Melville: Pacella gave me a list of organizations to follow up on. Parsons, will you find contact information for the organizations President, VP, and Treasurer for email blast to them. Parsons: Yes. (See review of action items) Melville: I hope to get responses for next meeting, so we can assign presentation days and etc. Does anyone have any ideas to expand on? McCormick: Should handouts to meetings so we can give petitions and applications. Establish Stance on Social Media Melville: In the past years, social media has been a hot button topic. The election code is very vague when it comes to social media, which forces us to create our own position on the rights and wrongs. There is a lack of clarity in the rules, and I have already gotten questions about what the rules exactly mean. The question is what do we want to do for this year? – So, if it is in the campaign period, what is considered McCormick: fair game? Nothing defamatory of course. Pacella: My question is how seriously are we going to take – additional details on Facebook pages, when these things aren’t explicitly expressed in the election code? How would we view an instance where someone has a complaint about someone else that isn’t specified in the election code? They say, how am I suppose to know, it isn’t in the election code? Melville: The purpose of making our stance is to try and decide how exactly we would rule in certain complaint situations. As far as communicating information, that’s what I envisioned our social media page being for. Also, so that we all don’t contradict ourselves. I understand the internal policy, but when we express this Pacella: in public, what is the technical legal standing of that? Can it be treated as an extension of the election code? Melville: I don’t think technically it would be a binding document, or an addendum of the election code. The question boils down to –
Melville: Pacella gave me a list of organizations to follow up on. Parsons, will you find contact information for the organizations President, VP, and Treasurer for email blast to them. Parsons: Yes. (See review of action items) Melville: I hope to get responses for next meeting, so we can assign presentation days and etc. Does anyone have any ideas to expand on? McCormick: Should handouts to meetings so we can give petitions and applications. Establish Stance on Social Media Melville: In the past years, social media has been a hot button topic. The election code is very vague when it comes to social media, which forces us to create our own position on the rights and wrongs. There is a lack of clarity in the rules, and I have already gotten questions about what the rules exactly mean. The question is – what do we want to do for this year? McCormick: So, if it is in the campaign period, what is considered fair game? Nothing defamatory of course. Pacella: My question is – how seriously are we going to take additional details on Facebook pages, when these things aren’t explicitly expressed in the election code? How would we view an instance where someone has a complaint about someone else that isn’t specified in the election code? They say, how am I suppose to know, it isn’t in the election code? Melville: The purpose of making our stance is to try and decide how exactly we would rule in certain complaint situations. As far as communicating information, that’s what I envisioned our social media page being for. Also, so that we all don’t contradict ourselves. Pacella: I understand the internal policy, but when we express this in public, what is the technical legal standing of that? Can it be treated as an extension of the election code? Melville: I don’t think technically it would be a binding document, or an addendum of the election code. The question boils down to –
SCJ_Minutes_2-13-18.docx