11.06.2025 - City Facebook
Here are comments about reopening the city Facebook page to commenting.
Responses:
- MK: I wish you nothing but the best on your second term. Please remember that the city manager works for YOU, and not the other way around. This town desperately needs leaders, not a bunch of followers who rubber stamp everything put in front of them. Its one of the main reasons I respect Shane Gerard and the way he represents the community. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to communicate though. That goes a long way in my book. I also hope you address the cities social media policy on Monday.
- Me: What do you see as the goal of opening comments on the City’s Facebook page? If the aim is real back-and-forth dialogue, our official page isn’t the best venue. Its job is verified notices and on-topic Q&A we can staff during business hours, archive for records, and moderate under government-speech standards (I’ve recently learned those rules can require tighter moderation or closing threads and legally do not need to comply with freedom of speech).
For broader debate and ongoing conversation, the community run Coopersville Informed page is better: you can tag council members, ask follow-ups, and speak freely without the constraints that apply to an official channel. You also get to tag council members so that they can engage with you on Coopersville Informed and bring ideas and concerns back to the City so nothing gets lost.
- Me: What do you see as the goal of opening comments on the City’s Facebook page? If the aim is real back-and-forth dialogue, our official page isn’t the best venue. Its job is verified notices and on-topic Q&A we can staff during business hours, archive for records, and moderate under government-speech standards (I’ve recently learned those rules can require tighter moderation or closing threads and legally do not need to comply with freedom of speech).
- MK: [M]y goal for the city's Facebook page is that information is presented to the public, and that the community can ask questions. Do I expect a back and forth? Absolutely not. What i do expect is a public response to a question when I ask it. I may not be the only one who wants to know. Preaching about transparency and then not allowing for public commentary is about as hypocritical as they can get. I'm sure the argument for keeping comments shut off is that there is negativity and criticism more than anything else. You know what the criticism is about more often than not? The lack of transparency! If Dennis doesnt want to hear about the negativity, then do something to fix it. Ignoring the problem completely only makes the problem worse. Dennis is a hired employee of the City of Coopersville. Letting him hide in his office and not answer to his decisions is pretty silly quite frankly. You have gone above and beyond to put yourself out there. Why can't he? I have no problem being critical of poor policy or mis-spent money in the community forums, but I also feel giving Dennis a chance to explain himself would serve him well. For the record, I openly invite him and any other member of the city council, staff, or boards to join this group and answer for themselves. They have complained we won't allow them in here, but that is an absolute lie. If they want to be transparent, the offer is on the table. I'm sure there would be zero commentary on the city pages should that actually happen.
- Me: I agree the City page should present information and allow on-topic questions. The challenge is keeping it effective; I often lean toward comments being off because of past abuse, though my preference is to keep them on when we can meet clear standards. Because it is an official government channel, comments are part of the public record, must follow posted rules, and the page is not staffed live, so replies will not be immediate. The City page also operates under government-speech standards, so different rules apply than on community pages, while the Informed pages are better suited for wide-open debate. I am proposing this standard: review the next business day and respond within 1 to 2 business days. Would folks be okay with that? The City will keep on-topic criticism and remove only clear violations such as threats or doxxing, slurs or obscenity, scams, or repeated off-topic pile-ons. We may pause a thread that is spiraling and reopen it after review. Repeat violations may lead to limited access or banning, as outlined in the policy.
On accountability: Council sets policy and holds the City Manager to it. Please bring questions and concerns about staff and policy to your council members, not to staff. That helps avoid confusion and ensures follow-through. I will log questions raised here, push for timely public answers or links to fuller updates, and report back after meetings. If you want open debate and back-and-forth, the community-run Coopersville Informed page is the better venue, where you can tag council members and discuss freely, while the City page stays focused on verified updates and Q&A we can archive and act on. Is this a workable approach?
For those following this thread, what are your thoughts? There were people early on who were okay with comments being off; if your view has changed since the initial pause, I’d like to hear that too.
Sidenote: In March 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court set a test for when officials’ social-media actions count as government action in Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. See Reuters’ summary by John Kruzel (Mar. 15, 2024), and the Court’s opinions.
- Me: I agree the City page should present information and allow on-topic questions. The challenge is keeping it effective; I often lean toward comments being off because of past abuse, though my preference is to keep them on when we can meet clear standards. Because it is an official government channel, comments are part of the public record, must follow posted rules, and the page is not staffed live, so replies will not be immediate. The City page also operates under government-speech standards, so different rules apply than on community pages, while the Informed pages are better suited for wide-open debate. I am proposing this standard: review the next business day and respond within 1 to 2 business days. Would folks be okay with that? The City will keep on-topic criticism and remove only clear violations such as threats or doxxing, slurs or obscenity, scams, or repeated off-topic pile-ons. We may pause a thread that is spiraling and reopen it after review. Repeat violations may lead to limited access or banning, as outlined in the policy.