first warning.
(I guess I could have issued him a warning at that time rather than place him
under moderation; however, I chose not to do so because I am reluctant to
suspend members when I think they can comply.)
Shortly after returning from moderation, Mr Dobson again posted "off-topic" and
that resulted in the second warning. This most recent post was about a
"statewide" election in North Carolina that is using IRV. He made the
identical and verbatim post to SPIF, the Minneapolis Issues forum and the
Minnesota forum with the identical subject line. Nothing in the post
established a unique connection to St Paul or to St Paul residents --
requirements when posting to SPIF.

Now, I'll turn to Mr Owings concerns which seem to focus more on the continued
enforcement of our "civility rule."
Mr. Owings has long argued against my current level of enforcement of the
civility rule. The rule in question reads:
I changed the basis of enforcing the rule in November of 2007 (see

http://bit.ly/bP1163). Prior to that, name-calling was considered a violation
only if it applied to an individual. The enforcement of the rule was expanded
to also cover groups of people.
This was announced and discussed on the forum at the time. The rationale for
making the change was:
• Often it appears that the author realizes (s)he couldn't use those same
words when applied to specific individuals and thus uses the "group" as a
subterfuge.
• Such labelling diverts attention from the issue(s) under discussion and
often devolves into an exchange of insults that was only remotely related to
subject at hand.
Page 2
SPIF feedback
• To many people, this language -- even if it's not personalized to an
individual -- causes the tone of the forum to deteriorate.
Mr Owings theorized then and continues to speculate that this would cause a
decline in membership. In reality, it hasn't. We had 510 members when we made
the change in enforcement policy (November, 2007). We currently have 695
members -- a 36% increase in slightly less than 3 years. Based on membership
trends, we'll have around a 40% increase at the end of three full years.
Mr. Owings also asks how many members have been issued warnings and
suspended
as a result of violating the civility rule and how that compares to the time
before the enforcement was broadened. I'm still in the process of pulling
together information from when I have served as Forum Manager (February of
2007) and will respond once I have more information. I'll ask my predecessors
if they have any information in that regard as nothing was forwarded to me of
prior management actions when I first volunteered.
From: Martin Owings Date: Sep 01 20:33 CDT

Hi Rick,
I understand your frustration and can, to a certain extent, sympathize with
your position. After all it is a volunteer role, which must at times seem
thankless. That shouldn't prevent us from discussing these issues in what I
hope will be a less personal and more issue focused manner.
That said, you are correct that some of my suspicions are based partly on
theory and speculation, which is the exact reason why I requested the
information directly from you. Other facts, such as member warnings and
suspensions, which I have been aware of in the past three years, is what led me
to some of my skepticism.
Your specificity with regard to providing information on warnings and

suspensions related to the “civility” rule raises an excellent point. In order
to avoid the temptation to arbitrarily evaluate what was a “civility” rule
warning or suspension and what was not, I wonder if you could just simply
provide a complete list of ALL the warnings and suspensions issued during the
past three years. For example, off-topic posting or other such infractions. If
you can label them, it will help to better evaluate the information. This would
be very helpful in examining any trends or possible comparisons to previous
forum moderation.
As for the growth of SPIF since the management change, approximately 3 years
ago, you point to a growth rate of 36%. The percentage of growth means next to
nothing unless you can measure it against other, similarly situated “civic
engagement” portals. What might be more telling is that SPIF has added fewer
than 62 members, on average, per year.
Furthermore, you make no reference to the number of members who’ve left SPIF.
Page 3
SPIF feedback
If 62 members per year is an aggregate, you should point that out. It wouldn’t
help your argument much, but it might help to clarify the growth issue.
I’m not specifically requesting this data, but in addition to the concerns I
have with the selectivity in presenting these numbers, I have also raised the
question of diversity. It would be interesting to know what percentage of SPIF
participants are people of color.
Furthermore, it would be helpful to know how many of the 610 current members
have contributed 2 or more posts, which might be a more accurate measure of
actual forum engagement. The devil is in the detail and in this case I would
think the information would be critical to the management of SPIF.
Of course that still leaves open the question of political and ideological
diversity. As you are aware, the few members that would self-identify as right
leaning have been suspended from the forum. In the cases of Mitch Berg , Tom
Swift and John Krenik, I think it would be grossly inaccurate to say they
“walked away from the forum”. To state it plainly, they were thrown out.
I’ve been clear that my interest is a more open, democratic and inclusive
forum. I believe this to be in keeping with the forums charter. Free speech is
of paramount importance to me, especially from a group or forum that purports
to promote civic engagement. Democracy is a rough and tumble practice, it's
ideas and participants might even anger us or create fear, but we must never,
ever let that silence them. Yes, even if they use harsh language.
In focusing too much on rules and rule enforcement, often in the guise of
civility, you run the risk of creating an environment which alienates and does
not engage. I believe the result is counter-intuitive and indeed counter to the
forums original intent. This is precisely how SPIF has managed to marginalize
itself.
As for those that continue to promote the, “love it or leave” argument, well
that’s just plain silly. However, I do strongly support their right to say it.
From: Edward Davis Date: Sep 01 22:34 CDT

To All:
To help measure the success of the Ford Foundation Grant that we

recently received, we are adding analytic tools to be able to answer the
data questions below and many other questions about forum efficacy.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Edward Davis
Help Desk and Support
651 269-3719
Page 4
SPIF feedback
On 9/1/2010 8:36 PM, Martin Owings wrote:

> Hi Rick,
>
> I understand your frustration and can, to a certain extent, sympathize with
your position. After all it is a volunteer role, which must at times seem
thankless. That shouldn't prevent us from discussing these issues in what I
hope will be a less personal and more issue focused manner.
>
> That said, you are correct that some of my suspicions are based partly on
theory and speculation, which is the exact reason why I requested the
information directly from you. Other facts, such as member warnings and
suspensions, which I have been aware of in the past three years, is what led me
to some of my skepticism.
>
> Your specificity with regard to providing information on warnings and
suspensions related to the â€œcivilityâ€ rule raises an excellent point. In
order to avoid the temptation to arbitrarily evaluate what was a â€œcivilityâ€
rule warning or suspension and what was not, I wonder if you could just simply
provide a complete list of ALL the warnings and suspensions issued during the
past three years. For example, off-topic posting or other such infractions. If
you can label them, it will help to better evaluate the information. This would
be very helpful in examining any trends or possible comparisons to previous
forum moderation.
>
> As for the growth of SPIF since the management change, approximately 3 years
ago, you point to a growth rate of 36%. The percentage of growth means next to
nothing unless you can measure it against other, similarly situated â€œcivic
engagementâ€ portals. What might be more telling is that SPIF has added fewer
than 62 members, on average, per year.
>
> Furthermore, you make no reference to the number of members whoâ€™ve left
SPIF. If 62 members per year is an aggregate, you should point that out. It
wouldnâ€™t help your argument much, but it might help to clarify the growth
issue.
>
> Iâ€™m not specifically requesting this data, but in addition to the concerns
I have with the selectivity in presenting these numbers, I have also raised the
question of diversity. It would be interesting to know what percentage of SPIF
participants are people of color.
>
> Furthermore, it would be helpful to know how many of the 610 current members
have contributed 2 or more posts, which might be a more accurate measure of
actual forum engagement. The devil is in the detail and in this case I would
think the information would be critical to the management of SPIF.
>
> Of course that still leaves open the question of political and ideological
diversity. As you are aware, the few members that would self-identify as right
Page 5
SPIF feedback
leaning have been suspended from the forum. In the cases of Mitch Berg , Tom
Swift and John Krenik, I think it would be grossly inaccurate to say they
â€œwalked away from the forumâ€. To state it plainly, they were thrown out.
>
> Iâ€™ve been clear that my interest is a more open, democratic and inclusive
forum. I believe this to be in keeping with the forums charter. Free speech is
of paramount importance to me, especially from a group or forum that purports
to promote civic engagement. Democracy is a rough and tumble practice, it's
ideas and participants might even anger us or create fear, but we must never,
ever let that silence them. Yes, even if they use harsh language.
>
> In focusing too much on rules and rule enforcement, often in the guise of
civility, you run the risk of creating an environment which alienates and does
not engage. I believe the result is counter-intuitive and indeed counter to the
forums original intent. This is precisely how SPIF has managed to marginalize
itself.
>
> As for those that continue to promote the, â€œlove it or leaveâ€ argument,
well thatâ€™s just plain silly. However, I do strongly support their right to
say it.
> Martin Owings
> http://radiofreenation.blogspot.com, Saint Paul
> Info about Martin Owings: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/henryhammer
>
> View all messages on this topic at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5P6VWauScg3JcZXWkrZQyC

> More information about St. Paul Issues Forum Feedback:

> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
To answer a couple of Martin Owings' questions:
1) The membership counts provided are the net membership numbers. That is, it
shows the membership count with the addition of new members and the subtraction
of those who have left.
The gain in membership from 510 to 695 is based on the actual membership counts
at the time I looked at the roster -- the net numbers. Thus, more than 185
folks have joined since 11/07 but that gain was offset by those who have left
for the net of the 185 member increase.
Page 6
SPIF feedback
Ed Davis's note about additional data that is being collected is new

information to me so I'll wait and see what it indicates along with everyone
else.
2) I thought I could retrieve data regarding warnings from 2008 but cannot.
(They were kept in a data file that is corrupted on my back up drive.)
Offhand, I believe there were at least five warnings issued in 2008 -- two of
which went to a member who strongly disagreed with the change in the civility
rule's enforcement and left the forum after receiving the second formal warning
for a breach of civility.
The data I have now is based upon Gmail archives and shows the following for
2009 through today.
2009: Based on my records, there were five formal warnings issued to three
individuals. One individual received three warnings during the year and was
thus suspended for two weeks and later for six months (from November through
May of 2010).
That person received their first warning for violation of the civility rule (
Rule 4). The second warning was issued for continued discussion of forum
management on the main forum rather than in Feedback or via private e-mail
(Rule 9). The third warning was issued for both violation of the civility rule
and intentionally making a false accusation (Rule 7). This member appealed the
third warning and resulting suspension to the e-Democracy board which upheld
the warning and suspension. That member has since returned to SPIF and
continues to post.
The other two members received one formal warning apiece. One was warned for a
violation of the civility rule. I issued the other member a formal warning
for making a personal attack on another member (Rule 5).
2010: Two persons have received formal warnings this year and three warnings
have been issued. One person received a warning for releasing a private e-mail
(Rule 6) and discussing forum management on the main forum. That person has
not returned to the forum after the warning was issued.
The second person received their first formal warning for discussing forum
management on the main forum. I issued a second warning to that person for
posting a non-local topic after being warned several times to observe the
requirement that topics be local to St Paul. As a result of the second
warning, that person was suspended from participation for two weeks.
Of the five who have received formal warnings since 2008, one hasn't identified
a political affiliation, one has identified themselves as a member of the Green
Party and another as a Republican. Two are DFLers.
Page 7
SPIF feedback
I'll note two related matters. First, I typically precede any formal warning
with private e-mails to the members advising them to pay heed to the rules or a
post to the forum in general when either a thread is veering off-topic or
getting fairly heated and personal. I typically also tell the member that I'm
not issuing a formal warning but will need to do so if they continue the same
manner of posting.
Second, if a member is having trouble staying within the rules, I may place
their account on moderation (see Paragraph 4 under the warnings section of the
rules). I generally do this if a member has already received a formal warning
and/or has demonstrated a difficult time staying within the forum's rules.
(Typically it involves members who have failed to keep their posts local and/or
had difficulty following the requirements for maintaining civility, avoiding
personal attacks, etc.)
As provided under the rules, I notify any member whose account is under
moderation. Right now there is one member under moderation.
Hi Rick,
Thank you for pulling together this information so quickly.
To summarize:
2007 - No Data
2008 - 5 formal warnings, 1 suspension (left forum).
2009 - 5 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 six month suspension.
2010 - 3 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 member left after being
suspended. (to date)
CIVILITY:
2008 - 2 warnings were issued to a person who disagreed with the civility rules
changes, 1 civility rule suspension.
2009 - 4 warnings and 2 suspensions were issued for violating the civility
rules and then subsequent complaining about the warning or suspension, 2010 -
no civility rule warnings or suspensions to date.
Total: 13 formal warnings (6 for civility rules violations), 2 two-week

suspensions (both civility rules violations) and 3 members left after being
warned or suspended (2 civility rules violations).
Please verify that what I've interpreted in this information is accurate? If I

follow your numbers correctly it appears that 3 specific members were the
recipients of 4 warnings and 2 suspensions, resulting in two members
permanently leaving SPIF?
If so, did two of those three identify as Conservative/Right leaning members?

Page 8
SPIF feedback
If not, how do we account for the three known members I brought up in the
previous email?
Also, since you mentioned it, it sounds as if you also utilize an "informal"
warning method. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think those qualify as
warnings. Any ideas on those numbers? Assuming you're issuing "informal"
warnings more frequently, that data would matter.
Thanks for clearing up the membership count question. Those are aggregate
numbers so the 62 members per year on average sounds like it is fairly
accurate? (I rounded up from 61.666)
In addition to providing the above information, you also added much explanation
to each of the suspensions, what rules were violated and the resulting
discipline you took against the member. In providing the information you've
also taken the time to explain/defend each of the actions in almost every case.
I appreciate your approach and would be tempted to do the same myself, however
this illustrates exactly why the data needs to be examined objectively,
separately from role of Forum Moderator. No explanations, just raw data and
unbiased comparisons.
But before we ever get to that, SPIF/eDemocracy needs a much better method for
documenting informal/formal warnings as well as suspensions and any other
disciplinary actions it takes against its membership, I hope you would agree.
I still need to see the prior years data, if any exists. This would make a
comparison possible. The primary reason for a comparison would be the
following:
1 Prove that either the moderation/discipline of the membership has increased

or declined.
2. Evaluation of impacts on the membership, whether it effected growth or not

and if so, to what degree.
3. To compare the impacts on political/ideological diversity within SPIF. In

other words, are we strictly disciplining Right leaners or is the discipline
equally distributed and has there been any change in how it is applied.
Finally, this information gives us a basis to begin a thoughtful evaluation and

discussion of the rules, moderation and inclusiveness of SPIF. Thank you for
being responsive and I look forward to more on this issue.
If you have questions or want to talk directly about the data or the overall
issue, I can be reached at 612.599.3030.
Page 9
SPIF feedback
From: steve scholl Date: Sep 03 10:29 CDT
i have found the discussion of warnings and other consequences interesting. i

wonder if it is possible for rick to indicate the distinct number of people.
he noted that a certain number of people recieved a total number of warnings
each year. would it be possible to know if the people from year to year were
the same, totally different, etc?
would it be possible to display the data by person?
thank you,
steve scholl
highland,
st paul

> From: <email obscured>

> Subject: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
> To: <email obscured>
> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:03:04 +1200
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> Thank you for pulling together this information so quickly.
>
> To summarize:
>
> 2007 - No Data
> 2008 - 5 formal warnings, 1 suspension (left forum).
> 2009 - 5 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 six month suspension.
> 2010 - 3 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 member left after being
>
> CIVILITY:
> 2008 - 2 warnings were issued to a person who disagreed with the civility
rules changes, 1 civility rule suspension.
> 2009 - 4 warnings and 2 suspensions were issued for violating the civility
>
> Total: 13 formal warnings (6 for civility rules violations), 2 two-week
>
Page 10
SPIF feedback
> Please verify that what I've interpreted in this information is accurate? If
I follow your numbers correctly it appears that 3 specific members were the
>
> If so, did two of those three identify as Conservative/Right leaning members?
If not, how do we account for the three known members I brought up in the
previous email?
>
> Also, since you mentioned it, it sounds as if you also utilize an "informal"
warning method. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think those qualify as
warnings. Any ideas on those numbers? Assuming you're issuing "informal"
>
> Thanks for clearing up the membership count question. Those are aggregate
>
> In addition to providing the above information, you also added much
explanation to each of the suspensions, what rules were violated and the
resulting discipline you took against the member. In providing the information
you've also taken the time to explain/defend each of the actions in almost
every case.
>
> I appreciate your approach and would be tempted to do the same myself,
however this illustrates exactly why the data needs to be examined objectively,
>
> But before we ever get to that, SPIF/eDemocracy needs a much better method
for documenting informal/formal warnings as well as suspensions and any other
>
> I still need to see the prior years data, if any exists. This would make a
following:
>
> 1 Prove that either the moderation/discipline of the membership has increased
or declined.
>
> 2. Evaluation of impacts on the membership, whether it effected growth or not
and if so, to what degree.
>
> 3. To compare the impacts on political/ideological diversity within SPIF. In
other words, are we strictly disciplining Right leaners or is the discipline
>
> Finally, this information gives us a basis to begin a thoughtful evaluation
Page 11
SPIF feedback
and discussion of the rules, moderation and inclusiveness of SPIF. Thank you
for being responsive and I look forward to more on this issue.
>
> If you have questions or want to talk directly about the data or the overall
issue, I can be reached at 612.599.3030.
> Martin Owings
> http://radiofreenation.blogspot.com, Saint Paul
> Info about Martin Owings: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/henryhammer
>
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/16wLfiAZE1gXvi8mgO4rgf
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, e-mail: <email obscured>
> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
> in subject, then send to: <email obscured>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
From: Grace Kelly (nicknamed Kelly) Date: Sep 03 13:58 CDT
Share:
Link to this by copy/pasting the URL below into an email:
Greetings,
My take on the history of the SPIF which starts even before this moderator's
term, is that "civility" was the big issue - whether we should have it. Over
time, through surveys, discussions and demonstrations that everyone wants
civility directed towards them, the standards of civility became widely
accepted. Having solved the large controversy, the SPIF supporting organization
then slowly evolved back to a smaller organization of just a moderator, backed
by other moderators and the overall board.
Quite frankly I think that looking at old fashioned labels like
Conservative/Right does a dis-service to our writers. We are all more
complicated than that. Our discussions and disagreements are more far ranging.
In looking a civility violations when I was leading the committee overseeing
the moderation, it was obvious that every civility violation could have been
easily avoided with just a little bit of work on facts and re phrasing the
sentences to actually make a better case. It some cases, I even had some people
admit that. Sometimes people want the attention of the moderator, etc. It is
just like a kid in a classroom being bad to get attention.
And those of us who were overseeing actively before are still around watching.
Basically my personal assessment is that it is going well, very well.
However if we wish to re-open the civility wars, then I suggest that the
moderator not be the target, the rule should be the target.
And remember that if the civility rule is dropped, that I am here. I was the
Page 12
SPIF feedback
one was able to write in such a way that every "conservative/right" person
demanded the civility rule just to shut me up.
For example: If your painstaking analysis showed that indeed more
"conservative/right" people had been warned, etc. I would follow up with
painstaking analysis of how those "conservative/right" people deserved to be
warned, etc., how that the whole "conservative/right" movement engaged in
conversation that tended to violate rules and laws. I would conclude that these
rule breakers/law breakers do not deserve to be in our online conversations, in
our living rooms and especially not in our government.
Now it does not take much imagination to see where this will all go.
So why don't we just pretend that it all happened. And yes it is still a good
idea to have the civility rule - for everyone.
And why don't we all just say thank you to the moderator!
Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly, yep, still here!

> Subject: Re: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:29:57 -0500
>
>
>
> i have found the discussion of warnings and other consequences interesting.
i wonder if it is possible for rick to indicate the distinct number of people.

>
> would it be possible to display the data by person?
>
> thank you,
>
> steve scholl
> highland,
> st paul
>
>
>
> > From: <email obscured>
> > Subject: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
> > To: <email obscured>
> > Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:03:04 +1200
>>
> > Hi Rick,
>>
Page 13
SPIF feedback
> > Thank you for pulling together this information so quickly.
>>
> > To summarize:
>>
> > 2007 - No Data
> > 2008 - 5 formal warnings, 1 suspension (left forum).
> > 2009 - 5 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 six month suspension.
> > 2010 - 3 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 member left after being
>>
> > CIVILITY:
> > 2008 - 2 warnings were issued to a person who disagreed with the civility
> > 2009 - 4 warnings and 2 suspensions were issued for violating the civility
>>
> > Total: 13 formal warnings (6 for civility rules violations), 2 two-week
>>
> > Please verify that what I've interpreted in this information is accurate?
If I follow your numbers correctly it appears that 3 specific members were the
>>
> > If so, did two of those three identify as Conservative/Right leaning
members? If not, how do we account for the three known members I brought up in
the previous email?
>>
> > Also, since you mentioned it, it sounds as if you also utilize an
"informal" warning method. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think those qualify
as warnings. Any ideas on those numbers? Assuming you're issuing "informal"
>>
> > Thanks for clearing up the membership count question. Those are aggregate
>>
> > In addition to providing the above information, you also added much
every case.
>>
> > I appreciate your approach and would be tempted to do the same myself,
Page 14
SPIF feedback
>>
> > But before we ever get to that, SPIF/eDemocracy needs a much better method
for documenting informal/formal warnings as well as suspensions and any other
>>
> > I still need to see the prior years data, if any exists. This would make a
following:
>>
> > 1 Prove that either the moderation/discipline of the membership has
increased or declined.
>>
> > 2. Evaluation of impacts on the membership, whether it effected growth or
not and if so, to what degree.
>>
> > 3. To compare the impacts on political/ideological diversity within SPIF.
In other words, are we strictly disciplining Right leaners or is the discipline
>>
> > Finally, this information gives us a basis to begin a thoughtful evaluation
and discussion of the rules, moderation and inclusiveness of SPIF. Thank you
for being responsive and I look forward to more on this issue.
>>
> > If you have questions or want to talk directly about the data or the
overall issue, I can be reached at 612.599.3030.
> > Martin Owings
> > http://radiofreenation.blogspot.com, Saint Paul
> > Info about Martin Owings: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/henryhammer
>>
> > View all messages on this topic at:
> > -----------------------------------------
> > To post, e-mail: <email obscured>
> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
> > in subject, then send to: <email obscured>
>>
> > More information about St. Paul Issues Forum Feedback:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
>>
> > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> steve scholl
> highland, st paul
> Info about steve scholl: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stevescholl
Page 15
SPIF feedback
>
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1CAbhLEUgrKkTTnUXcYsSB
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
From: steve scholl Date: Sep 03 14:07 CDT
Share:
i only asked if it was possible for a count of the distinct number of people
who have recieved a warning. i did not say anything about, nor could i care,
if whoever received a warning was conservative, liberal, or a journalist. ms
kelly must be responding to something else, but it was certainly not to me.
thank you,
steve scholl,
highland, st paul

> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 18:58:19 +0000
>
>
> Greetings,
> My take on the history of the SPIF which starts even before this moderator's
term, is that "civility" was the big issue - whether we should have it. Over
time, through surveys, discussions and demonstrations that everyone wants
civility directed towards them, the standards of civility became widely
accepted. Having solved the large controversy, the SPIF supporting organization
then slowly evolved back to a smaller organization of just a moderator, backed
by other moderators and the overall board.
> Quite frankly I think that looking at old fashioned labels like
Conservative/Right does a dis-service to our writers. We are all more
complicated than that. Our discussions and disagreements are more far ranging.
Page 16
SPIF feedback
> In looking a civility violations when I was leading the committee overseeing
the moderation, it was obvious that every civility violation could have been
easily avoided with just a little bit of work on facts and re phrasing the
sentences to actually make a better case. It some cases, I even had some people
admit that. Sometimes people want the attention of the moderator, etc. It is
just like a kid in a classroom being bad to get attention.
> And those of us who were overseeing actively before are still around
watching. Basically my personal assessment is that it is going well, very well.
> However if we wish to re-open the civility wars, then I suggest that the
moderator not be the target, the rule should be the target.
> And remember that if the civility rule is dropped, that I am here. I was the
one was able to write in such a way that every "conservative/right" person
demanded the civility rule just to shut me up.
> For example: If your painstaking analysis showed that indeed more
"conservative/right" people had been warned, etc. I would follow up with
painstaking analysis of how those "conservative/right" people deserved to be
warned, etc., how that the whole "conservative/right" movement engaged in
conversation that tended to violate rules and laws. I would conclude that these
rule breakers/law breakers do not deserve to be in our online conversations, in
our living rooms and especially not in our government.
> Now it does not take much imagination to see where this will all go.
> So why don't we just pretend that it all happened. And yes it is still a good
idea to have the civility rule - for everyone.
> And why don't we all just say thank you to the moderator!
> Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly, yep, still here!
>
> > Subject: Re: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
> > Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:29:57 -0500
>>
>>
>>
> > i have found the discussion of warnings and other consequences interesting.
i wonder if it is possible for rick to indicate the distinct number of people.

>>
> > would it be possible to display the data by person?
>>
> > thank you,
>>
> > steve scholl
> > highland,
Page 17
SPIF feedback
> > st paul
>>
>>
>>
> > > From: <email obscured>
> > > Subject: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
> > > To: <email obscured>
> > > Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:03:04 +1200
>>>
> > > Hi Rick,
>>>
> > > Thank you for pulling together this information so quickly.
>>>
> > > To summarize:
>>>
> > > 2007 - No Data
> > > 2008 - 5 formal warnings, 1 suspension (left forum).
> > > 2009 - 5 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 six month suspension.
> > > 2010 - 3 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 member left after
being suspended. (to date)
>>>
> > > CIVILITY:
> > > 2008 - 2 warnings were issued to a person who disagreed with the civility
> > > 2009 - 4 warnings and 2 suspensions were issued for violating the
civility rules and then subsequent complaining about the warning or suspension,
2010 - no civility rule warnings or suspensions to date.
>>>
> > > Total: 13 formal warnings (6 for civility rules violations), 2 two-week
>>>
> > > Please verify that what I've interpreted in this information is accurate?
If I follow your numbers correctly it appears that 3 specific members were the
>>>
> > > If so, did two of those three identify as Conservative/Right leaning
members? If not, how do we account for the three known members I brought up in
the previous email?
>>>
> > > Also, since you mentioned it, it sounds as if you also utilize an
"informal" warning method. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think those qualify
as warnings. Any ideas on those numbers? Assuming you're issuing "informal"
>>>
> > > Thanks for clearing up the membership count question. Those are aggregate
Page 18
SPIF feedback
>>>
> > > In addition to providing the above information, you also added much
every case.
>>>
> > > I appreciate your approach and would be tempted to do the same myself,
>>>
> > > But before we ever get to that, SPIF/eDemocracy needs a much better
method for documenting informal/formal warnings as well as suspensions and any
other disciplinary actions it takes against its membership, I hope you would
agree.
>>>
> > > I still need to see the prior years data, if any exists. This would make
a comparison possible. The primary reason for a comparison would be the
following:
>>>
> > > 1 Prove that either the moderation/discipline of the membership has
increased or declined.
>>>
> > > 2. Evaluation of impacts on the membership, whether it effected growth or
not and if so, to what degree.
>>>
> > > 3. To compare the impacts on political/ideological diversity within SPIF.
In other words, are we strictly disciplining Right leaners or is the discipline
>>>
> > > Finally, this information gives us a basis to begin a thoughtful
evaluation and discussion of the rules, moderation and inclusiveness of SPIF.
Thank you for being responsive and I look forward to more on this issue.
>>>
> > > If you have questions or want to talk directly about the data or the
overall issue, I can be reached at 612.599.3030.
> > > Martin Owings
> > > http://radiofreenation.blogspot.com, Saint Paul
> > > Info about Martin Owings: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/henryhammer
>>>
> > > View all messages on this topic at:
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > To post, e-mail: <email obscured>
> > > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
> > > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
Page 19
SPIF feedback
> > > in subject, then send to: <email obscured>
>>>
> > > More information about St. Paul Issues Forum Feedback:
> > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
>>>
> > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
> > steve scholl
> > highland, st paul
> > Info about steve scholl: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stevescholl
>>
> > View all messages on this topic at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1CAbhLEUgrKkTTnUXcYsSB
> > -----------------------------------------
> > To post, e-mail: <email obscured>
> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly.
> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on"
> > in subject, then send to: <email obscured>
>>
> > More information about St. Paul Issues Forum Feedback:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
>>
> > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> Grace (nicknamed Kelly) Kelly
> Merriam Park, St Paul
> Info about Grace Kelly (nicknamed Kelly):
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/gracekelly
>
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2s2Zjd9hHDUEy5dUJzrUgR
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
Page 20
SPIF feedback
Share:
Thank you for lending your input to this important discussion Grace.
Firstly, I don't think anyone is debating the complete elimination of civility

rule. Also, people should NOT have to "re-phrase" their posts to accomodate
what has digressed into an arguably, arbitrary interpretation of the meaning of
"civility".
You suggest that this issue was discussed and "widely accepted", but you leave
out the fact that there were more than a few of us who consistently raised
concerns. In additon, it was never put to a vote of the "e-Democracy" SPIF
group, nor were the questions on the survey formed in an unbiased way, nor was
the broader membership given an opportunity to help formulate the questions on
the survey.
For instance, "Would you feel more comfortable with a strict enforcement of the
civility rule?", when an additional questions such as, "Would you feel
comfortable if enforcement of the civility rule ever interfered with freedom of
speech?", were left off of the survey.
Also, you call the use of labels such as Right/Conservative, "old fashioned"
and yet you use those exact terms later in the same post. Anyone evaluating
this issue objectively should be able to understand that "painstaking analysis"
or just plain old "regular analysis" is the only fair way to evaluate the
impacts of moderation and dicipline as it relates to the membership of this
forum.
As you point out, this should NOT be about the Moderator, and it isn't. That is
why I've stated numerous time that it is about the larger issues, not the
person. You can also help if you make an effort to avoid using this language,
since it only serves to distract from the actual issue.
Lastly, your remarks and stated opinions about conservatives only helps to
further illustrate the point about bias'. While you're free to express your own
"personal assessment" about those with opposing political ideologies, there are
those who are not, within the interpretation and enforcement of the current
rules. That simple fact alone should give you pause in seeing this issue as
larger than just a question of "civility".
You seem interested in seeing SPIF remain the way that it is dispite the fact
that a number of its members have serious concerns. Rather than pretending that
these concerns don't exist, as you suggest, we are simply asking to evaluate
the impacts, start a more inclusive dialog and eventually work toward improving
the diversity of engagement. I hope you will consider giving the process a
chance and reserving judegment until a full evaluation and a fair discussion
can take place.
Page 21
SPIF feedback
Share:
In response to Steve's question, the five members who have received warnings in
2009 and 2010 are separate individuals. The three members who received
warnings in 2009 have not received a warning in 2010. And the two individuals
who received warnings in 2010 had not received any warnings in 2009.
The one individual who received three warnings in 2009 had received two formal
warnings prior to those and was suspended for two weeks prior to 2009. Thus,
during the time I have managed the forum, I've given that person five formal
warnings. There were 12 months between the second and third formal warnings so
the 3rd, 4th and 5th warnings (which occurred within 12 months of each other)
were the basis of the 6-month suspension.
One of the two individuals who received formal warnings in 2010 had received at
least one formal warning in either 2007 or 2008. More than 12 months had
lapsed between the most recent warning (in 2010) and any prior warning.
I do not normally identify the name of a member who's received formal warnings
until the third formal warning and the suspension for six months.
Turning to Martin's questions:
● Of the three individuals you named in your first post, one had
been removed
from SPIF by the either the SPIF or e-Democracy board before I became a forum
manager. I believe your understanding is incorrect regarding one of the others
and can talk to you via telephone about it if you wish (651-334-6825).
● In your recast of my summary, there are a couple of errors or

misstatements.
I'm not sure what information you're using in addition to what I've written --
again, please give me a call if you wish to discuss.
● We disagree regarding the need to track advisories I send to

members;
moreover, I don't maintain a count of any advisories that I've sent to members
unless they're formal warnings.
There's no cumulative effect upon membership unless a formal warning is sent.

When issues arise, I'll either send a post to the forum as a whole (generally
when a topic is not "local") or send a private e-mail to the individual(s)
involved. Those methods usually resolve the matter but if it persists then I
may escalate it to a formal warning.
From: Matt Perry Date: Sep 03 16:49 CDT
Share:
Mr. Owings,
Page 22
SPIF feedback
Can you succinctly explain what your hypothesis is and how the type of data you
are asking for helps lead to proving or disproving that hypothesis?
I'm curious from the perspective of my role as an e-democracy.org forum manager

as well as a student and practitioner of community engagement.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Matt Perry
East Harriet Farmstead/Minneapolis
Share:
Rick - Thank you for taking the time to talk with me on the phone today.
To recap our discussion on the data, please verify that the following is now
correct:
2007 - No Data
2008 - 5 formal warnings, 1 suspension (left forum).
2009 - 5 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 six month suspension.
2010 - 3 formal warnings, 1 two-week suspension, 1 member left after being
issued a formal warning. (to date)
We continue to disagree on the need to track "informal" warnings, however you

stated in our conversation that each of the people who received "formal"
warnings also received "informal" warnings. You also mentioned that an
indeterminent amount of "informal" warnings were also issued to other members.
At this time, there is no offical tracking of the "informal" warnings and you
also said you do not informally track or keep this data.
This is important, because a warning is a warning, whether it is informal or

formal and while it may have no cumulitive impact on a subsequent suspension,
it does impact the member receiving the warning. They may be less likely to
post or to present a view that isn't in keeping with others or in compliance
with the "civility" rule. Therefore, less like to post.
As for the bias in the issuance of warnings and suspensions. Here is what I
have, please confirm this as well:
Of the 13 formal warnings issued in the past 3 years, 4 of those have resulted
in either a 2 week or 6 month suspension. Of those 4 suspensions, 2 individuals
have left SPIF permanently and a third was banned (Tom Swift), prior to
Moderator change in Feb 2007. Of those that are gone, all of them self-identify
Page 23
SPIF feedback
as conservatives. The remaining members who received warnings are still members
if I understand correctly and none of them have left the group.
If nothing else, it should raise a concern that on face value, it appears that
the members who are now gone were all conservatives. Whether this speaks
directly to the issuance of warnings of is a by-product of our lack of
inclusiveness, it is admittedly difficult to tell.
Open issues:
1. Diversity of membership, in race, culture, ideology, religion, gender and

political affliations. What can SPIF do to encourage a broader participation?
2. Level of participation of membership. What constitutes participation? If it

isn't just 2 or more posts, what is it? Maybe the data that is being assembled
by the managers will help us gain a better picture of this.
3. Feedom of speech and expression. SPIF is a private group that can and does
set forth its own rules. However, it is also a 501c3 which receives grant
funding from organizations that may be more concerned about the issue and its
broader effects than the local Administrators.
4. The tracking of diciplinary data. SPIF can and should establish guidelines
and systems for the tracking and reporting of all types of disciplinary actions
against its membership. That means, formal and informal disciplinary actions.
5. The data SPIF collects or should collect, would be invaluable in creating

metrics which can be used to measure the effects of its policies and procedures
on its membership. In the hope it can be used to improve the short and long
term vitality of the site.
Lastly, you suggested that the concerns I've raised here are not widely shared
on SPIF. You mentioned that I should avoid using the phrase, "a number of us
have expressed concerns". Okay, fair enough. You asked me to be more specific
about numbers of people who have concerns. Since I can't speak for them, I
won't. If they want to speak up, they certainly can and probably should if they
feel compelled to do so.
From: Sheldon Gitis Date: Oct 05 19:52 CDT
Share:
I think I'm the person, referred to above, who received the 6 month suspension
in 2009. My violation, according to Mr. Mons, was that I described Mayor
Coleman as "the cheerleader (for the Central Corridor project) who would not
negotiate."
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/7jRQOMqYPUA7R6VjYhvN8U
Is there anyone who thinks that Mayor Coleman is NOT a cheerleader for the
Central Corridor project? Is there anyone, other than perhaps Mr. Mons and a
Page 24
SPIF feedback
handful of Central Corridor project/Chris Coleman boosters, who thinks that the
message I posted merited a suspension of any length?
From: Andrew Hine Date: Oct 05 21:09 CDT
Share:
I agree, Sheldon, that that's not grounds for six months. But as in
the case of a gusset plate failure, it's not so much the last 1000 psi
of stress that leads to catastrophe as it is the first 10,000,000.
Did you exceed some sort of yield point before this last strenuous
event, and couldn't elastically return to the origin? Did you initiate
the crack or just propagate it?
What was the question?

AMH
On Oct 5, 2010, at 7:35 PM, "Sheldon Gitis" <email obscured>> wrote:
> I think I'm the person, referred to above, who received the 6 month
> suspension in 2009. My violation, according to Mr. Mons, was that I
> described Mayor Coleman as "the cheerleader (for the Central
> Corridor project) who would not negotiate."
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/7jRQOMqYPUA7R6VjYhvN8U
>
> Is there anyone who thinks that Mayor Coleman is NOT a cheerleader
> for the Central Corridor project? Is there anyone, other than
> perhaps Mr. Mons and a handful of Central Corridor project/Chris
> Coleman boosters, who thinks that the message I posted merited a
> suspension of any length?
> Sheldon Gitis
> South St. Anthony Park
> About Sheldon Gitis: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/sheldongitis
>
> View full topic, share on Facebook, Twitter, etc:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2M9sVk6m6WWIDkSVNAlDR5
>------------------------
> To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or "Reply-
> to-All" to post publicly.
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" OR "digest on" in
> subject instead.
>
> Forum home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
>------------------------
> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting thanks:
http://OnlineGroups.Net
> Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/edemocracyorg
From: Rick Mons Date: Oct 05 22:11 CDT
Page 25
SPIF feedback
Share:
Mr. Gitis likes to tell only part of the story and gloss over certain
elements of why he was suspended for six months.
First, Mr. Gitis was suspended because he received three formal warnings
within a 12 month period of time. His account was also placed on moderation
twice within that 12 month period of time rather than issue him the third
formal warning before the time finally came.
His third warning came as a result of the post he made and referenced below.
The warning was issued for a rare event: two rule violations within one
post. The post's title engaged in name-calling; the post's content alleged
that there was an illegal act of accepting and/or soliciting a kickback.
Finally, Mr. Gitis appealed this third warning and the resultant suspension.
The e-Democracy panel denied his appeal and it was noted that the offending
post demonstrates "a pattern of rule violating behavior that runs afoul of
our civility rules."
Here's the text of the warning he was given:

----------------------
Mr. Gitis,
I am issuing a formal warning for your post copied below. The reference to
"Cheerleader" in the subject line violates the rule on civility ("no
name-calling"). Also, within the body of your post, you accuse the mayor of
accepting and/or soliciting kickbacks which is an illegal act. Unless you
can provide evidence of the same, this accusation is a violation of Rule 7:
Rumors of a personal nature are not allowed. Your posts must be accurate
based on your full knowledge and never intentionally false. Unverified
"grapevine" information of a public nature must be within a forum's
issue-based scope to be appropriate.
This is your third warning within 12 months and you will therefore be
suspended from participating in the forum for six months. You may rejoin
the forum on May 1, 2010. Your first warning within this 12-month period
was issued on 4/15/2009 for breach of the civility rule. Your second
warning was issued on 8/16/2009 for discussing forum management on the
forum. You have also received a number of informal advisories about the
need to remain on topic and/or refrain from personal exchanges and/or
Page 26
SPIF feedback
breaches of the civility rule -- all of which resulted in your account being
placed in moderation for varying lengths of time.
Please advise if you have any questions or wish to discuss further.
----------------------
Rick Mons, SPIF Forum Manager

for those reading SPIF via their Internet browser:
email to: fm-stpaul AT e-democracy.org
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Sheldon Gitis <email obscured>> wrote:
> described Mayor Coleman as "the cheerleader (for the Central Corridor
> project) who would not negotiate."
>
> Is there anyone who thinks that Mayor Coleman is NOT a cheerleader for the
> Central Corridor project? Is there anyone, other than perhaps Mr. Mons and
> a handful of Central Corridor project/Chris Coleman boosters, who thinks
> that the message I posted merited a suspension of any length?
> Sheldon Gitis
>
>------------------------
> To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or "Reply-to-All"
> to post publicly.
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" OR "digest on" in subject
> instead.
>
>------------------------
> http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
From: Martin Owings Date: Oct 05 23:16 CDT
Share:
Mr. Gitis' past transgressions not withstanding, the use of the term
"Cheerleader" and the notion that it is somehow connected to the civility rule
Page 27
SPIF feedback
and grounds for suspension in itself doesn't make much sense. Another example
of how the rules are arbitrarily applied.
This forum isn't some sandlot ball game waiting for an "adult" to come by to
supervise the kids, but it is treated as such.
So far here's what I have, correct me if I'm wrong:
Tom Swift - Suspended

Mitch Berg - Left after receiving warnings.
Sharon Anderson - Suspended
Sheldon Gitis - Suspended
Bill Krenik - Suspended
Please add anyone that I've missed Rick.
Multiple official warnings issued. An untold, untracked number of "advisories"

and or "unofficial" warnings issued.' All in a three year period, all for a
forum with less than 600 members and far, far fewer participants?
I wish there was a willingness to see that regardless of these peoples

political ideologies, or even the language they used to express their ideas,
they were contributing members who at least made the forum more vibrant and
often contributed to an understanding of opposing views.
It's sometimes helpful to keep in mind that these people are our neighbors and
I for one think they deserve better.
Share:
A few corrections are in order:
● "Bill" Krenik is John Krenik. As I've advised you before, Mr Krenik has
not been suspended to my recollection.
● As I've written before, the suspension of Tom Swift was before my time and
certainly more than three years ago. Also before my time and more than
three years ago was the suspension of Bob Johnson which you've not listed.
● The decision to suspend Sharon Anderson was made by the St Paul

e-Democracy Board and I was not directly involved in the decision. My
understanding is that there were a number of factors that led to the
suspension.
One of the factors, however, involved me directly: Ms Anderson falsely and

repeatedly claimed that I was practicing real estate without a license.
(Her other rants about my colluding with Mayor Coleman's wife who was also
a Realtor, etc were mere irritants; however, this allegation affected my
Page 28
SPIF feedback
livelihood.) Although I provided Ms Anderson with my license number and
with the direct link by which she could verify it, she persisted in the lie.
There apparently were similar episodes involving prior forum managers and
others which finally caused the board to suspend her participation.
● missing from your list of suspensions within the past three years is Dann
Dobson. How soon you apparently forget -- that was the genesis of your
most recent statement of outrage and unhappiness.
● the third warning given to Mr Gitis was prompted by two violations. Mr

Gitis (and apparently you) ignores the rule violation when he alleged that
the Mayor was receiving and/or soliciting kickbacks. Mr Gitis has a pattern
of making statements and accusations without any valid support and/or on the
basis of erroneous assumptions. If he does it again in a like manner, he'll
receive another warning. If the warning is administered prior to November
16, he faces a five year suspension from all e-Democracy forums.
Now, on to three other matters:
First, you claim the rules are "arbitrarily applied." Can you provide
specific examples of such arbitrary application? I interpret your statement
that rules are applied to some but not other members -- so I'm curious to
see what you think has been allowed to slide in some cases but not in
others.
Second, you suggest that the level of enforcement of this forum is somehow
out of proportion for its membership count. I suspect it's simply opinion
but perhaps you have some empirical basis for that statement? What other
civic engagement forums are you comparing to SPIF?
Finally, you have made the claim several times that this disagreement is not
"personal." In fact, you wrote another member in a related thread several
weeks ago:
As you point out, this should NOT be about the Moderator, and it
isn't. That is why I've stated numerous time that
it is about the larger issues, not the person.
Yet:
● you claim I forget that members "are our neighbors" and that the
membership deserves more than it receives from me;
● you complain "Mr. Mons leans too much on the first part of the rule,
Page 29
SPIF feedback
exercising his authority, and too little on the last, or more important part
of the rule" and "(f)urthermore, it is my opinion that in his "advisory" to
Mr. Dobson, Mr. Mons ignores one of the critical tenets of eDemocracy;"
● You've written "there was a change in local forum management and in the
Moderator (currently Mr. Mons). It didn't take long before moderation,
suspension and expulsion became a tool to quell "un-wanted" discourse;"
● You've admonished e-Democracy that "There are more than a

few of us
who think its (sic) time for a change at SPIF"
While claiming to be interested in the forward movement of SPIF,

you're much more interested in kvetching about my management of the
forum. In 21 posts you've authored over the past two years or so to
either SPIF or Feedback, 16 complain about the forum management. (Of
the five posts that had to do with SPIF topics, two of those were in
observation of the death of a forum member.)
I'd point out that the subject which seem to really pique your
interest -- and prompt you to post -- is when another member
complains about some action I've taken as Forum Manager. In fact, I
have an "over/under" line as to how long it will take you to chime in
once somebody posts a criticism on the Feedback Forum ... it's been
pretty accurate.
If one looks back at your 16 posts, it's pretty clear you've been
unhappy with my management of the forum. (You might as well
acknowledge it rather than trying to cover it with this fairly shallow
veneer of "it isn't personal.")
If you really wish to move SPIF forward, I'd suggest you throw a few
topics out there and engage folks in conversation about St Paul
issues. Otherwise, folks might conclude you have an unhealthy
obsession about me. (Really: 16 of 21 contributions? Or, more
accurately, 16 of 19 posts? Really?)

Page 30
SPIF feedback

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:
> Mr. Gitis' past transgressions not withstanding, the use of the term
> "Cheerleader" and the notion that it is somehow connected to the civility
> rule and grounds for suspension in itself doesn't make much sense. Another
> example of how the rules are arbitrarily applied.
>
> This forum isn't some sandlot ball game waiting for an "adult" to come by
> to supervise the kids, but it is treated as such.
>
> So far here's what I have, correct me if I'm wrong:
>
> Tom Swift - Suspended
> Mitch Berg - Left after receiving warnings.
> Sharon Anderson - Suspended
> Sheldon Gitis - Suspended
> Bill Krenik - Suspended
>
> Please add anyone that I've missed Rick.
>
> Multiple official warnings issued. An untold, untracked number of
> "advisories" and or "unofficial" warnings issued.' All in a three year
> period, all for a forum with less than 600 members and far, far fewer
> participants?
>
> I wish there was a willingness to see that regardless of these peoples
> political ideologies, or even the language they used to express their ideas,
> they were contributing members who at least made the forum more vibrant and
> often contributed to an understanding of opposing views.
>
> It's sometimes helpful to keep in mind that these people are our neighbors
> and I for one think they deserve better.
>
> Martin Owings
> http://mncapitolnews.com, Saint Paul
> About Martin Owings: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/henryhammer
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/383OjvlRliKvsfFKKf5Fd4
>------------------------
Page 31
SPIF feedback
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
From: Dann Dobson Date: Oct 06 08:06 CDT
Share:
I was suspended for 2 weeks about a month ago for posting about IRV /
Instant RunOff Voting in the North Carolina Supreme Court race. I used it as
an example of how IRV, which St. Paul voters will use next year in the City
Council race, does not do what it promises. (I plead guilty in that I did
not mention the connection to the City Council Race or future Mayors race in
2013.)
My post was deemed by the moderator as "not relevant" to Saint Paul. I

believe that I am still on probation and if I get another violation with 6
months or a year, I will be suspended for a year.
Is this correct Mr. Mons?
It makes me look over my shoulder every time I post and I have been known to
ask Mr. Mons permission before posting anything about Instant Runoff Voting.
I deliberately HAVE NOT posted some messages about the battle over IRV in
Aspen. Colorado, even thou the lessons would be invaluable to Saint Paul,
because I am sure Mr. Mons will say they are not relevant to Saint Paul and
I will get a longer suspension.
I am self-censoring myself for the fear of an even longer suspension.
Dann Dobson

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:
> Mr. Gitis' past transgressions not withstanding, the use of the term
> "Cheerleader" and the notion that it is somehow connected to the civility
> rule and grounds for suspension in itself doesn't make much sense. Another
> example of how the rules are arbitrarily applied.
Page 32
SPIF feedback
>
> This forum isn't some sandlot ball game waiting for an "adult" to come by
> to supervise the kids, but it is treated as such.
>
> So far here's what I have, correct me if I'm wrong:
>
> Tom Swift - Suspended
> Mitch Berg - Left after receiving warnings.
> Sharon Anderson - Suspended
> Sheldon Gitis - Suspended
> Bill Krenik - Suspended
>
> Please add anyone that I've missed Rick.
>
> Multiple official warnings issued. An untold, untracked number of
> "advisories" and or "unofficial" warnings issued.' All in a three year
> period, all for a forum with less than 600 members and far, far fewer
> participants?
>
> I wish there was a willingness to see that regardless of these peoples
> political ideologies, or even the language they used to express their ideas,
> they were contributing members who at least made the forum more vibrant and
> often contributed to an understanding of opposing views.
>
> It's sometimes helpful to keep in mind that these people are our neighbors
> and I for one think they deserve better.
>
> Martin Owings
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/383OjvlRliKvsfFKKf5Fd4
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
Share:
Page 33
SPIF feedback
>
> if I get another violation with 6
> months or a year, I will be suspended for a year.
>
> Is this correct Mr. Mons?
>
>
No, Dann, that's not correct. As I wrote to you on August 25th:
When/if you return to the forum, you'll need to bear the forum's rules in
mind. If you receive a third formal
warning within 12 months and two weeks of June 8, 2010 you will be
suspended for six months.
I believe I also told you this during at least one of our several phone
calls.
It makes me look over my shoulder every time I post and I have been known to
> ask Mr. Mons permission before posting anything about Instant Runoff
> Voting.
>
No, that's not correct either -- you've not asked for permission nor have I
told you to. You asked how a post could be worded so that it would be
within the rules and I provided you with some suggestions.
Any member needs to make the connection between the topic and the connection
to St Paul explicit. Simply posting an item about another community's
experience with IRV isn't sufficient or adequate to make the connection.
Showing how that other community's experience has some bearing upon St Paul
isn't particularly difficult. However, a post that simply discusses IRV in
general or in a location outside St Paul isn't adequate. I'm sure you
remember how you have to establish standing in a matter before the court ...
this is really not that different. But if it continues to elude you, maybe
you can ask for help from Chuck since you apparently preferred not to follow
my suggestions.
I deliberately HAVE NOT posted some messages about the battle over IRV in
> Aspen. Colorado, even thou the lessons would be invaluable to Saint Paul,
> because I am sure Mr. Mons will say they are not relevant to Saint Paul and
> I will get a longer suspension.
>
Really? You're "sure Mr. Mons will say they are not relevant" -- despite my
response just a few days ago suggesting how you can establish "relevance."
Page 34
SPIF feedback
Goodness me,
> I am self-censoring myself for the fear of an even longer suspension.

>
Well a little self-censorship may be good for one's soul. For example, I've
self-censored this reply to you as my immediate response to your statements
would have been far less civil and far outside what the rules permit.
And I fear that you would again get overly confused about the terms of
membership so have tempered this response.

Pop quiz: how long would Dann be suspended if he receives a third warning
within 379 days of his first warning? It's an open-e-mail quiz so take your
time scrolling up to the start of the reply. ;-)
Share:
Hi Rick,
I appreciate your lengthy reply, but I'm still not interested in making this a
personal contest. It really isn't all about you.
As I've stated plainly, numerous times, I don't know you personally, I do

however know your work as a Forum Moderator here on SPIF and that, along with
broader forum management, is where I've consistently directed my concerns.
Furthermore, I don't think I've ever stated that criticism of moderation, rules
application or management of the forum should or would be off-limits.
Are you suggesting that any criticism of how you or anyone else Moderates this
forum should be off limits because it might be taken "personally"?
I think I've tried to foster an open and honest dialog with you and the Forum
Management in order to express differences. If anything, I believe I've been
generally polite, restrained and considerate when it discussing these important
issues. I am confident that your thorough investigation of my past postings
would support that.
Thank you for investigating and posting the statistics on my advocacy for SPIF
membership. Call me a sucker for lost causes if you like, but it's something
Page 35
SPIF feedback
I've never felt ashamed of.
I appreciate the correction on Mr. Krenik. Just wondering if he was ever put on
"Moderation"?
Sharon Anderson's suspension, as you explain it, sounds like it partially

involved a personal conflict between the two of you.
Thank you for adding Dann Dobson to the list, you're right I forgot to list
him. The self-censoring that Mr.Dobson points out is another serious symptom of
the overuse of Moderation to control dialog. I believe there are probably
others who are also self-censoring because of the moderation of "opposition" or
"dissenting" concepts, topics, ideas or even opinions.
You ask if I can provide an example of "arbitrary application", I think I

already have, but I'll highlight the most recent here.
You chose to suspend Mr. Gitis for the use of the word "Cheerleader" in
reference to the Saint Paul Mayor, I think this is a perfect example of waiting
until the right moment, than "cherry picking" a comment and suspending a member
for its use.
I am currently working on gathering data regarding other eDemocracy forums

suspensions and moderation enforcement. I'll let you know when I have that,
however, interestingly since the "informal" warnings or "advisories" aren't
tracked on SPIF that category will be more somewhat more difficult to compare.
Lastly to your comment, "If you really wish to move SPIF forward, I'd suggest
you throw a few topics out there and engage folks in conversation about St Paul
issues. Otherwise, folks might conclude you have an unhealthy obsession about
me. (Really: 16 of 21 contributions? Or, more
accurately, 16 of 19 posts? Really?)"
Yes, really. I fully expect to you and anyone else with the backbone to fully
engage in an issue they feel passionate about, hey it's a free country right?
Furthermore, I am obligated by my conscience to voice my concerns here as you
are to express yours, something which isn't the case for some of our members
since they are now silenced either through suspension, warnings or moderation.
Again I want to be absolutely clear with you and the Forum Management,
particularly since you're making some incorrect assertions/assumptions about my
motivations.
I would like to see the St.Paul Issues Forum move in a more inclusive
direction. I believe the Forum is currently over moderated. I believe the rules
are sometimes applied arbitrarily. I believe that "micro-managing" the
membership causes less participation, not more. I am convinced that Moderators
currently have an overly broad authority and that generally the oversight
Page 36
SPIF feedback
should belong to the membership and not a single Arbiter.
I am also convinced that a more open, more tolerant, more democratic moderation
of the forum will attract more diverse membership and encourage more engaging
and lively discussion. When it comes to "moderating" our citizens civic
discourse, less means more.
Finally, and I've made this clear many times in the past, SPIF is a noble idea,
but only if we hold it to the principles which inspire our own free Democracy.
That simply means we encourage rather than discourage open and honest dialog
between citizens. That we avoid treating people like children, lest we expect
them to act as such.
And it wouldn't bother me if I were the last person standing up for these
principles, but I'm not. You've heard from a number of the members that these
issues are a concern, what you choose to do with those concerns speaks more
about your character than I could.
From: caty royce Date: Oct 06 13:04 CDT
Share:
Have really tried to keep out of this one, mostly because i don't really
care enough about the forum to think about it. but i feel like the responses
Martin and a couple of folks have gotten from r mons in the past couple of
posts have been demeaning and could very easily discourage less hardened
folks from participating in any conversation here. so what if martin has
been using his posts to challenge what he sees as over moderation of the
forum, thats his choice, his access point to civic dialogue, that should be
supported not made fun of or derided. i agree that less moderation and more
liberal definitions of subject matter would be better and whats wrong with
calling the Mayor a cheerleader? he'd probably call himself that on many
issues, including the central corridor as it is now envisioned.
caty royce
mpls, ex selby ave.

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> I appreciate your lengthy reply, but I'm still not interested in making
> this a personal contest. It really isn't all about you.
>
> As I've stated plainly, numerous times, I don't know you personally, I do
> however know your work as a Forum Moderator here on SPIF and that, along
> with broader forum management, is where I've consistently directed my
> concerns.
Page 37
SPIF feedback
>
> Furthermore, I don't think I've ever stated that criticism of moderation,
> rules application or management of the forum should or would be off-limits.
>
> Are you suggesting that any criticism of how you or anyone else Moderates
> this forum should be off limits because it might be taken "personally"?
>
> I think I've tried to foster an open and honest dialog with you and the
> Forum Management in order to express differences. If anything, I believe
> I've been generally polite, restrained and considerate when it discussing
> these important issues. I am confident that your thorough investigation of
> my past postings would support that.
>
> Thank you for investigating and posting the statistics on my advocacy for
> SPIF membership. Call me a sucker for lost causes if you like, but it's
> something I've never felt ashamed of.
>
> I appreciate the correction on Mr. Krenik. Just wondering if he was ever
> put on "Moderation"?
>
> Sharon Anderson's suspension, as you explain it, sounds like it partially
> involved a personal conflict between the two of you.
>
> Thank you for adding Dann Dobson to the list, you're right I forgot to list
> him. The self-censoring that Mr.Dobson points out is another serious symptom
> of the overuse of Moderation to control dialog. I believe there are probably
> others who are also self-censoring because of the moderation of "opposition"
> or "dissenting" concepts, topics, ideas or even opinions.
>
> You ask if I can provide an example of "arbitrary application", I think I
> already have, but I'll highlight the most recent here.
>
> You chose to suspend Mr. Gitis for the use of the word "Cheerleader" in
> reference to the Saint Paul Mayor, I think this is a perfect example of
> waiting until the right moment, than "cherry picking" a comment and
> suspending a member for its use.
>
> I am currently working on gathering data regarding other eDemocracy forums
> suspensions and moderation enforcement. I'll let you know when I have that,
> however, interestingly since the "informal" warnings or "advisories" aren't
> tracked on SPIF that category will be more somewhat more difficult to
> compare.
>
> Lastly to your comment, "If you really wish to move SPIF forward, I'd
> suggest you throw a few topics out there and engage folks in conversation
> about St Paul issues. Otherwise, folks might conclude you have an unhealthy
> obsession about me. (Really: 16 of 21 contributions? Or, more
> accurately, 16 of 19 posts? Really?)"
Page 38
SPIF feedback
>
> Yes, really. I fully expect to you and anyone else with the backbone to
> fully engage in an issue they feel passionate about, hey it's a free country
> right? Furthermore, I am obligated by my conscience to voice my concerns
> here as you are to express yours, something which isn't the case for some of
> our members since they are now silenced either through suspension, warnings
> or moderation.
>
> Again I want to be absolutely clear with you and the Forum Management,
> particularly since you're making some incorrect assertions/assumptions about
> my motivations.
>
> I would like to see the St.Paul Issues Forum move in a more inclusive
> direction. I believe the Forum is currently over moderated. I believe the
> rules are sometimes applied arbitrarily. I believe that "micro-managing" the
> membership causes less participation, not more. I am convinced that
> Moderators currently have an overly broad authority and that generally the
> oversight should belong to the membership and not a single Arbiter.
>
> I am also convinced that a more open, more tolerant, more democratic
> moderation of the forum will attract more diverse membership and encourage
> more engaging and lively discussion. When it comes to "moderating" our
> citizens civic discourse, less means more.
>
> Finally, and I've made this clear many times in the past, SPIF is a noble
> idea, but only if we hold it to the principles which inspire our own free
> Democracy. That simply means we encourage rather than discourage open and
> honest dialog between citizens. That we avoid treating people like children,
> lest we expect them to act as such.
>
> And it wouldn't bother me if I were the last person standing up for these
> principles, but I'm not. You've heard from a number of the members that
> these issues are a concern, what you choose to do with those concerns speaks
> more about your character than I could.
> Martin Owings
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3w3Ub4wniWuRw1tLlhk7hd
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
Page 39
SPIF feedback
> http://OnlineGroups.Net <http://onlinegroups.net/>
>
--
"There is never a moment in the future in which we will work out our
salvation. The challenge is in the moment; the time is always now." James
Baldwin
From: Mike Fratto Date: Oct 06 18:32 CDT
Share:
Come on Caty!
Rick's recent post regarding the suspensions in response to Mr. Owens was very,
very patient and complete. I don't think demeaning at all. Of course, I don't
try to justify my post violations and question why they were violating forum
rules.
Rick has been quite consistent in how he manages the St, Paul Issues forums.
The fact that some members think they can write what they want regardless of
what the rules state and how they are interpreted.
The fact that someone gets warned for a post should be a clear enough message
to the poster to be careful the net time they post. Unfortunately, most
violators disregarding the warning and continue to post the same type of
information on the forum. They deserve what they get.
Mike
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter
us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.
~ Abraham Lincoln
Please help those who don't get enough to eat.

http://oyh.org
http://hungersolutions.org
The future depends more on

what we do between now and then
Than what we did in the past.

--- On Wed, 10/6/10, cathleen royce <email obscured>> wrote:

Page 40
SPIF feedback
From: cathleen royce <email obscured>>

Subject: Re: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
To: "Martin Owings" <email obscured>>
Cc: <email obscured>
Date: Wednesday, October 6, 2010, 1:04 PM
Have really tried to keep out of this one, mostly because i don't really
care enough about the forum to think about it. but i feel like the responses
Martin and a couple of folks have gotten from r mons in the past couple of
posts have been demeaning and could very easily discourage less hardened
folks from participating in any conversation here. so what if martin has
been using his posts to challenge what he sees as over moderation of the
forum, thats his choice, his access point to civic dialogue, that should be
supported not made fun of or derided. i agree that less moderation and more
liberal definitions of subject matter would be better and whats wrong with
calling the Mayor a cheerleader? he'd probably call himself that on many
issues, including the central corridor as it is now envisioned.
caty royce
mpls, ex selby ave.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> I appreciate your lengthy reply, but I'm still not interested in making
> this a personal contest. It really isn't all about you.
>
> As I've stated plainly, numerous times, I don't know you personally, I do
> however know your work as a Forum Moderator here on SPIF and that, along
> with broader forum management, is where I've consistently directed my
> concerns.
>
> Furthermore, I don't think I've ever stated that criticism of moderation,
> rules application or management of the forum should or would be off-limits.
>
> Are you suggesting that any criticism of how you or anyone else Moderates
> this forum should be off limits because it might be taken "personally"?
>
> I think I've tried to foster an open and honest dialog with you and the
> Forum Management in order to express differences. If anything, I believe
> I've been generally polite, restrained and considerate when it discussing
> these important issues. I am confident that your thorough investigation of
> my past postings would support that.
>
> Thank you for investigating and posting the statistics on my advocacy for
> SPIF membership. Call me a sucker for lost causes if you like, but it's
Page 41
SPIF feedback
> something I've never felt ashamed of.
>
> I appreciate the correction on Mr. Krenik. Just wondering if he was ever
> put on "Moderation"?
>
> Sharon Anderson's suspension, as you explain it, sounds like it partially
> involved a personal conflict between the two of you.
>
> Thank you for adding Dann Dobson to the list, you're right I forgot to list
> him. The self-censoring that Mr.Dobson points out is another serious symptom
> of the overuse of Moderation to control dialog. I believe there are probably
> others who are also self-censoring because of the moderation of "opposition"
> or "dissenting" concepts, topics, ideas or even opinions.
>
> You ask if I can provide an example of "arbitrary application", I think I
> already have, but I'll highlight the most recent here.
>
> You chose to suspend Mr. Gitis for the use of the word "Cheerleader" in
> reference to the Saint Paul Mayor, I think this is a perfect example of
> waiting until the right moment, than "cherry picking" a comment and
> suspending a member for its use.
>
> I am currently working on gathering data regarding other eDemocracy forums
> suspensions and moderation enforcement. I'll let you know when I have that,
> however, interestingly since the "informal" warnings or "advisories" aren't
> tracked on SPIF that category will be more somewhat more difficult to
> compare.
>
> Lastly to your comment, "If you really wish to move SPIF forward, I'd
> suggest you throw a few topics out there and engage folks in conversation
> about St Paul issues. Otherwise, folks might conclude you have an unhealthy
> obsession about me. (Really: 16 of 21 contributions? Or, more
> accurately, 16 of 19 posts? Really?)"
>
> Yes, really. I fully expect to you and anyone else with the backbone to
> fully engage in an issue they feel passionate about, hey it's a free country
> right? Furthermore, I am obligated by my conscience to voice my concerns
> here as you are to express yours, something which isn't the case for some of
> our members since they are now silenced either through suspension, warnings
> or moderation.
>
> Again I want to be absolutely clear with you and the Forum Management,
> particularly since you're making some incorrect assertions/assumptions about
> my motivations.
>
> I would like to see the St.Paul Issues Forum move in a more inclusive
> direction. I believe the Forum is currently over moderated. I believe the
> rules are sometimes applied arbitrarily. I believe that "micro-managing" the
Page 42
SPIF feedback
> membership causes less participation, not more. I am convinced that
> Moderators currently have an overly broad authority and that generally the
> oversight should belong to the membership and not a single Arbiter.
>
> I am also convinced that a more open, more tolerant, more democratic
> moderation of the forum will attract more diverse membership and encourage
> more engaging and lively discussion. When it comes to "moderating" our
> citizens civic discourse, less means more.
>
> Finally, and I've made this clear many times in the past, SPIF is a noble
> idea, but only if we hold it to the principles which inspire our own free
> Democracy. That simply means we encourage rather than discourage open and
> honest dialog between citizens. That we avoid treating people like children,
> lest we expect them to act as such.
>
> And it wouldn't bother me if I were the last person standing up for these
> principles, but I'm not. You've heard from a number of the members that
> these issues are a concern, what you choose to do with those concerns speaks
> more about your character than I could.
> Martin Owings
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3w3Ub4wniWuRw1tLlhk7hd
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
--
Baldwin
caty royce
work on Selby, live over south minneapolis, minneapolis
Page 43
SPIF feedback
About caty royce: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/catyroyce
View full topic, share on Facebook, Twitter, etc:

http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4N0S1q5NjyE7WsKmX0lhYB
------------------------
To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or "Reply-to-All" to
post publicly.
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" OR "digest on" in subject
instead.
Forum home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback

------------------------
Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting thanks:
Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/edemocracyorg
Share:
I think Mr. Mons should get a warning for the uncivil nasty tone of his
message, especially his mean spirited P.S.
But wait, Mr. Mons is the moderator.
Oh well I guess when you're the moderator you can write nasty mean spirited
messages that would get other people banned.
It appears the rules apply to all here, but the moderator.
Dann Dobson
In the Twilight Zone Called SPIF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Rick Mons <email obscured>> wrote:
> if I get another violation with 6

>> months or a year, I will be suspended for a year.
>>
>> Is this correct Mr. Mons?
>>
>>
> No, Dann, that's not correct. As I wrote to you on August 25th:
Page 44
SPIF feedback
>
> When/if you return to the forum, you'll need to bear the forum's rules in
> mind. If you receive a third formal
> warning within 12 months and two weeks of June 8, 2010 you will be
> suspended for six months.
>
> I believe I also told you this during at least one of our several phone
> calls.
>
>
> It makes me look over my shoulder every time I post and I have been known
>> to
>> ask Mr. Mons permission before posting anything about Instant Runoff
>> Voting.
>>
>
>
> No, that's not correct either -- you've not asked for permission nor have I
> told you to. You asked how a post could be worded so that it would be
> within the rules and I provided you with some suggestions.
>
> Any member needs to make the connection between the topic and the
> connection to St Paul explicit. Simply posting an item about another
> community's experience with IRV isn't sufficient or adequate to make the
> connection.
>
> Showing how that other community's experience has some bearing upon St Paul
> isn't particularly difficult. However, a post that simply discusses IRV in
> general or in a location outside St Paul isn't adequate. I'm sure you
> remember how you have to establish standing in a matter before the court ...
> this is really not that different. But if it continues to elude you, maybe
> you can ask for help from Chuck since you apparently preferred not to follow
> my suggestions.
>
> I deliberately HAVE NOT posted some messages about the battle over IRV in
>> Aspen. Colorado, even thou the lessons would be invaluable to Saint Paul,
>> because I am sure Mr. Mons will say they are not relevant to Saint Paul
>> and
>> I will get a longer suspension.
>>
>
> Really? You're "sure Mr. Mons will say they are not relevant" -- despite
> my response just a few days ago suggesting how you can establish
> "relevance." Goodness me,
>
>
>> I am self-censoring myself for the fear of an even longer suspension.
>>
Page 45
SPIF feedback
>
> Well a little self-censorship may be good for one's soul. For example,
> I've self-censored this reply to you as my immediate response to your
> statements would have been far less civil and far outside what the rules
> permit.
>
> And I fear that you would again get overly confused about the terms of
> membership so have tempered this response.
>
>
>
> Rick Mons, SPIF Forum Manager
> for those reading SPIF via their Internet browser:
> email to: fm-stpaul AT e-democracy.org
>
> Pop quiz: how long would Dann be suspended if he receives a third warning
> within 379 days of his first warning? It's an open-e-mail quiz so take your
> time scrolling up to the start of the reply. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
From: Jack Rose Date: Oct 07 06:58 CDT
Share:
This is SO eighth grade.
Could we all grow up a notch, please?
Jack Rose
Lowertown
Share:
The post in question,"the cheerleader (for the Central Corridor project) who
would not
negotiate,"http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/7jRQOMqYPUA7R6VjYhvN8U, in my
opinion, is not, under any circumstance, grounds for a suspension of any
length. It was not a case of a straw breaking the camel's back, but rather, in
my opinion, a case of blatant censorship.

--- On Tue, 10/5/10, Andrew Hine <email obscured>> wrote:
From: Andrew Hine <email obscured>>

Page 46
SPIF feedback
To: "Sheldon Gitis" <email obscured>>
Cc: <email obscured>" <stpaul-
<email obscured>>
Date: Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 9:09 PM
I agree, Sheldon, that that's not grounds for six months. But as in the case of
a gusset plate failure, it's not so much the last 1000 psi of stress that leads
to catastrophe as it is the first 10,000,000. Did you exceed some sort of yield
point before this last strenuous event, and couldn't elastically return to the
origin? Did you initiate the crack or just propagate it?
What was the question?
AMH
On Oct 5, 2010, at 7:35 PM, "Sheldon Gitis" <email obscured>> wrote:
suspension in 2009. My violation, according to Mr. Mons, was that I described
Mayor Coleman as "the cheerleader (for the Central Corridor project) who would
not negotiate."
>
> Sheldon Gitis
>
>------------------------
> To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or "Reply-to-All" to
post publicly.
instead.
>
>------------------------
Share:
Mr. Mons likes to support his allegations by quantifying them, rather
than specifying them. The fact that the forum moderator's actions were
Page 47
SPIF feedback
over zealous, to put it kindly, does make mean that any or all the "formal
warnings," "moderations," and suspensions were justified.
The action by the so-called "panel" that Mr. Mons refers to was
in fact no action. The list management simply deferred to what Steve
Clift claims is the "local" call of the forum manager. Given
that the Manager St. Paul Issues Forum lives in the outer ring suburb of
Shoreview, I think Mr. Clift's argument is extremely ironic.

--- On Tue, 10/5/10, Rick Mons <email obscured>> wrote:
From: Rick Mons <email obscured>>

To: "Sheldon Gitis" <email obscured>>
Cc: <email obscured>
Date: Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 10:11 PM
Mr. Gitis likes to tell only part of the story and gloss over certain elements
of why he was suspended for six months.
First, Mr. Gitis was suspended because he received three formal warnings within
a 12 month period of time. His account was also placed on moderation twice
within that 12 month period of time rather than issue him the third formal
warning before the time finally came.
His third warning came as a result of the post he made and referenced below.
The warning was issued for a rare event: two rule violations within one post.
The post's title engaged in name-calling; the post's content alleged that there
was an illegal act of accepting and/or soliciting a kickback.
Finally, Mr. Gitis appealed this third warning and the resultant suspension.
The e-Democracy panel denied his appeal and it was notedthat the offending post
demonstrates "a pattern of rule violating behavior that runs afoul of
ourcivility rules."
Here's the text of the warning he was given:
----------------------
Mr. Gitis,
Page 48
SPIF feedback
I am issuing a formal warning for your post copied below. The reference to
"Cheerleader" in the subject line violates the rule on civility ("no name-
calling"). Also, within the body of your post, you accuse the mayor of
accepting and/or soliciting kickbacks which is an illegal act. Unless you can
provide evidence of the same, this accusation is a violation of Rule 7:
Rumors of a personal nature are not allowed. Your posts must be accurate based
on your full knowledge and never intentionally false. Unverified "grapevine"
information of a public nature must be within a forum's issue-based scope to be
appropriate.
This is your third warning within 12 months and you will therefore be suspended
from participating in the forum for six months. You may rejoin the forum on May
1, 2010. Your first warning within this 12-month period was issued on 4/15/2009
for breach of the civility rule. Your second warning was issued on 8/16/2009
for discussing forum management on the forum. You have also received a number
of informal advisories about the need to remain on topic and/or refrain from
personal exchanges and/or breaches of the civility rule -- all of which
resulted in your account being placed in moderation for varying lengths of
time.
Please advise if you have any questions or wish to discuss further.

----------------------
for those reading SPIF via their Internet browser:email to: fm-stpaul AT
e-democracy.org
I think I'm the person, referred to above, who received the 6 month suspension
in 2009. My violation, according to Mr. Mons, was that I described Mayor
Coleman as "the cheerleader (for the Central Corridor project) who would not
negotiate."
Page 49
SPIF feedback
Is there anyone who thinks that Mayor Coleman is NOT a cheerleader for the
Sheldon Gitis
South St. Anthony Park
About Sheldon Gitis: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/sheldongitis
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2M9sVk6m6WWIDkSVNAlDR5
------------------------

post publicly.

instead.
------------------------


From: Mike Fratto Date: Oct 07 17:43 CDT
Share:
Amen!
Mike
Page 50
SPIF feedback
~ Abraham Lincoln

http://oyh.org


--- On Thu, 10/7/10, Jack Rose <email obscured>> wrote:
From: Jack Rose <email obscured>>

Subject: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
To: <email obscured>
Date: Thursday, October 7, 2010, 12:14 AM
This is SO eighth grade.
Could we all grow up a notch, please?
Jack Rose
Lowertown
Jack Rose
Galtier Towers, Saint Paul
About Jack Rose: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/1XcChMXJmmUEtWoRDdJ7HT

http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/zYyTzrBMeYEbzvfORvjeG
------------------------
post publicly.
instead.

------------------------
Share:
Page 51
SPIF feedback
Sheldon -
First, I am a strong avid supporter of the central corridor project and I

agree and disagree with your description of Mayor Coleman.
I think Mayor Coleman has only supported the project as proposed and has
opposed many ideas that would have improved the project such as the three
additional stops in Frogtown, that the Obama Administration has now agreed
to fund, tuck and cover at major intersections and ignored the critical need
for park and ride lots.
I think your description of Mayor Coleman was merely your opinion and was
neither obscene nor distasteful. It was fair comment on an elected public
official and hardly uncivil. Quite frankly, I would not have given you a
warning, much less a 6 month suspension, even with prior warnings.
I think your suspension only goes to show how out of touch the moderator and
management of e-democracy have become if this warrants a 6 month suspension.
Dann Dobson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
> described Mayor Coleman as "the cheerleader (for the Central Corridor
> project) who would not negotiate."
>
> Central Corridor project? Is there anyone, other than perhaps Mr. Mons and
> a handful of Central Corridor project/Chris Coleman boosters, who thinks
> that the message I posted merited a suspension of any length?
> Sheldon Gitis
>
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
Page 52
SPIF feedback
> instea
>------------------------
>
From: caty royce Date: Oct 08 10:17 CDT
Share:
i'm pretty sure (have friends that were key organizers of the three stops
campaign) that the Mayor did finally come out in support of the three stops
and worked to influence met council and the feds in their waving the cost
effectiveness (or whatever it was called the funding formula) rule. He came
in a little later than had been desired but he came in.
caty royce
mpls by way of selby

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:22 AM, Dann Dobson <email obscured>> wrote:
> Sheldon -
>
> First, I am a strong avid supporter of the central corridor project and I
> agree and disagree with your description of Mayor Coleman.
>
> I think Mayor Coleman has only supported the project as proposed and has
> opposed many ideas that would have improved the project such as the three
> additional stops in Frogtown, that the Obama Administration has now agreed
> to fund, tuck and cover at major intersections and ignored the critical
> need
> for park and ride lots.
>
> I think your description of Mayor Coleman was merely your opinion and was
> neither obscene nor distasteful. It was fair comment on an elected public
> official and hardly uncivil. Quite frankly, I would not have given you a
> warning, much less a 6 month suspension, even with prior warnings.
>
> I think your suspension only goes to show how out of touch the moderator
> and
> management of e-democracy have become if this warrants a 6 month
> suspension.
>
> Dann Dobson
>
>
Page 53
SPIF feedback
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Sheldon Gitis <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> > I think I'm the person, referred to above, who received the 6 month
> > suspension in 2009. My violation, according to Mr. Mons, was that I
> > described Mayor Coleman as "the cheerleader (for the Central Corridor
> > project) who would not negotiate."
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/7jRQOMqYPUA7R6VjYhvN8U
>>
> > Is there anyone who thinks that Mayor Coleman is NOT a cheerleader for
> the
> > Central Corridor project? Is there anyone, other than perhaps Mr. Mons
> and
> > a handful of Central Corridor project/Chris Coleman boosters, who thinks
> > that the message I posted merited a suspension of any length?
> > Sheldon Gitis
> > South St. Anthony Park
> > About Sheldon Gitis: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/sheldongitis
>>
> > View full topic, share on Facebook, Twitter, etc:
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2M9sVk6m6WWIDkSVNAlDR5
>>------------------------
> > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or
> "Reply-to-All"
> > to post publicly.
> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" OR "digest on" in
> subject
> > instea
> > Forum home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
>>------------------------
> > Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting thanks:
> > http://OnlineGroups.Net <http://onlinegroups.net/>
> > Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/edemocracyorg
>>
>
> Dann Dobson
> Summit Hill, Saint Paul
> About Dann Dobson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danndobson
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2vkXXkgEV8UdyrU7SUs2N4
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
Page 54
SPIF feedback
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
--
Baldwin
Share:
I stand corrected on an issue. It has been brought it to my attention that
Sheldon Gitis was suspended NOT just for the use of the word "Cheerleader" in
reference to Mayor Coleman, but for accusing the Mayor of receiving kickbacks.
Specifically, "His third warning came as a result of the post he made and
referenced below.The warning was issued for a rare event: two rule violations
within one post. The post's title engaged in name-calling; the post's content
alleged that there was an illegal act of accepting and/or soliciting a
kickback."
Unless Mr. Gitis has the factual evidence to back up his claim, this would
indeed be a violation of the forum rules and would warrant a warning or
suspension. I did not read Mr. Mons entire post explaining this issue and so I
was reacting to the suspension based on the "Cheerleader" use. I stand
corrected.
However, I still do strongly disagree that using the word "Cheerleader" should
have been used a part of the basis to support the suspension of a member.
Share:
Apparently, Martin Owings either did not read the post in question,
(to which I have now provided a link in this thread for the 3rd time) or, Mr.
Owings agrees with the forum moderator's misinterpretation of the comments I
made in that post. Rather than accusing Mayor Coleman of any illegal act, I
was simply stating the obvious. As I told Steve Clift in my appeal of the
suspension, if anyone can produce a reasonably complete list of Mayor Coleman's
campaign contributions that does not include any of the banking, insurance,
Page 55
SPIF feedback
real estate and other business interests that are also backing the Central
Corridor project, "I will eat my hat," and respectfully accept the decision of
the Forum management.
From: John Krenik Date: Dec 26 22:10 CST
Share:
Hi All,
It sure would be nice if the SPIF forum manager actually lived in St. Paul.
I have some major conce3rns as to how Mr. Mons treats fellow members of this
forum.
Having said that I probably will be banned for life from SPIF because of the
above statement.
Mr. Dobson has stated in the past that he would like to co-manage this forum
and I would also like to take him up on his offer to be his co-manager.
This "good old boy" network is hurting SPIF. Either be inclusive or shut the
whole thing down.
Sincerely,
John Krenik
St. Paul, Minnesota
Share:
Another thing;
My previous post was sent to the forum manager for his approval.
I was put under a week moderation period where all of my posts were sent to the
moderator for approval. That suspension period was over months ago, but my
posts are still being sent to Rick Mons for his approval.
Can you say CENSORSHIP.
Sincerely,
John Krenik
St. Paul, Minnesota
From: Grace Kelly (nicknamed Kelly) Date: Dec 27 13:32 CST
Share:
Greetings,
Hmmmm, co-manage does not work terribly well. What happens when you disagree?
Page 56
SPIF feedback
What if something does not happen, do we blame both of you?
What I hear is not really a concern that Mr Mons is NOT from St Paul. What I
hear is that some people don't want the rules. Since there are many email
lists, many blogs, and many "topic" anything goes places, why do you need to
mess with one forum with courtesy and locality rules?
Grace Kelly nicknamed KellyMerriam Park

> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:55:51 +1300
>
> Hi All,
>
> It sure would be nice if the SPIF forum manager actually lived in St. Paul.
>
> I have some major conce3rns as to how Mr. Mons treats fellow members of this
forum.
>
> Having said that I probably will be banned for life from SPIF because of the
above statement.
>
> Mr. Dobson has stated in the past that he would like to co-manage this forum
>
> This "good old boy" network is hurting SPIF. Either be inclusive or shut the
whole thing down.

>
> Sincerely,
>
> John Krenik
> St. Paul, Minnesota
>
> John Krenik
> Highland Park, St. Paul, Minnesota
> About John Krenik: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnkrenik
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2CBVtwomEvbDevoIAd78m8
>------------------------
to post publicly.
instead.
>
Page 57
SPIF feedback
>------------------------
From: Jack Ferman Date: Dec 27 16:39 CST
Share:
The rule I dislike is the 1 post every 12 hours on some forums and 2 every 24
hours. I can see the need, but we lose the spontaneity in the discourse.
Sent from my iPad

John Ferman
Minneapolis, MN
On Dec 27, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Grace Kelly <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> Hmmmm, co-manage does not work terribly well. What happens when you
disagree?
What if something does not happen, do we blame both of you?
> What I hear is not really a concern that Mr Mons is NOT from St Paul. What I
hear is that some people don't want the rules. Since there are many email
lists, many blogs, and many "topic" anything goes places, why do you need to
mess with one forum with courtesy and locality rules?

> Grace Kelly nicknamed KellyMerriam Park

>
>> From: <email obscured>
>> Subject: Re: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
>> To: <email obscured>
>> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:55:51 +1300
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> It sure would be nice if the SPIF forum manager actually lived in St. Paul.
>>
>> I have some major conce3rns as to how Mr. Mons treats fellow members of this
forum.
>>
>> Having said that I probably will be banned for life from SPIF because of the
above statement.
>>
>> Mr. Dobson has stated in the past that he would like to co-manage this forum
Page 58
SPIF feedback
>>
>> This "good old boy" network is hurting SPIF. Either be inclusive or shut
the whole thing down.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> John Krenik
>> St. Paul, Minnesota
>>
>> John Krenik
>> Highland Park, St. Paul, Minnesota
>> About John Krenik: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnkrenik
>>
>> View full topic, share on Facebook, Twitter, etc:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2CBVtwomEvbDevoIAd78m8
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or "Reply-to-All"
to post publicly.
>> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" OR "digest on" in subject
instead.
>>
>> Forum home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting thanks:
>> Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/edemocracyorg
>
> About Grace Kelly (nicknamed Kelly):
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/gracekelly
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4i0QXnptdhzKYIMz7F8I07
>------------------------
post publicly.
instead.
>
>------------------------
From: Martin Owings Date: Dec 28 01:11 CST
Share:
Page 59
SPIF feedback
You could say I've experienced a "re-education" when it comes to SPIF. I used
to think Mr. Mons enforcement of the rules and the way they were written were
the primary issues at SPIF. While it's true that Mons' role as the forum
manager allows him some latitude (and he tends to err on the side of
restriction) I've actually come to appreciate his honesty.
I've come to this revelation after having discussions with Mr. Clift (Current
Executive Director of eDemocrary) and some of the other forum managers such as
Mr. Fratto. Mr. Clift was clear with me that he was not interested in
addressing any of the concerns that I and some others have raised with regard
to free speech, diversity and civility.
Mr. Clift accused me of using my position as a Journalist to, "pressure"

volunteers into giving me data. In actuality I was requesting data that might
help support our (members) arguments about a lack of diversity on SPIF. Mr.
Clift wasn't interested in providing or helping to provide that information.
It's not clear exactly why there was such a resistance to the request.
Mr. Fratto, another FM, also indicated I was misusing my position as a

reporter. And when they and other FM's failed to respond to my information
requests I suggested they were, "stonewalling". I don't think they liked this,
but here we are today, still no one at eDemocracy has responded to our
information requests.
Lastly, they promised a transparent, "rules review" process. It never happened

or if it did it was not very transparent because no one involved in the
complaints ever heard a word. I submitted several rules changes and even made a
few suggestions...nothing back yet.
Today I received a form email letter from Mr. Clift asking for a donation to
eDemocracy.
Really?
Aside from the obvious irony in asking me for something, I can't help wonder
who would support a non-profit organization calling itself "eDemocracy" which
ignores it's members concerns, refuses to supply information about the
organization and says they don't keep records on formal/informal warnings,
suspension of their membership?
If you think Mr. Mons is the problem, try dealing with the people in charge.
From: Steven Clift Date: Dec 28 08:19 CST
Share:
The rules review continues. As something led by volunteer Board members, the
conclusion of the process is taking time.
I've recommend a period of feedback from a draft adopted by the Board. That
Page 60
SPIF feedback
draft is not complete. This particular rules review activity has absolutely no
funding and will remain a lower priority than the things we must get done by
specific dates.
As we've considered options for greater transparency on warnings and the like
we've received counter input suggesting potential violations of privacy from
some members. So this remains a balancing act where I fear no one will be
satisfied.
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.org
Share:
Thank you for responding after several months Mr. Clift. If I understand
correctly, the rules review process, aka democracy, will remain a, "lower"
priority on eDemocracy and since, "no one will be satisfied", transparency is
something you fear.
Good luck to you Mr. Clift in your fundraising. You might also want to check
out some other online citizen forum models such as those run by the Chinese
government, they have similar structures.
Share:
Ms. Kelly,
I have some MAJOR concerns with Mons and the residency issue concerning the
SPIF's forum manager not being from St. Paul.
I also have MAJOR concerns with his fairness and who he gives a pass to and who
he nails to the wall. If you want to talk about rules, I have presented to him
many rule violations of SPIF members in the past only to be rebuffed by Mons.
There is a double standard at SPIF.
Having co-forum moderators from different political sides is a win-win

situation. Mr. Dobson has volunteered and I am also willing to step up to the
plate. This forum was a good forum, but since Mr. Mons has taken over it has
become very political and very one sided.
There is that CLEAR enough you you!
Sincerely,
John Krenik
St. Paul, Minnesota
From: Rick Mons Date: Dec 28 20:33 CST
Share:
Page 61
SPIF feedback
I've opted not to respond until now to John Krenik's accusations. His last
post demands a response, however.
First, Krenik says he has complained about "many rule violations of SPIF
members in the past only to be rebuffed by Mons." Krenik has made only a
handful of specific complaints and, where they were valid, they were acted
upon. But I'll freely acknowledge that I've not followed up on Krenik's
general whining about the behavior of "others" where he's not been specific
about either the offense(s) or offender(s). Nor have I taken action when
Krenik has whined about specific statements of others which were not violations
of the rules.
Second, Krenik accuses me of giving some a pass and "nailing" others. That's
balderdash and Krenik cannot provide specific examples of this so-called bias.
I've asked him several times to be specific and he's either refused or been
unable to do so.
Finally, Krenik continues to complain about my living in Shoreview. I'll point

out a few facts:
● my appointment was made by the elected SPIF board after they

solicited
volunteers from the forum membership. Neither Krenik nor Dann Dobson
volunteered for the position at that time. When I decide I've had enough of
this job -- or if the e-Democracy.org board decides they've tired of me -- the
position will be vacant. They can certainly apply for the position at that
time.
● deciding whether a post is local to St Paul and/or is civil and/or

is
otherwise compliant with the rules does not require St Paul residency.
● I love St Paul, have lived in St Paul and have three adult sons
who now live
in St Paul. But, my family obligations don't permit me to leave Shoreview at
this time and the real estate market would have to improve considerably before
we could ever move back to St Paul.
Now for a couple of opinions: Krenik's complaint about my residency is really

a red herring ... he has nothing else to really kvetch about that is supported
by facts so he (and a few others) trot it out accompanied by a sense of false
outrage.
Second, while residency is not a requirement to manage a forum, it does require

common sense and judgement ... qualities which I frankly think Krenik lacks.
(And it seems the voters of St Paul have ratified this assessment given his
past lack of success in running for one office or another.)
Page 62
SPIF feedback
From: Mike Fratto Date: Dec 28 21:08 CST
Share:
I think John's statement shows why the forum needs the kind of rules and
enforcement we see under current leadership. I am not sure why residency has
anything to do with the ability to apply and enforce rules equitably.
Our political landscape changed a couple of decades ago. It all of a sudden

became okay to apply different standards to people you agree with and those you
disagree with. It became okay make statements with little, if any, truth to
them. If said enough times it hopefully would get others to see your point of
view whether true or not.
Discussing an issue should be rather simple. Presenting facts should be simple.

Yet there are those, on all sides of the political spectrum, who think
participating in the e-democracy forums gives them the same platform some
elected officials use in presenting their arguments. When called on it, they
may use terms like censorship or bias.
One of the toughest things a forum manager has to do is to read the various
posts from a different perspective than any participant will read them. This
doesn't mean the message is ignored. It means that in addition to reading the
message the forum manager must also read the message to see how it is
presented. I think if one would look at the various posts that resulted in some
sort of disciplinary action you will find a series of exchanges between the
forum manager and the offender.
Based on personal experience as forum manager and my activity with the St. Paul
Issues Team, I can tell you, in almost every case, the participant chose to
continue to write their posts without any attempt to correct the offending
issue.
John's comments, and others before his, seem to indicate that enforcement is
one sided. It is not. What seems to be occurring is that some participants,
regardless of political point of view, think they don't have to follow rules.
If you look at posts that caused some comment from the forum manager you most
likely will find that they cross the political spectrum. The difference is some
participants attempt to change their behavior others choose not to so.
Mike
~ Abraham Lincoln

Page 63
SPIF feedback
http://oyh.org


--- On Tue, 12/28/10, John Krenik <email obscured>> wrote:
From: John Krenik <email obscured>>

Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 7:52 PM
Ms. Kelly,
I have some MAJOR concerns with Mons and the residency issue concerning the
SPIF's forum manager not being from St. Paul.
I also have MAJOR concerns with his fairness and who he gives a pass to and who
he nails to the wall. If you want to talk about rules, I have presented to him
many rule violations of SPIF members in the past only to be rebuffed by Mons.
There is a double standard at SPIF.
Having co-forum moderators from different political sides is a win-win

situation. Mr. Dobson has volunteered and I am also willing to step up to the
plate. This forum was a good forum, but since Mr. Mons has taken over it has
become very political and very one sided.
There is that CLEAR enough you you!
Sincerely,
John Krenik
St. Paul, Minnesota
John Krenik
Highland Park, St. Paul, Minnesota
About John Krenik: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnkrenik

http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5f9AW9V7FyeFEzdXBaOJWm
------------------------
post publicly.
instead.
Page 64
SPIF feedback

------------------------
Share:
Not to mention the time commitment involved.

On Dec 28, 2010, at 8:36 PM, Rick Mons wrote:
> Second, while residency is not a requirement to manage a forum,

> Rick Mons
Share:
Mr. Fratto you have a habit of stating that the presenting the facts should be
simple and that the truth is in the facts. However you yourself seem unable to
provide those facts when asked for them. Pardon me for saying so but doesn't
that seem a bit hypocritical?
Months ago I requested very specific data from you and other
Managers/Moderators that would have shed light on some of the issues still
being discussed here today, but you outright refused to provide any
information.
In addition you carelessly accuse anyone who disagrees with the rules or the
way the forum is managed as people who, "think they don't have to follow the
rules". This seems like an opinion and not a fact.
The attitude toward anyone with an issue appears to be one of general disregard
in spite of any merits those arguments may or may not have. I make this
statement based on your own postings Mr. Fratto.
Instead of having Forum Managers struggle with interpreting a members intent as

if they were Supreme Court Justices, why not let the intent stand on its own
and let the people of this forum decide for themselves what to make of,
"intent"?
Lastly you quote Abraham Lincoln in your posts and yet I see little in common
with this forum or your words, and the principles for which he stood.
It is rather like a group of self-appointed, micro-managers who find that

treating adults like children will somehow inspire them to transcendent civic
Page 65
SPIF feedback
discourse. I think you know yourself that this is far from the example that
Lincoln set.
From: Joe Nathan Date: Dec 28 23:24 CST
Share:
Mr. Owings, could you please be specific about the data that you have
requested, and the date(s) it was requested? It would be good to have a
response from forum managers.
Thanks
Joe Nathan
Highland Park

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:
> Mr. Fratto you have a habit of stating that the presenting the facts should
> be simple and that the truth is in the facts. However you yourself seem
> unable to provide those facts when asked for them. Pardon me for saying so
> but doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?
>
> Months ago I requested very specific data from you and other
> Managers/Moderators that would have shed light on some of the issues still
> being discussed here today, but you outright refused to provide any
> information.
>
> In addition you carelessly accuse anyone who disagrees with the rules or
> the way the forum is managed as people who, "think they don't have to follow
> the rules". This seems like an opinion and not a fact.
>
> The attitude toward anyone with an issue appears to be one of general
> disregard in spite of any merits those arguments may or may not have. I make
> this statement based on your own postings Mr. Fratto.
>
> Instead of having Forum Managers struggle with interpreting a members
> intent as if they were Supreme Court Justices, why not let the intent stand
> on its own and let the people of this forum decide for themselves what to
> make of, "intent"?
>
> Lastly you quote Abraham Lincoln in your posts and yet I see little in
> common with this forum or your words, and the principles for which he stood.
>
> It is rather like a group of self-appointed, micro-managers who find that
> treating adults like children will somehow inspire them to transcendent
> civic discourse. I think you know yourself that this is far from the example
> that Lincoln set.
Page 66
SPIF feedback
> Martin Owings
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3bMzmfOxKlkmsPCK0lyD20
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
--
Joe Nathan, Director
Center for School Change
Macalester College
St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
651 696-6848
Share:
Joe,
All the data requests were made and refused in September. With the exception of
Mr. Mons who did provide most of the data for St.Paul's Issue Forum. I also
made requests of the eDemocracy forums in Minneapolis and the UK. In addition I
asked the Management, specifically Mr. Clift and Mr. Fratto who both refused to
provide the data or to support my request of the various forum Managers.
The specific data I requested is contained in this thread and outlined in

detail in the posts above. To simplify though, I was requesting data on
suspensions, warnings (both formal and informal, membership diversity and
membership participation.
Specifically on the last piece of data covering membership participation, I was

hoping to compare year to year participation on the site to measure whether
the, "civility and off-topic" rules were having any effect at all either
positive or negative.
Page 67
SPIF feedback
By measuring the member participation, not just the number of posts since some
members may post only once while others post many times, that some insight
might be gained on the actual effectiveness of the rules. As the argument by
some Managers here has been that strict rules enforcement encourages
participation, I wanted to put that claim to the test against some real data.
Also, it has long been my contention that diversity in terms of race, gender
and political affiliation is something that SPIF needed to encourage and work
harder on, so I was hoping for some data on their efforts in that area as well.
In refusing to provide any transparency the management of eDemocracy,

specifically Mr. Fratto and Mr. Clift have have stated that the requests would
create an undo burden on volunteer forum managers. Additionally they've stated
that data such as, "informal warnings/advisories" is not even kept and that in
some cases formal disciplinary actions against members is also not kept.
As for the disciplinary actions taken in the Saint Paul Issues Forum there is a
definite trend toward suspending members of a particular political party as
most of those suspended and warned in the past 3 years have been self-
identified conservatives. No matter what side of the political spectrum you
fall on, fairness ought be the first order of business.
In defense of Mr. Mons, I have come to appreciate his honesty about the rules,
his interpretation and his process, however that does not mean I or any other
member have to agree with them. I mention this only because I don't think the
problem with eDemocracy is Mr. Mons, the problem with eDeomcracy is it's rules.
Share:
I don't think this is an issue for the St. Paul Issues forum feedback page.
However, I did respond to you. I told you I could not ans didn't think any
forum manager provide you with the information you requested.
To add another piece to your accusation, I will not spend my time going through
historical posts to try to create some metric just because you want it. In
fact, if I remember correctly, you never did send me the request. You might
have sent it through this forum, which has nothing to do with the US forum. I
did respond, with not even a peep from you, to another post, probably form
Steve Clift.
.
Mike
~ Abraham Lincoln
Page 68
SPIF feedback
http://oyh.org


--- On Tue, 12/28/10, Martin Owings <email obscured>> wrote:
From: Martin Owings <email obscured>>

Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 11:03 PM
Mr. Fratto you have a habit of stating that the presenting the facts should be
simple and that the truth is in the facts. However you yourself seem unable to
provide those facts when asked for them. Pardon me for saying so but doesn't
that seem a bit hypocritical?
Months ago I requested very specific data from you and other
Managers/Moderators that would have shed light on some of the issues still
being discussed here today, but you outright refused to provide any
information.
In addition you carelessly accuse anyone who disagrees with the rules or the
way the forum is managed as people who, "think they don't have to follow the
rules". This seems like an opinion and not a fact.
The attitude toward anyone with an issue appears to be one of general disregard
in spite of any merits those arguments may or may not have. I make this
statement based on your own postings Mr. Fratto.
Instead of having Forum Managers struggle with interpreting a members intent as

if they were Supreme Court Justices, why not let the intent stand on its own
and let the people of this forum decide for themselves what to make of,
"intent"?
Lastly you quote Abraham Lincoln in your posts and yet I see little in common
with this forum or your words, and the principles for which he stood.
It is rather like a group of self-appointed, micro-managers who find that

treating adults like children will somehow inspire them to transcendent civic
discourse. I think you know yourself that this is far from the example that
Lincoln set.
Martin Owings
Page 69
SPIF feedback
http://mncapitolnews.com, Saint Paul
About Martin Owings: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/henryhammer

http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3bMzmfOxKlkmsPCK0lyD20
------------------------
post publicly.
instead.

------------------------
Share:
We seem to have two clashing views:
a. One from Mr. Owings, asking for more information about how e-democracy in
various places operates
b. Another, from various e-democracy volunteer forum managers, saying they
don't have time to respond to the requests for operational data, don't
necessarily keep the data that Mr. Owings is requesting, and don't feel it
is their responsibility to keep and share the requested data.
I do appreciate that much of e-democracy is run by volunteers. Thanks to

these folks for their efforts.
My understanding is that e-democracy has asked for and received "tax-exempt"

status from the US Government, allowing it to ask for and receive grants,
gifts and other cash contributions.
Perhaps those who run St. Paul and other e-democracy forums could tell us
a. What data they believe they are required to keep and share as part of
their tax-exempt status
b. What data they do gather beyond what is required
c. What are the organizational goals, and how they are assessed
While I share (and have raised) some of the same concerns that Mr. Owings
has raised, it may be that e-democracy is not required to share the kind of
data Mr. Owings has requested. I don't know. That's why I'm suggesting a
response to the 3 questions listed above.
Thanks to Mr. Owings and Mr. Krenik for raising their questions, and thanks
to the e-democracy volunteers for continuing to make e-democracy available.
Page 70
SPIF feedback
Thanks
Joe Nathan
Highland Park

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:
> Joe,
>
> All the data requests were made and refused in September. With the
> exception of Mr. Mons who did provide most of the data for St.Paul's Issue
> Forum. I also made requests of the eDemocracy forums in Minneapolis and the
> UK. In addition I asked the Management, specifically Mr. Clift and Mr.
> Fratto who both refused to provide the data or to support my request of the
> various forum Managers.
>
> The specific data I requested is contained in this thread and outlined in
> detail in the posts above. To simplify though, I was requesting data on
> suspensions, warnings (both formal and informal, membership diversity and
> membership participation.
>
> Specifically on the last piece of data covering membership participation, I
> was hoping to compare year to year participation on the site to measure
> whether the, "civility and off-topic" rules were having any effect at all
> either positive or negative.
>
> By measuring the member participation, not just the number of posts since
> some members may post only once while others post many times, that some
> insight might be gained on the actual effectiveness of the rules. As the
> argument by some Managers here has been that strict rules enforcement
> encourages participation, I wanted to put that claim to the test against
> some real data.
>
> Also, it has long been my contention that diversity in terms of race,
> gender and political affiliation is something that SPIF needed to encourage
> and work harder on, so I was hoping for some data on their efforts in that
> area as well.
>
> In refusing to provide any transparency the management of eDemocracy,
> specifically Mr. Fratto and Mr. Clift have have stated that the requests
> would create an undo burden on volunteer forum managers. Additionally
> they've stated that data such as, "informal warnings/advisories" is not even
> kept and that in some cases formal disciplinary actions against members is
> also not kept.
Page 71
SPIF feedback
>
> As for the disciplinary actions taken in the Saint Paul Issues Forum there
> is a definite trend toward suspending members of a particular political
> party as most of those suspended and warned in the past 3 years have been
> self-identified conservatives. No matter what side of the political spectrum
> you fall on, fairness ought be the first order of business.
>
> In defense of Mr. Mons, I have come to appreciate his honesty about the
> rules, his interpretation and his process, however that does not mean I or
> any other member have to agree with them. I mention this only because I
> don't think the problem with eDemocracy is Mr. Mons, the problem with
> eDeomcracy is it's rules.
>
> Martin Owings
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1Sk4zuMdkrnALodoB91WJX
>------------------------
> To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or
> "Reply-to-All" to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
--
Macalester College
651 696-6848
Share:
I think the answer to Mr. Nathan's question regarding what data e-democracy
needs to keep related to its tax exempt status to those on the e-democracy
board. As someone who has created and operated similar organizations, I can
tell you most of the information that needs to be kept is financial. There are
also certain requirements that need to be attested to when filing IRS forms.
Page 72
SPIF feedback
As for anything else, I am not aware of any requirement to keep certain data. I
can also state that even though e-democracy is a tax exempt organization, there
is no law, federal or state, that require it to share operational data.
This is no different than asking 3M, Securian, Well Fargo, or any other
corporation to provide you with operational data. The Government data practices
act applies to governments not corporations or any other private entity.
It is my belief that the only people who have a right to see operational data
of e-democracy and its forums are the members of the e-democracy board. That
said, the Bord of Directors may choose to provide various data they determine
to be of interest to them placing the information in the public domain.
As for organizational goals etc. Again this is the domain of the e-democracy
board. For issues related to this topic, SPIF feedback, a Team was established
to act as a pseudo board to do just that. While we spent a few years developing
a number of operational functions for the St. Paul Issues Forum, we could not
get anyone beyond the original team to volunteer and take the lead as team
members moved on to other interests. I think most if not all of that
information, including the by-laws and rules, is accessible from the St. Paul
Issues forum page. In fact, we used to have regular meetings to discuss the
various aspects of operating St. Paul Issues. Very few people chose to attend.
Mike
~ Abraham Lincoln

http://oyh.org


--- On Wed, 12/29/10, Joe Nathan <email obscured>> wrote:
From: Joe Nathan <email obscured>>

Date: Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 6:50 AM
We seem to have two clashing views:

Page 73
SPIF feedback
a. One from Mr. Owings, asking for more information about how e-democracy in
various places operates
b. Another, from various e-democracy volunteer forum managers, saying they
don't have time to respond to the requests for operational data, don't
necessarily keep the data that Mr. Owings is requesting, and don't feel it
is their responsibility to keep and share the requested data.
I do appreciate that much of e-democracy is run by volunteers. Thanks to

these folks for their efforts.
My understanding is that e-democracy has asked for and received "tax-exempt"

status from the US Government, allowing it to ask for and receive grants,
gifts and other cash contributions.
Perhaps those who run St. Paul and other e-democracy forums could tell us
a. What data they believe they are required to keep and share as part of
b. What data they do gather beyond what is required
c. What are the organizational goals, and how they are assessed
While I share (and have raised) some of the same concerns that Mr. Owings
has raised, it may be that e-democracy is not required to share the kind of
data Mr. Owings has requested. I don't know. That's why I'm suggesting a
response to the 3 questions listed above.
Thanks to Mr. Owings and Mr. Krenik for raising their questions, and thanks
to the e-democracy volunteers for continuing to make e-democracy available.
Thanks
Joe Nathan
Highland Park
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:
> Joe,
>
> All the data requests were made and refused in September. With the
> exception of Mr. Mons who did provide most of the data for St.Paul's Issue
> Forum. I also made requests of the eDemocracy forums in Minneapolis and the
> UK. In addition I asked the Management, specifically Mr. Clift and Mr.
> Fratto who both refused to provide the data or to support my request of the
> various forum Managers.
>
> The specific data I requested is contained in this thread and outlined in
> detail in the posts above. To simplify though, I was requesting data on
Page 74
SPIF feedback
> suspensions, warnings (both formal and informal, membership diversity and
> membership participation.
>
> Specifically on the last piece of data covering membership participation, I
> was hoping to compare year to year participation on the site to measure
> whether the, "civility and off-topic" rules were having any effect at all
> either positive or negative.
>
> By measuring the member participation, not just the number of posts since
> some members may post only once while others post many times, that some
> insight might be gained on the actual effectiveness of the rules. As the
> argument by some Managers here has been that strict rules enforcement
> encourages participation, I wanted to put that claim to the test against
> some real data.
>
> Also, it has long been my contention that diversity in terms of race,
> gender and political affiliation is something that SPIF needed to encourage
> and work harder on, so I was hoping for some data on their efforts in that
> area as well.
>
> In refusing to provide any transparency the management of eDemocracy,
> specifically Mr. Fratto and Mr. Clift have have stated that the requests
> would create an undo burden on volunteer forum managers. Additionally
> they've stated that data such as, "informal warnings/advisories" is not even
> kept and that in some cases formal disciplinary actions against members is
> also not kept.
>
> As for the disciplinary actions taken in the Saint Paul Issues Forum there
> is a definite trend toward suspending members of a particular political
> party as most of those suspended and warned in the past 3 years have been
> self-identified conservatives. No matter what side of the political spectrum
> you fall on, fairness ought be the first order of business.
>
> In defense of Mr. Mons, I have come to appreciate his honesty about the
> rules, his interpretation and his process, however that does not mean I or
> any other member have to agree with them. I mention this only because I
> don't think the problem with eDemocracy is Mr. Mons, the problem with
> eDeomcracy is it's rules.
>
> Martin Owings
>
>http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1Sk4zuMdkrnALodoB91WJX
>------------------------
>To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or
Page 75
SPIF feedback
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
--
Macalester College
651 696-6848
Joe Nathan
Highland Park, St Paul
About Joe Nathan: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/joenathan

http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3wFB1Vj7gzWFwm6v5nGomy
------------------------
post publicly.
instead.

------------------------
From: Grace Kelly (nicknamed Kelly) Date: Dec 29 10:38 CST
Share:
Greetings,
I was the previous chair of the oversight committee on SPIF when we had that
kind of organization. The meetings had gone down to me and Rick, with an
occasional few other people. No one wanted to organize the next election or run
for the next term of office. So when my term ended, basically the structure
defaulted to what all the other forums do.
Basically this is an all volunteer task. Very few people want to work on all
this. Martin Ownings is asking for a whole extra set of book keeping and
reporting that none of the rest of us think is necessary. Even the oversight
Page 76
SPIF feedback
board was very tentative in asking for extra work and extra reporting from a
volunteer.
This is NOT government. There is just a email/blog structure that has a
volunteer moderator. The rules have gone through a long painful process of
years of vetting. I know because I was in the heart of it all.
So it makes no sense to go after the volunteer moderator. He is actually a
hero. Remember he did not get to pick the rules. Long discussions established
how those rules are enforced here on SPIF.
I understand the "fight back" attitude of people who want to break the rules,
however it is not appropriate.
And again I have to ask, if you don't like this, then why are you here? There
are many other opportunities to write in public forums. Go somewhere where you
like the rules. This is not meant to be mean, just simply practical. You are
basically doing the equivalent of yelling at a Best Buy person for the goods
available, when you could simply just go to Target and get what you want. This
is free market situation. Go find what you want in the free market.
Grace Kelly nicknamed KellyMerriam Park
> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 07:45:30 -0800

>
> I think the answer to Mr. Nathan's question regarding what data e-democracy
needs to keep related to its tax exempt status to those on the e-democracy
board. As someone who has created and operated similar organizations, I can
tell you most of the information that needs to be kept is financial. There are
also certain requirements that need to be attested to when filing IRS forms.
>
> As for anything else, I am not aware of any requirement to keep certain data.
I can also state that even though e-democracy is a tax exempt organization,
there is no law, federal or state, that require it to share operational data.
>
> This is no different than asking 3M, Securian, Well Fargo, or any other
corporation to provide you with operational data. The Government data practices
act applies to governments not corporations or any other private entity.
>
> It is my belief that the only people who have a right to see operational data
of e-democracy and its forums are the members of the e-democracy board. That
said, the Bord of Directors may choose to provide various data they determine
to be of interest to them placing the information in the public domain.
>
> As for organizational goals etc. Again this is the domain of the e-democracy
board. For issues related to this topic, SPIF feedback, a Team was established
to act as a pseudo board to do just that. While we spent a few years developing
a number of operational functions for the St. Paul Issues Forum, we could not
get anyone beyond the original team to volunteer and take the lead as team
Page 77
SPIF feedback
members moved on to other interests. I think most if not all of that
information, including the by-laws and rules, is accessible from the St. Paul
Issues forum page. In fact, we used to have regular meetings to discuss the
various aspects of operating St. Paul Issues. Very few people chose to attend.
>
> Mike
>
> The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter

> ~ Abraham Lincoln

>
> Please help those who don't get enough to eat.
> http://oyh.org
> http://hungersolutions.org
>
> The future depends more on
> what we do between now and then
> Than what we did in the past.
>
> --- On Wed, 12/29/10, Joe Nathan <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> From: Joe Nathan <email obscured>>
> Date: Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 6:50 AM
>
> We seem to have two clashing views:
> a. One from Mr. Owings, asking for more information about how e-democracy in
> various places operates
> b. Another, from various e-democracy volunteer forum managers, saying they
> don't have time to respond to the requests for operational data, don't
> necessarily keep the data that Mr. Owings is requesting, and don't feel it
> is their responsibility to keep and share the requested data.
>
> I do appreciate that much of e-democracy is run by volunteers. Thanks to
> these folks for their efforts.
>
> My understanding is that e-democracy has asked for and received "tax-exempt"
> status from the US Government, allowing it to ask for and receive grants,
> gifts and other cash contributions.
> Perhaps those who run St. Paul and other e-democracy forums could tell us
> a. What data they believe they are required to keep and share as part of
> their tax-exempt status
> b. What data they do gather beyond what is required
> c. What are the organizational goals, and how they are assessed
Page 78
SPIF feedback
>
> While I share (and have raised) some of the same concerns that Mr. Owings
> has raised, it may be that e-democracy is not required to share the kind of
> data Mr. Owings has requested. I don't know. That's why I'm suggesting a
> response to the 3 questions listed above.
>
> Thanks to Mr. Owings and Mr. Krenik for raising their questions, and thanks
> to the e-democracy volunteers for continuing to make e-democracy available.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Joe Nathan
> Highland Park
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Martin Owings
<email obscured>>wrote:
>
> > Joe,
>>
> > All the data requests were made and refused in September. With the
> > exception of Mr. Mons who did provide most of the data for St.Paul's Issue
> > Forum. I also made requests of the eDemocracy forums in Minneapolis and the
> > UK. In addition I asked the Management, specifically Mr. Clift and Mr.
> > Fratto who both refused to provide the data or to support my request of the
> > various forum Managers.
>>
> > The specific data I requested is contained in this thread and outlined in
> > detail in the posts above. To simplify though, I was requesting data on
> > suspensions, warnings (both formal and informal, membership diversity and
> > membership participation.
>>
> > Specifically on the last piece of data covering membership participation, I
> > was hoping to compare year to year participation on the site to measure
> > whether the, "civility and off-topic" rules were having any effect at all
> > either positive or negative.
>>
> > By measuring the member participation, not just the number of posts since
> > some members may post only once while others post many times, that some
> > insight might be gained on the actual effectiveness of the rules. As the
> > argument by some Managers here has been that strict rules enforcement
> > encourages participation, I wanted to put that claim to the test against
> > some real data.
>>
> > Also, it has long been my contention that diversity in terms of race,
> > gender and political affiliation is something that SPIF needed to encourage
Page 79
SPIF feedback
> > and work harder on, so I was hoping for some data on their efforts in that
> > area as well.
>>
> > In refusing to provide any transparency the management of eDemocracy,
> > specifically Mr. Fratto and Mr. Clift have have stated that the requests
> > would create an undo burden on volunteer forum managers. Additionally
> > they've stated that data such as, "informal warnings/advisories" is not
even
> > kept and that in some cases formal disciplinary actions against members is
> > also not kept.
>>
> > As for the disciplinary actions taken in the Saint Paul Issues Forum there
> > is a definite trend toward suspending members of a particular political
> > party as most of those suspended and warned in the past 3 years have been
> > self-identified conservatives. No matter what side of the political
spectrum
> > you fall on, fairness ought be the first order of business.
>>
> > In defense of Mr. Mons, I have come to appreciate his honesty about the
> > rules, his interpretation and his process, however that does not mean I or
> > any other member have to agree with them. I mention this only because I
> > don't think the problem with eDemocracy is Mr. Mons, the problem with
> > eDeomcracy is it's rules.
>>
> > Martin Owings
> > http://mncapitolnews.com, Saint Paul
> > About Martin Owings: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/henryhammer
>>
> >http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1Sk4zuMdkrnALodoB91WJX
>>------------------------
> >To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or
> > "Reply-to-All" to post publicly.
> > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" OR "digest on" in subject
> > instead.
>>
>>------------------------
> > http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Nathan, Director
> Center for School Change
Page 80
SPIF feedback
> Macalester College
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
> 651 696-6848
>
> Joe Nathan
> Highland Park, St Paul
> About Joe Nathan: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/joenathan
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3wFB1Vj7gzWFwm6v5nGomy
>------------------------
post publicly.
instead.
>
>------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Michael Fratto
> Payne Phalen, St.. Paul
> About Mike Fratto: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/michaelfratto
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6nHRerDGxoimjdRC9FstGA
>------------------------
to post publicly.
instead.
>
>------------------------
Share:
Joe's question is contained in the following IRS regulatory document.
Happy hunting.
Page 81
SPIF feedback
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 26, Volume 7]
[Revised as of April 1, 2009]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 26CFR1.501(c)(3)-1]
[Page 11-22]
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE

CHAPTER I--INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
(CONTINUED)
General Rule--Table of Contents
Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1 Organizations organized and operated for

religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety,
literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to
children or animals.
(a) Organizational and operational tests. (1) In order to be
exempt as an organization described in section 501(c)(3), an
organization must be both organized and operated exclusively for one
or more of the purposes specified in such section. If an organization
fails to meet either the organizational test or the operational test,
it is not exempt.
(2) The term exempt purpose or purposes, as used in this section,
means any purpose or purposes specified in section 501(c)(3), as
defined and elaborated in paragraph (d) of this section.
(b) Organizational test--(1) In general. (i) An organization is
organized exclusively for one or more exempt purposes only if its
articles of organization (referred to in this section as its articles)
as defined in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph:
(a) Limit the purposes of such organization to one or more exempt
purposes; and
(b) Do not expressly empower the organization to engage,
otherwise than as an insubstantial part of its activities, in
activities which in themselves are not in furtherance of one or more
exempt purposes.
(ii) In meeting the organizational test, the organization's
purposes, as stated in its articles, may be as broad as, or more
specific than, the purposes stated in section 501(c)(3). Therefore, an
organization which, by the terms of its articles, is formed for
literary and scientific purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)
(3) of the Code shall, if it otherwise meets the requirements in this
paragraph, be considered to have met the organizational test.
Similarly, articles stating that the organization is created solely to
receive contributions and pay them over to organizations which are
described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt from taxation under section
501(a)) are sufficient for purposes of the organizational test.
Moreover, it is sufficient if the articles set for the purpose of the
organization to be the operation of a school for adult education and
Page 82
SPIF feedback
describe in detail the manner of the operation of such school. In
addition, if the articles state that the organization is formed for
charitable purposes, such articles ordinarily shall be sufficient for
purposes of the organizational test (see subparagraph (5) of this
paragraph for rules relating to construction of terms).
(iii) An organization is not organized exclusively for one or
more exempt purposes if its articles expressly empower it to carry on,
otherwise than as an insubstantial part of its activities,
[[Page 12]]
activities which are not in furtherance of one or more exempt
purposes, even though such organization is, by the terms of such
articles, created for a purpose that is no broader than the purposes
specified in section 501(c)(3). Thus, an organization that is
empowered by its articles to engage in a manufacturing business, or to
engage in the operation of a social club does not meet the
organizational test regardless of the fact that its articles may state
that such organization is created for charitable purposes within the
meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the Code.
(iv) In no case shall an organization be considered to be
organized exclusively for one or more exempt purposes, if, by the
terms of its articles, the purposes for which such organization is
created are broader than the purposes specified in section 501(c)(3).
The fact that the actual operations of such an organization have been
exclusively in furtherance of one or more exempt purposes shall not be
sufficient to permit the organization to meet the organizational test.
Similarly, such an organization will not meet the organizational test
as a result of statements or other evidence that the members thereof
intend to operate only in furtherance of one or more exempt purposes.
(v) An organization must, in order to establish its exemption,
submit a detailed statement of its proposed activities with and as a
part of its application for exemption (see paragraph (b) of Sec.
1.501(a)-1).
(2) Articles of organization. For purposes of this section, the
term articles of organization or articles includes the trust
instrument, the corporate charter, the articles of association, or any
other written instrument by which an organization is created.
(3) Authorization of legislative or political activities. An
organization is not organized exclusively for one or more exempt
purposes if its articles expressly empower it:
(i) To devote more than an insubstantial part of its activities
to attempting to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise; or
(ii) Directly or indirectly to participate in, or intervene in
(including the publishing or distributing of statements), any
political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for
public office; or
(iii) To have objectives and to engage in activities which
characterize it as an action organization as defined in paragraph (c)(3)
Page 83
SPIF feedback
of this section.
The terms used in subdivisions (i), (ii), and (iii) of this subparagraph
shall have the meanings provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. An
organization's articles will not violate the provisions of paragraph
(b)(3)(i) of this section even though the organization's articles
expressly empower it to make the election provided for in section 501(h)
with respect to influencing legislation and, only if it so elects, to
make lobbying or grass roots expenditures that do not normally exceed
the ceiling amounts prescribed by section 501(h)(2) (B) and (D).
(4) Distribution of assets on dissolution. An organization is not
organized exclusively for one or more exempt purposes unless its assets
are dedicated to an exempt purpose. An organization's assets will be
considered dedicated to an exempt purpose, for example, if, upon
dissolution, such assets would, by reason of a provision in the
organization's articles or by operation of law, be distributed for one
or more exempt purposes, or to the Federal Government, or to a State or
local government, for a public purpose, or would be distributed by a
court to another organization to be used in such manner as in the
judgment of the court will best accomplish the general purposes for
which the dissolved organization was organized. However, an organization
does not meet the organizational test if its articles or the law of the
State in which it was created provide that its assets would, upon
dissolution, be distributed to its members or shareholders.
(5) Construction of terms. The law of the State in which an
organization is created shall be controlling in construing the terms of
its articles. However, any organization which contends that such terms
have under State law a different meaning from their generally accepted
meaning must establish such special meaning by clear and convincing
reference to relevant court decisions, opinions of the State attorney-
[[Page 13]]
general, or other evidence of applicable State law.
(6) Applicability of the organizational test. A determination by
the
Commissioner or a district director that an organization is described in
section 501(c)(3) and exempt under section 501(a) will not be granted
after July 26, 1959 (regardless of when the application is filed),
unless such organization meets the organizational test prescribed by
this paragraph. If, before July 27, 1959, an organization has been
determined by the Commissioner or district director to be exempt as an
organization described in section 501(c)(3) or in a corresponding
provision of prior law and such determination has not been revoked
before such date, the fact that such organization does not meet the
organizational test prescribed by this paragraph shall not be a basis
for revoking such determination. Accordingly, an organization which has
been determined to be exempt before July 27, 1959, and which does not
seek a new determination of exemption is not required to amend its
Page 84
SPIF feedback
articles of organization to conform to the rules of this paragraph, but
any organization which seeks a determination of exemption after July 26,
1959, must have articles of organization which meet the rules of this
paragraph. For the rules relating to whether an organization determined
to be exempt before July 27, 1959, is organized exclusively for one or
more exempt purposes, see 26 CFR (1939) 39.101(6)-1 (Regulations 118) as
made applicable to the Code by Treasury Decision 6091, approved August
16, 1954 (19 FR 5167; C.B. 1954-2, 47).
(c) Operational test--(1) Primary activities. An organization will
be regarded as operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes only
if it engages primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of
such exempt purposes specified in section 501(c)(3). An organization
will not be so regarded if more than an insubstantial part of its
activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose.
(2) Distribution of earnings. An organization is not operated
exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if its net earnings inure in
whole or in part to the benefit of private shareholders or individuals.
For the definition of the words private shareholder or individual, see
paragraph (c) of Sec. 1.501(a)-1.
(3) Action organizations. (i) An organization is not operated
exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if it is an action
organization as defined in subdivisions (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this
subparagraph.
(ii) An organization is an action organization if a substantial
part
of its activities is attempting to influence legislation by propaganda
or otherwise. For this purpose, an organization will be regarded as
attempting to influence legislation if the organization:
(a) Contacts, or urges the public to contact, members of a
legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing
legislation; or
(b) Advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.
The term legislation, as used in this subdivision, includes action by

the Congress, by any State legislature, by any local council or similar
governing body, or by the public in a referendum, initiative,
constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. An organization will not
fail to meet the operational test merely because it advocates, as an
insubstantial part of its activities, the adoption or rejection of
legislation. An organization for which the expenditure test election of
section 501(h) is in effect for a taxable year will not be considered an
action organization by reason of this paragraph (c)(3)(ii) for that year
if it is not denied exemption from taxation under section 501(a) by
reason of section 501(h).
(iii) An organization is an action organization if it participates
or intervenes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on
behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
Page 85
SPIF feedback
The term candidate for public office means an individual who offers
himself, or is proposed by others, as a contestant for an elective
public office, whether such office be national, State, or local.
Activities which constitute participation or intervention in a political
campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are
not limited to, the publication or distribution of written or printed
statements or the making of oral statements on
[[Page 14]]
behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.
(iv) An organization is an action organization if it has the
following two characteristics: (a) Its main or primary objective or
objectives (as distinguished from its incidental or secondary
objectives) may be attained only by legislation or a defeat of proposed
legislation; and (b) it advocates, or campaigns for, the attainment of
such main or primary objective or objectives as distinguished from
engaging in nonpartisan analysis, study, or research and making the
results thereof available to the public. In determining whether an
organization has such characteristics, all the surrounding facts and
circumstances, including the articles and all activities of the
organization, are to be considered.
(v) An action organization, described in subdivisions (ii) or (iv)
of this subparagraph, though it cannot qualify under section 501(c)(3),
may nevertheless qualify as a social welfare organization under section
501(c)(4) if it meets the requirements set out in paragraph (a) of Sec.
1.501(c)(4)-1.
(d) Exempt purposes--(1) In general. (i) An organization may be
exempt as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) if it is
organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the following
purposes:
(a) Religious,
(b) Charitable,
(c) Scientific,
(d) Testing for public safety,
(e) Literary,
(f) Educational, or
(g) Prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
(ii) An organization is not organized or operated exclusively for
one or more of the purposes specified in subdivision (i) of this
subparagraph unless it serves a public rather than a private interest.
Thus, to meet the requirement of this subdivision, it is necessary for
an organization to establish that it is not organized or operated for
the benefit of private interests such as designated individuals, the
creator or his family, shareholders of the organization, or persons
controlled, directly or indirectly, by such private interests.
(iii) Examples. The following examples illustrate the requirement
of
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section that an organization serve a public
Page 86
SPIF feedback
rather than a private interest:
Example 1. (i) O is an educational organization the purpose of
which
is to study history and immigration. O's educational activities include
sponsoring lectures and publishing a journal. The focus of O's
historical studies is the genealogy of one family, tracing the descent
of its present members. O actively solicits for membership only
individuals who are members of that one family. O's research is directed
toward publishing a history of that family that will document the
pedigrees of family members. A major objective of O's research is to
identify and locate living descendants of that family to enable those
descendants to become acquainted with each other.
(ii) O's educational activities primarily serve the private
interests of members of a single family rather than a public interest.
Therefore, O is operated for the benefit of private interests in
violation of the restriction on private benefit in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)
of this section. Based on these facts and circumstances, O is not
operated exclusively for exempt purposes and, therefore, is not
described in section 501(c)(3).
Example 2. (i) O is an art museum. O's principal activity is
exhibiting art created by a group of unknown but promising local
artists. O's activity, including organized tours of its art collection,
promotes the arts. O is governed by a board of trustees unrelated to the
artists whose work O exhibits. All of the art exhibited is offered for
sale at prices set by the artist. Each artist whose work is exhibited
has a consignment arrangement with O. Under this arrangement, when art
is sold, the museum retains 10 percent of the selling price to cover the
costs of operating the museum and gives the artist 90 percent.
(ii) The artists in this situation directly benefit from the
exhibition and sale of their art. As a result, the principal activity of
O serves the private interests of these artists. Because O gives 90
percent of the proceeds from its sole activity to the individual
artists, the direct benefits to the artists are substantial and O's
provision of these benefits to the artists is more than incidental to
its other purposes and activities. This arrangement causes O to be
operated for the benefit of private interests in violation of the
restriction on private benefit in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
Based on these facts and circumstances, O is not operated exclusively
for exempt purposes and, therefore, is not described in section
501(c)(3).
Example 3. (i) O is an educational organization the purpose of
which
is to train individuals in a program developed by P, O's president. The
program is of interest to academics and professionals, representatives
of whom serve on an advisory panel to O. All of
[[Page 15]]
the rights to the program are owned by Company K, a for-profit
Page 87
SPIF feedback
corporation owned by P. Prior to the existence of O, the teaching of the
program was conducted by Company K. O licenses, from Company K, the
right to conduct seminars and lectures on the program and to use the
name of the program as part of O's name, in exchange for specified
royalty payments. Under the license agreement, Company K provides O with
the services of trainers and with course materials on the program. O may
develop and copyright new course materials on the program but all such
materials must be assigned to Company K without consideration if and
when the license agreement is terminated. Company K sets the tuition for
the seminars and lectures on the program conducted by O. O has agreed
not to become involved in any activity resembling the program or its
implementation for 2 years after the termination of O's license
agreement.
(ii) O's sole activity is conducting seminars and lectures on the
program. This arrangement causes O to be operated for the benefit of P
and Company K in violation of the restriction on private benefit in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, regardless of whether the royalty
payments from O to Company K for the right to teach the program are
reasonable. Based on these facts and circumstances, O is not operated
exclusively for exempt purposes and, therefore, is not described in
section 501(c)(3).
(iv) Since each of the purposes specified in subdivision (i) of
this
subparagraph is an exempt purpose in itself, an organization may be
exempt if it is organized and operated exclusively for any one or more
of such purposes. If, in fact, an organization is organized and operated
exclusively for an exempt purpose or purposes, exemption will be granted
to such an organization regardless of the purpose or purposes specified
in its application for exemption. For example, if an organization claims
exemption on the ground that it is educational, exemption will not be
denied if, in fact, it is charitable.
(2) Charitable defined. The term charitable is used in section
501(c)(3) in its generally accepted legal sense and is, therefore, not
to be construed as limited by the separate enumeration in section
501(c)(3) of other tax-exempt purposes which may fall within the broad
outlines of charity as developed by judicial decisions. Such term
includes: Relief of the poor and distressed or of the underprivileged;
advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection
or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening of
the burdens of Government; and promotion of social welfare by
organizations designed to accomplish any of the above purposes, or (i)
to lessen neighborhood tensions; (ii) to eliminate prejudice and
discrimination; (iii) to defend human and civil rights secured by law;
or (iv) to combat community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. The
fact that an organization which is organized and operated for the relief
of indigent persons may receive voluntary contributions from the persons
intended to be relieved will not necessarily prevent such organization
from being exempt as an organization organized and operated exclusively
Page 88
SPIF feedback
for charitable purposes. The fact that an organization, in carrying out
its primary purpose, advocates social or civic changes or presents
opinion on controversial issues with the intention of molding public
opinion or creating public sentiment to an acceptance of its views does
not preclude such organization from qualifying under section 501(c)(3)
so long as it is not an action organization of any one of the types
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(3) Educational defined--(i) In general. The term educational, as
used in section 501(c)(3), relates to:
(a) The instruction or training of the individual for the purpose
of
improving or developing his capabilities; or
(b) The instruction of the public on subjects useful to the
individual and beneficial to the community.
An organization may be educational even though it advocates a particular

position or viewpoint so long as it presents a sufficiently full and
fair exposition of the pertinent facts as to permit an individual or the
public to form an independent opinion or conclusion. On the other hand,
an organization is not educational if its principal function is the mere
presentation of unsupported opinion.
(ii) Examples of educational organizations. The following are
examples of organizations which, if they otherwise meet the requirements
of this section, are educational:
Example 1. An organization, such as a primary or secondary
school, a
college, or a
[[Page 16]]
professional or trade school, which has a regularly scheduled
curriculum, a regular faculty, and a regularly enrolled body of students
in attendance at a place where the educational activities are regularly
carried on.
Example 2. An organization whose activities consist of presenting
public discussion groups, forums, panels, lectures, or other similar
programs. Such programs may be on radio or television.
Example 3. An organization which presents a course of instruction
by
means of correspondence or through the utilization of television or
radio.
Example 4. museums, zoos, planetariums, symphony orchestras, and
other similar organizations.
(4) Testing for public safety defined. The term testing for public
safety, as used in section 501(c)(3), includes the testing of consumer
products, such as electrical products, to determine whether they are
safe for use by the general public.
(5) Scientific defined. (i) Since an organization may meet the
requirements of section 501(c)(3) only if it serves a public rather than
Page 89
SPIF feedback
a private interest, a scientific organization must be organized and
operated in the public interest (see subparagraph (1)(ii) of this
paragraph). Therefore, the term scientific, as used in section
501(c)(3), includes the carrying on of scientific research in the public
interest. Research when taken alone is a word with various meanings; it
is not synonymous with scientific; and the nature of particular research
depends upon the purpose which it serves. For research to be scientific,
within the meaning of section 501(c)(3), it must be carried on in
furtherance of a scientific purpose. The determination as to whether
research is scientific does not depend on whether such research is
classified as fundamental or basic as contrasted with applied or
practical. On the other hand, for purposes of the exclusion from
unrelated business taxable income provided by section 512(b)(9), it is
necessary to determine whether the organization is operated primarily
for purposes of carrying on fundamental, as contrasted with applied,
research.
(ii) Scientific research does not include activities of a type
ordinarily carried on as an incident to commercial or industrial
operations, as, for example, the ordinary testing or inspection of
materials or products or the designing or construction of equipment,
buildings, etc.
(iii) Scientific research will be regarded as carried on in the
public interest:
(a) If the results of such research (including any patents,
copyrights, processes, or formulae resulting from such research) are
made available to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis;
(b) If such research is performed for the United States, or any of
its agencies or instrumentalities, or for a State or political
subdivision thereof; or
(c) If such research is directed toward benefiting the public. The
following are examples of scientific research which will be considered
as directed toward benefiting the public, and, therefore, which will be
regarded as carried on in the public interest: (1) Scientific research
carried on for the purpose of aiding in the scientific education of
college or university students; (2) scientific research carried on for
the purpose of obtaining scientific information, which is published in a
treatise, thesis, trade publication, or in any other form that is
available to the interested public; (3) scientific research carried on
for the purpose of discovering a cure for a disease; or (4) scientific
research carried on for the purpose of aiding a community or
geographical area by attracting new industry to the community or area or
by encouraging the development of, or retention of, an industry in the
community or area. Scientific research described in this subdivision
will be regarded as carried on in the public interest even though such
research is performed pursuant to a contract or agreement under which
the sponsor or sponsors of the research have the right to obtain
ownership or control of any patents, copyrights, processes, or formulae
resulting from such research.
Page 90
SPIF feedback
(iv) An organization will not be regarded as organized and operated
for the purpose of carrying on scientific research in the public
interest and, consequently, will not qualify under section 501(c)(3) as
a scientific organization, if:
(a) Such organization will perform research only for persons which
are (directly or indirectly) its creators and
[[Page 17]]
which are not described in section 501(c)(3), or
(b) Such organization retains (directly or indirectly) the
ownership
or control of more than an insubstantial portion of the patents,
copyrights, processes, or formulae resulting from its research and does
not make such patents, copyrights, processes, or formulae available to
the public. For purposes of this subdivision, a patent, copyright,
process, or formula shall be considered as made available to the public
if such patent, copyright, process, or formula is made available to the
public on a nondiscriminatory basis. In addition, although one person is
granted the exclusive right to the use of a patent, copyright, process,
or formula, such patent, copyright, process, or formula shall be
considered as made available to the public if the granting of such
exclusive right is the only practicable manner in which the patent,
copyright, process, or formula can be utilized to benefit the public. In
such a case, however, the research from which the patent, copyright,
process, or formula resulted will be regarded as carried on in the
public interest (within the meaning of subdivision (iii) of this
subparagraph) only if it is carried on for a person described in
subdivision (iii)(b) of this subparagraph or if it is scientific
research described in subdivision (iii)(c) of this subparagraph.
(v) The fact that any organization (including a college,
university,
or hospital) carries on research which is not in furtherance of an
exempt purpose described in section 501(c)(3) will not preclude such
organization from meeting the requirements of section 501(c)(3) so long
as the organization meets the organizational test and is not operated
for the primary purpose of carrying on such research (see paragraph (e)
of this section, relating to organizations carrying on a trade or
business). See paragraph (a)(5) of Sec. 1.513-2, with respect to
research which constitutes an unrelated trade or business, and section
512(b) (7), (8), and (9), with respect to income derived from research
which is excludable from the tax on unrelated business income.
(vi) The regulations in this subparagraph are applicable with
respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1960.
(e) Organizations carrying on trade or business--(1) In general. An
organization may meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3) although it
operates a trade or business as a substantial part of its activities, if
the operation of such trade or business is in furtherance of the
organization's exempt purpose or purposes and if the organization is not
Page 91
SPIF feedback
organized or operated for the primary purpose of carrying on an
unrelated trade or business, as defined in section 513. In determining
the existence or nonexistence of such primary purpose, all the
circumstances must be considered, including the size and extent of the
trade or business and the size and extent of the activities which are in
furtherance of one or more exempt purposes. An organization which is
organized and operated for the primary purpose of carrying on an
unrelated trade or business is not exempt under section 501(c)(3) even
though it has certain religious purposes, its property is held in
common, and its profits do not inure to the benefit of individual
members of the organization. See, however, section 501(d) and Sec.
1.501(d)-1, relating to religious and apostolic organizations.
(2) Taxation of unrelated business income. For provisions relating
to the taxation of unrelated business income of certain organizations
described in section 501(c)(3), see sections 511 to 515, inclusive, and
the regulations thereunder.
(f) Interaction with section 4958--(1) Application process. An
organization that applies for recognition of exemption under section
501(a) as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) must establish
its eligibility under this section. The Commissioner may deny an
application for exemption for failure to establish any of section
501(c)(3)'s requirements for exemption. Section 4958 does not apply to
transactions with an organization that has failed to establish that it
satisfies all of the requirements for exemption under section 501(c)(3).
See Sec. 53.4958-2.
(2) Substantive requirements for exemption still apply to
applicable
tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3)--(i) In general.
Regardless of whether a particular transaction is
[[Page 18]]
subject to excise taxes under section 4958, the substantive requirements
for tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) still apply to an applicable
tax-exempt organization (as defined in section 4958(e) and Sec.
53.4958-2) described in section 501(c)(3) whose disqualified persons or
organization managers are subject to excise taxes under section 4958.
Accordingly, an organization will no longer meet the requirements for
tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) if the organization fails to
satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of this section.
See Sec. 53.4958-8(a).
(ii) Determination of whether revocation of tax-exempt status is
appropriate when section 4958 excise taxes also apply. In determining
whether to continue to recognize the tax-exempt status of an applicable
tax-exempt organization (as defined in section 4958(e) and Sec.
53.4958-2) described in section 501(c)(3) that engages in one or more
excess benefit transactions (as defined in section 4958(c) and Sec.
53.4958-4) that violate the prohibition on inurement under section
501(c)(3), the Commissioner will consider all relevant facts and
Page 92
SPIF feedback
circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following--
(A) The size and scope of the organization's regular and ongoing
activities that further exempt purposes before and after the excess
benefit transaction or transactions occurred;
(B) The size and scope of the excess benefit transaction or
transactions (collectively, if more than one) in relation to the size
and scope of the organization's regular and ongoing activities that
further exempt purposes;
(C) Whether the organization has been involved in multiple excess
benefit transactions with one or more persons;
(D) Whether the organization has implemented safeguards that are
reasonably calculated to prevent excess benefit transactions; and
(E) Whether the excess
This email has been automatically truncated to 5000 words.

Share:
Mike - I think your response illustrates my points better than I could have.
Joe - I appreciate you asking the questions and your response. I also agree
with you on the volunteer aspect and I am definitely sympathetic in that
regard. However I don't think that should preclude the organization from
keeping proper records especially when it comes to the member usage of the
site, disciplinary action against its membership or data on demographics.
Furthermore, I don't know the exact specifics, but I believe Mr. Clift is paid
for his work and that the organization received a $150,000.00 grant from the
Ford Foundation according to public records. They may also have received
additional grants, but I don't know that for sure and I never requested that
information from them.
Additionally, and this may seem obvious, they are leveraging technology to
produce a content space. It could be assumed that at least basic data on
membership, number of posts and warnings issued would be available fairly
easily, but again I am not sure of their backend processes or workflow since
there is little transparency.
As for the clash taking place, I wish it hadn't been necessary at all. Those of
us advocating for free speech and broader diversity on the forum are not
calling for a return to the, "wild west" as some have said, but instead that
each of eDemocracy's members be treated like adults and not a bunch of children
who need to be supervised on Mr. Clift's playground.
The current eDemocracy model demands respect rather than earning it. Surely
this is a recipe for failure if in that model we deny certain people the
opportunity to be heard in their own voices.
Page 93
SPIF feedback
As you know Joe people who engage in civic and political discourse are
protected by the First Amendment. If ever there were a time for those
principles to be exercised and applied to EVERYONE, now is that time. Yes we
will hear from those on the far ends of the political spectrum, but the law
protects them as it does everyone else.
The fact is that eDemocracy is a private non-profit so they can choose how to
apply those fundamental rules, that much is not in question, but the reputation
they earn for doing so certainly is.
From: Charlie Swope Date: Dec 29 10:58 CST
Share:
The data required by the government can be found by looking at the IRS Form 990
filed by E-Democracy. This information is public and is accessible on sites
like GuideStar. http://www2.guidestar.org/Home.aspx.
As for operational data, the question for me isn't what the government requires
(It doesn't require much, if any, of that kind of information). The better
question is what kind of information, if any, would it be appropriate for an
organization like E-Democracy (1) to collect and (2) to make available to its
members or the public. I should think E-Democracy would want to collect certain
kinds of data about usage, participation, etc. for its own purposes. Just how
much of that data should be made public is another question. My own feeling is
that most of the aggregate data should be available; e.g., how many members,
percent of participation, etc.
And it isn't true that organizations don't release operational data. Many
organizations, charitable and otherwise, release non-confidential, aggregate
data in yearly reports. E-Democracy is a small, mostly volunteer organization
and may not have the resources to put together yearly reports but, otherwise I
see no reason for it not to do so.
FWIW
Charlie Swope
Share:
Thanks for the feedback from Grace and John,
It's somewhat surprising to read that asking a few questions in a polite

tone is described as "You are basically doing the equivalent of yelling at a
Best Buy person for the goods available."
Grace suggests going elsewhere. Some of us do that, using multiple

approaches to sharing information. Based on feedback from some participants
in the e-democracy, my sense is that there are people who are glad to
receive at least some of the info/ideas that I try to share.
Having worked with newspaper editors from all over the US regularly since
1989, I have a sense of what at least some professionals regard as
Page 94
SPIF feedback
appropriate focus. For example, a piece published in the Wall Street
Journal would have a somewhat different focus that a piece published in the
St. Paul Pioneer Press, which would have a somewhat different focus that
something published in the Forest Lake Times or the TC Daily Planet.
However, I've found that it is not always clear what the rules are in
various e-democracy forums in terms of focus and specificity. I also share
some of the concerns that Mr. Owings has raised.
But it is clear that

a. E-democracy is run mostly by volunteers - and I do appreciate that
b. Requests for information about how e-democracy is run are sometimes
equated with "yelling at a Best Buy person for the goods available"
c. People who are running e-democracy are pretty satisfied with the way that
things are
d. People who are running e-democracy don't have the time or interest to
respond to the kind of questions Mr. Owings is raising.
thanks for your responses.
Joe Nathan
Highland Park

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Grace Kelly <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> I was the previous chair of the oversight committee on SPIF when we had
> that kind of organization. The meetings had gone down to me and Rick, with
> an occasional few other people. No one wanted to organize the next election
> or run for the next term of office. So when my term ended, basically the
> structure defaulted to what all the other forums do.
> Basically this is an all volunteer task. Very few people want to work on
> all this. Martin Ownings is asking for a whole extra set of book keeping and
> reporting that none of the rest of us think is necessary. Even the oversight
> board was very tentative in asking for extra work and extra reporting from a
> volunteer.
> This is NOT government. There is just a email/blog structure that has a
> volunteer moderator. The rules have gone through a long painful process of
> years of vetting. I know because I was in the heart of it all.
> So it makes no sense to go after the volunteer moderator. He is actually a
> hero. Remember he did not get to pick the rules. Long discussions
> established how those rules are enforced here on SPIF.
> I understand the "fight back" attitude of people who want to break the
Page 95
SPIF feedback
> rules, however it is not appropriate.
> And again I have to ask, if you don't like this, then why are you here?
> There are many other opportunities to write in public forums. Go somewhere
> where you like the rules. This is not meant to be mean, just simply
> practical. You are basically doing the equivalent of yelling at a Best Buy
> person for the goods available, when you could simply just go to Target and
> get what you want. This is free market situation. Go find what you want in
> the free market.
> Grace Kelly nicknamed KellyMerriam Park
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 07:45:30 -0800
>>
> > I think the answer to Mr. Nathan's question regarding what data
> e-democracy needs to keep related to its tax exempt status to those on the
> e-democracy board. As someone who has created and operated similar
> organizations, I can tell you most of the information that needs to be kept
> is financial. There are also certain requirements that need to be attested
> to when filing IRS forms.
>>
> > As for anything else, I am not aware of any requirement to keep certain
> data. I can also state that even though e-democracy is a tax exempt
> organization, there is no law, federal or state, that require it to share
> operational data.
>>
> > This is no different than asking 3M, Securian, Well Fargo, or any other
> corporation to provide you with operational data. The Government data
> practices act applies to governments not corporations or any other private
> entity.
>>
> > It is my belief that the only people who have a right to see operational
> data of e-democracy and its forums are the members of the e-democracy board.
> That said, the Bord of Directors may choose to provide various data they
> determine to be of interest to them placing the information in the public
> domain.
>>
> > As for organizational goals etc. Again this is the domain of the
> e-democracy board. For issues related to this topic, SPIF feedback, a Team
> was established to act as a pseudo board to do just that. While we spent a
> few years developing a number of operational functions for the St. Paul
> Issues Forum, we could not get anyone beyond the original team to volunteer
> and take the lead as team members moved on to other interests. I think most
> if not all of that information, including the by-laws and rules, is
> accessible from the St. Paul Issues forum page. In fact, we used to have
> regular meetings to discuss the various aspects of operating St. Paul
Page 96
SPIF feedback
> Issues. Very few people chose to attend.
>>
> > Mike
>>
> > The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to
> deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.
>> ~ Abraham Lincoln
>>
> > Please help those who don't get enough to eat.
> > http://oyh.org
> > http://hungersolutions.org
>>
> > The future depends more on
> > what we do between now and then
> > Than what we did in the past.
>>
> > --- On Wed, 12/29/10, Joe Nathan <email obscured>> wrote:
>>
> > From: Joe Nathan <email obscured>>
> > Date: Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 6:50 AM
>>
> > We seem to have two clashing views:
> > a. One from Mr. Owings, asking for more information about how e-democracy
> in
> > various places operates
> > b. Another, from various e-democracy volunteer forum managers, saying
> they
> > don't have time to respond to the requests for operational data, don't
> > necessarily keep the data that Mr. Owings is requesting, and don't feel
> it
> > is their responsibility to keep and share the requested data.
>>
> > I do appreciate that much of e-democracy is run by volunteers. Thanks to
> > these folks for their efforts.
>>
> > My understanding is that e-democracy has asked for and received
> "tax-exempt"
> > status from the US Government, allowing it to ask for and receive grants,
> > gifts and other cash contributions.
> > Perhaps those who run St. Paul and other e-democracy forums could tell us
> > a. What data they believe they are required to keep and share as part of
> > their tax-exempt status
> > b. What data they do gather beyond what is required
> > c. What are the organizational goals, and how they are assessed
>>
> > While I share (and have raised) some of the same concerns that Mr. Owings
Page 97
SPIF feedback
> > has raised, it may be that e-democracy is not required to share the kind
> of
> > data Mr. Owings has requested. I don't know. That's why I'm suggesting a
> > response to the 3 questions listed above.
>>
> > Thanks to Mr. Owings and Mr. Krenik for raising their questions, and
> thanks
> > to the e-democracy volunteers for continuing to make e-democracy
> available.
>>
>>
> > Thanks
>>
> > Joe Nathan
> > Highland Park
>>
>>
>>
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Martin Owings <email obscured>
> >wrote:
>>
> > > Joe,
>>>
> > > All the data requests were made and refused in September. With the
> > > exception of Mr. Mons who did provide most of the data for St.Paul's
> Issue
> > > Forum. I also made requests of the eDemocracy forums in Minneapolis and
> the
> > > UK. In addition I asked the Management, specifically Mr. Clift and Mr.
> > > Fratto who both refused to provide the data or to support my request of
> the
> > > various forum Managers.
>>>
> > > The specific data I requested is contained in this thread and outlined
> in
> > > detail in the posts above. To simplify though, I was requesting data on
> > > suspensions, warnings (both formal and informal, membership diversity
> and
> > > membership participation.
>>>
> > > Specifically on the last piece of data covering membership
> participation, I
> > > was hoping to compare year to year participation on the site to measure
> > > whether the, "civility and off-topic" rules were having any effect at
> all
> > > either positive or negative.
>>>
> > > By measuring the member participation, not just the number of posts
Page 98
SPIF feedback
> since
> > > some members may post only once while others post many times, that some
> > > insight might be gained on the actual effectiveness of the rules. As
> the
> > > argument by some Managers here has been that strict rules enforcement
> > > encourages participation, I wanted to put that claim to the test
> against
> > > some real data.
>>>
> > > Also, it has long been my contention that diversity in terms of race,
> > > gender and political affiliation is something that SPIF needed to
> encourage
> > > and work harder on, so I was hoping for some data on their efforts in
> that
> > > area as well.
>>>
> > > In refusing to provide any transparency the management of eDemocracy,
> > > specifically Mr. Fratto and Mr. Clift have have stated that the
> requests
> > > would create an undo burden on volunteer forum managers. Additionally
> > > they've stated that data such as, "informal warnings/advisories" is not
> even
> > > kept and that in some cases formal disciplinary actions against members
> is
> > > also not kept.
>>>
> > > As for the disciplinary actions taken in the Saint Paul Issues Forum
> there
> > > is a definite trend toward suspending members of a particular political
> > > party as most of those suspended and warned in the past 3 years have
> been
> > > self-identified conservatives. No matter what side of the political
> spectrum
> > > you fall on, fairness ought be the first order of business.
>>>
> > > In defense of Mr. Mons, I have come to appreciate his honesty about the
> > > rules, his interpretation and his process, however that does not mean I
> or
> > > any other member have to agree with them. I mention this only because I
> > > don't think the problem with eDemocracy is Mr. Mons, the problem with
> > > eDeomcracy is it's rules.
>>>
> > > Martin Owings
> > > http://mncapitolnews.com, Saint Paul
> > > About Martin Owings: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/henryhammer
>>>
> > > View full topic, share on Facebook, Twitter, etc:
> > >http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1Sk4zuMdkrnALodoB91WJX
Page 99
SPIF feedback
>>>------------------------
> > >To post, e-mail: <email obscured> or
> > > "Reply-to-All" to post publicly.
> > > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" OR "digest on" in
> subject
> > > instead.
>>>
> > > Forum home: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
>>>------------------------
> > > Need help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting thanks:
> > > http://OnlineGroups.Net
> > > Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/edemocracyorg
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> > --
> > Joe Nathan, Director
> > Center for School Change
> > Macalester College
> > St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
> > 651 696-6848
>>
> > Joe Nathan
> > Highland Park, St Paul
> > About Joe Nathan: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/joenathan
>>
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3wFB1Vj7gzWFwm6v5nGomy
>>------------------------
> subject instead.
>>
>>------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
> > Michael Fratto
> > Payne Phalen, St.. Paul
> > About Mike Fratto: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/michaelfratto
>>
Page 100
SPIF feedback
> > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6nHRerDGxoimjdRC9FstGA
>>------------------------
> subject instead.
>>
>>------------------------
>
> About Grace Kelly (nicknamed Kelly):
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/gracekelly
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3hCNxKbxKfRIOk5oJKsypX
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
--
Macalester College
651 696-6848
From: Jason Stone Date: Dec 29 11:08 CST
Share:
The question is really what performance data do stakeholders expect, and the
nonprofits viability depends on its ability to meet often ambiguous
expectations. E-democracy has been in growth mode and is an understandably
Page 101
SPIF feedback
slim operation. I think now is the time for deeper consideration of what
stakeholders will expect as it enters into its next phase of life.
I am very pleased to have e-democracy and appreciate the great work of

volunteers. I am consistently surprised at the ability of forum participants
to push each others' buttons, and I personally don't want that to be part of
the accepted norm. Moderation in the e-verse is important for rationale
debate.
I have fundamental concerns about the notion that forum rules should be
debated in the back room, striking me as a well-intentioned attempt to
maintain forum focus at the expense of democracy and transparency. At the
risk of sounding over the top, this does seem to be the mode of operation of
many dictatorships, to spirit away the malcontents. That appears to me to be
the serious flaw of e-democracy.
Best wishes for a happy new year!
Jason Stone
Keewaydin neighborhood of Minneapolis

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, M Charles Swope <email obscured>> wrote:
> The data required by the government can be found by looking at the IRS Form
> 990 filed by E-Democracy. This information is public and is accessible on
> sites like GuideStar. http://www2.guidestar.org/Home.aspx.
> As for operational data, the question for me isn't what the government
> requires (It doesn't require much, if any, of that kind of information). The
> better question is what kind of information, if any, would it be appropriate
> for an organization like E-Democracy (1) to collect and (2) to make
> available to its members or the public. I should think E-Democracy would
> want to collect certain kinds of data about usage, participation, etc. for
> its own purposes. Just how much of that data should be made public is
> another question. My own feeling is that most of the aggregate data should
> be available; e.g., how many members, percent of participation, etc.
> And it isn't true that organizations don't release operational data. Many
> organizations, charitable and otherwise, release non-confidential, aggregate
> data in yearly reports. E-Democracy is a small, mostly volunteer
> organization and may not have the resources to put together yearly reports
> but, otherwise I see no reason for it not to do so.
>
> FWIW
> Charlie Swope
> Charles Swope
> Ramsey Hill, Ward 2, St. Paul
> About Charlie Swope: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/charlesswope
Page 102
SPIF feedback
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4ZF9XPo0PeCgwlGyzKzmBy
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
Share:
Howdy all,
I've been doing some house cleaning:

http://e-democracy.org/about
And note our missions and goals:

http://forums.e-democracy.org/about/mission
In taking on the role of Executive Director (rather than volunteering like I

did for the first 15 years as a Board Chair that acted like an ED), I am now
accountable to the Board. They set the goals for the entire _organization_ (not
just Issues Forums) and I report to them. Our Ford funded work only covers
specific neighborhood-level Issues Forum work - documented here:
http://e-democracy.org/inclusion as well this work: http://e-democracy.org/p3
Rule Violation Tracking
At one point we envisioned a web-based rules compliance system where

participants could file complaints via the website and a little green icon
would go from to yellow until such time that a Forum Manager could turn it
green for not a violation, leave it yellow if an informal advisory was given,
or red if the post generated a specific warning. I recall a cost estimate of
something like a few thousand dollars which would have eaten up grant resources
for other goals.
Do we want to add features that attract more people like sharing photos or
embedding videos or do we want to invest in tracking relatively rare complaints
and warnings? I'd love to be able to afford both. Anyone here willing to donate
toward such a system? We could put up a special campaign using GiveMN like we
did here:
Page 103
SPIF feedback
http://givemn.razoo.com/story/Help-E-Democracy-Org-Connect-Their-Issues-Forums-
To-Twitter-And-Facebook
I do think our rules on warning reporting need updating and I've submitted some
draft text to our Rules Committee and as I noted, have requested a period of
review before final adoption. My general recommendation is a single place all
official warnings are copied. There is no way to currently comply with Martin's
request in a centralized way. Asking our volunteers (in England too!) to do
something they have never been expected to do nor have the time to do is
unrealistic. Our system is based on volunteer labor and if one person or a
small group of people make the volunteer Forum Manager to onerous, then the
online public space we've built will die. Potential Forum Managers who embrace
our mission, goals, and rules on one side and have the right human touch,
technical comfort, and time are extremely rare. (Remember, if someone doesn't
embrace our approach they are FREE to do something online there own way ...
which is what normally happens outside of the towns where we are established.)
In terms of transparency, in the past we decided that the embarrassment of an

official warning was a far greater punishment than violation itself warranted.
The result of "public stockades" we feared would result in more cloudy informal
warnings. We also dropped the first suspension period from six months to two
weeks to make formal warnings systematized. I no of no volunteer Forum Manager
in our 17 year history who preferred to quickly suspend people from our forums
instead of working with participants to maximize the total number of those
participating.
I should note that the few folks who were unwilling to lift their specific
legal threats against us in writing, per legal counsel advice remain suspended
extraordinarily. Only one in St. Paul, one in the UK, and one in N. Minnesota.
We have two individuals who harvested e-mail addresses from the forums and
refused to agree to the forum terms when asked to verify their agreement - on
in the UK and one in MN (who also made legal threats). One real lawsuit and all
of our forums may have to close due our limited resources.
** Remember no other website in the world has any kind of pseudo-due process
with appeals, etc. they ALL take the "we can just delete your stuff" end of
story approach. No other site that I know of suspends people temporarily based
on rules for a limited time rather than outright lifetime bans. I can see why
the more commercial "we can do whatever we want approach with no accountability
system" would be a far easier path, because the middle road and levels of
transparency on suspension (after the 3rd warning at suspended person's
discretion currently) doesn't seem to satisfy at least five or six vocal voices
here. (Could be more, please let us know.)
My hunch is that if we polled members on our forums about whether they would
like to see the official (or informal advisories) violations posted about their
postings that there will be a large divide in views that will also vary from
Page 104
SPIF feedback
place to place. Of course people might be more interested in whether others
have been warned and not see themselves in that position. Or more likely people
would prefer the choice of whether their violation should be posted publicly. I
am pondering proposing to the Board some kind of poll with the draft release of
the updated rules where there isn't a real sense of consensus.
However, as we've never hidden we do have a philosophy and approach where we

do
assume a self-appointed leadership role in how to make all of this work.
Participants consent to this governance structure when they join and are free
to not join or do something different if they feel we do not listen or
accommodate their requests for change. Certainly Martin and others are still is
working to influence us, or they would have left long ago.
I still fear that most participants want us to moderate and suspend more people
than we are willing to as an organization. Some say we fear "democracy" - what
I worry about is being pushed to eliminate more voices. You already tend to see
this with minority ideologies where the majority overtime through individual
actions tries to push out opposing voices through the attrition of complaints
and private communication. About .5% of our participants grow to literally hate
participants on the other side and they would prefer to shed virtual blood our
mission and goals be damned.
On, that note, the .5% should try out this space that doesn't even require
registration - do whatever you like here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/st-paul-mn
Also, I'd love to see those who think we have the responsibilities of
government to connect in this government sponsored space instead to exercise
their rights in a true "limited public forum":
http://www.facebook.com/pages/City-of-Saint-Paul/79640426150?ref=ts
The problem with both of these spaces may be a perception that no one is
listening to you or that you will have a hard time reaching the people we've
recruited to SPIF over the years.
Finally ...
We feel great about our overall direction. We've had our most active year in 17
years of work. With our growth at the neighborhood level we are reaching a few
thousand more people with online public spaces (again we lack automated stats)
than last year. That is a stat that really matters mission wise. So that is
where much of our attention is focused ... spending time building city forums
"as is" with 1% of households versus the potential of combining a network of
neighborhood forums proven to attract over 15% in households if done right -
what would you do? (We sense that Mpls@ is growing part with the one-two punch
nhood forums offer ... so SPIF should benefit from nhood growth. (Although
district councils may be too large to engender the intimacy of our most
successful nhoods in Mpls.)
Page 105
SPIF feedback
Now let me get back to the paid work that am supposed to be focused on today.
Cheers,
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.org
Share:
Mr Clift - Thank you for posting the information above. Here are a few
additional thoughts and questions based on what you posted.
1. You offer the choice of basic data collection or cool new features like
photo and video posting. However, if you can't even track basic data and your
rules about what is and isn't civil or off-topic aren't in order, I shudder to
think what would happen if photo's and video's were subjected to the same.
2. You state that the online space will die if we make the Forum Moderator job
too onerous for volunteers and yet you ask those same volunteers to go about
their jobs without processes or procedures designed to ensure the integrity and
transparency of the space. Which do you think is the greater risk?
3. You compare eDemocracy to other online spaces, but you look downward in your
comparison by stating that none of those organizations even bother with due-
process and appeals.
But eDemocracy isn't just another online forum is it? Isn't it the online place
with the nobel goal of engaging citizens in civic discourse? Isn't this the
virtual town hall that should aspire to the principles of our own Democracy?
Shouldn't you be looking upward instead and trying to set the standard?
Shouldn't we be doing something different with this opportunity Mr Clift? Don't
compare eDemocracy to others, let them want to aspire to be like eDemocracy.
Finally, the weakest argument I've heard in all of this is the, "like it or
leave it argument". Would you tell American's who disagree with their
government to, "get out"? I don't think you'd have very many people left here
if you did. A redress of grievances is a good idea.
If you want to make eDemocracy a private club, be honest about it and do it.
Don't fool us into thinking it is a place for an open exchange of ideas with a
democratic structure.
I and others who've consistently raised concerns have been labeled,

"complainers" who will never be satisfied with eDemocracy. In my case I can
appreciate that position, but if speaking up for what we believe in
automatically makes us wrong, then the only people who will ever be right are
you and Moderators. That seems undemocratic doesn't it?
Page 106
SPIF feedback
From: Dann Dobson Date: Dec 29 19:01 CST
Share:
It is remarkable how the board of E-Democracy refuses to release the most
basic data about e-democracy and several group moderators and Steve Clift,
the Executive Director / owner repeatedly defend their refusal to release
this most basic data. Martin Owings has requested basic information about
discipline of members, the makeup of membership and posting data.
Steve Clift has created the straw-man argument that this information can be
gathered, or we can post pictures in e-"democracy".
Joe Nathan asked for three simple pieces of data:

"a. What data they (the e-Democracy Board) believe they are required to keep
and share as part of
b. What data they (the Board) do gather beyond what is required
c. What are the organizational goals, and how they are assessed"
Mike Fratto, the moderator of the United States group, first says that this
group is not the appropriate place to have this discussion, "I don't think
this is an issue for the St. Paul Issues forum feedback page". He carefully
avoids the fact that ALL of the e-democracy groups have Rule 9, which
states, "*9. Items Not Allowed in Forums, Exceptions* - . . . Comments or
complaints about forum management or complaints about member rule violations
must not be posted to the main forum. Instead, direct such messages
privately to the Forum Manager."
http://pages.e-democracy.org/Rules
which prohibits any discussion of forum management or rules.
Thus if a member has a problem with a Forum Manager who do they complaint
to? THE FORUM MANAGER. There is virtually no way to complain to, or appeal
to the Board, until an individual has drawn a suspension.
Violation of this rule can lead to warnings or suspensions. In tyrannies,

criticise the "leaders" and you get thrown in jail. In E-"Democracy" you get
warnings or banned.
Mike, if you think that this is an inappropriate place to hold this

discussion, where do you suggest that we hold it? I'll gladly move the
discussion to the United States e-democracy group,
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us
which you moderate, "The Forum Manager for this group is Mike
Fratto<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/michaelfratto>
."
if you promise not to issue any warnings. Will you agree to that?
Page 107
SPIF feedback
Then Mike compares e-democracy to 3M, Securian and Wells Fargo, all publicly
owned stock companies and then tells us that E-"Democracy" is in reality a
privately owned non-profit."This is no different than asking 3M, Securian,
Well Fargo, or any other corporation to provide you with operational data.
The Government data practices act applies to governments not corporations or
any other private entity."
Actually these corporations release far more information to their

stockholders and the SEC than do the E-"Democracy" Board of Directors or
Steve Clift the Executive Director. Each year any publicly owned company
must list their Board of Directors and Financials, as well as hold an annual
meeting.
Here is 3M's financial data:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=80574&p=irol-IRHome
Over the last few days I have questioned Steve Clift where is the
"democracy" in e-democracy. He actually had the chutzpah to respond to me
"where is the democracy in the Democratic party?". I pointed out that the
Democratic Party regularly has caucuses, conventions and primaries were the
Democratic Party elects it's leaders, boards and candidates.
Grace Kelly says that she was part of a group that used to call e-democracy
meetings, but it dwindled down to her and Steve Clift.The funny thing is,
they keep saying it is "all volunteer run" and they can't get enough
"volunteers", yet when John Krenick and I , both of whom live in Saint Paul
volunteered to run the St. Paul Forum, the excuse given why this won't work
is, "what if Dann and John can't agree."
But at the risk of being labeled one of the "complainers" here are my
questions to the e-democracy board, it's defenders and Executive Director,
Steve Clift:
1. When are the elections for the Board of e-democracy?

2. How does one get to be a candidate for the Board of e-democracy?
3. When and where are the Board Meetings of e-democracy held?
4. Have the minutes of e-democracy ever been posted and if so where?
5. If the minutes of the Board of e-democracy have not been posted, why not
and will they be posted in the future?
I am on the boards of three non-profits in Twin Cities, including the

District Council 16 / Summit Hill Association. The Summit Hill Association
maintains a website and holds regular monthly meetings that are open to the
public. Our minutes are published each month, as well as our annual and
monthly financial statements.
I would think that any group that calls itself a "democracy" would at least
make this very basic information available on it's website or publicly
Page 108
SPIF feedback
available in some manner.
I find it ironic that E-democracy thinks its Mission is to promote democracy

around the world, yet it's Board, Moderators and Executive Director
vigorously resists real democracy on its owns Forums and Board.
Dann Dobson
Summit Hill - Saint Paul

=====================================================================
===
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Mike Fratto <email obscured>> wrote:
> needs to keep related to its tax exempt status to those on the e-democracy
> board. As someone who has created and operated similar organizations, I can
> tell you most of the information that needs to be kept is financial. There
> are also certain requirements that need to be attested to when filing IRS
> forms.
>
> As for anything else, I am not aware of any requirement to keep certain
> operational data.
>
> entity.
>
> It is my belief that the only people who have a right to see operational
> domain.
>
> As for organizational goals etc. Again this is the domain of the
Page 109
SPIF feedback
>
> Mike
>
> The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to
> ~ Abraham Lincoln
>
> http://oyh.org
>
>
> --- On Wed, 12/29/10, Joe Nathan <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> From: Joe Nathan <email obscured>>
>
> a. One from Mr. Owings, asking for more information about how e-democracy
> in
>
>
> My understanding is that e-democracy has asked for and received
> "tax-exempt"
>
Page 110
SPIF feedback
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Joe Nathan
> Highland Park
>
>
>
From: Dann Dobson Date: Dec 29 19:10 CST
Share:
Mike -
What a lame excuse for not answering my questions. I have posted my message
in the Feedback Forum, so you can respond there now.
But I fully expect you will give another series of non-answers, as you did
to Joe Nathan and all of the other e-democracy administrators have to my,
Martin Ownings, John Krenik's and others questions and concerns.
$100 says you don't answer my questions.
- Dann

===================================================
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Mike Fratto <email obscured>> wrote:
> I would love to respond to you Dann but you posted to the St. Paul issues
> forum not the St. Paul Feed back forum which all posts until this one have
> been posted. Frankly the US Forum is not part of the St. Paul Issues
> forum. Therefore discussion of it on this or the St. Paul Feedback forum is
> inappropriate.
>
>
> Mike
>
> The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from
> the support of a cause we believe to be just.
> ~ Abraham Lincoln
Page 111
SPIF feedback
>
> http://oyh.org
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 12/29/10, Dann Dobson <email obscured>>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Dann Dobson <email obscured>>
>
> To: "Mike Fratto" <email obscured>>
> Cc: "St. Paul Issues Forum" <email obscured>>
> Date: Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 6:35 PM
>
>
>
> It is remarkable how the board of E-Democracy refuses to release the most
> basic data about e-democracy and several group moderators and Steve Clift,
> the Executive Director / owner repeatedly defend their refusal to release
> this most basic data. Martin Owings has requested basic information about
> discipline of members, the makeup of membership and posting data.
>
> Steve Clift has created the straw-man argument that this information can be
> gathered, or we can post pictures in e-"democracy".
>
> Joe Nathan asked for three simple pieces of data:
> "a. What data they (the e-Democracy Board) believe they are required to
> keep and share as part of
> b. What data they (the Board) do gather beyond what is required
> c. What are the organizational goals, and how they are assessed"
>
> Mike Fratto, the moderator of the United States group, first says that
> this group is not the appropriate place to have this discussion, "I don't
> think this is an issue for the St. Paul Issues forum feedback page". He
> carefully avoids the fact that ALL of the e-democracy groups have Rule 9,
> which states, "*9. Items Not Allowed in Forums, Exceptions* - . . .
> Comments or complaints about forum management or complaints about member
> rule violations must not be posted to the main forum. Instead, direct such
> messages privately to the Forum Manager."
> http://pages.e-democracy.org/Rules
> which prohibits any discussion of forum management or rules.
>
Page 112
SPIF feedback
> Thus if a member has a problem with a Forum Manager who do they complaint
> to? THE FORUM MANAGER. There is virtually no way to complain to, or appeal
> to the Board, until an individual has drawn a suspension.
>
> Violation of this rule can lead to warnings or suspensions. In tyrannies,
> criticise the "leaders" and you get thrown in jail. In E-"Democracy" you get
> warnings or banned.
>
> Mike, if you think that this is an inappropriate place to hold this
> discussion, where do you suggest that we hold it? I'll gladly move the
> discussion to the United States e-democracy group,
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us
> which you moderate, "The Forum Manager for this group is Mike
Fratto<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/michaelfratto>
> ."
> if you promise not to issue any warnings. Will you agree to that?
>
> Then Mike compares e-democracy to 3M, Securian and Wells Fargo, all
> publicly owned stock companies and then tells us that E-"Democracy" is in
> reality a privately owned non-profit."This is no different than asking 3M,
> Securian, Well Fargo, or any other corporation to provide you with
> operational data. The Government data practices act applies to governments
> not corporations or any other private entity."
>
> Actually these corporations release far more information to their
> stockholders and the SEC than do the E-"Democracy" Board of Directors or
> Steve Clift the Executive Director. Each year any publicly owned company
> must list their Board of Directors and Financials, as well as hold an annual
> meeting.
>
> Here is 3M's financial data:
> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=80574&p=irol-IRHome
>
> Over the last few days I have questioned Steve Clift where is the
> "democracy" in e-democracy. He actually had the chutzpah to respond to me
> "where is the democracy in the Democratic party?". I pointed out that the
> Democratic Party regularly has caucuses, conventions and primaries were the
> Democratic Party elects it's leaders, boards and candidates.
>
> Grace Kelly says that she was part of a group that used to call e-democracy
> meetings, but it dwindled down to her and Steve Clift.The funny thing is,
> they keep saying it is "all volunteer run" and they can't get enough
> "volunteers", yet when John Krenick and I , both of whom live in Saint Paul
> volunteered to run the St. Paul Forum, the excuse given why this won't work
> is, "what if Dann and John can't agree."
>
> But at the risk of being labeled one of the "complainers" here are my
> questions to the e-democracy board, it's defenders and Executive Director,
Page 113
SPIF feedback
> Steve Clift:
>
> 1. When are the elections for the Board of e-democracy?
> 2. How does one get to be a candidate for the Board of e-democracy?
> 3. When and where are the Board Meetings of e-democracy held?
> 4. Have the minutes of e-democracy ever been posted and if so where?
> 5. If the minutes of the Board of e-democracy have not been posted, why not
> and will they be posted in the future?
>
> I am on the boards of three non-profits in Twin Cities, including the
> District Council 16 / Summit Hill Association. The Summit Hill Association
> maintains a website and holds regular monthly meetings that are open to the
> public. Our minutes are published each month, as well as our annual and
> monthly financial statements.
>
> I would think that any group that calls itself a "democracy" would at least
> make this very basic information available on it's website or publicly
> available in some manner.
>
> I find it ironic that E-democracy thinks its Mission is to promote
> democracy around the world, yet it's Board, Moderators and Executive
> Director vigorously resists real democracy on its owns Forums and Board.
>
> Dann Dobson
> Summit Hill - Saint Paul
>
>
=====================================================================
===
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Mike Fratto
<email obscured><email obscured>>
> > wrote:
>
>
> needs to keep related to its tax exempt status to those on the e-democracy
> board. As someone who has created and operated similar organizations, I can
> tell you most of the information that needs to be kept is financial. There
> are also certain requirements that need to be attested to when filing IRS
> forms.
>
> As for anything else, I am not aware of any requirement to keep certain
> operational data.
>
Page 114
SPIF feedback
> entity.
>
> It is my belief that the only people who have a right to see operational
> domain.
>
> As for organizational goals etc. Again this is the domain of the
>
> Mike
>
> ~ Abraham Lincoln
>
> http://oyh.org
>
>
> --- On Wed, 12/29/10, Joe Nathan
<email obscured><email obscured>>>
> wrote:
>
> From: Joe Nathan
<email obscured><email obscured>>
>>
> To: <email obscured><http://mc/compose?to=stpaul-
<email obscured>>
>
> a. One from Mr. Owings, asking for more information about how e-democracy
Page 115
SPIF feedback
> in
>
>
> My understanding is that e-democracy has asked for and received
> "tax-exempt"
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Joe Nathan
> Highland Park
>
>
>
>
>
Share:
Hey, folks, we're getting pretty far afield from the charter and focus of this
group:
"The purpose of the St. Paul Issues Forum Feedback is to gather feedback
regarding the St Paul Issues Forum"
This forum is intended to provide:

Page 116
SPIF feedback
" ● A public forum to discuss the rules and management of the St.
Paul Issues
Forum
● A public forum to offer suggestions or ideas on how to improve
the work of
St. Paul E-Democracy
● An opportunity to ask questions about the goals and mission of
St. Paul
E-Democracy"
Discussion of the parent organization, e-Democracy.org, is fine within the

context of the _St Paul Issues Forum_ but the current discussion seems to be
mostly comments about e-Democracy.org in general and not within the context of
the St Paul Issues Forum. And, that essentially means the broader conversation
is veering off-topic.
Your cooperation in keeping the focus on the St Paul Issues Forum will be
appreciated ... and failure to do so will lead to management action such as an
informal warning, a formal warning and/or your account being placed on
moderation.
Share:
Dann Dobson writes:
"when John Krenick and I , both of whom live in Saint Paul

volunteered to run the St. Paul Forum, the excuse given why this won't work
is, "what if Dann and John can't agree."
Actually, the most appropriate response would be: You are volunteering for a
position that is not vacant.
To Messrs. Krenik and Dobson: Please bear in mind that I haven't resigned the
position. The e-Democracy Board (under whose pleasure I now serve) hasn't
asked for me to resign. Volunteering for a position is illogical until it
becomes vacant and presumptuous.
For the others bothering to read this, please note that Dobson and Krenik's
stated rationale for replacing me is my living in Shoreview. The real
rationale -- if Dobson and Krenik were honest -- is that they don't like the
fact that when they've broken forum rules, I've enforced the rules.
Please also bear in mind that when I was appointed to serve it was after
members of the St Paul Board (which was elected by the SPIF membership at the
time) considered other alternatives and decided I was the best candidate who
had volunteered. While the Board existed, I served at their pleasure. When
the Board members's terms expired, St Paul e-Democracy essentially ended due to
Page 117
SPIF feedback
a lack of interest on the part of SPIF membership to serve on the board.
Finally, I'll likely resign at some point but don't know when. Anyone who
knows me, however, knows I won't resign when behavior such as Dobson's and
Krenik's is manifested.
Share:
Anne, Rick and others - is this statement currently accurate?
"When the Board members's terms expired, St Paul e-Democracy essentially

ended due to a lack of interest on the part of SPIF membership to serve on
the board."?
As to Anne's description of the board that runs this non-profit that you are
referring to as St. Paul E democracy, is it accurate to say that it is run
by a self-perpetuating board of directors? Would this be comparable to
the St. Paul Board of Education deciding who all of its members will be?
(Yes, I'm aware that the board is going to fill a vacancy. But in general,
doesn't democracy that a large group of people select their representatives?
Joe Nathan
Highland Park

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Rick Mons <email obscured>> wrote:
> Dann Dobson writes:

>
> "when John Krenick and I , both of whom live in Saint Paul
>
> Actually, the most appropriate response would be: You are volunteering for
> a position that is not vacant.
>
> To Messrs. Krenik and Dobson: Please bear in mind that I haven't resigned
> the position. The e-Democracy Board (under whose pleasure I now serve)
> hasn't asked for me to resign. Volunteering for a position is illogical
> until it becomes vacant and presumptuous.
>
> For the others bothering to read this, please note that Dobson and Krenik's
> stated rationale for replacing me is my living in Shoreview. The real
> rationale -- if Dobson and Krenik were honest -- is that they don't like the
> fact that when they've broken forum rules, I've enforced the rules.
>
Page 118
SPIF feedback
> Please also bear in mind that when I was appointed to serve it was after
> members of the St Paul Board (which was elected by the SPIF membership at
> the time) considered other alternatives and decided I was the best
> candidate who had volunteered. While the Board existed, I served at their
> pleasure. When the Board members's terms expired, St Paul e-Democracy
> essentially ended due to a lack of interest on the part of SPIF membership
> to serve on the board.
>
> Finally, I'll likely resign at some point but don't know when. Anyone who
> knows me, however, knows I won't resign when behavior such as Dobson's and
> Krenik's is manifested.
>
>
> Rick Mons
> Tanglewood n'hood, Shoreview, Minnesota
> About Rick Mons: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rickmons
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7MUr4ai7OtOfChTlPOl57E
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
--
Macalester College
651 696-6848
Share:
Hi All,
Rick said: "For the others bothering to read this, please note that Dobson and
Krenik's stated rationale for replacing me is my living in Shoreview. The real
Page 119
SPIF feedback
fact that when they've broken forum rules, I've enforced the rules."
My answer: Breaking the rules according to who, you Rick? Your statement
reminds me of the south in the 1960s. I can still remember that sheriff from
Mississippi saying on the nightly news, "Those coloreds were breaking the laws,
we had no choice but to turn the dogs on them." All these individuals they
were doing was protesting a system that was being very discriminatory towards
them.
So too is the situation here on SPIF. We have the southern sheriff (Rick Mons)
selectively enforcing the rules and then later standing by the rules just like
that southern sheriff did back in the 1960s.
Mr. Dobson has clearly stated he would like the following question answered:

5. If the minutes of the Board of e-democracy have not been posted, why not and
will they be posted in the future?
SPIF Board and Forum Manager, Rick Mons please provide us with an answer to the
above questions. Trying to hold the current establishment accountable is
similar to what the civil right activists were doing in the 1950s – 1960s.
This forum should stand for democracy, as it is called edemocracy and should be
for open discussion of issues. If meetings were not held to organize SPIF
elections and those positions have defaulted to the past office holders, then
new elections need to be called for. This southern good old boy system we
currently have at SPIF needs to end, transparency, openness, and democracy need
to be the rule of the day, and not some entrenched office holders who make this
stuff up in a back room.
I call on the current leadership of SPIF to resign and that immediate elections
be held, I also call for open meetings that are announced and open and
assessable to all to participate so we can actually have democracy in
edemocracy.
The southern 1960s ways of doing business on SPIF needs to end. A new day
needs to shine upon SPIF and the only way to have that is for edemocracy to
have democracy as a part of its foundation. You might say this is another
civil rights movement, holding SPIF leadership accountable for their past
actions and moving the SPIF into a democracy that is open to all, so that it
does not exclude members based on their political background. This
discrimination needs to stop once and for all.
Sincerely,
Page 120
SPIF feedback
John Krenik
St. Paul, Minnesota
Share:
Hey folks, keep those questions coming and so we can understand how many more
people see this line of inquiry important please pile on ... if outside the
scope of SPIF, send them to me or post to the rules input post on our blog.
Joe, quickly on SPIF's governance - there was a local "chapter" that had its
own constitution and elected/appointed leadership. It was led by Tim Erickson
essentially and I actually attended just one of their meetings since St. Paul
was doing fine taking care of itself. Unfortunately it folded due to the loss
of interest/time/volunteer capacity. It was still legally part of the overall
non-profit. The intl Board after about two year of inactivity recognized their
abandonment of their chapter status and they reverted to normal forum status.
Also, all across our network the volunteer capacity to even maintain
functioning committees with appointed leadership roles other than the forum
manager never materialized as we expanded. "Start up" committees worked to
broaden outreach, etc. to help forums launch. What does work is the simple
Forum Manager role and our support for their efforts with coaching, rules, and
technology.
To Dan, points/questions ... based on our very limited resources and getting
done what needs to be done to stay open, despite once having aspirations for a
chapter/region/intl governance structure with elections and the like, we remain
a self-appointed Board per our IRS filed articles of incorporation (linked from
our about page).
In terms of minutes and the like, you are the first person in 17 years to ask
for them. Seriously. So, I'll check in with the Board on how they want to
address the question. I would guess some figure they were online, but there
isn't some conspiracy here ... we've just evolved from something like a club
with an all volunteer infrastructure and limited capacity to a larger
organization addressing a new set of issues.
Share:
... my smart phone wouldn't let me add more to my previous post.
To Martin's point ... we were once the only local "public" online space in
town. We tried with SPIF and other city forums to do what we felt government
should do with a "limited public forum" and took on some government-like
responsibilities and worked to have far more decorum and focus on local issues
than newsgroups (then web forums, then blogs, then online news comments, ...)
Today, online space survival is primarily based on audience and

Page 121
SPIF feedback
differentiation. So the limits of our model by those who would prefer their
individual freedom of speech rights to trump our collective freedom of assembly
rights in constituting the model, demonstrate our inability to accommodate all
desires and still maintain the commons we created.
When it comes to technology, rules, outreach, etc. we seek to maximize total

participation, increase diversity, and to still host agenda-setting civil
dialogue. I follow different models around the world and if we wanted to
increase volume we'd drop the real name requirement. If we wanted to absolve
ourselves of a quality or civility goal for more individual freedom we'd drop
facilitation and forum managers and arbitrarily delete libelous offending posts
instead.
Do other perceive some lack of systemic integrity? Are things so bad that
dozens of members will quit? (It is not like dozens of donors are going to pull
out since 99% of folks do not seem willing to pay for online public spaces
anywhere.)
Seriously, I do not see a scenario emerging here where our loudest detractors
will be happy with a solution provided by E-Democracy.org or changes in our
rules. Does anyone? I am not encouraging some to compete with us as an empty
gesture, I honestly do not think we will satisfy you today based on decisions
we made about our model in 1994 that are in our DNA.
So, I think there are three main options:

1. Start your own Spif-like forum and announce it on our network. Draft your
own rules and roles.
2. Wait for our revised rules and see what you like or do not like about them.
Provide detailed feedback to the Board via our contact form.
3. Go into opposition mode and do whatever you can to do to make your point
about our weaknesses (and in the process reduce our focus on our important
funded work and ability to serve more communities)
I've appreciated the questions (not always the tone or suggestions of ill
intent) and caught up on 4 months of dialogue here this week. I think there
will be ways to improve what we do and still remain resource/cost-effective. I
also know that in making 99% of our participants marginally more satisfied
might make 1% extremely unhappy. I volunteered for this service, so I guess
that comes with the territory.
Steven Clift
P.S. I know there more specific questions, but that is all I have time for
right now.
From: steve scholl Date: Dec 30 10:17 CST
Share:
I thought of changing the subject of this message to 'A Modest Proposal' but
Page 122
SPIF feedback
quickly realized that Mr. Swift had already used it.
Anyway, my proposal, influenced by current events in the southern hemisphere,
is:
Due to threats to Mr. Clift's ability to govern the St Paul Issues Forum, from
subservisives such as Nathan, Dobson and Owings;
And due to the inept ability of Fratto and Grace Kelly to defend the status
quo;
I propose (in the spirit of Hugo Chavez, and other 'democratically' elected
leaders) that we allow Mr Clift to rule by decree from now until he gets tired
of it.
It must be very distracting for Mr Clift to have to continually divert his

attention from the operation of the Fourm to respond to the impertinent
questions of openness, transparency and democracy from rascally Forum
participants. Ruling by decree will allow Mr. Clift to silence these
unnecessary distractions and give him time to fully focus on making the St Paul
Issues Forum more democratic.
I am not sure if the Forum has a voting mechanism, but will leave it up to Mr
Clift to decide is this proposal has passed.
steve scholl
highland

> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:01:24 -0600

> Subject: [SPIF-Feedback] Fwd: Concerns over Forum Management
>
> It is remarkable how the board of E-Democracy refuses to release the most
> basic data about e-democracy and several group moderators and Steve Clift,
> the Executive Director / owner repeatedly defend their refusal to release
> this most basic data. Martin Owings has requested basic information about
> discipline of members, the makeup of membership and posting data.
>
> Steve Clift has created the straw-man argument that this information can be
> gathered, or we can post pictures in e-"democracy".
>
> Joe Nathan asked for three simple pieces of data:
> "a. What data they (the e-Democracy Board) believe they are required to keep
> and share as part of
Page 123
SPIF feedback
> b. What data they (the Board) do gather beyond what is required
>
> c. What are the organizational goals, and how they are assessed"
>
> Mike Fratto, the moderator of the United States group, first says that this
> group is not the appropriate place to have this discussion, "I don't think
> this is an issue for the St. Paul Issues forum feedback page". He carefully
> avoids the fact that ALL of the e-democracy groups have Rule 9, which
> states, "*9. Items Not Allowed in Forums, Exceptions* - . . . Comments or
> complaints about forum management or complaints about member rule violations
> must not be posted to the main forum. Instead, direct such messages
> privately to the Forum Manager."
> http://pages.e-democracy.org/Rules
> which prohibits any discussion of forum management or rules.
>
> Thus if a member has a problem with a Forum Manager who do they complaint
> to? THE FORUM MANAGER. There is virtually no way to complain to, or appeal
> to the Board, until an individual has drawn a suspension.
>
> Violation of this rule can lead to warnings or suspensions. In tyrannies,
> criticise the "leaders" and you get thrown in jail. In E-"Democracy" you get
> warnings or banned.
>
> Mike, if you think that this is an inappropriate place to hold this
> discussion, where do you suggest that we hold it? I'll gladly move the
> discussion to the United States e-democracy group,
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us
> which you moderate, "The Forum Manager for this group is Mike
> Fratto<http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/michaelfratto>
> ."
> if you promise not to issue any warnings. Will you agree to that?
>
> Then Mike compares e-democracy to 3M, Securian and Wells Fargo, all publicly
> owned stock companies and then tells us that E-"Democracy" is in reality a
> privately owned non-profit."This is no different than asking 3M, Securian,
> Well Fargo, or any other corporation to provide you with operational data.
> The Government data practices act applies to governments not corporations or
> any other private entity."
>
> Actually these corporations release far more information to their
> stockholders and the SEC than do the E-"Democracy" Board of Directors or
> Steve Clift the Executive Director. Each year any publicly owned company
> must list their Board of Directors and Financials, as well as hold an annual
> meeting.
>
> Here is 3M's financial data:
> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=80574&p=irol-IRHome
Page 124
SPIF feedback
>
> Over the last few days I have questioned Steve Clift where is the
> "democracy" in e-democracy. He actually had the chutzpah to respond to me
> "where is the democracy in the Democratic party?". I pointed out that the
> Democratic Party regularly has caucuses, conventions and primaries were the
> Democratic Party elects it's leaders, boards and candidates.
>
> Grace Kelly says that she was part of a group that used to call e-democracy
> meetings, but it dwindled down to her and Steve Clift.The funny thing is,
> they keep saying it is "all volunteer run" and they can't get enough
> "volunteers", yet when John Krenick and I , both of whom live in Saint Paul
>
> But at the risk of being labeled one of the "complainers" here are my
> questions to the e-democracy board, it's defenders and Executive Director,
> Steve Clift:
>
>
> I am on the boards of three non-profits in Twin Cities, including the
> District Council 16 / Summit Hill Association. The Summit Hill Association
> maintains a website and holds regular monthly meetings that are open to the
> public. Our minutes are published each month, as well as our annual and
> monthly financial statements.
>
> I would think that any group that calls itself a "democracy" would at least
> make this very basic information available on it's website or publicly
> available in some manner.
>
> I find it ironic that E-democracy thinks its Mission is to promote democracy
> around the world, yet it's Board, Moderators and Executive Director
> vigorously resists real democracy on its owns Forums and Board.
>
> Dann Dobson
> Summit Hill - Saint Paul
>
>
=====================================================================
===
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Mike Fratto <email obscured>> wrote:
>
Page 125
SPIF feedback
>
> > I think the answer to Mr. Nathan's question regarding what data e-democracy
> > needs to keep related to its tax exempt status to those on the e-democracy
> > board. As someone who has created and operated similar organizations, I can
> > tell you most of the information that needs to be kept is financial. There
> > are also certain requirements that need to be attested to when filing IRS
> > forms.
>>
> > As for anything else, I am not aware of any requirement to keep certain
> > data. I can also state that even though e-democracy is a tax exempt
> > organization, there is no law, federal or state, that require it to share
> > operational data.
>>
> > This is no different than asking 3M, Securian, Well Fargo, or any other
> > corporation to provide you with operational data. The Government data
> > practices act applies to governments not corporations or any other private
> > entity.
>>
> > It is my belief that the only people who have a right to see operational
> > data of e-democracy and its forums are the members of the e-democracy
board.
> > That said, the Bord of Directors may choose to provide various data they
> > determine to be of interest to them placing the information in the public
> > domain.
>>
> > As for organizational goals etc. Again this is the domain of the
> > e-democracy board. For issues related to this topic, SPIF feedback, a Team
> > was established to act as a pseudo board to do just that. While we spent a
> > few years developing a number of operational functions for the St. Paul
> > Issues Forum, we could not get anyone beyond the original team to volunteer
> > and take the lead as team members moved on to other interests. I think most
> > if not all of that information, including the by-laws and rules, is
> > accessible from the St. Paul Issues forum page. In fact, we used to have
> > regular meetings to discuss the various aspects of operating St. Paul
> > Issues. Very few people chose to attend.
>>
> > Mike
>>
> > The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to
> > deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.
> > ~ Abraham Lincoln
>>
> > Please help those who don't get enough to eat.
> > http://oyh.org
> > http://hungersolutions.org
>>
> > The future depends more on
> > what we do between now and then
Page 126
SPIF feedback
> > Than what we did in the past.
>>
> > --- On Wed, 12/29/10, Joe Nathan <email obscured>> wrote:
>>
> > From: Joe Nathan <email obscured>>
> > Date: Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 6:50 AM
>>
> > We seem to have two clashing views:
> > a. One from Mr. Owings, asking for more information about how e-democracy
> > in
> > various places operates
> > b. Another, from various e-democracy volunteer forum managers, saying they
> > don't have time to respond to the requests for operational data, don't
> > necessarily keep the data that Mr. Owings is requesting, and don't feel it
> > is their responsibility to keep and share the requested data.
>>
> > I do appreciate that much of e-democracy is run by volunteers. Thanks to
> > these folks for their efforts.
>>
> > My understanding is that e-democracy has asked for and received
> > "tax-exempt"
> > status from the US Government, allowing it to ask for and receive grants,
> > gifts and other cash contributions.
> > Perhaps those who run St. Paul and other e-democracy forums could tell us
> > a. What data they believe they are required to keep and share as part of
> > their tax-exempt status
> > b. What data they do gather beyond what is required
> > c. What are the organizational goals, and how they are assessed
>>
> > While I share (and have raised) some of the same concerns that Mr. Owings
> > has raised, it may be that e-democracy is not required to share the kind of
> > data Mr. Owings has requested. I don't know. That's why I'm suggesting a
> > response to the 3 questions listed above.
>>
> > Thanks to Mr. Owings and Mr. Krenik for raising their questions, and thanks
> > to the e-democracy volunteers for continuing to make e-democracy available.
>>
>>
> > Thanks
>>
> > Joe Nathan
> > Highland Park
>>
>>
>>
>
Page 127
SPIF feedback
> Dann Dobson
> Summit Hill, Saint Paul
> About Dann Dobson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danndobson
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/So6SniG7YuoxDQlLWhV7f
>------------------------
post publicly.
instead.
>
>------------------------
Share:
Mr Clift - Again I appreciate your response, but you're right they are not
generally advancing the issue as much as I and others would like. I suppose you
must feel the same way.
However, they are advancing the dialog, which is further ahead than we've been
for the past 4 years.
Some of the options you put forward in your last post seem designed to get rid
of the, "detractors". To finally silence those who disagree with some of the
rules and processes at eDemocracy and SPIF.
Frankly, I don't want to start a, "Spif-like forum", I want to democratically

improve this one. The love it or leave it approach should be off the table as
far as I'm concerned. I'm here as a full member of SPIF, I've been fighting for
what I believe is right for a long time so unless you expel me you can count on
me being around to continue the struggle for a more diverse and democratic
eDemocracy.
You've asked us to wait for the revised rules and to provide feedback to the
board once they are finalized. That approach would assume that the revised
rules are already a foregone conclusion and that we should standby and deal
with them afterwards. Again, this seems somewhat undemocratic. Are the rules
revisions being made in a vacuum? Where is the transparency?
That approach would also discount the many years some of us have spent working
on this issue and submitting proposed changes to the rules and processes we are
currently discussing. I submitted an entire revised rules and process plan to
you not more than 4 months ago. It was never even acknowledged.
Page 128
SPIF feedback
Finally you offer the option to, "go into opposition mode", reducing your focus
on important funded work. From my standpoint there can be nothing more
important than safeguarding the principles for which we have been pleading with
you.
Now Dann Dobson and Joe Nathan have asked some important questions that need
to
be addressed. I'd like to see a real effort to treat their concerns with
respect. In addition, Mr. Krenik and Mr. Dobson have offered to co-moderate the
SPIF. Mr Mons has responded that he is not ready to give up that post. Fair
enough, but then I think we should definitely address the issue of FM term
limits.
Frankly Mr Clift I don't understand your unwillingness to negotiate a solution

which could allow both interests to advance. I think you have a group here who
really do care about improving SPIF and eDemocracy. Surely if we both have its
best interests at heart we should be able to negotiate in good faith.
If you view us as just as, "irritators" and have no real intention of dealing
with our concerns then just be honest about it and say it here publicly.
Otherwise let's discuss the issues based on both parties interests and
sincerely listen to the concerns of one another.
Would you be willing to meet with myself and others to discuss these issues and
try to find a solution?
Share:
I think Steve Clift answered your questions John.
But I will be blunt. e-democracy has no obligations what so ever to provide

you or anyone of us with any of the information you ask for. The fact that
Steve and anyone else takes the time to try to answer them is a gesture of good
will.
You participate in the various forum with the understanding that you will
follow the rules. and Yes the Forum manager gets to interpret those rules.
You are only a participant because you choose to be and nothing more. As in
most nonprofit corporations and other for profit corporations people who
participate in their activities usually do not have any right other than to
participate.
e-democracy is not a government agency. It is not a stock corporation. You

have no rights other than those allowed by the Board and other volunteers.
You make it sound like, using the United Way as the organization to make my
point, that if you didn't like what the United way did, that you have a right
Page 129
SPIF feedback
to demand certain actions and information. All you have a right, in this
example, is to stop donating to it. In the case of e-democracy you have two
options: one, if you donate, stop making donations; two, leave the various
forums.
There is actually another option, that is to offer reasonable suggestions in

how the various rules can be improved to ensure we are able to have real issue
discussions.
Mike
~ Abraham Lincoln

http://oyh.org


--- On Thu, 12/30/10, John Krenik <email obscured>> wrote:
From: John Krenik <email obscured>>

Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 6:42 AM
Hi All,
Rick said: "For the others bothering to read this, please note that Dobson and
Krenik's stated rationale for replacing me is my living in Shoreview. The real
fact that when they've broken forum rules, I've enforced the rules."
My answer: Breaking the rules according to who, you Rick? Your statement
reminds me of the south in the 1960s. I can still remember that sheriff from
Mississippi saying on the nightly news, "Those coloreds were breaking the laws,
we had no choice but to turn the dogs on them." All these individuals they
were doing was protesting a system that was being very discriminatory towards
them.
So too is the situation here on SPIF. We have the southern sheriff (Rick Mons)
selectively enforcing the rules and then later standing by the rules just like
Page 130
SPIF feedback
that southern sheriff did back in the 1960s.
Mr. Dobson has clearly stated he would like the following question answered:

5. If the minutes of the Board of e-democracy have not been posted, why not and
will they be posted in the future?
SPIF Board and Forum Manager, Rick Mons please provide us with an answer to the
above questions. Trying to hold the current establishment accountable is
similar to what the civil right activists were doing in the 1950s – 1960s.
This forum should stand for democracy, as it is called edemocracy and should be
for open discussion of issues. If meetings were not held to organize SPIF
elections and those positions have defaulted to the past office holders, then
new elections need to be called for. This southern good old boy system we
currently have at SPIF needs to end, transparency, openness, and democracy need
to be the rule of the day, and not some entrenched office holders who make this
stuff up in a back room.
I call on the current leadership of SPIF to resign and that immediate elections
be held, I also call for open meetings that are announced and open and
assessable to all to participate so we can actually have democracy in
edemocracy.
The southern 1960s ways of doing business on SPIF needs to end. A new day
needs to shine upon SPIF and the only way to have that is for edemocracy to
have democracy as a part of its foundation. You might say this is another
civil rights movement, holding SPIF leadership accountable for their past
actions and moving the SPIF into a democracy that is open to all, so that it
does not exclude members based on their political background. This
discrimination needs to stop once and for all.
Sincerely,
John Krenik
St. Paul, Minnesota
John Krenik
Highland Park, St. Paul, Minnesota
About John Krenik: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnkrenik

http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5MW3gYj5wxwU4yHgAQ0lMG
------------------------
post publicly.
Page 131
SPIF feedback
instead.

------------------------
From: caty royce Date: Dec 30 10:44 CST
Share:
I thought "e-democracy" and SPIF were active and ongoing experiments in
online community building. To me that would mean important questions and
challenges to the status quo that has developed would be some of the most
important work of the org, instead it is portrayed by Mr. Clift as a
negative option on a short list of possible actions. I don't get that. Some
of the questions around decision making and transparency and Board make up
are essential, foundational issues that any credible non profit should
respond to with openness and alacrity. The arrogance shown by some of the
status quo advocates is alarming and problematic to the goal of online
community building.
catyroyce, ex selby, career non profit gal

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Mike Fratto <email obscured>> wrote:
> I think Steve Clift answered your questions John.

>
> But I will be blunt. e-democracy has no obligations what so ever to
> provide you or anyone of us with any of the information you ask for. The
> fact that Steve and anyone else takes the time to try to answer them is a
> gesture of good will.
>
> You participate in the various forum with the understanding that you will
> follow the rules. and Yes the Forum manager gets to interpret those rules.
> You are only a participant because you choose to be and nothing more. As in
> most nonprofit corporations and other for profit corporations people who
> participate in their activities usually do not have any right other than to
> participate.
>
> e-democracy is not a government agency. It is not a stock corporation.
> You have no rights other than those allowed by the Board and other
> volunteers.
>
> You make it sound like, using the United Way as the organization to make my
> point, that if you didn't like what the United way did, that you have a
Page 132
SPIF feedback
> right to demand certain actions and information. All you have a right, in
> this example, is to stop donating to it. In the case of e-democracy you
> have two options: one, if you donate, stop making donations; two, leave the
> various forums.
>
> There is actually another option, that is to offer reasonable suggestions
> in how the various rules can be improved to ensure we are able to have real
> issue discussions.
>
> Mike
>
> ~ Abraham Lincoln
>
> http://oyh.org
>
>
> --- On Thu, 12/30/10, John Krenik <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> From: John Krenik <email obscured>>
> Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 6:42 AM
>
> Hi All,
>
> Rick said: "For the others bothering to read this, please note that Dobson
> and Krenik's stated rationale for replacing me is my living in Shoreview.
> The real rationale -- if Dobson and Krenik were honest -- is that they don't
> like the fact that when they've broken forum rules, I've enforced the
> rules."
>
> My answer: Breaking the rules according to who, you Rick? Your statement
> reminds me of the south in the 1960s. I can still remember that sheriff
> from Mississippi saying on the nightly news, "Those coloreds were breaking
> the laws, we had no choice but to turn the dogs on them." All these
> individuals they were doing was protesting a system that was being very
> discriminatory towards them.
>
> So too is the situation here on SPIF. We have the southern sheriff (Rick
> Mons) selectively enforcing the rules and then later standing by the rules
> just like that southern sheriff did back in the 1960s.
Page 133
SPIF feedback
>
> Mr. Dobson has clearly stated he would like the following question
> answered:
>
>
> SPIF Board and Forum Manager, Rick Mons please provide us with an answer to
> the above questions. Trying to hold the current establishment accountable
> is similar to what the civil right activists were doing in the 1950s
> 1960s. This forum should stand for democracy, as it is called edemocracy
> and should be for open discussion of issues. If meetings were not held to
> organize SPIF elections and those positions have defaulted to the past
> office holders, then new elections need to be called for. This southern
> good old boy system we currently have at SPIF needs to end, transparency,
> openness, and democracy need to be the rule of the day, and not some
> entrenched office holders who make this stuff up in a back room.
>
> I call on the current leadership of SPIF to resign and that immediate
> elections be held, I also call for open meetings that are announced and open
> and assessable to all to participate so we can actually have democracy in
> edemocracy.
>
> The southern 1960s ways of doing business on SPIF needs to end. A new day
> needs to shine upon SPIF and the only way to have that is for edemocracy to
> have democracy as a part of its foundation. You might say this is another
> civil rights movement, holding SPIF leadership accountable for their past
> actions and moving the SPIF into a democracy that is open to all, so that it
> does not exclude members based on their political background. This
> discrimination needs to stop once and for all.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John Krenik
> John Krenik
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5MW3gYj5wxwU4yHgAQ0lMG
>------------------------
Page 134
SPIF feedback
> subject instead.
>
>------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Michael Fratto
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4Gfn10amyIWlTnzMEbVqAl
> ------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
--
Baldwin
From: Timothy Puffer Date: Dec 30 11:05 CST
Share:
It sounds like there's enough renewed interest in SPIF to support a steering
group. Could the forum revert back to that model?

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:stpaul-
Page 135
SPIF feedback
<email obscured>] On Behalf Of cathleen royce
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:44 AM
I thought "e-democracy" and SPIF were active and ongoing experiments in

online community building. To me that would mean important questions and
challenges to the status quo that has developed would be some of the most
important work of the org, instead it is portrayed by Mr. Clift as a
negative option on a short list of possible actions. I don't get that. Some
of the questions around decision making and transparency and Board make up
are essential, foundational issues that any credible non profit should
respond to with openness and alacrity. The arrogance shown by some of the
status quo advocates is alarming and problematic to the goal of online
community building.
catyroyce, ex selby, career non profit gal
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Mike Fratto <email obscured>> wrote:
> I think Steve Clift answered your questions John.

>
> But I will be blunt. e-democracy has no obligations what so ever to
> provide you or anyone of us with any of the information you ask for. The
> fact that Steve and anyone else takes the time to try to answer them is a
> gesture of good will.
>
> You participate in the various forum with the understanding that you will
> follow the rules. and Yes the Forum manager gets to interpret those rules.
> You are only a participant because you choose to be and nothing more. As in
> most nonprofit corporations and other for profit corporations people who
> participate in their activities usually do not have any right other than to
> participate.
>
> e-democracy is not a government agency. It is not a stock corporation.
> You have no rights other than those allowed by the Board and other
> volunteers.
>
> You make it sound like, using the United Way as the organization to make my
> point, that if you didn't like what the United way did, that you have a
> right to demand certain actions and information. All you have a right, in
> this example, is to stop donating to it. In the case of e-democracy you
> have two options: one, if you donate, stop making donations; two, leave the
> various forums.
>
> There is actually another option, that is to offer reasonable suggestions
> in how the various rules can be improved to ensure we are able to have real
> issue discussions.
Page 136
SPIF feedback
>
> Mike
>
> ~ Abraham Lincoln
>
> http://oyh.org
>
>
> --- On Thu, 12/30/10, John Krenik <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> From: John Krenik <email obscured>>
> Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 6:42 AM
>
> Hi All,
>
> Rick said: "For the others bothering to read this, please note that Dobson
> and Krenik's stated rationale for replacing me is my living in Shoreview.
> The real rationale -- if Dobson and Krenik were honest -- is that they don't
> like the fact that when they've broken forum rules, I've enforced the
> rules."
>
> My answer: Breaking the rules according to who, you Rick? Your statement
> reminds me of the south in the 1960s. I can still remember that sheriff
> from Mississippi saying on the nightly news, "Those coloreds were breaking
> the laws, we had no choice but to turn the dogs on them." All these
> individuals they were doing was protesting a system that was being very
> discriminatory towards them.
>
> So too is the situation here on SPIF. We have the southern sheriff (Rick
> Mons) selectively enforcing the rules and then later standing by the rules
> just like that southern sheriff did back in the 1960s.
>
> Mr. Dobson has clearly stated he would like the following question
> answered:
>
Page 137
SPIF feedback
>
> SPIF Board and Forum Manager, Rick Mons please provide us with an answer to
> the above questions. Trying to hold the current establishment accountable
> is similar to what the civil right activists were doing in the 1950s
> 1960s. This forum should stand for democracy, as it is called edemocracy
> and should be for open discussion of issues. If meetings were not held to
> organize SPIF elections and those positions have defaulted to the past
> office holders, then new elections need to be called for. This southern
> good old boy system we currently have at SPIF needs to end, transparency,
> openness, and democracy need to be the rule of the day, and not some
> entrenched office holders who make this stuff up in a back room.
>
> I call on the current leadership of SPIF to resign and that immediate
> elections be held, I also call for open meetings that are announced and open
> and assessable to all to participate so we can actually have democracy in
> edemocracy.
>
> The southern 1960s ways of doing business on SPIF needs to end. A new day
> needs to shine upon SPIF and the only way to have that is for edemocracy to
> have democracy as a part of its foundation. You might say this is another
> civil rights movement, holding SPIF leadership accountable for their past
> actions and moving the SPIF into a democracy that is open to all, so that it
> does not exclude members based on their political background. This
> discrimination needs to stop once and for all.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John Krenik
> John Krenik
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5MW3gYj5wxwU4yHgAQ0lMG
>------------------------
> subject instead.
>
>------------------------
Page 138
SPIF feedback
>
>
>
>
> Michael Fratto
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4Gfn10amyIWlTnzMEbVqAl
> ------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
--
Baldwin
caty royce
work on Selby, live over south minneapolis, minneapolis
About caty royce: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/catyroyce

http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/78byBRLQYAAaLWhDKq3eQY
------------------------
post publicly.
instead.

------------------------
Page 139
SPIF feedback
Share:
Mr. Fratto - Your response is filled with just the sort of hubris I've sadly
come to expect on this issue. Unfortunately you've either been out of the loop
or think so little of the concerns being raised here that you don't even bother
to read the posts.
We have repeatedly submitted, "reasonable suggestions" for rules and process

changes. We've also asked very specific questions regarding transparency. If
you think any of them are unreasonable you should address their specific
components.
Baiting Mr. Krenik into an argument should be beneath you Mr. Fratto.
All of the things you've stated about eDemocracy and SPIF not having to provide
any transparency and being accountable only to its own Board may be true, but I
think it's worth reminding you that without the, "members" this is just an
empty space. And a space without a diverse representation of our community
culturally, racially and ideologically is just as empty.
Lastly, the, "gesture of good will" you say is being generously extended down
to the members here is an example of the disrespectful nature with which you
seem to view this situation. The difference between your view and ours is that
we see this as a bottom up or "by the people" organization, whereas you seem to
see it as a, "top down" organization.
I'd like to ask that you either address specific issues or that you please
moderate yourself until you think you can treat this discussion with the
respect it deserves.
From: Jason Stone Date: Dec 30 11:50 CST
Share:
This whole conversation is not particularly productive electronically. There
comes a time when it's better to do business in person.
While I know this is a St. Paul issue, I suspect it has wider repercussions.
I would gladly share our office at Resource Center of the Americas
(Minneapolis at E. Lake & Minnehaha) for the purpose of a get-together.
Happy new year,

Jason
Keewaydin neighborhood of Minneapolis

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:
Page 140
SPIF feedback
> Mr. Fratto - Your response is filled with just the sort of hubris I've
> sadly come to expect on this issue. Unfortunately you've either been out of
> the loop or think so little of the concerns being raised here that you don't
> even bother to read the posts.
>
> We have repeatedly submitted, "reasonable suggestions" for rules and
> process changes. We've also asked very specific questions regarding
> transparency. If you think any of them are unreasonable you should address
> their specific components.
>
> Baiting Mr. Krenik into an argument should be beneath you Mr. Fratto.
>
> All of the things you've stated about eDemocracy and SPIF not having to
> provide any transparency and being accountable only to its own Board may be
> true, but I think it's worth reminding you that without the, "members" this
> is just an empty space. And a space without a diverse representation of our
> community culturally, racially and ideologically is just as empty.
>
> Lastly, the, "gesture of good will" you say is being generously extended
> down to the members here is an example of the disrespectful nature with
> which you seem to view this situation. The difference between your view and
> ours is that we see this as a bottom up or "by the people" organization,
> whereas you seem to see it as a, "top down" organization.
>
> I'd like to ask that you either address specific issues or that you please
> moderate yourself until you think you can treat this discussion with the
> respect it deserves.
> Martin Owings
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3vubPnXDviuCnqTzRqdmEO
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
From: Matt Perry Date: Dec 30 12:41 CST
Share:
Page 141
SPIF feedback
I asked this question in September. I think it is worth repeating the request.
In spite of the quantity of commentary, expansive philosophical position
statements, and the plethora of speculation, I don't believe my queries have
yet been addressed.
Mr. Owings,
Can you succinctly explain what your hypothesis is and how the type of data you
originally asked for helps lead to proving or disproving that hypothesis?
I'm curious from the perspective of my role as an e-democracy.org forum manager

as well as a student and practitioner of community engagement.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Matt Perry
Share:
Mr. Perry,
Yes, I recall your request and I responded to it that very same day via email
since I was at my post limit on SPIF. Here is the email I sent you that day,
nothing in my response has changed.
RE: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
9/03/10
Reply ▼
Martin Owings
To <email obscured>
Hello Mr. Perry,
Thank you for your interest. I believe I am at my post limit on the site for
today, so I hope you'll accept this email response in lieu of a board posting.
You are free to post this to the board if you feel it would be valuable in
furthering the dialog.
In answer to your question, I cannot provide you with a succinct answer, since
this issue it too important to be reduced to a few lines. However, I will try
to keep it somewhat short.
I think I've been a member of SPIF for about 7 years or 8 years. Diversity of
all kinds has been a concern of mine as has the issue of freedom of speech and
expression. I have obvious reasons for being an advocate of both, but I
Page 142
SPIF feedback
shouldn't bore you with those details. Suffice it to say that my concerns with
regard to SPIF have been primarily since the new, more strict civility rules
came into play about 4 years ago or so.
I began to observe a gradual decline in the participation of divergent or

dissenting views as the enforcement of the civility rules increased. Truth is,
I was concerned about the rules changes before they ever went into effect and
had some lengthy postings and exhanges, all of which are available on the
archives if you're very interested in this issues history. At any rate, I and
some others (I won't speak for them), expressed those concerns and the idea
that enforcing a strict version of the civility rule would have the opposite of
its intended effect.
We warned that it would make the site less ideologically and culturally diverse
not more. And if the data which is emerging now is any indication, it appears
that notion is somewhat confirmed, at least in terms of political or
ideological identification. The cultural, racial, gender issue is one which is
harder to identify without better data as you might imagine.
The bottom line is, I am interested in striking a fair balance between civility
and freedom of speech/expression on SPIF. That does not mean a wattered down
compromise, but instead one which promotes open dialog without fear of
retribution. I've made this evident and I reject calls from some who say I
should just accept things the way they are or move on. After all, that would be
un-American and indeed un-democratic.
eDemocracy is a noble idea with profound potential, we shouldn't cheapen that

by silencing those we disagree with. Instead, it is my view that we should hold
the forum to a much higher standard of openess and inclusiveness. In principle,
that is what I am fighting for.
Thank you again for your interest in my concerns. I hope that helps to answer
some of your questions.
Best regards,
Marty Owings
612.599.3030
From: Gail O'Hare Date: Dec 30 14:40 CST
Share:
I'm afraid I see a circling of wagons with the insiders determined to see
only enemies on the outside. Owings and Dobson have written at length, only
to be told to suck it up or get out. A generous offer has been made for a
face-to-face discussion. I'm dubious about the hopes for that because none
of the insiders seem willing to rethink any of their entrenched position.
I've been there myself, and know how it feels to be stubbornly defensive.
Page 143
SPIF feedback
This is a shame. when I first came to e-democracy on the recommendation of
a friend, I thought of it as a community asset on a par with gems like the
Citizens League. I thought of it as a Minnesota entity, not a far-flung
organization with board members from other states and countries. It has
changed so remarkably that I rarely post and often just scan the topics.
Although the numbers of participants look impressive, I suspect most of
those people participate much less than I do. The stats Mr. Clift cites for
success (see today's New Year's update) apparently work for requesting
grants, but they don't reflect much in the way of energetic participation by
a large number of people. I think it misrepresents itself when seeking
those grants.
Is it just that the business model has changed? More and more neighborhood
groups who use their forum for announcements and very parochial concerns
don't to me reflect a thriving forum for civic engagement. I give money to
local organizations and blogs - not a lot, but more than I can probably
afford. I don't give money at all to e- democracy because it just isn't what
it was. If that's a reality I have to accept, I can continue looking
elsewhere for the kind of lively discussion I used to find regularly at
e-democracy.
Peace to all of you.
Gail O'Hare

----- Original Message -----

From: "Matt Perry" <email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:42 PM
>I asked this question in September. I think it is worth repeating the

>request. In spite of the quantity of commentary, expansive philosophical
>position statements, and the plethora of speculation, I don't believe my
>queries have yet been addressed.
>
> Mr. Owings,
>
> Can you succinctly explain what your hypothesis is and how the type of
> data you originally asked for helps lead to proving or disproving that
Page 144
SPIF feedback
> hypothesis?
>
> I'm curious from the perspective of my role as an e-democracy.org forum
> manager as well as a student and practitioner of community engagement.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Matt Perry
> East Harriet Farmstead/Minneapolis
>
>
> Matt Perry
> East Harriet Farmstead, Minneapolis
> About Matt Perry: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/4U0LZe6OT3dFlu3DaAjylX
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1mptWhr7bVzndZAM6oSKOI
>------------------------
> to post publicly.
> subject instead.
>
>------------------------
>
From: Matt Perry Date: Dec 30 14:49 CST
Share:
Mr. Owings,
I appreciate you sharing this with me and the forum. It gives me a sense of
your perspective on several broad issues with what I'm taking away as an
emphasis on the impact of the application of the e-democracy.org civility rules
in the St. Paul Issues Forum.
Unfortunately, your response answers neither of the questions I asked.
I could attempt to synthesize your various concerns and philosophical position

statements into a hypothesis but I don't think that would be fair to you or
helpful to me or others who are following this discussion.
Let me try a different approach.

Page 145
SPIF feedback
1) What specific problem(s) are you trying to solve?
2) You have stated Mr. Mons provided you most of the data you asked for. What
is the correlation between the data you asked for and the specific problem(s)
you are trying to solve?
Matt Perry
From: Bruce Leier Date: Dec 30 14:53 CST
Share:
Kinda clear that the vast majority of the elite here do not take kindly to
serious questioning. They are True Believers in the Hofer sense. Those of
us who do question - as I did in the past - are labeled smart asses and
reminded "our way or the highway". I would hazard a guess that they regret
setting up this feedback forum. I am thinking about starting a pool for the
date the plug is pulled.
Bruce Leier
Powderhorn after 63 Saint Paul

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:
> Mr. Perry,

>
> Yes, I recall your request and I responded to it that very same day via
> email since I was at my post limit on SPIF. Here is the email I sent you
> that day, nothing in my response has changed.
>
> RE: [SPIF-Feedback] Concerns over Forum Management
>
> 9/03/10
> Reply ▼
> Martin Owings
> To <email obscured>
> Hello Mr. Perry,
>
> Thank you for your interest. I believe I am at my post limit on the site
> for today, so I hope you'll accept this email response in lieu of a board
> posting. You are free to post this to the board if you feel it would be
> valuable in furthering the dialog.
>
> In answer to your question, I cannot provide you with a succinct answer,
> since this issue it too important to be reduced to a few lines. However, I
> will try to keep it somewhat short.
Page 146
SPIF feedback
>
> I think I've been a member of SPIF for about 7 years or 8 years. Diversity
> of all kinds has been a concern of mine as has the issue of freedom of
> speech and expression. I have obvious reasons for being an advocate of both,
> but I shouldn't bore you with those details. Suffice it to say that my
> concerns with regard to SPIF have been primarily since the new, more strict
> civility rules came into play about 4 years ago or so.
>
> I began to observe a gradual decline in the participation of divergent or
> dissenting views as the enforcement of the civility rules increased. Truth
> is, I was concerned about the rules changes before they ever went into
> effect and had some lengthy postings and exhanges, all of which are
> available on the archives if you're very interested in this issues history.
> At any rate, I and some others (I won't speak for them), expressed those
> concerns and the idea that enforcing a strict version of the civility rule
> would have the opposite of its intended effect.
>
> We warned that it would make the site less ideologically and culturally
> diverse not more. And if the data which is emerging now is any indication,
> it appears that notion is somewhat confirmed, at least in terms of political
> or ideological identification. The cultural, racial, gender issue is one
> which is harder to identify without better data as you might imagine.
>
> The bottom line is, I am interested in striking a fair balance between
> civility and freedom of speech/expression on SPIF. That does not mean a
> wattered down compromise, but instead one which promotes open dialog without
> fear of retribution. I've made this evident and I reject calls from some who
> say I should just accept things the way they are or move on. After all, that
> would be un-American and indeed un-democratic.
>
> eDemocracy is a noble idea with profound potential, we shouldn't cheapen
> that by silencing those we disagree with. Instead, it is my view that we
> should hold the forum to a much higher standard of openess and
> inclusiveness. In principle, that is what I am fighting for.
>
> Thank you again for your interest in my concerns. I hope that helps to
> answer some of your questions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marty Owings
> 612.599.3030
>
> Martin Owings
>
Page 147
SPIF feedback
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4zLg7XQKpo6WBUmMR9Nsox
>------------------------
> instead.
>
>------------------------
>
From: Michele St. Martin Date: Dec 30 15:11 CST
Share:
While I disagree with Marty's and John's politics and have serious
questions about their motives in requesting changes to SPIF, I must say
that I'm disappointed in e-democracy's blunt dismissive tone in dealing
with questions about forum management and transparency. It is NOT
democracy for a board to be self-perpetuating and for management,
whether paid staff or volunteers, to use the "we're far too busy doing
important work" argument when asked for information.
No, I don't agree that every complaint or suspension needs to be logged.

But if this is really e-democracy rather than an in-group getting
funding for their own agendas, there does need to be some sort of
accountability. Where are the annual reports? Why isn't an annual
meeting, announced to all stakeholders, held? I disagree with Caty about
the need for a face-to-face discussion, though it has some merit: people
are much less confrontation when looking someone in the face than when
they are typing on a keyboard in isolation. But I think a real-time
cyber meeting might be a very good idea.
I also think that there ought to be terms for a moderator's service.

While I think Rick has done an excellent job, there is a certain amount
of burn out and also, if others are interested, why not select another
candidate to serve a discrete turn?
Michele St. Martin in Como Park
P.S. I'm not calling people Ms. and Mr. here. This is e-democracy, not
the New York Times!
Share:
Mr. Perry,
Page 148
SPIF feedback
Here are the answers to your questions.
Our concerns deal primarily with two critical issues.
1. We are concerned that in an effort to inspire more inclusiveness through the

application of the "civility" rules, the current moderation of the forum has
resulted in the alienation and indeed the removal of significant voices of
divergent ideology and opinion. Furthermore, from what I can ascertain based on
the limited data provided to me, these efforts have not resulted in any
significant net gain in terms of racial, cultural or political diversity.
2. Freedom of speech/expression should never be sacrificed in the name of

civility. This has been a consistent holding of the highest court in the land.
Although SPIF is a private, non-profit entity, its very nature and indeed its
charter is reflective the principles of democracy. It's not enough to pay these
sacred principles lip service, eDemocracy can and should hold itself to a
higher standard. If an error is to be made, it should be made on the side of
free speech and not as it is today in SPIF, where the civility rule is used
routinely to stop disagreements, vital debates, ideological differences and
larger sometimes statewide or national issues which impact our lives locally.
Below is a list of proposed rule/process changes. They deal with several

critical areas:
1. A less restrictive and punitive application of the civility and off-topic

rules.
2. Less severe punishment of members who violate the rules.
3. A peer review process that allows for direct appeals to a peer jury rather
than the forum Management.
4. Term limits for the Forum Manager (2 years)
In addition, the following concerns have been raised:
1. Complaints about the Forum should not be relegated to a Feedback Forum where
the issues are largely hidden from the broader membership. They should be
allowed in the regular Issues Forum.
2. The Board that used to govern the actions of the St.Paul Issues Forum was
dissolved several years ago. We are calling for the democratically elected
reinstatement of that Board.
3. That there be a higher standard of transparency within the parent

organization, eDemocracy. That data requests be accommodated to the extent they
do not violate privacy laws.
Page 149
SPIF feedback
4. That the Board minutes of the eDemocracy board be made public after each
meeting of that body.
At the core of the proposed changes below is an effort to make SPIF more
democratic, inviting, participatory, less punitive and in the end a more
vibrant and expressive forum that is reflective of the larger community.
I have made bold any changes, modifications or additions I am proposing. Any

other wording within the current rules would remain the same unless
specifically noted. I used the following existing rules for the basis of my
changes as requested by the Forum Manager;
http://pages.e-democracy.org/Rules#Rules_Summary
Proposed Rule Changes:
Proposed Changes to Rule 4 (Civility)
4. Be Civil - Insults, name calling and personal verbal attacks are highly
discouraged. Arguments, disagreements and personality conflicts are an
inevitability of human contact, they are also an essential element in a vibrant
democracy, however this does not include attacks of a personal nature,
threatening speech, intimidation or cyber bullying of any kind. Threatening
speech including intimidation, bullying and insults directed at a persons race,
culture, religion, gender or sexual orientation shall not be tolerated.The
Forum Manager shall provide guidance to participants on what is appropriate and
what is not allowed. (See Rule 5 for additional details)
Proposed Changes to Rule 7
7. Avoid False Rumors, You are Liable - Rumors of a personal nature are not
allowed. Your posts must be accurate based on your full knowledge and never
intentionally false. Unverified "grapevine" information of a public nature must
be within a forum's issue-based scope to be appropriate. If in doubt about the
appropriateness of a given topic, please use your best judgement. The Forum
Manager may issue an informal warning if a post is deemed to be off-topic. Off
topic determination can be appealed to a group of forum peers consisting of no
fewer than 5 and no more than 12 forum members. The group shall consist of
regular forum members, this does not include active Forum Moderators, Managers
or any of the current members of the Forum Management/Board. The group shall
have a period of up to 10 days to make its determination. Upon the judgement of
the peer jury, the issue can be ruled off-topic or not off-topic. In either
case, the ruling of the jury shall be final. If a deliberation of the jury
results in a deadlock after 10 days, the Forum Moderator will have the final
ruling. Further, you may be asked to correct your previous expressions of fact
or "known" information that you find later to be false or substantially
incorrect on the forum. Failure to do so may result in a formal warning.
Exceptions include your assertions already publicly corrected or clarified by
others in forum discussions. Corrections must be made within any daily posting
Page 150
SPIF feedback
limit or via the Forum Manager if urgent. You, and you alone are liable for the
content of your own messages. E-Democracy.Org is not responsible or liable for
the content posted to any technically unmoderated forum or moderated
announcement service.
Warnings - Proposed Changes
1. Manager Warnings - Official warnings are sent to the infringing member when
a Forum Manager determines that a rule has been broken. Formal and informal
warnings, including "advisories", must be recorded by the Forum Manager and
kept in case of an appeal. The Forum Manager may at their discretion send
informal advisories/warnings to encourage rule compliance. Forum Manager is not
required to monitor every post.
2. Member Complaints - Forum members may send informal complaints privately to

the potentially infringing participants to encourage citizen-to-citizen
accountability. Any forum member may also file an official complaint about a
specific post directly with the Forum Manager. They may not post their
complaint publicly to the forum - this fundamentally distracts a forum from its
purpose. Forum Manager will respond to complaints in a uniform fashion and
maintain records of all official and unofficial warnings/advisories given.
3. Warnings Active - Official warnings expire 90 days after they are issued.
Any period during which a member is under suspension will count toward the 90
-day expiration.
4. Special Moderation - A Forum Manager may moderate the posts of specific

members upon notification to that member for up to 14 days while dealing with
rule compliance issues. This may be renewed upon notification, but in no case
will "special" moderation continue for more than 30 days.
Suspension - Proposed Changes
6. Suspension Process - The warning process starts with probation and results
in removal periods that grow in length based on repeat offenses. Warnings are
specific to each forum. Due to variations in forum purposes and management
styles, similar conduct may not result in the same sanction although
consistency is sought. The initial warning process and suspension level is
private in order to avoid public member embarrassment - a penalty greater than
that deserved.
Unofficial warnings and advisories will be recorded but do not accumulate

toward the issuance of a formal warning.
A. First Warning - The first official warning is recorded. The member is not
suspended. Each warning expires after 60 days.
B. Second Warning - The second official warning results in immediate suspension

Page 151
SPIF feedback
from that specific forum for 14 days. Another two week suspension may be
granted should the initial first warning expire before their third rule
violation. The Forum Moderator will make this clear upon issuance of the first
warning.
The first two warnings may not be appealed at this time. They may only be
appealed on their merits if a third warning is issued, regardless of its
timing.
C. Third Warning - A third warning that occurs before a second warning has
expired results in an immediate suspension for 90 days from the specific forum.
Notification of the suspension of this member must be sent to the respective

E-Democracy Chapter and the E-Democracy.Org Board. After any member appeals
are
heard, at that member's request, the Forum Manager will post a basic notice to
the public forum that that member has been suspended.
Public discussion of suspensions is allowed only in the E-Democracy rules and

administration forum.
Upon returning, the member may receive a fourth warning if the first warning is
still active or within 60 days which ever is longer.
D. Fourth Warning - A fourth official warning results in full removal from all
E-Democracy.Org forums for 1 full year. After any appeals are processed, an
announcement about the removal of this member will be publicly posted to the
forums to which that member belongs and sent to all E-Democracy Chapters and
the Board. The removed member has the option to provide an up to 300 word
public statement that will be linked in the rules section of the E-Democracy
web site, within 30 days of the suspension. This will be linked to a statement
from the Board of Directors about the causes for removal.
E. Appeals and Due Process - Any long term suspension (Longer than 90 days)
will be reviewed and weighed by a jury comprised of no fewer than 5 "regular"
SPIF members, and no more than 12. That these jury members be comprised of
regular members and not Forum Moderators or Forum Managers/Board members.
The
jury will consist of volunteers from the active membership. No member may serve
on a jury more than once in a six month period. That the ruling of the jury of
peers shall be final, but that an appeal to the forum management after 180 days
may be made. In the event of a "jury" deadlock, the governing body or forum
management will have the final ruling on the suspension. That a 1 year
suspension of a member may be appealed and reviewed after 180 days, upon
request of the offending party. (See Peer Jury Rules) At that time, the
validity of the first or second warning may also be reviewed and the length of
the suspension may be reduced if any of the Forum Manager warnings are
overturned. A forum member's suspension shall remain in effect during the
Page 152
SPIF feedback
review process. The review process may last no more than three weeks from
confirmation that the appeal was received. The Forum Managers can immediately
reinstate the member, reduce the suspension time or leave it in force, in any
case the suspension will not be lengthened because an appeal was made.
Forum Manager Responsibilities - Proposed Changes
4. After removing forum participant identifier information, the Forum Manager

will forward all unofficial and official warnings/advisories and suspension
notifications to the following two email addresses: fm (at)
forums.e-democracy.org (the E-Democracy.org Forum Managers discussion list) and
rules (at) forums.e-democracy.org (the E-Democracy.org Rules Committee
distribution list). Forum managers may also be required to notify their Chapter
management. The forward should include a brief summary of the context of the
warning or suspension. Upon request from E-Democracy Board of Directors or
forum chapter management, the Forum Manager will provide participant identifier
information to those oversight units. The data, after the removal of the
participant identifier information, will also be posted once per year to the
forum for membership review.
5. The Forum Manager will inform forum membership in a timely manner that a
forum participant has been officially warned or suspended, this does not apply
to unofficial warnings or advisories. The notification will exclude the
participant’s name but include the nature of the official warning or suspension
(e.g. second warning, two week suspension) and the reason for the warning or
suspension
6. The Forum Manager is selected and accountable to the Chapter Steering

Committee or the E-Democracy.Org Board if a chapter does not yet exist. A Forum
Manager may be removed and the Chapter or Board shall consider and respond to
specific complaints from forum participants about forum management. That the
position of Forum Moderator be limited to not more than two consecutive years
and no more than two terms. Suggestions on future "vote of confidence" or
petition mechanisms to ensure legitimacy of the online public space are of
interest to the Board.
7. If a Forum Moderator has been found to have been acting in a manner

detrimental to the organization they may be suspended, subject to a peer jury
ruling. In addition if a Moderator is found to have used his or her power to
retaliate against any member because of political, racial, cultural, religious
or sexual orientation, they will be immediately suspended from the position of
Forum Moderator until such time as a ruling of a peer jury shall be concluded.
Peer Jury - Rules Addition
1. Peer juries are comprised of no less than five (5) and no more than twelve
(12) regular members of SPIF. Regular members do not include active Forum
Moderators, Managers or Board Members, however former members of those
Page 153
SPIF feedback
positions may serve. A pool of jurors shall be made up of volunteers from the
forum. The Forum Moderator shall be responsible for assigning the jurors based
upon the numerical order in which they volunteered. At no time shall the Forum
Moderator arbitrarily select a juror for service. A juror may not serve on more
than once in any six month period. The ruling of a peer jury shall be final,
however a under the circumstance of a one year suspension, the suspended party
may appeal to the Forum Management, in which case that body will have final
judgement on the suspension. The Forum Management may at that time, reduce the
suspension, eliminate the suspension or uphold the peer jury ruling. In no
event shall the Forum Management lengthen the suspension because of an appeal.
2. Jurors shall elect a "Head Juror". The Head Juror shall be responsible for
requesting all pertinent information, such as emails, postings and related
information from the Forum Moderator. All communication between the Forum
Moderator and Management should be conducted through the Head Juror. The
Forum
Manager will comply with all requests for information related to the case being
decided. The jury may also ask for statements from any other members or related
evidence pertaining to the case being decided.
3. The jury shall have ten (10) days to weigh the evidence and render its
decision. The jury can, within its purview, render a decision sooner than ten
(10) days. The jury shall be embodied with the power to impose a suspension
according to guidelines, for the length of time prescribed in the rules, reduce
a suspension to a specified period decided upon by the jury, vacate a
suspension and the associated warnings, or any combination of reducing
suspension time and/or the number of warnings. In no case shall a jury impose a
more lengthy suspension than prescribed in the rulings for that particular
case, nor shall they issue formal or informal warnings of any kind.
4. The Head Juror will be responsible for informing the defendant party, Forum
Moderator and Management of a ruling once a decision has been reached. This
notice should be in the form of an email copied to all the parties. In
addition, the Head Juror will turn over a brief summary (250 word or less)
explaining the decision to the parties involved.
5. Peer Juror responsibility and ethics. No Juror shall discuss the case with
any other members of the forum or the public at large. No Juror except for the
Head Juror shall request information or speak directly with the Forum Moderator
or Management during deliberations. Jurors must report any unethical behavior
to the Forum Moderator, who can at his discretion remove a juror if he or she
is found to have violated the rules mentioned above. The Forum Moderator will
than consult the volunteer list for the next available volunteer juror and
assign them to the jury as a replacement.
6. In the event a juror cannot serve or a juror becomes ill or for some reason
cannot continue serving on the jury a replacement shall be appointed as
outlined in rule 5.
Page 154
SPIF feedback
7. In the event a Peer Jury reaches a deadline (10 days) with no decision
(deadlocked), the Forum Moderator shall have the final authority to render a
decision. In no case shall the Forum Moderator render a suspension longer than
the guidelines nor shall he issue additional official or unofficial warnings as
part of the particular case. In the event of a 1 year suspension, this shall
not curtail the right of the offending party to appeal any ruling to the Forum
Management after 180 days.
Share:
Martin, thank you for taking the time to outline your views as a rule change
proposal. Could you repost as a Word or other doc with your bolding since our
forum is text-only I can't see it clearly.
To your point one - it is my goal that greater civility on SPIF and our 30+
forums result in greater and more diverse voices. Past participant surveys and
like all point toward support of strong civilty.
I've been comparing speech on our forums with the more open format of the
PioneerPress for example:
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/twincities-pioneer-press/T64JA4I2B56ST3Q8J/p4
This may seem an extreme comparison, but we've essentially learned that either
we have to promote strong civilty or leave things far more open. If you try to
find a middle path you will be stuck in arbitrary land.
Two point two - again, we've held for 17 years that our forums are a first
amendment expression of E-Democracy.org - we specifically limit our freedom to
say whatever we want, however we want as a collective based on rules. The idea
is that with civility (no name calling, etc.) or local scope we have more
agenda-setting exchanges.
Effective freer speech versus ideal free speech with fewer people listening and
less power.
Once our draft is out, that will be a good time compare with your
recommendations. (I'll share them now with our Rules Committee, but as you
might note many of these are different than our working approach.)
Per the points of others ...
I've never been publicly called arrogant in my life. It really ruined my day. I
am simply trying to be upfront and honest. The rules review is more fine
tuning than a fundamental restructuring of our governance. I worry that labor
intensive governance or administrative models will put us out of business.
Seriously. Everything we've experienced point in the other direction - keep
things simple and support the leaders (Forum Managers) who put in the time.
Page 155
SPIF feedback
SPIF does need a refresher in my opinion (it is not funded nor fundable IMHO
grant-wise, instead judge this funded work http://e-democracy.org/p3 ) - we
have many neighborhood forums that are far more active - for example
http://e-democracy.org/poho My personal approach is to focus on the vibrancy
of neighbor to neighbor exchanges which is clearly delivering results.
The biggest challenge we have is actually Facebook and Twitter, so all of these
rules and forum management discussion may not matter that much anyway.
Steven Clift
Share:
Here is the proposed rules changes attached as a file to this post. In PDF
format.
The following file was added to this topic:
ProposedSPIF_Rules_Owings_Sept_2010.pdf (35KB)
Share:
When the StPaul Rule forum was set up like eons ago, it seems, the purpose was
to be able to post what was prohibited by the rules to SPIF itself. So to limit
input now would be to renege on the earlier promises. SPIF is a creature of
e-Democracy and so it's governance should be legitimate here. In fact, the
rules and governance of SPIF are identical to those of e-Democracy right down
to the punctuation marks and so e-Democracy fodder is within the scope of SPIF-
Feedback.
Sent from my iPad

John Ferman
Minneapolis, MN
On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:00 AM, "Steven Clift" <email obscured>> wrote:
> Hey folks, keep those questions coming and so we can understand how many
more
people see this line of inquiry important please pile on ... if outside the
scope of SPIF, send them to me or post to the rules input post on our blog.
>
> Joe, quickly on SPIF's governance - there was a local "chapter" that had its
own constitution and elected/appointed leadership. It was led by Tim Erickson
essentially and I actually attended just one of their meetings since St. Paul
was doing fine taking care of itself. Unfortunately it folded due to the loss
of interest/time/volunteer capacity. It was still legally part of the overall
non-profit. The intl Board after about two year of inactivity recognized their
abandonment of their chapter status and they reverted to normal forum status.
Page 156
SPIF feedback
>
> Also, all across our network the volunteer capacity to even maintain
functioning committees with appointed leadership roles other than the forum
manager never materialized as we expanded. "Start up" committees worked to
broaden outreach, etc. to help forums launch. What does work is the simple
Forum Manager role and our support for their efforts with coaching, rules, and
technology.
>
> To Dan, points/questions ... based on our very limited resources and getting
done what needs to be done to stay open, despite once having aspirations for a
chapter/region/intl governance structure with elections and the like, we remain
a self-appointed Board per our IRS filed articles of incorporation (linked from
our about page).
>
> In terms of minutes and the like, you are the first person in 17 years to ask
for them. Seriously. So, I'll check in with the Board on how they want to
address the question. I would guess some figure they were online, but there
isn't some conspiracy here ... we've just evolved from something like a club
with an all volunteer infrastructure and limited capacity to a larger
organization addressing a new set of issues.
>
> Steven Clift
> Ericsson, Minneapolis
> About Steven Clift: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stevenclift
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2jWmSNJ8F3iV7k3B1guYIp
>------------------------
post publicly.
instead.
>
>------------------------
No later topic All TopicsEarlier topicAdd to the topic Concerns over Forum
Management
Page 157

SPIFfeedback Notepad

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

SPIFfeedback Notepad

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

SPIF feedback

All posts in the topic Concerns over Forum Management

•There are 82 posts — by 22 authors — in this topic.

Posts with files From File Date

•Latest post made by Jack Ferman at Dec 31 19:17 CST

From: Rick Mons Date: Sep 01 12:23 CDT

I'll respond first to Mr. Dobson and then to Martin.

Anytime a member is suspended, notice of that suspension is sent to a forum

I suspect what's really behind Mr Dobson's accusation of being "heavyhanded" is

I don't believe Mr Dobson's first warning is under contest. He acknowledged to

From: Rick Mons Date: Sep 01 12:59 CDT

I changed the basis of enforcing the rule in November of 2007 (see

From: Martin Owings Date: Sep 01 20:33 CDT

Your specificity with regard to providing information on warnings and

From: Edward Davis Date: Sep 01 22:34 CDT

To help measure the success of the Ford Foundation Grant that we

On 9/1/2010 8:36 PM, Martin Owings wrote:

> More information about St. Paul Issues Forum Feedback:

To answer a couple of Martin Owings' questions:

Ed Davis's note about additional data that is being collected is new

Thank you for pulling together this information so quickly.

Total: 13 formal warnings (6 for civility rules violations), 2 two-week

Please verify that what I've interpreted in this information is accurate? If I

If so, did two of those three identify as Conservative/Right leaning members?

1 Prove that either the moderation/discipline of the membership has increased

2. Evaluation of impacts on the membership, whether it effected growth or not

3. To compare the impacts on political/ideological diversity within SPIF. In

Finally, this information gives us a basis to begin a thoughtful evaluation and

i have found the discussion of warnings and other consequences interesting. i

would it be possible to display the data by person?

> From: <email obscured>

> From: <email obscured>

> From: <email obscured>

Firstly, I don't think anyone is debating the complete elimination of civility

Turning to Martin's questions:

● In your recast of my summary, there are a couple of errors or

● We disagree regarding the need to track advisories I send to

There's no cumulative effect upon membership unless a formal warning is sent.

I'm curious from the perspective of my role as an e-democracy.org forum manager

We continue to disagree on the need to track "informal" warnings, however you

This is important, because a warning is a warning, whether it is informal or

1. Diversity of membership, in race, culture, ideology, religion, gender and

2. Level of participation of membership. What constitutes participation? If it

5. The data SPIF collects or should collect, would be invaluable in creating

On Oct 5, 2010, at 7:35 PM, "Sheldon Gitis" <email obscured>> wrote:

Here's the text of the warning he was given:

Please advise if you have any questions or wish to discuss further.

Rick Mons, SPIF Forum Manager

So far here's what I have, correct me if I'm wrong:

Tom Swift - Suspended

Please add anyone that I've missed Rick.

Multiple official warnings issued. An untold, untracked number of "advisories"

I wish there was a willingness to see that regardless of these peoples

● The decision to suspend Sharon Anderson was made by the St Paul

One of the factors, however, involved me directly: Ms Anderson falsely and

● the third warning given to Mr Gitis was prompted by two violations. Mr

Now, on to three other matters:

it is about the larger issues, not the person.

● You've admonished e-Democracy that "There are more than a

While claiming to be interested in the forward movement of SPIF,

Rick Mons, SPIF Forum Manager

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Martin Owings <email obscured>>wrote:

My post was deemed by the moderator as "not relevant" to Saint Paul. I