In today’s digital age, social media has become a powerful tool for public engagement, offering elected officials and even former officeholders a direct line to their constituents. However, the same platforms that promote transparency and accessibility also present significant risks to decorum, legality, and public trust. A recent online dispute between former Josephine County Commissioner Herman Baertschiger and resident Deb Berg exemplifies the potential pitfalls of social media interactions involving public figures.
The exchange began when Berg raised concerns about a zoning issue involving a property owned by Baertschiger. The property, operating as a commercial feed store, is zoned for Exclusive Farm (EF) use, prompting questions about its compliance with local regulations. In addition to her concerns, Berg filed an ethics complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC), citing a potential violation of ORS 244.120(2), which addresses conflicts of interest for public officials.
The dispute transitioned to Facebook, where Baertschiger defended himself by stating that a letter from his attorney, referenced in a public meeting, was protected under attorney-client privilege. Berg responded by raising questions about the accuracy of his claims and sharing a video link of the meeting to support her perspective. As the conversation unfolded, the tone became more contentious, with both parties expressing their frustrations, which shifted the focus from a policy discussion to a more public and personal exchange.
This incident highlights the challenges and dangers of using social media to address public concerns. While platforms like Facebook offer immediacy and accessibility, they can easily blur the lines between professional responsibility and personal reaction. Public officials, even those no longer in office, risk eroding public trust and undermining their credibility when engaging in contentious or emotionally charged online debates.
To avoid these pitfalls, public officials should prioritize face-to-face communication. Public meetings and community forums provide opportunities for structured, respectful dialogue that ensures transparency while reducing the risk of emotional responses or misunderstandings. Such settings foster accountability and encourage constructive discussions about community concerns.
Additionally, local governments should develop or reinforce social media policies for both current and former public officials acting in any public-facing capacity. These policies should emphasize professionalism, discourage personal disputes, and protect the legal and ethical standing of individuals and the jurisdictions they represent.
The public dispute between Berg and Baertschiger serves as a cautionary tale for navigating the intersection of politics and social media. While digital platforms can enhance engagement, they are no substitute for thoughtful and respectful public discourse. Disputes aired online often overshadow substantive issues and distract from the work of governance.
Ultimately, the conduct of public figures—whether in office or retired—should reflect their commitment to integrity, professionalism, and community service. By focusing on fostering in-person dialogue and avoiding the traps of “keyboard warrior” behavior, local officials can build trust, address public concerns effectively, and uphold the values of public service. This approach ensures that both individuals and their communities benefit from meaningful and respectful interactions, rather than becoming mired in public disputes.