|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Woodside Town Council, with three of the seven members not participating, agreed at its Sept. 12 meeting to “disapprove” of a remark posted online by Councilman Chris Shaw in reference to an earlier online comment by Woodside resident Nancy Reyering about the role of mice and their predators in the spread of Lyme disease.
In a 4-0 vote on a resolution, the council concluded that Mr. Shaw did not violate the town’s ethics code, as alleged by resident Thomas Johnson and as determined by Mayor Tom Livermore in a report to the council.
In an online remark on Nextdoor Woodside, Mr. Shaw, who defeated Ms. Reyering in a write-in campaign in 2015 for a seat on the council, wrote: “Last week, she wanted to kill your cats. Now she is pissed because there are too many mice …,” according to a report to the council by Mayor Tom Livermore.
Asked earlier by the Almanac for a comment on his posting, Mr. Shaw replied via email: “I posted on (Nextdoor Woodside) after 36 hours of traveling. The post was unwise and unhelpful. I removed the post the following morning upon reflection and certainly regret posting it at all.”
Mayor Livermore explained his conclusion that Mr. Shaw violated Section 13 of the ethics code, which outlines duties of town officials, including a duty to “support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for Town employees and for citizens and business dealing with the town.”
“I did not look at this as a personal charge or attack,” Mr. Livermore told the council. “Was it an inappropriate comment? I think so. I think Mr. Shaw has admitted freely that it was inappropriate, and apologized for doing so. And I also think that … he genuinely means that. He knew right away it was a mistake as is evidenced by the fact that 12 hours later he removed the post.”
Not participating in the Sept. 12 deliberations were Councilwoman Deborah Gordon, who was absent; Councilman Shaw, who took a seat in the audience; and Councilman Peter Mason, who recused himself. Mr. Mason, an architect, was at the center of a 2016 complaint by Ms. Reyering that led to an investigation and allegations that she had violated the ethics code.
Mr. Livermore, when asked via email why he voted to conclude that Mr. Shaw did not violate the ethics code when his report said that he had, replied: “After hearing all the testimony and the discussion amongst the Town Council members, plus when we decided we could add the whereas about disapproving the comment to the resolution, I decided to vote in favor of no violation.”
• Earlier story: Did Woodside council member’s online remark violate town’s ethics code?
—
By Dave Boyce
By Dave Boyce
By Dave Boyce
Let me unspin this for you: the council unanimously rejected a complaint filed by a personal friend of Reyering’s, one who has filed complaints against fellow citizens before. The complaint was in no way supported by the language in the code, was thus frivolous, and obviously motivated by a desire for personal revenge, attempting to use our volunteer town government as the weapon. The tactic didn’t work this time, and no similar attack will work in the future. Our volunteers are way too smart for such a simple-minded and childish trick.
Why am I not surprised the N R was involved somewhere in this.