There are no words

FEMA conducts fake news conference, uses press officials as reporters.

I can't get mad over this - it's far too absurd.

GT Covers the Barometer/Blackface Issue

I will have more to say over the weekend about this - probably lots more - but for now just read the story, and if you're brave, wade into the comments. It's ugly.

h/t Roxy.

More On Native American Mascots & Oregon High Schools II

I am beginning to wonder if it's too late for Susan Castillo to get some buy-in when it comes to the recommendation to eliminate Native mascots and logos:

“We certainly heard from the superintendents loud and clear that they think this needs more discussion and more time,” said Gene Evans, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Education. “They weren’t ready to accept the proposal made by the advisory team. I think there was a lot of opposition.”

Superintendents said they want to bring the question to their communities. The results of those conversations will be gathered for further study by the committee, Evans said.

I'm thinking there is and will be a ton of resistance to this idea at the community level.

Also, there is this:

Some superintendents asked about other nationalities used by Oregon high school teams, such as the Fighting Irish, and whether they should also be concerned about criticism from animal protection groups regarding animal nicknames.

Part of me wants to say that this is evidence that whoever asked this question doesn't get why Native mascots and logos are a bad idea.

The other part of me is thinking about how lawsuit-conscious superintendents must be these days.

But I think the majority of me is the former - that asking the question suggests a failure to try and really comprehend why anyone would be upset in the first place.

In any case, from this commenter, here is the Powerpoint presentation that Che Butler gave. It's pretty darn good.

In fact, let me show you one slide:

Smart Prison Policy

This letter in the DH is spot-on:

More prisons don’t help

About Mannix’s measures: It must be tough being a genius. The answer to Oregon’s problems: more prisons.

Of course. Why am I not surprised? Probably because I’ve been to prison six times. Why? Well, let me give you the very short version: Because prison isn’t what’s going to keep me from going back to what put me there, to what I know.

What a lot of prisoners don’t know is how to get a job, make a resume and set goals. No one wants to hire a felon. Why not build work release centers instead of prisons? Why not try to help people get on the right track to leading a productive, normal life? How about more transitional leave programs? Programs that require inmates to be employed or in school 40 hours a week within the first 30 days of being released and for 90 days (total) or they will return to prison for the remainder of their sentence.

More prisons will not stop the rising rate of crime in Oregon. Wouldn’t the residents of Oregon rather have a more positive say in how their tax dollars are spent on the people that are stealing their belongings and victimizing them? Would they rather see something done to deter criminals from returning to their dysfunctional lives?

Anyone who responds to this in regards to me and not the issue at hand isn’t any smarter than I was when I made the choices that put me here.

Sheli Starr, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, Wilsonville

Lebanon Rumors

Been hearing a few interesting things today....

For example, that the account given by LT as to how the newspaper knew about the complaint filed with the district? I've been told that's false - though since I've also been told it's true, both claims having been made by trustworthy sources, I'm withholding judgment.

Next, I've heard that there is more to the complaint filed with the district than the Lebanon Express story lets on. While the Express story relates Fandiño's claims of libelous statements being made on the LT blog (an issue that I have no stance on at the moment) and notes how that has been passed to the school board, I have been told that there was element to the complaint that referenced the LCSD's cyberbullying policy - basically, a claim that the writing of LT consitutes cyberbullying by existing district standards. I find that really interesting, since a) I had always assumed cyberbullying was done mostly by students (a terrible assumption, to be sure) and b), because I'm not at all sure if I think the statements made on the LT blog constitute cyberbullying. I just don't know much about it at this point. Furthermore, since this is a relatively new issue nationally, I'm sure it's relatively new to the district, which suggests that district policies that exist surrounding it have yet to really be tested... and I don't really want to see Josh and Rick doing the testing.

But the point is this: Nowhere in the Express story is the cyberbullying angle noted. Furthermore, that part of the complaint - if my information is true - is squarely directed at existing school district policy, which suggests that perhaps it should be dealt with in the Superintendent's Office or at least in the District Office and not at a School Board meeting. I wonder if all parts of the complaint have been passed to the board, or just the part dealing with Fandiño's claims of libel? If not, is Robinson dealing with the cyberbullying stuff? Should he be? Is it his place, or the board's place?

In any case, I also want to take this chance to ask a few more questions about the idea that blogger LT needs to be outed.

Fandiño has said that she wants the attacks to stop. Regardless of one's stance on whether or not what LT writes are 'attacks', let's take Kim's claim at face value.

Well, let's back up a step before that, even. What are the desirable outcomes to the filing of the complaint? (Obviously, different people are going to desire different outcomes.) What are the potential outcomes?

We know Fandiño's stated outcome; it was in the newspaper. Is that the same as her desired outcome? I suspect - but have no proof for - that Fandiño wants LT outed because Fandiño thinks LT is a teacher, and outing her will both end her blogging and let Fandiño exert some pressure on her.

Here's why I say this: If Fandiño wants the attacks to stop, is it possible to do so without outing LT? I think it is, depending on how the complaint is handled and who says what to whom. I value free speech fairly highly, and I think anonymous free speech is, for me at least (and my opinion may not be in line with legal interpretations), included in that category. Therefore, my desired outcome will leave the anonymity of LT intact (since their power to speak as they see fit partially derives from their anonymity). So, in my mind, if Fandiño and LT could find some common ground when it comes to what constitutes an attack and what constitutes libel - if they could talk, and I've not heard an account of them doing so (correct me if I'm wrong) - then maybe the complaint and the whole process could be avoided, and instead two folks who don't seem to get along could maybe start building a relationship based on communication and trust, even though they both know they disagree on many issues.

For me, it comes back to process and honest communication.

Gulf War Syndrom Hits Lebanon

[Just to be clear, I'm claiming the link between his illness and GWS, not the newspaper or his family.]

From the Lebanon Express:

Andrew Rounds, Iraq vet, passed away Saturday

A Waterloo man who spent the last nine months battling leukemia died at Samaritan Regional Medical Center (SRMC) in Corvallis on Saturday.

...

The cause of his leukemia was unidentified. Because researchers found no genetic markers in his cells, it was not genetic but something environmental.

His family wonders whether the explosion of an ammunition depot in 2004, when he was serving in the U.S. Army in Iraq, could have exposed him to something that led to the disease.

More on Gulf War Syndrome can be found here.

Blackface on the Front Page of the Barometer

It looks like the intrepid investigator Eric Stoller found a physical copy of the Barometer's front page....I hope he doesn't mind if I steal his image:

More On Native American Mascots & Oregon High Schools

Via Blue Oregon, a story came out in the Oregonian today. It looks like a pretty good overview of what's going on, but it's missing on thing that I would really like to see: the content (or at least a summary of it) of the presentation that Che Butler gave in favor of eliminating Native mascots and logos. Without that, it's easy for onlooker to fill in the gap with "I don't see what's wrong with this."

While I am in favor of high schools not using Native mascots or logos, I am also in favor of good process, and one of the parts of good process is the inclusion of all affected voices. Thus far, that hasn't happened, but the O story makes it sound like it will. I hope it does:

After months of closed meetings, an advisory panel recommended banning Native-themed mascots...

The panel's report cites the "importance of respecting the cultures and sacred symbols of all peoples" and the "harmful effects of racial stereotyping in the social identity and development and self-esteem of (Native) American young people."

But Oregon schools with Native American mascots complained they were not consulted.

"I think we're being invited in after the fact as a kind of courtesy," says Craig Brewington , superintendent of the district that includes Warrenton High, whose mascot is a warrior...

Top state officials are trying to calm the waters, saying a lot more discussion must take place before a final decision is reached. Fans of the Warriors and other Native-themed teams will be listened to, they say.

Castillo will decide the issue, although she has no deadline, says Pat Burk, chief policy officer, who will lead today's meeting. Scheduled to last four hours, it is billed as a conversation in which affected schools can express "concerns, barriers and suggestions."

Could go either way, really, though if Castillo decides to order the removal of the mascots without first earning some buy-in from the affected school, I guarantee the students, staff, parents, and communities who will have to live with the change are going to be very, very upset.

Renee's Column

With her permission...

Blackface: It’s Just for Racists

Apparently I missed the memo that said it was ok to go out in public in blackface, although it was written on the front page of the Daily Barometer in Friday’s edition as students were encouraged to go in blackface to the Saturday game. Much to my chagrin an African friend of mine, Wolof, who is also an OSU student (one of the mighty 264), approached me and asked me what was going on at the paper and had I seen the issue? He promptly pulled it out of his book bag and told me to keep it. After reading it, I wondered why students and alumni were being encouraged to “blackout” Reser stadium for last week’s game. Apparently there were postings on Facebook as well as OregonLive regarding this effort. Also apparently, to me at least, we haven’t come as far as I thought we have in terms of diversity awareness, cultural understanding, or in terms of racism and what might well be construed as a racist act.

There are t-shirts for sale in the bookstore that read, “I see orange people” so I am wondering why an “orange-out” wasn’t planned instead of a “blackout”? The accompanying photo was equally disturbing. Perhaps people don’t realize how offensive it is to blacks to see white people wear blackface? Or to people who are not Black but are considerate of others? I’m not saying this to be politically correct; anyone who knows me knows that I could care less about political correctness but care immensely about deliberately offending someone else about their culture or personal beliefs. I don’t understand how a collegiate paper can print something so offensive on their front page, or any page for that matter!

On behalf of myself, since I do not speak on behalf of the Daily Barometer (read disclaimer below) I would like to sincerely apologize to every Black student, staff, and faculty member, as well as any community member, who may have been offended by reading Friday’s edition and seeing the accompanying photo of a white male in blackface. I would also like to apologize to those of you who are not Black and were also offended.

What do you think it might make a black person on campus think if they see such an article in our student newspaper? Do you think they feel welcome here? That the OSU environment is friendly or considerate to minority people?

Do we just shake our heads and tell each other, “What can you do, some people may never learn,” all with a casual shrug of our shoulders? Or do we encourage people to get diversity training? Do we ask folks to attend an event at one of the cultural centers? Do we just ignore it and hope that it ends up in the recycling bin and long forgotten? Do you think that the Black students on this campus are going to forget? Do you think that they felt honored by having other people suggest such a thing?

There was a recent video reenactment of the alleged Jena 6 assault which was pulled from the Facebook page of a student in Louisiana whose friends covered themselves in mud and jumped another friend, supposedly because they were drunk and having fun while referring to one another by the “N” word. There are also additional racially inflammatory images that have been posted by other students in other states. Isn’t racism what started the problems that resulted in the alleged Jena 6 assault in the first place? What is wrong with people? What is wrong with the Daily Barometer that we wouldn’t consider this before printing such an article? Just because it appears in Facebook, MySpace, or OregonLive, that doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea.

According to Dictionary Definition: “1. blackface – the makeup used by a performer in order to imitate a Negro.” The term blackface is usually tied to racism and prejudice. Not to mention outright bigotry. Ok, I’ll mention it. I personally found the blackface suggestion offensive, as I don’t appreciate seeing non-Native people try to dress like Natives for Halloween or in blackface in imitation of Black people.

I was at a pow wow in Florida once where I saw a White woman wearing a short buckskin dress that was cut thigh-high and she was wearing a long black wig with various other equally inappropriate accoutrements. My friends and I were so disgusted that we left the arena and the pow wow. I had immediately lost all desire to dance and had to suppress a desire to throttle. Ok, not really, but I did want to give her a piece of my mind as she had obviously lost some of hers. You don’t go to a pow wow scantily clad and you don’t go in blackface makeup anywhere.

After doing some research on blackface, and the history of it, I do realize that the minstrel shows of decades ago did provide some avenue for blacks to perform and some of them could not do so unless they too were in blackface. But, as time, and our world, has evolved, the realization that these minstrel shows promoted racist views of a large segment of our population also evolved. Just ask Ted Danson if it is acceptable to go in blackface, he can give you a very informative story about his adventures with that effort at the Friar’s Club way back in 1993 when he was dating Whoopi Goldberg.

While it’s none of my business what anyone wore to the game on Saturday, it is my hope that the “blackface” suggestion dies an untimely death. That this suggestion of a “blackout” be buried on the internet with a small reminder that anything you put on the internet can be found and will be there for future employers to find when they “Google” your name. In future, wear your own face wherever you go. It’s a good one, the Creator gave it you.

Walk a Mile in My Moccasins

By

Renée Roman Nose

Epiphany

What if Hasso Hering isn't really being sneaky, dishonest, and disingenuous when he pens all his nonsensical editorials?

What if he actually believes every words he writes?

Oooohhh, that's my scary Halloween thought for the year. It came early.

More on Friedman's Generation Q

Awhile back, I posted about a column from the NYT written by Thomas Friedman.

Courtney Martin, writing in The American Prospect, has a much, much better response. Read hers; it's wonderful.

Also, please let me know if it applies to you, in comments or in an email.

A taste:

We do our best. We pursue careers and seek answers to questions that we believe are important. So many of the young New Yorkers standing around my living room that night were professional activists -- social workers and teachers and nonprofit workers. We discuss the latest current events, send one another links to our favorite blogs or videos on the subjects, grab drinks after work and hash it all out. We study like hell. My generation knows so much about so much. We read everything and anything that we think might point us in the direction of some kind of political enlightenment and psychic relief.

But it's not enough. I know that.

Why, Daily Barometer, Why?

I have never, ever been angrier when composing a blog post.

Thank god there's a purring kitty on my lap to remind me that there is some unqualified good in the world.

So.

I have not been reading the Daily Barometer lately. I tried subscribing to their RSS feed, but I didn't like the formatting, and I guess I've just been lax in checking their website (which, this year, hasn't been near as good as the paper edition, which might be a contributing factor).

This evening, having just got home, I sat down to check my RSS feed before bed. [Yes, I do that. Every night.]

I found this post by Eric Stoller, which led me to this story on the Daily Barometer website. [Note: The story is 2.5 weeks old at this point. Also, what happened to the Barometer's comment section? I'm sure it would be on fire over this one.]

I don't know what to say. I am so angry I want to scream and scream and scream until I'm hoarse. I want to head down to the Baro offices first thing tomorrow and demand an answer from the editor and advisor as to how they could be so stupid (knowing full well they did not create the event, but also that the story they approved to run was atrocious). But I know neither option is very productive, and instead I will try and find some words, because that is the path I have chosen.

I would urge you to go read the column by Renee Roman Nose on this topic, kindly posted by Eric (and if I get permission from Renee, I will repost it on this website as well). As Eric reports, it supposedly got her banned from the editorial page.

First thing first: As I noted above, the Barometer did not create the event. This is obvious. However, in choosing to report the story in the way they did, the Barometer (and I am not naming names because the story should have been checked by the writer and at least two editors) served to support this very racist idea, which should be unconscionable for a newspaper.

Not doing any research or devoting any space to the history of blackface or why this might be a bad idea reeks of 1950s collegiate "journalism" - you know, the kind that shamed students into attending sporting events and "school spirit" rallies? Yeah. That kind of "journalism" belongs in the trash can of history (though I would not be surprised if the Baro's advisor was trying to dig it out).

It would have taken fifteen fucking seconds to google or wikipedia 'blackface' and realize the implications of this idea. It would have taken a few more minutes to add in a few paragraphs of information pointing out the standing objections to blackface, which would have at least given the article the cover of the weak standard of 'balance'.

It would have taken anyone that read this story before publishing having been through any sort of diversity training, class, seminar, etc. to realize this was a bad idea. [Side note: The Baro has resisted doing anything like that for years - I'd guess a decade at this point, and it's really showed in the last five or so years.]

But the Baro printed the story. That was done.

Then Renee Roman Nose, a Barometer columnist who often writes about race, wrote a column in response.

She wrote it, but it never got published, and she has supposedly been banned from the editorial page.

When I heard that, I thought to myself, wow, that must have been one nasty column, full of attacks on the newspaper or the fans or something.

I got the chance to read it, thanks to Renee and Eric Stoller, who reprinted it on his site.

Turns out it's pretty fucking tame compared to what could have been said about the paper and the people pushing this idea.

These are the meanest lines I could find:

I don’t understand how a collegiate paper can print something so offensive on their front page, or any page for that matter!...On behalf of myself, since I do not speak on behalf of the Daily Barometer (read disclaimer below) I would like to sincerely apologize to every Black student, staff, and faculty member, as well as any community member, who may have been offended by reading Friday’s edition and seeing the accompanying photo of a white male in blackface. I would also like to apologize to those of you who are not Black and were also offended.

Yup. That Renee Roman Nose, always so harsh. COME ON. Does anyone else remember Nathanael Blake attacking the Barometer from the pages of his pet newsapaper while he attacked anything that wasn't a rich white man from the editorial page of the Barometer? That was OK but this column isn't?

There must be something else going on. There is no visible reason to ban someone from the editorial page over the column posted on Eric's blog. And Renee very clearly stated that she was apologizing on behalf of herself, not on behalf of the paper.

Word has it that Roman Nose will be meeting with the Student Media Committee at some point over this (perhaps she has met with them already; I am not sure). In that case, maybe the ban is temporary barring her meeting. That would make more sense.

In any case, the Barometer needs to get its shit together. I remember the paper being named "best in the nation" in its category around the turn of the century. You know it's fallen a long way when a picture of a student in blackface makes the front page - and it's in support of the idea.

Once, the Baro reported on the stupid things OSU students are apt to do (kidnap gay sheep, shoot at homeless people, etc.). Now it commits the stupid acts.

It's sad, really.

I will post on this more as I get more information.

Talking About Race

Via Engage, this list of 10 things it's a bad idea to do when talking about race.

I really like this list, but I can predict a lot of white folks are going to either go "huh" at some of these or outright resist (probably because we've made these mistakes before and don't want to own up to them).

My favorite:

1. Thinking It's Not OK to Talk About It
Race is such a touchy topic because it is often associated with all of the negative history and oppression of minorities in this country. Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans share a history of physical and social abuse at the hand of the white majority. Yes, that leads to anger and distrust, feelings so strong that they’ve survived for centuries. But the only way to bridge the gap and move forward as a more unified society is to talk about it: all of it.

“We are supposed to be engaged in a cultural conversation about race – a dialogue largely taking place on television and at the movies. We've traded unquestioned racism for a twisted multicultural correctness. Everything is celebrated, nothing can be discussed. We seem to want to live in an imaginary world without racism, where we celebrate differences but never base our beliefs on them.” – Sallie Tisdale, author of “The Sorcerer's Apprentice,” “Harvest Moon” and “Lot's Wife, Stepping Westward and Talk Dirty to Me”

Blogging Anonymously

Over at Lebanon Truth, I see that LT has posted about the complaint Kim Fandiño has reportedly filed with the district.

This makes me curious - how did LT find out if LT's identity is unknown to folks in the district? It must have made the gossip circuit...

Also, I want to take a second and talk about anonymous blogging.

There are generally a few reasons to blog anonymously:

1. You are in a place where blogging freely is not legal - see China, many Eastern European countries, etc. In this case, blogging becomes a form of free speech that is otherwise prohibited, and anonymity is a way to avoid the local police. (For more on this, see BoingBoing's guide.)

2. You are blogging about something that might get you in trouble if you used your real name: Your work, national security, etc. While it may not be illegal, it will probably result in the initiation of action against you.

3. You are using your anonymity as a form of power. This one can be the most abstract, but it boils down to this: By blogging anonymously, one discourages people from judging one's writing and voice based on the person behind them. In the way that I've experienced teachers ignoring students not because what the students said was wrong, but because they were students, I've seen plenty of people ignore the speech of others based on the characteristics of the person saying it (and yes, that includes race, class, gender, sex, and other forms of identity). Blogging under a pseudonym makes it that much harder to judge one's words based on the person speaking or writing.

I am sure there are others, but I can't track down the post I read months or years ago that dealt with this topic much better than I am doing.

I think both #2 and #3 probably apply to Lebanon Truth. It's safe bet that given the amount of information LT has they are affiliated or employed by the school district in some way. There have been plenty of cases ofcompanies retaliating against employees for blogging against work. I wonder if LT will eventually get dooced.

I think #3 is the biggest one for me, however. It has been my observation that at no point or no place in the entire ongoing issue surrounding Robinson, the School Board, the district, etc., that there has been a real or figurative space in which people could talk freely about their opinions regarding what's going on in the district. And make no mistake - people want to talk. And they do, in small groups, on the phone in the evening, and in other private venues. But I've not seen a public forum in which the exchange of views and ideas can take place freely and without consequence. I think LT's blogging is possibly a result of that, of the desire to try and get what LT thinks is the truth out there.

And certainly I think that part of the reason this whole insane mess has unfolded the way it has is precisely because there is so little trust in the district that people do not feel safe to exchange their points of view without exposing themselves to personal attacks or potential retaliation. And while I think is probably the norm for many, many work environments, that doesn't mean it's not a giant problem.

So where does Kim Fandiño fit into this? Well, I suspect Fandiño really wants to know who LT is precisely because LT's anonymity means Fandiño can't get to them any other way. Given the story that LT recites - that the complaint was found, basically, to be meritless by the district and that Fandiño appealed to the board (which is a venue that seems very friendly to her) - I definitely think that Fandiño just wants LT outed.

I don't think outing LT is a good idea. (Disclaimer: I have no idea who that person is.) Rather, I think it might have served Fandiño better to initiate a public conversation with LT. Instead, we have a power play. Not surprising, but it's not going to solve any problems, not really: You can't kill an idea or an opinion (or a revolution). The only way to win through power is through the annihilation of your opponent, and Fandiño is never going to be able to eliminate everyone who might disagree with her, since what she'd really be going after is the idea of opposition. The National Guard Armory in Lebanon does not stock nuclear weapons. Plus, c'mon, it's never worked historically - see War, Vietnam.

I would not be surprised if the LCSD Board votes to overturn the ruling on the grouns that they don't like LT and/or do like Fandiño. That sets a bad precedent, it's bad politics, and it might serve to stifle the one voice I've heard who is willing, albeit anonymously, to do their best to get out in the open all the rumors, innuendo, and information that's being spread around the district as is.

Get Off My Lawn, Confusion Edition

UPDATE: Significant content changes and editing. This was too sloppy even for me.

Hering's editorial from Friday is so strange I don't really know what's going on. Ostensibly, it's about the fact that Oregon has a two-year budget cycle and how that is confusing. However, there is so little opinion in this editorial I'm not even sure what Hering's point is - is it merely that the two-year thing is confusing to people? Really? That's it?

As far as I can tell, this is the entirety of the substance of his editorial:

Two-year budgeting has its upside. The main one is that you have to worry about it only every other year.

But it also has a steep downside: It confuses people, and not just residents in state correctional institutions.

He then goes on to hypothesize what life would be like if people used two-year cycles instead of one, presumably to illustrate how confusing it is.

I missed it the first time around, but that crack of Hering's could be construed as a shot at the prisoner who wrote it. I don't think it is, but given his history of sad ad hominem attacks, I would not be surprised.

I just have one objection, and that's this: The only 'argument' Hering presents for the two-year cycle is that - and I quote "you have to worry about it only every other year."

I am so, so tired of getting dumber when I read the editorials in the DH. Someone should really tell the publisher to give Hering days off that end in 'y'.

How about this? A two-year cycle means all the legislative wrangling and gridlock that happens is cut in half, freeing the Leg to work on other things. It allows for far more stability for state agencies who have to adjust to a constantly rising and falling budget as is, which is pretty important - and it allows, presumably, for more creative budget management since agencies and departments have a much larger pool of money to shuffle around. I came up with those literally as I was writing them, so you know I didn't exactly spend a lot of time on this one.

My point is simply that Hering makes no effort to point out why a two-year cycle is good, and instead spends his time forcing his readers to suffer through the most inane and banal writing I've seen since the last time I read his stuff. It's practically embarrassing, even for a Friday.

"Records show Shimmin doubted Robinson decision"

That's the headline of the first Express story to come out of their public records request. I wanted to blog about it as soon as it came out, but I was never sure what to say.

I think I figured it out: I don't feel like there's a whole lot to say because I'm feeling like the story just confirmed what I thought (and what I think everyone sort of knew) beforehand: Shimmin was never sure of her decision; she had been persuaded by others; she reached out and talked to lots of folks about what was going on; and, as is probably true of everyone else, she was/is talking about board issues behind the scenes. [Note: Despite the directive on keeping board business confined to board meetings, I don't fault anyone for wanting to talk about this stuff outside the formal context of a meeting, but I do think that planning strategy to suspend the Superintendent is a bit much.]

Still, it is rather nice to have confirmation of the details of a lot of things. And from what I've heard, there will be more stories on this information dump in the future.

It's also nice to get some insight into the legal advice offered the school board.

On the other hand, I'm sure Shimmin is now very careful to use private accounts to communicate regarding school board issues.

Given that the school board members are provided with email addresses, I wonder if there is a provision requiring them to use said addresses for all official business - and regardless of the existence of any such provision, I wonder how much the school board members DO use their official accounts for business? Would it be worthwhile for the Express (or anyone else) to do a public records request for the contents of the board members' official email? [As a side note, I notice that Sprenger lists her CenturyTel email as her board email - what are the ramifications for a records request?]