Correspondence with Peak Democracy

 July 5, 2014

The following is an email that addresses two problematic actions by the City of Encinitas.  My hope is that P.D. Peak Democracy will be responsive to address their defects, and by doing use their tools  to bring wider scrutiny to P.V., the purchase of Pacific View.  One other point is that both they and the city will retain residents email information.  While they promise preservation of our privacy, this L.A. Times article explains how this is becoming impossible.

 

July 5, 2014

To: Corporate Management Peak Democracy (PD)
Michael A. Cohen

As a resident of Encinitas California, I have written in opposition to our city's contract with you, with several articles available on AlRodbell.blogspot.com   This link is to the article in the Encinitas Advocate, with my critique of elements of your product as an appended comment.  We live in an era when all powerful entities, public and private, are coming under scrutiny, and usually this uncovers serious issues, examples being GM, VA Medical Care and NSA activities.  You have gotten a pass in the adoption process by this city, based on trust, without the Reagan codicil, which is to "verify."

Given the insufficiency of the vetting by the city, you are now our partners, so let me make a pointed suggestion.  The city is about to finalize by inaction the contract to purchase property known as Pacific View.  The use of this ten million dollar purchase has never been defined further than a vague one of being a "center for the arts."  There has been no general input by the broad electorate of this city on the purchase, it being driven by a campaign that activated less than 2% of residents. The opposition, such as appeared in this letter to the editor of the printed edition of the July 4th "Encinitas Advocate" has not been conveyed to the taxpayers of the city, a problem that your "Open Town Hall" claims to redress. This is a timely and appropriate issue that could be addressed by a survey such as those that you provide.  But, before this has credence, there are specific requirements that have not appropriately been implemented.

One of the many questions that were never asked when you won over the Encinitas staff, refers to auditing of the responses to your surveys.  As of now the raw metadata and content goes directly to your company, to first be evaluated and possibly modified (clause 7.3), only then to be made available to city government and forum participants after such vetting by PD.  While you have promoted the benefits of this procedure, deflecting challenges such as mine with "this is only advisory, and not a referendum" this is understating the seriousness of the potential for manipulation of public sentiment. 

This can be addressed by shared access to raw data from forum participants by interested parties other than PD or exclusively city officials.  An open forum, the essence of your advertised product, must have this quality to avoid accusations such as mine that they could become a vehicle for institutional propaganda-the very antithesis of an "Open Town Hall." 

I look forward to your response

Al Rodbell

July 8, 2014

I received a this response to the email from Peak Democracy the evening of July 6th

Hello Mr. Rodbell,

Thank you for contacting us here at Peak Democracy

.

The topics that appear on the City of Encinitas E-Townhall are selected by the City of Encinitas. If you would like, we could forward your suggestion about a topic on Pacific View to our liaison at the City or you may contact them directly with your suggestion.

To respond to your other concerns we never modify statements without the consent of the statement author, and make all public data available immediately. In fact, you may view that data by going to any topic and downloading reports of the on-forum statements at any time.

Additionally we do not share users' contact information with anyone without their consent in accordance to our privacy policy.

Please do let us know if there is anything we may assist you with.

Cheers,

Rob

-------------

My response was:

Rob,

Yes, I understand that you do currently have a procedure in place for handling problematic comments that does seem reasonable.  However clause 7.3 is still part of your Terms of Service, and does allow what it says, which is modify user's input. This allows you do this even if it is not your current practice This is the agreement that most publishers impose for submissions of letters to the editor that is not acceptable to many, thus skewing the demographic of respondents.  The current wording should be replaced with a specific separate section that defines your procedure, such as: 

Comments on Open Town Hall are publicly posted based on standards determined by the municipality.  If they do not conform to such standards based on various criteria such comments will be returned to writer while held in a non public file temporarily.  The comment may be revised. resubmitted or deleted by writer. 

This statement in your response is contradictory, " we make all public data available immediately."  In fact, you may view that data by going to any topic and downloading reports of the on-forum statements at any time."

If you do vet comments, then there must be a time lag between user posting and it being on the forum, so how can it be available immediately?

Please give provide me with the name of the your Encinitas Liaison as you offered.

Regards

Al Rodbell  

Unlike other utilities purchased to enhance the city's website which only convey information this relationship with Peak Democracy is potentially insidious, as it is sending emails and then receiving comments that have the implied stamp of being official.  The right of modification must be eliminated in the user agreement which other venues such as Disqus, the largest internet forum company in the world, does not include in their terms of service.  Disqus has potential defects described on the Wikipedia article about the service, but these issues are in the open.   this utility provides the functionality advertised by Peak Democracy without the control by them that PD demands.  As for their claims of privacy, this article from the Stanford University Legal-Internet project explains why this is not possible.