Kerfuffle Comments

I have regular computer access again and am back from
a family event this weekend and am hopefully caught up
with enough things to get the blog up to speed.

First off, I need to acknowledge an error in my
Tempost in a Teapot posting. I had initially written
that I did not announce Ginny Schrader’s candidacy.
That was based on my memory and a review of my posting
titles. However, after I posted my initial note, it
occurred to me to check by date and I found that I had
included a sentence about her announcement in a
posting I had made that evening, but the posting title was
on the big Meet up so I had missed it. My mistake, and a
careless one at that. I did remove the incorrect
paragraph as soon as I could.

Secondly, let’s talk about conference calls. I took a
lot of anthropology classes in college and tend to look at
things in cultural context. There are a lot of unwritten
rules in all societies, and it is incumbent upon newcomers
to learn them as people immersed in the culture take
unwritten rules for granted and usually can’t tell you what
they are. I’ve been a licensed driver in three states and in
each one there was a drivers’ manual and local customs. I
can read the drivers’ manual but the unwritten rules must
be learned through observation or trial and error. In some
areas a yellow light is the equivalent of a green; in others
it is a red. In some areas drivers make left turns as the light
turns yellow; in other it is just as the light turns green.
I worked at one place where birthdays were a big deal, with
presents and food. At the first such event I brought in a
pan of brownies. Everyone had to give me the cold
shoulder for days before I realized that each person had
staked out a territory and the brownie slot was taken.
Sometimes I’m just slow on the uptake.

So it is not surprising that I made a faux pas on my
second politically related conference call. Chris Bowers is
concerned that this will have a negative impact on the
willingness of other politicians to participate in such
events. This distresses me and I think the easiest and
most truthful thing for him to do is tell candidates that
someone messed up once but she has said she won’t
participate anymore. He can throw in an eye roll, a
smack on the forehead, shake his head in despair, sigh,
whatever seems necessary. Problem solved. Unless he
thinks this might happen again and then he might consider
actions that could be taken from his end.

Thirdly, some of those leaving comments seemed to think
that I sent an email describing the conference call to
PoliticsPA with the intention of having something posted
there. This is not the case. I discussed the call with one
person in person, one person on the phone, in an email
with one other blogger who was on the call, and in an email
to the editor of PoliticsPA. It was water cooler
conversation. I did not think that any of these people would
make those comments public, but neither did I ask any of
them to keep it in confidence, as I was not asked to keep
my thoughts in confidence, only to be discussed in this
blog. Generally speaking, once information is out, it is hard
to control where it goes. I’ve signed confidentiality
agreements in some work and consulting projects and keep
those to the best of my ability. When people ask me in
advance to keep something confidential I try to honor that,
provided it does not conflict with a larger imperative. (If
you work with me and tell me you have embezzled money
from our employer you have made me an accessory after
the fact and I will rat you out.) The guy in the office next to
mine is good friends with a reporter. Someone I know went
to college with an Inky reporter; someone else I know is
related to someone who writes for another Philly
publication. In the odd event that I ever say anything
interesting, these people may repeat it to their reporter
buddies and relatives who may work it into a story. I can’t
do anything about this except to get everyone I speak
or email with to sign non-disclosure statements and that
seems unwieldy. Recently I emailed some of the bloggers
I have had ongoing emails with and suggested maybe we all
try to get together for lunch. In that initial email I also
suggested that before any real plans were made we agree
on confidentiality issues, such as whether or not we would
blog about it, and the use of real names, etc. Sometimes
these things needs to be outlined in advance, even
though it seems dreary to do so.

I’ve blogged twice about PoliticsPA and in one posting
indicated an acquaintance with the editor; while I don’t
expect everyone to read everything I say and remember it,
it can also hardly be said that I was keeping it a secret.
When the PPA up and down about the call appeared, there
with a note that it was from numerous sources. I took that
at face value and was surprised later to learn that a second
source for the call could not be confirmed.

That’s about all I can think of to say on the matter, except
that I have been pleased to see the word kerfuffle used a
few times on area blogs recently. It’s a nice word and tickles
the tongue when spoken so I’m glad to see it getting out
and about more.