Choosing the Story: Who Gets to Comment

Community meetings tell us as much about how a neighborhood communicates as what it communicates. In October and November 2025, two moments made this clear:

• the interruption of a community comment, and

• a follow-up comment at the next meeting that reframed the conversation entirely.

This article explains both events, what they show about our communication environment, and why they matter for understanding the election.

The October Comment: Calling It Out

“I'll do my best to keep this statement brief. I have something to say that may be difficult for some to hear, and I can only hope that we all start from an open mind and with generosity. As a board candidate, it is easier to say nothing - but I have also often heard that clear is kind, that integrity means doing the right thing even when it is hard."

At the October board meeting, I offered a prepared comment. It was structured, factual, and grounded in my own experience. I spoke about:

• the President’s September newsletter, which advised neighbors to vote for the president and his endorsements before candidates were even submitted

• how this affected newer candidates like myself

• the pattern of mischaracterizing Evan, both in meetings and printed materials

• the impact of these patterns on participation and psychological safety

• the need for accountability in the use of official communication channels

None of these statements were personal attacks. They were about process, fairness, and leadership conduct. I have heard a few times now that the president felt attacked, framed as “She attacked me.” We talked about emotional attribution and pressured communication in an earlier post.

Red areas were forcibly skipped, due to interruptions, and, ultimately the ability to mute community members.

Where the interruption came

Right when I said we were going to have a hard conversation, the first attempt came. A raised hand, until recognized for persistence, and a claim that I was campaigning. 

The President overruled.

The moment I crossed from describing the President’s actions → to naming their impact and requesting accountability, I was spoken over. 

This wasn’t about volume or tone. It was about crossing a threshold:

I was naming the system, and calling out actions supporting the status quo. The system defended itself.

The President attempted to interrupt with "All right, that's enough." When I refused to stop mid-sentence, the meeting was muted.

Interrupting a speaker during community comment is never neutral. It is a communication act — and it reveals who is allowed to define the story and who is not.

What I Was Trying to Say — and Was Not Allowed to Finish

Before the full interruption, I managed to get out the line that explained everything:

“If you can mischaracterize Evan once, why not twice? Why not ten times? Is it limited to one person, or is there a clique? I accepted that there are faulty narrators, and started to look at impact. I have not heard one person say they are afraid that commentary would lead to personal, political, or financial retribution from Evan.”

That was, and still is, the heart of it.

It named the asymmetry:

• The fear did not come from Evan.

• The fear came from the narrative about him — and from who was allowed to define that narrative.

The November Comment: How the Narrative Reasserted Itself

At the very next meeting, a candidate community comment, submitted as a letter, was read in full. Honestly, I was shocked.

The comment included:

• Warm, detailed compliments for candidates aligned with the REAL Friends slate

• generalized compliments for the rest (including me)

• and finally, the statement that “one candidate’s” campaigning had been inappropriate and divisive

No one needed to name the person — even though:

• Craig went door to door.

• Paul went door to door.

• I was doorbelling the entire neighborhood.

The behavior was the same. The interpretation was not.

This is systemic bias in its cleanest form: same behavior → different judgment, because the person had already been assigned a narrative category

Unlike my October comment, this one was not interrupted, questioned, or moderated. It fit the narrative, and it was accepted as legitimate.

This comment will be added here once the minutes for this meeting are approved.

What These Two Moments Reveal About System Dynamics

Taken together, the October and November comments show how a narrative can become self-protecting:

✔ Challenge the narrative → interruption

(“This hurts participation and misuses authority”)

✔ Reinforce the narrative → full microphone

(“One candidate is divisive”)

✔ Silence protects the dominant story

The President moved the meeting on, without space for more community comments.

✔ Emotional interpretation replaced documentation

A person became the container for all discomfort.

Why This Matters for Everyone

We are all members with an equal right to speak and ask for remedies.

If I can be interrupted mid-sentence, muted, and dismissed for raising concerns grounded in documentation, so can anyone.

And what remains in the public record is not accuracy — but whatever the board is willing to let be said out loud.

This is why the interrupted October comment matters. Not because of who delivered it — but because of what it revealed:

• a communication system that reacts defensively to accountability

• leadership framing dissent as “division”

• narrative replacing documentation

• selective legitimacy depending on who is speaking

• silence functioning as a tool of power

This affects more than a single election. This isn't the first time I've been silenced. It shapes the conditions for all future participation.

Closing Statement

“Here is the ask. I am asking you to be accountable to the candidates you represent, either as an individual, Mike, or as a board who will distance themselves from the unethical use of the newsletter by a candidate. If you cannot sanction an announcement for my upcoming all-candidate event, we should also not sanction this behavior.”

“Mike, I understand it is difficult to be confronted and you may need time. We haven’t even talked about the flyers, or about the 8th candidate. I hope you will also consider an apology as well as more meaningful actions you can take towards repair.”