Who's texting the assembly how to vote?

It seems the Mat-Su Borough Assembly members and Mayor Larry DeVilbiss are out of touch with the wishes of those they serve.

Assembly members voted down a resolution 6 to 1 introduced Nov. 15 by assemblyman Warren Keogh that would have prohibited the use of any electronic device by an assembly member or the mayor during a meeting, except for breaks or in case of emergency.

At the assembly table, Keogh was the only member to vote in favor of the change. But when we asked Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman readers to weigh in, their votes lined up to back Keogh’s resolution by a margin of nearly 6 to 1.

We asked: “Should elected officials be permitted to send email, texts or take phone calls during public meetings?”

While our polls are not scientific, the gap between the “yes” and “no” votes here is significant. Of the more than 700 votes cast, 104 “yes” votes were cast as of 8 p.m., Monday, and 632 “no” votes were cast.

We also posted the question to our Facebook page today and asked our readers to explain why they think elected officials should or shouldn’t be permitted to send email, texts or take phone calls during public meetings.

“Not unless they are willing to make their texts, emails or phone calls public. They are supposed to be transparent and open with the citizens they represent,” replied Diane Gisolo Forster.

“No! They should keep their minds on their work. We pay them to take care of business not talk, text and email,” wrote Judi Barton.

Joan Hope said she has no problem with the practice, so long as it isn’t abused.

“These elected officials are essentially volunteering their time to do a job the rest of us are unwilling to do,” she wrote. “If looking at a text message from a spouse or child during one of those endless meetings enables that assembly member (and I'm guessing that we're talking mostly assembly and city councils here) to continue offering the huge amount of time and commitment it takes to do that job, I have no problem whatsoever. I agree that this can be abused —constant texting or emailing is inappropriate at the table; but occasionally, I have no problem with it whatsoever.”

We’re still waiting to hear back from borough attorney Nick Spiropoulos regarding our public records requests for text, email and other electronic exchanges between our elected representatives during public meetings.

We are curious what the text said that Assemblyman Ron Arvin sent to Assemblyman Jim Colver during the Oct. 18 meeting. We’re curious mostly because we know this text message exists and that it was sent during a public meeting.

But more concerning are the possible messages sent and received during public meetings that the public doesn’t know about.

Think about it. If you have Arvin’s cellphone you could send him a text telling him how to vote. You could tell DeVilbiss if he doesn’t veto this or that matter in front of the assembly you’ll quit doing business with him. You could tell newly elected member Steve Colligan whatever you want. You just need a cellphone number and you can whisper in any assembly member’s ear while he or she is seated at the assembly table tasked with the public’s business.

It’s time for the assembly to revisit Keogh’s resolution. This time members should vote not their own wishes, but with the will of the people they serve in mind.