One-time Republican City Council candidate Ann Reinicke recently used her access to the city’s reverse 911 system, which automatically calls city residents to alert them to emergencies, to encourage 3,000 residents to attend the Election Study Task Force public hearings that have been taking place throughout the city. Reinicke and other local Republicans favor an overhaul of the electoral system, which they believe would give them a leg up in City Council elections. Though she is authorized to use the City Watch Automated Voice Service System, it’s not intended for such purposes, and she neither sought nor received permission from the city to do so. Reinicke is, characteristically, not talking to the media. John Yellig has the story in today’s Progress.
13 thoughts on “Reinike Abuses R911 System”
Let sandal-boy Kevin Lynch do something like this and see if it gets any press.
So you think that the "liberal media" is jumping on Reinike for no reason, and Kevin does stuff like this all the time and no one notices?
What are you smoking?
I wonder how she picked those 3000 numbers to call. I didn’t get a call. There are a lot more than 3000 phones in the city.
If she needed to alert residents to attend an emergency meeting, why didn’t she call them all?
I’ve lived in the city for 4 years, and am an infrequent speaker at public hearings on issues of transportation (especially) and planning.
I’ve never received a call (automated or otherwise) from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commision, the City Planning Commission, or City Council.
I DID receive an automated call about the Election Reforms meetings, though.
I actually asked Kevin Lynch about it shortly after receiving the call. He’d never heard of the system being used in this context.
Exactly, except for the part about Lynch doing something like this all the time. I love politics! Dems v. Reps and neither side ever tells the truth.
First of all, The Daily Progress is not a liberal paper. In fact, some people think that it tipped the council election to Shilling by explaining how to "single-shot" just before the election. The Progress is owned by a huge company that leads heavily to the right. (In fact, most media is right wing, and very effectively roots out any little liberal bias, while letting mountains of conservative bias through. Meanwhile, the media continually tells us it has a liberal bias.)
Second, you seem to think that using the 911 system for partisan purposes is ok, or perhaps just a minor offence, like a parking ticket.
I think there is a problem with this: If it is ok for her to send partisan messages, then you would have to let democrats send partisan messages. Then everyone with a phone in the city would be subject to lots of spam calls. Also, if that starts happening to me, as soon as I heard that it is from the 911 system, I’d assume it was spam and hang up. We’d need another system to reach people in an emergency.
No Paul, I agree that the system shouldn’t be used for what it was used for. I’m simply stating that in this town, if the act was committed by a democrat, you wouldn’t hear much about it. That’s just how things are around here. I mean, look at how Waldo titled the story. If it were someone like Lynch, first of all, it probably wouldn’t show up on here, second, Waldo would certainly water down the "shock" factor.
Well, it’s hard to comment on a hypothetical like this, but whenever Democrats make a mistake, it gets blown way up out of proportion, so I don’t agree with your proposition.
In fact, the Dems don’t even have to make a mistake. First the Republicans make something up, then they blow THAT out of proportion.
You can see that every day in the presidential election, but also there was an interesting case in the last council election.
On election day, WINA started broadcasting, with every news report, that Jackson’s name is cut off on the ballot and one needs to be sure one is voting for the person you want to vote for. There was the strong insinuation that someone was trying to make it hard to vote for Jackson. Repeated calls to the station could not correct the report.
The real story is that there are only so many characters on the display, and that Hamilton’s name was also cut off. In any case, only a little was cut off, and only on the confirmation screen, not the selection screen. It was very simple to figure out which candidate was which. And another reason Jackson’s name was too long? He insisted that his middle name be spelled out. None of the other candidates did.
***Paul wrote: " (In fact, most media is right wing, and very effectively roots out any little liberal bias, while letting mountains of conservative bias through. Meanwhile, the media continually tells us it has a liberal bias.) "***
I find this all very interesting. I had coffee with friends this morning and rather sweeping statements, such as Pauls` ,were made, regarding which print and which TV outlets were liberal or conservatively biased.
Now I have my own intuitive thoughts about specific media bias, but I couldn`t, in fact, make such statements , and wonder where the factual support is for such comments.
Surely there are media outlets about which one may say "they are biased" but when I hear "most are this or most are that" I wonder where the facts are, other than the speaker`s unsupported statement.
I have heard as many people claim liberal bias as claim conserative bias but I continue to wonder where the truth lies.
I think somewhere in between.
I think, if all this bias exists,and certainly some does, journalism(remember when it was honorable?) has reached another low.
I’m simply stating that in this town, if the act was committed by a democrat, you wouldn’t hear much about it. That’s just how things are around here. I mean, look at how Waldo titled the story. If it were someone like Lynch, first of all, it probably wouldn’t show up on here, second, Waldo would certainly water down the “shock” factor.
Just to be clear — I am not the media. I’m a guy who runs a blog about Charlottesville news. If you think that there’s a massive media conspiracy covering up misbehavior by Democrats in Charlottesville, start your own news blog. I’ll put the headlines on the sidebar over to the left there and everything.
This is getting far off topic, and not c-ville oriented, and I realize that nothing I could say would sway anyone’s mind who has already decided which way the media bias swings, but I’d like to comment anyway on a couple specifics:
"Now I have my own intuitive thoughts about specific media bias, but I couldn`t, in fact, make such statements , and wonder where the factual support is for such comments."
There is an interesting documentary out now called "Out FOXed", which documents the biases of FOX and other Murdock owned media. (For instance, they televised much less of the Dem convention than the Rep convention.)
There are also some interesting web sites that deal with the issue:
"I think, if all this bias exists,and certainly some does, journalism(remember when it was honorable?) has reached another low. "
It has always been like this. For instance, Jefferson got incredibly nasty treatment in the press (worse even than Clinton!)
And it doesn’t take much thought to come up with examples recently where liberal thought is suppressed and conservative thought is not:
Disney, which owns many stations that broadcast Rush Limbaugh, suppressed Fairenheit 911, so that to see it, one has to travel to a few small independent theatres.
CBS pulled a documentary about Reagan because conservatives decided it wasn’t fawning enough.
You are much more likely to hear a conservative explain what liberals believe than to have an actual liberal explain it.
Paul said: "I realize that nothing I could say would sway anyone’s mind who has already decided which way the media bias swings, ……………."
It has to do with redistricting right? And the phone system lets you select by physical location. So I assume she picked some area of the city that would do her the most good.
Comments are closed.