About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
 William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Quick Site Policy Note

by: elwood

Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 06:23:01 AM EDT
Yesterday the private cell phone number of a public figure "leaked". Many Hampsters will have seen it in their other communications forums.

Don't post it here.

Our tentative view is, this is pretty darn close to "outing" someone's identity - a banning offense.
elwood :: Quick Site Policy Note
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Quick Site Policy Note | 4 comments
Right, and to be clear (4.00 / 1)
We have no issue posting a phone number that an official has identified as "Hey this is the number where you should call me."

Speaker O'Brien has very little information listed on his House Directory page http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...
But he has published (603) 271-3661 as the phone number people should use to call him.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

We thought you should understand... (4.00 / 1)
our thought process in distributing O'Brien's complete email including his cell number, so in addition to posting it under the Diaries, we think it has relevance here as well:
We gnashed our teeth a bit on this one, and knew that the response might be mixed. But after deliberation and some conflict within our ranks, we determined that the context in which Mr. O'Brien offered his number was important. He was extending a gag-request to elected representatives - directing them to STONEWALL the press and constituents alike!  Our "outing" of his directive email was driven by the fact that he chooses to operate in a Gaddafi-like manner, under the cloak of darkness. To wit, he removed his Speaker license plates from his car and hides behind State Troopers. And, lest we forget, the Speakah distrusts his own minions and requires one of his leadership team to raise a red or green flag on the floor of the House to instruct his mini-mes how to vote in line with his extreme agenda.   His terse email clearly shows his iron-fisted tendencies and his  arrogance and distrust of his peers - THAT IS THE MAJOR POINT. Nevertheless, the opinion of our subscribers  matter, and we will pause the next time a similar situation comes our way. We won't always make decisions that 100% of our subscribers like, but we will always listen to their feedback and take it into consideration for future actions.
We do not take constructive criticisms lightly, but hope you see the method behind the madness.


The Internet Is A Big Place n/t (0.00 / 0)


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden
[ Parent ]
Cell Phone Irony? No belt tightening for you. (4.00 / 3)
Without taking any position at all on the question of whether or not to publish the cell phone number except to say that I agree that private numbers should never be disclosed, I do have to wonder if the cell phone number given is truly a private one.  

As explained in the blurb to HB 561, certain legislators and staff members are provided with wireless communications devices and service plans at state expense.  Reps. Brunelle and Pierce introduced HB 561 to ensure that legislators participate in the belt-tightening we are imposing on our citizens.

HB 561-FN, prohibiting the state payment of the cost of wireless communications services for legislators and staff.  INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Marilinda J Garcia for Legislative Administration: This bill would rescind funds for the 35 state-owned wireless telecommunication devices currently in the possession of legislative leadership and legislative staff.  While the intent of the bill was to save $18,732 in annual state expenditures and to communicate the full extent of legislative commitment to fiscal discipline to New Hampshire citizens, the bill as written would, in fact, impede the effectiveness and efficiency of the legislative body and staff as a whole thereby being a net loss to the public good.  In addition, the distinction between wireless telecommunication "devices" and wireless telecommunication "services" is not clear - the words are used interchangeably in the bill and the LBAO fiscal note analysis.    Vote 9-4.

Predictably, the majority supported the Committee recommendation of Inexpedient to Legislate by a vote of 249-93.  No belt tightening here.  You can check out the roll call here.

So the question remains as to whether the cell phone number under discussion is a device that is provided  at state expense?

Quick Site Policy Note | 4 comments

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox