Bloomington traffic commissionerGreg Alexander has come under fire for his recent activity on social media. (Courtesy: Bloomington city government)
The Bloomington City Council is considering ousting a member of the city’s traffic commission because of his recent social media activity.
It comes after residents expressed concerns, both in person and in writing, about comments traffic commissioner Greg Alexander made on Twitter.
At the last city council meeting, several people took the floor to address Alexander’s comments. Many objected to his re-appointment to the traffic commission at the council’s Jan. 18 meeting.
Stephanie Hatton lives near Sheridan Drive and Maxwell Lane in Elm Heights, where a new stop sign was recently installed. Hatton was the first to address Alexander’s conduct at the last city council meeting. She read aloud several of his tweets, many of which contained profanity.
“Haters gonna hate and Bloomington democrats gonna lick the (expletive) out from between Elm Heights neighbors’ (expletive),” Hatton said, reading Alexander’s tweets. “One of the reasons I suck at organizing is I want to tell people, ‘Go to the council and ask for improvements in your neighborhood to help me make the political point that the current (expletive) on there only care about Elm Heights.’”
Alexander was referencing the newly installed stop sign in Elm Heights, which he says is ineffective and non-essential. He has also criticized the city council, saying it has given preferential treatment to Elm Heights residents. Hatton advocated for the stop sign.
Hatton also strongly criticized Alexander’s tweet in a thread about the planned Hawthorne and Weatherstone greenway project in which he said to another user, “it sounds like they are going to savagely penetrate your neighborhood and I want to know what they’re going to use to do that?”
“What do you feel when you hear the phrase ‘savagely penetrate?’” Hatton said. “And what would you do tonight if those words suggesting the perpetration of sexual violence had been directed at your neighborhood — and by association, you — by a council-appointed commissioner?”
Alexander said he did not intend to allude to sexual violence with that comment and acknowledged that he was acting out of hostility.
“I think I need to apologize,” Alexander said. “I apparently have given people the impression that I intend to perpetuate violence or to violate people over a greenway. I’ve been told I did that, and just being told, that’s enough for me to know that I did something wrong. I clearly failed.”
However, he also said Hatton read his tweet out of context and called the opposition to his comments “politically motivated.”
“If a woman says that she was triggered by that language — that I caused her stress, emotional distress — I can’t tell you that she didn’t,” Alexander said. “But on the other hand, if you read those tweets in context … you’ll see that I’m just mercilessly badgering someone who is in fact badgering me.”
Former city council member and Elm Heights resident Jeff Richardson also took aim at Alexander, criticizing him for sending letters to Hatton and another resident. He characterized the behavior as harassment.
“I think bullies keep bullying until people say ‘enough, we’ve had enough bullying,’” Richardson said. “It is always, always the same. The longer they’re enabled, the more they bully, and the more they bully, the more they’re enabled.”
Under Bloomington’s local code, the city council can remove a council appointee to a city board or commission “for cause.” The code cites excessive absences as an example of “cause” but leaves room for other reasons.
Council Attorney Stephen Lucas said it’s up to city council members to consider Alexander’s ability to perform the duties of his appointment. They can begin the process of removing him if a council member introduces a motion at a public meeting.
“To the extent that council members feel like any member of a commission isn’t fit or able to fulfill their duties, I think that’s cause enough to consider a motion for removal,” Lucas said.
If such a motion is introduced, Lucas said he would recommend that the council give Alexander the opportunity to formally respond in writing before they vote, per language in the local code.
However, Lucas said the council could still move forward with a vote.
“When folks ask, ‘well, can the council do this? Can they do that?’ The question is whether if something is challenged whether it would stand up, whether they would be found to have violated anything,” he said. “I don’t know of any local code provision that says they can’t act on a motion like that.”
Lucas said the council once motioned for and adopted the removal of a different commission member in a single meeting. In that case, the member was removed for absenteeism and was given several opportunities to respond before the council voted, according to Lucas.
“If the council chooses to go ahead and act, I don’t think I can tell them that’s an explicit violation of anything in our code, but I’d certainly have fewer concerns if they were to hold off (for) a week or two,” Lucas said.
Alexander said he expects to be removed from his position because of the recent complaints against him.
“They don’t like hearing someone complain about issues that really affect other neighborhoods,” Alexander said. “It’s just a very small group of extremely influential people — people with a lot of spare time on their hands, people with a lot of money, people with a lot of political connections and political history.”
Either way, Alexander said he plans to continue advocating for the causes he believes in.
City council members may discuss possible next steps as early as their next regular session, which is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Wednesday.
