front porch flimflam
Flimflam /ˈflɪm.flæm/: n. Talk that intends to deceive ... v. To swindle or dupe

Seven Days

This page was first published on Dec. 19, 2022. Any updates after that will be noted up here at the top, but the rest will be unchanged and in the order in which the communication between Kristian and Seven Days publisher Paula Routly took place.

If you ended up here directly, you can visit this page for a brief overview and background to the below thread.

---------------------------

From: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 4:08 PM

Subject: Letter to the editor

To: Kristian Connolly


Kristian -

I'm going publish your letter to the editor next week, edited as shown below.

Look okay?

Paula


Selective Civics


Congratulations to all the students highlighted in the recent article “From the Deputy Publisher: Representing the Future,” [November 16]. It is encouraging to see such activity and civic engagement.


I was particularly encouraged to read about the student who spread the word via Front Porch Forum. Using the FPF platform to engage with one’s community is central to FPF’s mission. After all, FPF describes itself as “essential civic infrastructure.”


That being said, I wanted to add a word of caution to the parents who posted on FPF on behalf of their student because of FPF’s age restriction. In short, be careful what you admit to doing on FPF that violates its Terms of Use.


Front Porch Forum recently terminated my household from its platform. A for-profit company which annually asks for and receives hundreds of thousands of donated dollars from Vermonters, FPF unjustly decided that I shouldn’t be a part of my community, and that my wife, by association, shouldn’t be a part of hers — as if she were not her own person, separate from her husband.


If this can happen to us, it can happen to you. You can read the full story of what happened at FrontPorchFlimflam.com.


In the meantime, congrats again to the next wave of civic activists. Go get ’em!


Kristian Connolly

Montpelier


// SEVEN DAYS //

:: Paula Routly

:: Editor/Publisher

:: paula@sevendaysvt.com


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 4:25 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


Hi Paula,


Thank you very much for the note. I sincerely appreciate it. That looks great, thank you for asking.


I do have one more question: If an LTE is published from one of the readers, does that preclude that same reader from having an LTE published in an issue that comes out shortly thereafter?


Here's why I ask: Recently, a Burlington resident named Jason Van Driesche announced that he is challenging an incumbent for the South District City Council spot. Supposedly next month at the caucus. The campaign press release was posted on VTDigger 10 days ago: https://vtdigger.org/press_release/jason-van-driesche-to-run-for-burlington-south-district-city-council-seat/


Mr. Van Driesche is a FPF executive. So I have prepared an LTE for as soon as I see Seven Days do a story about that race/candidate. ;)


I have copied it below my signature for your information. Clearly, I would love both to run. But if there's a choice to be made between the two, especially because of a limitation on LTE frequency, I think I'd like to know if I had to choose one. Though again, the second option depends on there being a story to respond to in the first place! :)


It's hard to decide which of the two LTEs I think is more weighty, but I'd probably lean toward the one having to do with a potential elected official in Burlington -- especially an FPF exec who's campaigning on the importance of every voice being heard in his district.


Thanks for considering my question, and letting me know what you think.


Be well,


Kristian


------------------------


Front Porch Forum chief of staff Jason Van Driesche is running for Burlington City Council, with his campaign announcement stating that "everyone deserves to be heard" and "I'm committed to listening to the whole community."


I'm concerned that South District voters won't know how or why Mr. Van Driesche's words don't match the actions of the executives running the donor-supported for-profit corporation known as FPF. I'm also concerned about how FPF might manage citizens who want to use their voice during the South District race.


I used FPF to discuss important, if also uncomfortable, issues in my community. People thanked me, including those who were hesitant to put themselves out there like I had.


But earlier this month, FPF unjustly terminated my account, and my spouse's by association. She is her own person. To learn more, search "Front Porch Flimflam."


So I wonder if Mr. Van Driesche, a self-described "expert in helping people figure out how to work together to make their communities better places," might've had a role in removing our voices from our community.


I reside in Montpelier. But if Mr. Van Driesche campaigns on the ideals of listening to everyone's voice, and believing that all opinions deserve to be heard, while at the same time he has a role in the oppression of voices in communities across Vermont, then there are fair and relevant questions for Burlington's South District voters to ask as they consider Mr. Van Driesche's fitness to be their voice on the City Council.


Kristian Connolly

Montpelier


From: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 4:42 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Kristian Connolly


Good question! We limit readers to one letter per month.

Plus, both of your letters make the same point, so I’m not sure I’d run both of them — even if they were separated by the required amount of time.

Your complaint connects more directly to Jason’s campaign, I think, than to the Good Citizen challenge.

I’m sure we’ll write about him, but I don’t know when...

Bottom line: If you can wait to air this issue, I would hold off until we write about Jason.

If it’s urgent to let people know now, let’s go with the letter I edited for next week.

Which do you prefer?

Paula


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 5:03 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


That all makes sense, thank you. I'm going to talk with my family over dinner and have a note back to you in an hour or so.


Thanks!

Kristian


From: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 5:03 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Kristian Connolly


Perfect!


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 5:09 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


One quick technicality question at the end of November, though it may not matter since you already cited the content similarities as a potential block to publishing both:


One per 30-day period, or one per calendar month? ;)


Thanks!

Kristian


From: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 5:17 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Kristian Connolly


I shoot for roughly four weeks between letters.


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 6:46 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


Thanks, that makes sense! :)


OK, so here is where we came down on things: I would like to wait, and risk that there'll be a story about the candidate/race far enough in advance of the caucus that an LTE will get published before people go vote.


Unless...


My wife would be allowed to submit her own LTE some time (presumably) next month after such a story runs in Seven Days, and there won't be a problem running it because of the same "similarity of content" issue that you mentioned earlier. Two different people writing about a similar topic is normal, right?


If that were allowable, then you can run this first LTE in the upcoming issue and my wife will tackle the later LTE if/when possible.


How does that sound?


I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to mention that I've been working on your reporting staff literally since before FPF actually terminated our accounts. When FPF first blocked me from posting with a made-up reason that did not make any sense. In fact, some of your staff have had the full story of what's happened even before there was a website to detail it all.


I just want to say that what has happened to us is not normal. Obviously, banning my wife simply because she is my wife is ridiculous. And while I know there are people who have said what many people, including me, would find to be some very objectionable/questionable things on FPF and have found themselves in a similar boat, that's not me. And that's definitely not my wife. I also know that a lot worse than anything I've ever written gets published on FPFs all around Vermont.


In the end, it shouldn't matter what I was saying in a space that promotes itself as being an open public forum in which community members shape their own communities (FPF definitely says this). But the fact is that I was not saying anything that meets any of the FPF-published standards for being objectionable, or misinformation, or attacking, or an "ist" or anything else that FPF apparently feels very comfortable banning people for having written. And everything I wrote and had published was supported by verifiable information and sound sources.


And if I had done anything on their list, for one they wouldn't have published it. But even still, they say they're supposed to communicate those instances to people. But in the end, they didn't. Ever. And if it were true that I'd done those things, then they would have just terminated my account outright, instead of first coming up with a bogus "limit" which prevented me from continuing in a conversation in my community, and promising me the chance to return when the limit was over. Instead, they simply terminated me a week later once the limit was lifted and before I'd posted anything else.


Again, nothing I wrote was ever turned away by FPF before they decided to block and then ban me. They published everything. So I believe that something else is going on here with me, and therefore us.


And the fact that for-profit FPF gets to convey a certain image, using the Vermont public benefit corporation designation as a shield to help it solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars directly from Vermonters each year, and get taxpayer money via government advertising contracts, grants, and appropriations, when in reality FPF operates as a heavy-handed decider of what's "acceptable" in individual communities all across Vermont, is absolutely stunning. How is oppressing voices in a community, and also cutting community members off from important local information (government alerts, etc.), serving the public good?


Most people would be shocked to learn that's what FPF is. That it's not actually about their community being allowed to be their community on FPF. FPF donors should be incensed by how their money is spent. I don't believe community members should be fooled like this, especially when the people doing the fooling are literally profiting off of those community members. I don't believe FPF should be allowed to shape this public narrative of itself, and then operate the way it does behind the scenes, so that the business can continue to take advantage of people who believe very different things about FPF than what the reality has shown to be true. Maybe I'm wrong about how people would feel. But that's the story I am trying to tell, so that people can decide for themselves.


Thanks again for the help with the LTEs.


Sincerely,

Kristian


From: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 7:06 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Kristian Connolly


Sounds good, Kristian. I know you’ve been talking with Sasha Goldstein and others about this.

Not sure what the news team will decide to do in terms of coverage, but, with some limitations, the LTE avenue is open to you.

Paula


P.S. Front Porch Forum is a private business. It gets no state or other public funding that requires it to be accessible to all. I’m not saying you and your wife should be banned — only that it’s FPF's right to do that. The people who give FPF money are doing so voluntarily, presumably because they value the service. There’s no tax deduction involved.


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 9:15 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


Hi Paula,


Thanks again with the LTE avenue. I sincerely appreciate it. Because it wasn't quite made clear, will you be holding off on the current LTE because you prefer that only one LTE from my household touches on this topic as it relates to Seven Days coverage (in which case I'd delay and wait), or will you be running the first and then allowing my wife to try later if there's an opening via the City Council election?


Re: FPF's status ...


Yes, I understand that it can do what it wishes, and that donors do not get a tax deduction. I'm not questioning whether FPF should be allowed to be whatever it wants. But if it's going to do what it wishes, FPF should be making clear what that means and making clear what it is as a business, instead of using its status under Vermont law (which confuses people), its own self-styling as "essential civic infrastructure in Vermont," its various donation campaigns, its media coverage and marketing copy, and its FAQs to present it as being something it is decidedly not.


All you have to do is look at its "testimonials" web page, or read the FPF annual report and its four pages of testimonials (out of an eight-page report) to know that FPF members, likely the vast majority of them, do not realize that FPF is not a public service providing a free and open place for community members to engage, and to do so as befits their community. Most people believe what FPF says, that there is no "one way" for a FPF community forum to be, or look like, or act like, because it's up to each community. Except that there apparently is one way, and that's the way that only a certain few people who work for FPF decide for those communities -- which in nearly every case is not even their community at all.


Does that sound like the kind of operation represented by this FAQ?


Is FPF moderated?

Yes, FPF's professional online community managers moderate all FPF Neighborhood Forums. But it’s really the neighbors who set the tone and keep the conversation flowing.


Or this one? https://help.frontporchforum.com/why-are-there-political-postings-on-fpf


I could go on and on using only what FPF itself publishes in order to sell people on what it wants you to believe FPF is. There are many examples on the site.


Again, there's a disconnect between the private FPF that will do to me (and my wife) what FPF has done, and the public FPF that the very next day publishes this: https://blog.frontporchforum.com/2022/11/03/talking-politics-on-fpf-finding-the-shared-middle/ and says "We love her perspective on this."


Those two FPFs are not the same place, and that's what's deceiving people. Not just donors, obviously, but anyone who thinks that FPF is the place to engage with their community in a variety of ways. They believe those things because FPF says that's what it's for. But the reality is that FPF is deciding how communities engage, what members of that community can engage, and about what those people can discuss as a community. I'm sorry, but that's just not right, no matter how legal it might be.


And because there is money involved -- individually, from governments that are paying FPF with taxpayer funds, etc.-- it's even more disturbing, and unconscionable.


Seven Days, a for-profit business, asks people for donations because it provides a free news publication, and the ask is simple: If you like this publication and want to help support us, then do so. No one questions what Seven Days is. People might question the coverage itself, but that's different than questioning whether Seven Days is a newspaper.


That is a vastly different situation than what happens when FPF is asking people for money based on a narrative about how essential it is. A narrative that is supported, by the way, by the fact that many municipalities and government agencies use FPF to keep the public informed, and point people in their community to FPF to stay up to date. Yet FPF gets to cut people off from that, even as they take money from members of that community and even the government agencies and/or elected officials that depend on it as an avenue for distributing information?


Just look at the word "infrastructure", which is defined as "the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise."


When people hear or see the term FPF uses to describe itself as "essential civic infrastructure in Vermont," surely most people see that and believe a host of things about FPF that are not true. That happens every day, and will continue to happen unless there's a reason for it to stop.


This is the issue for me. I don't ever expect to be allowed back into FPF. That's not why I want this story to be told. For one, I think if they ever offered it'd come with the condition that I take the site down. But that's not happening. I'd update it with some resolution if there ever was one, but this whole thing now lives as part of the FPF story, and it needs to be known. I want the story to be told because I believe that people should know the truth. That is all. There is no other purpose. I am asking nothing of anyone but to hear the story. What happens after that for each individual is not up to me, nor do I wish it to be.


Thanks again for hearing me out, I appreciate it. :)


Be well,

Kristian


From: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 9:44 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Kristian Connolly


I’ll run the Good Citizen one next week and your wife can write another one about Jason or anything else. She is entitled to her opinion!

And rest assured: I hear you regarding FPF.

Thanks for taking the time to make your case!

Best,

Paula


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 7:57 AM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


Hi Paula,


Thanks very much for understanding. That's all I can ask!


And thanks for all you do with Seven Days. It is very much appreciated in this house.


Be well,

Kristian


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 7:42 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


Hi Paula,


We saw that the South District race news story was posted this afternoon, so Deborah submitted her LTE this evening.


Thanks also for publishing my LTE. Between that and the press release and letter I sent out this week, there was a nice stream of activity to the site and to my Inbox these past couple of days. Some people are keying into this issue of state and local governments using (and often paying to use) FPF when it can behave like this.


To bring up the newspaper analogy again, especially a free one like Seven Days, people can't be stopped from reading it. And even the subscription papers can be read for free at public places like libraries, for example. So governments pointing people to FPF, or using taxpayer money to reach people on FPF, while at the same time FPF has the power to prevent citizens in the community from having unfettered access or exposure to that government info, is something people are starting to realize is not only possible, but is happening.


Which is also a type of activity that touches on defrauding the government, if you consider that FPF could "sell" a local or state government agency or department on the idea that it can reach X number of people/households if it wanted to advertise or otherwise spread public information on FPF. FPF would presumably do this to keep establishing itself as "essential civic infrastructure." But FPF is then free to go and change the terms on those local or state government agencies by managing the number of members in the community on FPF in whatever way it wishes, for whatever reasons it wishes. I am fairly certain that our local and state government agencies are not thinking about FPF operating this way when they choose to use it to get information (paid or not) out to the public.


Thanks again, have a great weekend.


Be well,

Kristian


From: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 9:54 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Kristian Connolly


I got Deborah’s letter! Thank you!

Paula


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 8:38 AM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


Thank you!


I know I keep peppering you with information, but this just happened yesterday and so I wanted to share. I've also contacted Seven Days news staff.


A Seven Days reader and FPF member contacted me via the website. This reader told me that they had read my LTE in this week's Seven Days, and then contacted FPF about the LTE and this situation.


FPF apparently responded to this member (who before now was a complete stranger to me):


"In regards to Kristian Connolly's case, we generally don’t comment on the particulars of any single member’s participation on FPF or interaction with our staff, but rest assured that there is more to this particular story than revealed."


Except for the fact that I can definitely believe this is real, I almost can't believe this is real. There is no way a general customer service staffer was free to respond like this to another member's query without the explicit approval of others at FPF. This paragraph is loaded, and raises lots of substantive questions. I'll briefly raise just three right now:


One, I've yet to be given any actual full explanation regarding the termination of my account, and my wife's account, from FPF. I last asked for such an explanation more than a month ago, and there has been no communication from FPF. But FPF is giving intentionally vague and unsupported (if brief) information to random people who write to them about me?


Two, "We don't talk about other members, but in Kristian Connolly's case, we're definitely going to say something. But don’t you worry. Just accept this statement that is intentionally vague and unsupported by anything else we'll say in this private conversation." That's the posture, and action, of someone who's on the run and privately defending themselves because they know they don't have any position from which to defend themselves publicly. And trying to do so publicly might end up revealing more than they want to reveal about themselves.


Three, literally everything regarding this situation that I've experienced with Front Porch Forum staff is published on FrontPorchFlimflam.com. Even beyond the specific communications surrounding the events that resulted in my termination, I've also told the story and published the communications surrounding the two other brief interactions I've had with FPF member support in the past, as well as the experience I had applying for jobs at FPF in the past. This is all in text or embedded links throughout the site. I'm not hiding anything. It's all there.


The idea that there is "more to this particular story than revealed" is news to me. If there is more to this story about me, I certainly don't know it, and FPF certainly has never told me what that ‘more’ might be.


How many other people is FPF privately communicating with to counter the public story I am telling about it? And why is FPF doing that in the first place?


I'll be publishing a press-release statement (not much different from the above) about this on Monday.


Thanks again,

Kristian


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:31 AM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


Hi Paula,


I hope all is well. I just saw this week's LTEs on the website, and also just checked the BTVDems site and saw that the caucus is tomorrow night.


Since it's been a couple weeks since the original Seven Days story ran and Deborah sent in her LTE, and longer than that since we'd communicated about it generally, I was wondering about the LTE not making it into the paper before the caucus after all.


Thanks!

Kristian


From: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:43 AM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Kristian Connolly


I didn’t realize that Deborah’s letter was time sensitive.

I scheduled it for the issue of December 28, so as to leave as much time as possible between your two letters.

If that is not acceptable, I will pull the letter.

Paula


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:09 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


Hi Paula,


Thanks for letting me know. I'm surprised that Burlington Democrats haven't been talking about their caucus plans, especially to news organizations that follow local politics/elections. Either way, the Dec. 2 story does say that there would be a Dec. 15 caucus.


Obviously, if the candidate doesn't survive the caucus, there's no point after that to the LTE. Wednesdays are Deborah's full days of classes, but I will pass on your note.


One other question: I thought we'd discussed that Deborah's letter was something entirely separate from mine, which appeared in the Nov. 30 issue. As you told me, she's entitled to her own opinion. So why did her LTE need to be scheduled as if it were abiding by the one-per-four-weeks limit for an individual LTE writer?


In this week's LTEs alone, there are three LTEs from three different people about the same Seven Days story/subject. Not to mention that the content/focus of my LTE and Deborah's was completely different and referenced completely separate Seven Days content, with only our website mention being the same.


Thanks again,

Kristian


From: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:18 PM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Kristian Connolly


Kristian -

LTEs in Seven Days are about our content. You and Deborah are using the paper to grind your own ax. There’s a difference.

I probably should not have published your letter in the first place, but I stretched the rules in the interest of free speech.

Your increasing demands — and manipulation of our Feedback section — are making me wish I hadn’t.

Paula


From: Kristian Connolly

Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 6:40 AM

Subject: Re: Letter to the editor

To: Paula Routly <paula@sevendaysvt.com>


Hi Paula,


I try my best to never use words or phrases like "honestly, "in all sincerity," "in truth," "truth be told," "frankly," etc., to preface things I say or write, because I am always honest and sincere when I speak (and write).


With that in mind, what I've just read from you is very hard to understand, and extremely surprising, for me.


It also follows so closely to some of the things I've read from VTDigger, or people who have contacted me after they had reached out to FPF and were told things by FPF, that I must wonder what kind of (false) things are being said about me privately to people who have the kind of power that you do over telling stories in Vermont -- the stories of both Vermont citizens and Vermont's businesses (or Vermont's brand, if you will).


I hope you'll read this whole thing. I would appreciate it if you did. I would give you the courtesy of reading anything you took the time to write to me. Maybe by the end, you'll have changed your mind. Maybe not.


I may be old school about this, but I believe that when I spend the time to carefully and intentionally communicate in writing that those on the receiving end will also carefully and intentionally read those words, and use those words to help them frame their understanding of me and any response they might have. Often people let me down about this belief.


Perhaps my way of thinking is a relic of a different time than the digital age, but I still believe in language and words -- and their meaning -- to convey thoughts, ideas, feelings, opinions, and intention. Just because I feel that way doesn't mean that it's fair, in the "tl:dr" culture we live in, for someone to write me off (pun intended) as a jerk, or worse, because I take the time in writing to explain myself and my thoughts and opinions as fully as our language allows me to choose to do, and in a way that I feel makes what I am trying to say as clear and forthright as I can be. I'm not saying I always accomplish that goal, but it's the goal nonetheless.


With that in mind, what I am finding hard to understand is how journalists have read what I have written about this story, and the effort to tell this story, and think that I am voicing a personal grievance about Front Porch Forum. This is not about me. I don't want the attention, or to have to tell this story. I wish it were not happening. But I can't turn my back on it, and therefore think that just because it happened to me and my wife, and we're "just two people," that it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter to everyone in Vermont.


I couldn't look my 11-year-old daughter in the eye if I let her believe that this is the way the world should work, and the way that people should treat other people, and that deception like this should be allowed to exist at all, let alone in the name of money and profit. I believe this does matter, and that's why I am telling this story, and trying to reach people in every community in the state. Just like Front Porch Forum exists in every community in the state. And with my limited reach, many people are hearing it, and listening to it, and sharing their own experiences with FPF.


I'm not grinding an ax, and I am certainly not manipulating anyone, or any business and any service to the public that they provide. I followed the rules and sent an LTE based on Seven Days content. An LTE that was wholly relevant to a true story about Front Porch Forum, an entity that was highlighted in the Seven Days content that the LTE was based on. My wife followed the rules and submitted an LTE based on Seven Days content. An LTE that was wholly relevant to a true story about Front Porch Forum, an entity that was highlighted in the Seven Days content her LTE was based on. Her LTE was also wholly relevant to someone deeply connected to the story we're trying to tell, a person who is running for public office in Burlington. That's an issue of our democracy, and a citizens' right to know about who is asking them to be their representative in government. (More on that below). Perhaps I should have been more alarmed when you twice referred to that person simply as "Jason" in our earlier communication.


These were two legitimate LTEs, just as legitimate as any other LTE you've ever published -- like, for example, the first one this week in which you printed a private citizen calling other private citizens who work at a public university "incompetent and unqualified." Are you certain that Alan Quackenbush of Duxbury doesn't have an ax to grind with UVM, or any of the staff members mentioned in the story?


Do you always have such in-depth back-and-forth conversations with LTE writers like you and I had, in which I did my best to fully and openly explain the story and the background of my LTE to you? A conversation in which you clearly expressed that you were at least open to, and understanding of, this story. Which is why I'd occasionally kept you updated afterward, so you can't possibly hold that against me. Right?


On that note, nothing has changed in the story of my direct experience with FPF since you and I last communicated about the LTEs at the end of November. The only thing that has changed has been my continuing public efforts to tell that story. So you can imagine how confusing it must be for me to have read your note(s) yesterday, when the last thing you had said to me about the story I was trying to tell was: "And rest assured: I hear you regarding FPF. Thanks for taking the time to make your case! Best, Paula"


That's the person I thought I'd been communicating with. Why would I have thought any differently?


I suspect you don't have routine communications with your LTE writers like you and I had, which is why I have to think that it's not only my voice that you're hearing about this story, and that what you are hearing from other voices is intentionally smearing me, and this story, and saying things that are not true in the name of self-interest for whoever is talking to you. And that's who you're listening to. Which is strange, because I am the one out here, very publicly, telling a public story about a very public Vermont company, and not hiding anything about the story. And yet it seems that FPF is only handling its storytelling about this in private. Doesn't that say something to you?


Either way, the two LTEs my household submitted were an absolutely legitimate use of your Feedback section. Without question. There were no rules for you to stretch to run either of them, and you only ran one. I also have not been making "increasing demands" of you. Yesterday, I asked you two questions: one about the status of Deborah's LTE, and the other about something you'd said to me before as it related to a decision -- that I'd only just learned about yesterday -- that you'd made that ran counter to what you told me before. That's it.


Front Porch Flimflam is as legitimate as any other campaign effort out there. It is a campaign effort seeking to inform all Vermonters about what Front Porch Forum is really like in how it, as a for-profit corporation, operates -- all while asking for and taking individual, government, and business money from people and communities throughout the entire state. Money which comes from people who believe that Front Porch Forum is something that it is not. People believe something that is false because FPF perpetuates a false story about itself as "essential civic infrastructure" and an open community forum, in order to create a selling point to grow its bottom line.


I'm spending my own time and money to build a web presence; reach out digitally across the state of Vermont; literally hit the pavement in multiple Vermont communities to distribute flyers that I personally paid to have printed; continually pursue news coverage; and communicate with those -- among the thousands of people who have visited the site -- who have decided to reach out to me. I'm not doing all of this because I have an "ax to grind" with Front Porch Forum.


And there are thousands of people. Nearly 3,000 people have visited this bare-bones website in just over four weeks since launching, with nearly 9,000 page views. And this is because of my effort, and money, to tell this story. It's certainly not because Vermont's award-winning news media is covering this story of statewide (and beyond) interest. I certainly didn't ask for Vermont's news media to become part of the story in the way it looks like it will become part of the story.


I'm doing this for, and on behalf of, every Vermonter who supports and/or uses Front Porch Forum, or has had a similar experience with Front Porch Forum, as FPF continues to project an image that does not meet reality, and earns its profit off the deception it perpetuates, and the money -- both private and public -- it takes from Vermonters.


I don't have a personal stake in this, since I am, after all, no longer a member of Front Porch Forum, and I do not expect to be a member again. Regaining access to FPF is not why I am telling this story. As I've told you before, I'm not questioning whether FPF should be allowed to be whatever it wants. But if it's going to do what it wishes, FPF should be making clear what that means and making clear what it is as a business, and how it operates.


I'll bet that in your household there could be numerous examples cited of when Front Porch Forum was used by legislators to communicate with constituents, or the comments of constituents on Front Porch Forum were deemed relevant opinions or testimony in legislative deliberations. Do you believe all of that is OK if FPF -- a for-profit Vermont corporation that operates out of Burlington but has a presence in every community in the state -- is not only actively oppressing people in, and excluding people from, Vermont's communities, but also actively deceiving Vermont citizens and taxpayers, Vermont government officials and agencies at all levels, and Vermont business owners about what it is, what it exists to provide for those groups, why it deserves their financial support, and how it operates?


As I've said again and again, my only aim is to tell the story. What happens next is not up to me. It's up to the people who hear the story -- but only if they're allowed to hear it.


To wrap things up, I wanted to circle back on Jason Van Driesche. One thing I didn't bring up in my two brief emails to you today is that in our prior discussion about publishing LTEs, I told you that if I was being made to choose one, I'd have chosen the City Council election one. Only on your assurance that my wife would be allowed her own, once Seven Days ran a relevant election story, did I agree to have you publish mine first. And then today I found out, only because I'd asked you first, that not only was it not true what you told me before, but also that I was being asked to believe that the omission of printing Deborah's LTE before the caucus was (a) because you didn't know it was time sensitive, and (b) that you were not aware of when the caucus was. In light of how you responded to my question afterward, I feel pretty confident that your first set of reasons was not true.


As for Jason Van Driesche, and how his candidacy relates to the larger story about Front Porch Forum, I wanted to share one thing I've learned since you and I had our initial conversation about this late last month.


I recently was made aware of a presentation that Jason Van Driesche and a FPF colleague made to librarians throughout the state. This was in October, and was FPF's "sales pitch" to Vermont libraries to encourage their use of FPF (and therefore help FPF grow members for a donor base and for selling advertising targets to businesses and government agencies). That part isn't interesting.


What is interesting, as it relates to the story I am trying to tell, is that during the Q&A portion of this presentation, an attendee to the presentation pointed out that what FPF staff had just said about its rules and Terms of Use was not true, in their experience. What FPF had said was that as a FPF member (individual, organizational, or otherwise), you were not able to post in a forum other than your home forum, which is determined by the street address you use when becoming a member. Therefore, you are only allowed to post in one forum. Your post might be visible (if you choose) to people outside your home forum, but actively posting to other town or neighborhood forums is not allowed. You can only post to your own forum.


This person spoke up to say that in her experience, that wasn't true. She lived or worked in one town, and has also been posting in another town's forum. One of the two towns her library served, but not the town the library was in. So in effect, this person told FPF executives, directly, that if they were right about their rules, then she had not been having to follow them, and without consequence. Or she was telling them that they were not right about their own rules.


To which Jason Van Driesche replied, after a brief look and breath of surprise:


"What that really underscores is Front Porch Forum is run by human beings and all of the rules that we have that make Front Porch Forum work are flexible when the circumstances call for it. ... We're able to [be flexible] because when you're dealing with Front Porch Forum, you're dealing with actual humans in Vermont."


It was very smooth, and I'm sure very reassuring for the audience of that presentation to hear FPF framed that way. You can see/listen toward the end here, at about the 28-minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmbR1jl245U


Starting with when this situation between me and FPF began in earnest (and again, this was after not ever being told by FPF about any supposed rules violations, and after FPF had published everything I'd ever submitted), I have not ever heard from an actual human (at least insofar as the fact that there has never been a person attached to any communication I've received from FPF). All I've ever heard from was "member support." No person attached to that, even at termination.


Furthermore, not only was I never told about supposed violations of FPF's rules and Terms of Use (of which there were none), but FPF also implemented a supposed policy that is not in their Terms of Use to first block me, and then decided to simply terminate my account (and Deborah's account), and not point to any examples of how or when either of us violated and rules or Terms of Use -- adding that we had done such things "repeatedly," no less. Is this the flexibility Jason Van Driesche was talking about? The flexibility to do whatever they want, instead of honoring the agreement they have with members when you sign up and acknowledge their Terms of Use as a condition of membership?


And even after they terminated my account, "member support" only provided a half-explanation, devoid of specific examples or citing any actual violations.


First of all, that's not how FPF tells people it works. They tell people that they communicate with members when there's an instance in which a member has violated its Terms of Use. Second of all, where is this supposed flexibility? What happened to us went from 0 to 60 in a flash. Thirdly, how can someone repeatedly violate FPF's Terms of Use and never once hear from FPF staff before the step of terminating their account? Fourthly, the rules are flexible? Then there are no rules. Yet FPF insists that its rules must be followed, and termination is the price for not following them (which again, violating the Terms of Use is not the case with me or my wife).


Also, while we're here, Jason Van Driesche's colleague told the library audience that "neighbor" profiles, which are the individual citizen members of FPF (like me and my wife), "can post 20 times in the forum and have 10 calendar events" per month. That's at the 11:41 mark of the video.


Again, this policy is not anywhere in FPF's Terms of Use, or stated anywhere else FPF has published rules or policies. More of that "flexibility," I guess. But if this were in fact true, I'd only posted 10 times in the month at the time FPF locked me out of posting for reaching its supposed "monthly posting limit." As you know, 10 is not 20.


It's clear that the "monthly posting limit" is a tool FPF keeps in its back pocket, and the definition FPF gave of what it is was so vague, and non-specific to an actual numbered limit that its arbitrariness and vagueness is something FPF clearly values in applying it at its discretion. I am not the first person to have encountered this "monthly posting limit" and they know full well that it's not in their Terms of Use. Which means it is therefore not part of what every member understands when using FPF and is not part of the agreement between FPF and its members about using FPF.


Perhaps this all helps you see more clearly why I feel that what's gone on here is not normal, and is not what people expect out of Front Porch Forum, and why this story should be told.


And as this all relates to Jason Van Driesche's bid for elected office, I think voters would care not only about what Deborah's LTE had to say, but also about how, in light of the position he's stated about rules and flexibility for the corporation he helps manage, Jason Van Driesche might use his position as City Council member to be flexible with the rules and laws concerning his constituents, or for his own benefit as a councilor. There's a clear track record, and admission, of doing that in his professional work. If I lived in that district, I'd likely be attending tonight's Democratic caucus because I'd want a say in who represents me and my values, and all of the above would be concerning to me as a South District voter.


I'd express those concerns. I'd hoped that Deborah's LTE would raise those concerns for South District voters before they made their important decision. That's the democratic process, and one of the functions of a free press.


But I guess it's too late for that -- for now, anyway.


Thanks for hearing me out.


Be well,


Kristian


[End of thread as of Dec. 15, 2022]


********

[Front Porch Flimflam note: As I alluded to in the above thread, I've been trying to get Seven Days news staff to cover this story. That began right after I'd first been blocked by FPF. Those outreach emails eventually morphed into the original FrontPorchFlimflam.com. Subsequent emails I've sent to Seven Days have formed much of the basis for content updates on this site. In total, I've sent 12 emails. These emails are all to Seven Days reporting staff about this story, and are both trying to tell this story and make passionate pleas for coverage -- which comes, in part, from my own career in a newsroom.

I've received two replies in that string, a little over a month apart:

From: Sasha Goldstein <sasha@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 5:02 PM

Subject: Re: Would you like to have this story?

To: Kristian Connolly

Cc: <anne@sevendaysvt.com>, <chelsea@sevendaysvt.com>

Hi Kristian,

Thanks for writing. We've heard similar issues with FPF, and at some point are considering a story about the company. But I don't think we're quite there yet.

We can be in touch when we have a clearer picture about our plans! Thanks for reaching out, and good luck.

Sasha


From: Sasha Goldstein <sasha@sevendaysvt.com>

Date: Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 1:53 PM

Subject: Re: quick update (Please read)

To: Kristian Connolly

Hi Kristian,

I appreciate your efforts but this is not a story for us. Thanks for letting us know, though.

Sasha

]