Students, Staffers Silent on "Thirsty Thursday" Event

Students, Staffers Silent on "Thirsty Thursday" Event
Assistant News Editor Rebecca Fulton

A Facebook event entitled “Thirsty Thursday” listed Anderson Road as its location, used a political campaign e-mail as the contact and listed two administrators that were under 21. Anderson Road is the site of the Democratic Coordinated Campaign Headquarters and was the location of a previous Facebook event listed as “Tournament of Champions,” a beer pong tournament.

“Thirsty Thursday” was posted to Facebook as taking place on Oct. 11 after business hours. The event page listed five people as administrators, four of whom are known to be involved in Democratic campaigns. Two of the administrators are George Mason University students: Taylor Share, aged 19, and Nate de la Piedra, aged 25, both government and international politics majors.

Share, chief of staff to Mason’s Student Body President Drew Shelnutt, declined to comment by phone on the details of the event. He was also e-mailed questions about the location of the event, whether or not he attended the event, and, if so, the presence of alcohol at the event; he did not respond before deadline.

De la Piedra is last year’s Virginia Young Democrats College Blogger of the Year, executive director and treasurer of Next Generation Democrats Political Action Committee and, according to his Facebook and e-mails, the deputy campaign manager for House of Delegates candidate Bruce Roemmelt. De la Piedra was asked about the Facebook event and declined to comment.

The creator of both private Facebook events was Mike Burns, 24-year-old president and assistant treasurer of NGD PAC, who, between July 1 and Sept. 31, drew $4,500 in consulting fees from Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerry Connolly, according to campaign finance disclosures. On the “Thirsty Thursday” Facebook event page, Burns listed “@gerryconnolly.com” as the domain name for the event’s contact e-mail. Burns, when contacted, declined to comment about the nature of the “Thirsty Thursday” event. Connolly’s office has stated that they have no comment about the event.

Two other administrators, Sean Sukol and Julia Druhan, were both contacted about details of the “Thirsty Thursday” event, but could not be reached for comment.

Sukol, aged 19, is the political director of NGD PAC and is listed as the contact on multiple vademocrats.org events supporting Chap Petersen’s campaign. Those events list him with an @vademocrats.org e-mail address.

Druhan, aged 23, is a 2006 alumna of Temple University. Druhan lists her present occupation as Field Director for “Margi Vanderhye for Virginia State Delegate” on her Facebook profile. She works out of the Anderson Road office building.

Petersen’s office was contacted and campaign manager Joe Abbey stated that he and his candidate were not aware of the event.

Roemmelt, the candidate that de la Piedra works for, was asked for comment on the “Thirsty Thursday” event.

“I actually probably did know about it, we have lots of stuff going on and we have to prioritize,” Roemmelt said. “I have no recollection of this particular event.”

When questioned, Fairfax County Democratic Communications Director George Burke indicated that he did not know that such an event took place and declined to comment further.

Another Facebook event entitled “Tournament of Champions,” for which the graphic read “beer pong: sink it-drink it,” was scheduled to take place on Sept. 26, 2007. On that Facebook event’s page, the entire address and an abbreviation, “CCHQ,” for the coordinated campaign headquarters on Anderson Road, was used as the location. The event was set as private on Facebook as well, leaving it to the creator and administrators to allow people access to event information. A campaign e-mail was not listed.

Three of the administrators of the September event were the same as the October event: Burns, Sukol and de la Piedra.

Members of Broadside’s staff were invited to both events through Facebook invitations, but did not respond and chose not to attend.

Both events are no longer visible on Facebook.

The day after Broadside contacted de la Piedra for comments regarding the “Thirsty Thursday” Facebook event, two Broadside staff members received text messages from de la Piedra’s cell phone number. The staffers then contacted the Mason police department and the incident was categorized as “Intimidation” on a Mason police blotter entry. The Oct. 13 police blotter item posted at 7:55 p.m. reads, “Broadside employees received text messages implying information and photos would be released to embarrass employees, if a particular article was published. This case is under investigation.”

The Anderson Road building that the Northern Virginia Democrats are using as their coordinated campaign headquarters is donated by the West Group, a full-service real estate development, construction, brokerage and management organization. This space was donated for use in the campaign process.

Broadside Editor in Chief Janice Leary, Asst. News Editor Dane Styler, Copy Chief Aram Zucker-Scharff and Online Managing Editor Whitney Rhodes contributed to this article.

Reader Responses

Publius
18 Oct 2007, 12:27

No suprise here! You have got to be drunk to vote for any of the stiffs on the Democratic slate this year.

Not Publius
18 Oct 2007, 14:57

why did you just delete the comment about the police deciding to not charge De La Piedra and dismiss the complaint?

Janice Leary
18 Oct 2007, 15:20

Statement of the Editor in Chief:

Broadside stands by the accuracy of its reporting. Comments posted online and on blogs have contained false and inaccurate statements about the nature of our reporting.

Broadside has been in contact with the George Mason University police department and as of 2:15 p.m. today, Broadside has confirmed that the case is still pending. The incident report posted on the Mason police blotter is up to date. According to the Mason police department, the police blotter will be updated if there are any changes in the status of the case.

Broadside’s news editor had no participation in any decisions regarding this story. The author of the article, Rebecca Fulton, had no personal involvement in the events or with the subjects described in the piece.

It is Broadside’s policy to remove defamatory posts.

Broadside stands by its reporting and its staff.

Janice Leary
Broadside Editor in Chief

A Surprised Student
18 Oct 2007, 20:54

Kids drinking on a college campus... Where's Bob Woodward when you need him?

Sarah
18 Oct 2007, 21:04

I'm left with a few questions.

1: Were the administrators hosting "Thirsty Thursday" Taylor Share, Nate de la Piedra, Mike Burns, Sean Sukol, and Julia Druhan? Am I forgetting a name, or are Share and Sukol the only two administrators under 21?

2: Although "Thirsty Thursday" was a private event, was it a campaign event? Or did the admins just use campaign emails and the CCHQ to host the event? I'm also wondering if Broadside has been able to uncover what Burns has spent the $4,500 on.

3: Do you know if West Group will be taking any actions in regards to "Thirsty Thursday" or the "Tournament of Champions" event?

I'm fairly fond of the Democratic efforts in this area (if only because I'm very horrified by most of the Republican efforts). I'm glad that this is getting exposure, but I'd like to have the full story if possible. Curious minds etc.

Thanks~

Jim Bob
18 Oct 2007, 21:32

Resorting to Facebook as a source is sad. If Broadside needs to reach this far to create news and try and salvage any readership they do have something needs to change.

Also why is Broadside censering anything? Does Broadside have proof that the comments were false?

Not Carl Bernstein
19 Oct 2007, 00:17

so who were the two Broadside reporters that were invited?

Not these idiots
19 Oct 2007, 00:34

These guys have a history of irresponsibility and mistrust. There's no doubt they will be removed from the political arena, THANK GOD!

Anonymous
19 Oct 2007, 13:27

Honestly, who cares? Wow, so college students organized a drinking event? Remarkable! Get the NYTimes on it immediately. Is Broadside starting to inform the Police over happenings, and then report on them? Administration, Broadside, Police ... all working together now? Could Mason get any worse?

Anonymous II
19 Oct 2007, 13:35

So if I randomly call the police and say President Merten is harassing me does that become a printable story before the resolution of the case?

Seems curious that the Broadside went to print so quickly without waiting for the whole story.

Wow...just wow
19 Oct 2007, 15:54

The Broadside continually proves itself to be a joke...publishing a story about a Facebook event?

Just...wow

Please grow up and learn to report. Facebook is not a reliable source.

I Guess
19 Oct 2007, 17:52

when your WEEKLY distribution is less than 5,000 on a 30,000 student campus you can use a newsletter however you see fit.

Worried Student
19 Oct 2007, 18:20

I'm sure the broadside is about to delete all of these negative comments, but they need to start writing about things students actually care about rather than searching through Facebook desperately for controversy.

Notice the article doesn't even say anything about the actual event.
The Broadside had the nerve to write a story solely on Facebook .

Janice Leary
19 Oct 2007, 18:33

The following is text from a comment posted earlier. The comment was deleted because it did not comply with Broadside policy.

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

Haymarket, VA – Adam Sharp, campaign manager for the Elect Roemmelt campaign, issued the following statement regarding “Thirsty Thursday” event:

“The Elect Roemmelt campaign had no knowledge of any “Thirsty Thursday” event advertised on any Facebook page. The Roemmelt campaign is not connected to any campaign offices in Fairfax County. Bruce Roemmelt’s quote as reported on broadsideonline.com is taken out of context because Bruce had no knowledge of the event in question. The campaign has scheduled other events on the campaign’s Facebook page and Bruce thought the reporter was referring to one of those.”

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

Censorship
19 Oct 2007, 18:50

Two more comments deleted for not complying with broadside policy (Criticizing the broadside or its staff).

Whitney Rhodes
19 Oct 2007, 18:56

Please read our comment policy (linked below). If you post something that is in violation with said policy, your comment will be deleted.

http://broadsideonline.com/10-01-2007/commentpolicy.html

Feel free to email me (mebroadsideonline@gmail.com) with any questions, additional comments or concerns.

Thank you,
Whitney Rhodes
Online Managing Editor

Not Carl Bernstein
19 Oct 2007, 19:25

I'm not sure how the following is "illegal, obscene, defamatory or threatening." so if you delete this comment please explain why.

But if one of the senior editors has a history with one of the key people in the article a "disclosure" is usually standard.

Janice, you claim there was no personal connection, yet Broadside reporters were invited to this event (was the whole school invited except for me, or was there a personal relationship there to invite your reporters) and it was pointed out (on another blog) that this Nate character had the personal cell phone numbers of two broadside staffers once again indicating a personal relationship.

It seems like this article is, at best, incomplete.

Janice Leary
19 Oct 2007, 20:05

Statement of the Editor in Chief:

Neither of the editors who were invited to an event or whom had personal relationships with subjects mentioned in the article made any decisions regarding the reporting and writing of the story.

The reason we have not listed their names and positions in the article is because it is believed that their personal safety might be at risk.

Rebecca Fulton and those listed as contributors to the article have no personal relationships with any of the subjects mentioned in the article.

The editors who did have personal relationships with subjects of the story are not listed in the byline and are not listed as contributors because, as mentioned before, they did not make any decisions regarding the story.

Janice Leary
Broadside Editor in Chief

Janice Leary
19 Oct 2007, 20:40

The following is text from a comment posted earlier. The comment was deleted because it did not comply with Broadside policy.

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

I sincerely hope that Broadside prints this article next week in their paper, so students can see just how disconnected their student newspaper is from the student body, and the campus as a whole. Granted, as stated previously readership is 5,000 at best (I would like a fact check on those numbers), but I believe there would be enough of a backlash where normal students who never read the Broadside (aka the lucky ones) will read and be just as embarrassed as I am to call this Mason's student newspaper. Shall we go through the facts again?

1) The whole basis of their story is a facebook event.
3) They have no factual evidence to state that this event even happened.

And this comment may not be posted, but I will continue to post this exact same comment, because I have read over your posting policies 3 times now, and everything I have mentioned seems fair game considering what else has been posted. I am mainly restating the facts that have already been mentioned, and voicing my embarrassment over this story. Is this what our student newspaper does? I can see this in high school, but come on guys grow up. You barely write anything about Mason, and what happens when you do?

I strongly urge the Broadside to reevaluate the direction in which it is heading. The lack of reporting on student events, and the actual University as a whole, is absurd. Through all of this, I believe the Broadside has forgotten one simple fact: they are ultimately accountable to the students. But very much like this article, simple facts seem not to matter too much nowadays, do they?

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

Spartacus
19 Oct 2007, 20:50

censor
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing PARTS deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

censorship
2. the act or practice of censoring

(both definitions come from www.dictionary.com)

SamIam
19 Oct 2007, 20:56

I have been following this whole thing, and I am furious that the Editor and Chief of our school paper is censoring this information.

The text you have deleted does not violate any of the terms that you and your staff have posted. Stop deleting criticism.

annonymous
19 Oct 2007, 21:57

Im sorry but the broadside exxaggerates ALOT and needs to learn how to wait for the full story of things to come out! They jump the gun on ALOT of issues which causes alot of drama. They say things that dont really happen and CANT SPELL! Seriously, learn how to do spell checks because alot of the time there are spelling errors. You guys need to learn how to wait for the full story to come out about something before you write about it OR include EVERYTHING in it and dont cut things out of it. Thats how drama starts and thats how bad things happen like people fighting or something stupid like that. The broadside has good articles SOMETIMES, but you need to learn how NOT to jump the gun on issues expecially stuff like this. This article could put there lives, jobs, and careers at jeporady. Did you think about that!? This stupid issue could cause alot of harm to them which is not good for their lifes. Yea, were college kids and we drink, but deal, get over it, thats what college is....learning, drinking, partying and having fun! And you just killed any hopes for them to have a successful career. I hope your proud of yourselfs.

Anonymous
19 Oct 2007, 22:27

Once again, I want to know why the Broadside can't write articles on anything more relevant? I honestly think that the Broadside should run a survey or poll asking what their readers want to see.

For example, why can't we have an article on Mason's lack of social life, and who is responsible for diminishing such a valued trait in college?

I want to see more articles written about Mason with debatable topics.

Not an article about some kids who decided to have a drinking event, that no one was present for, or can't be verified if they actually took place.

Please, write something useful!

Ryan Carrera
20 Oct 2007, 00:01

I wish there was this much coverage of the events that happen on campus. At least it seems like the Broadside's finally figured out there are students on campus. We can get 15 Broadside reporters to investigate events in McLean, but not a single reporter at the HSA Kick-Off or at Welcome Week events. I wish the Broadside had this much initiative when it really mattered.

Kate
20 Oct 2007, 00:44

I don't appreciate being censored.

I used to be a broadside supporter. No MORE

This is rediculous. I hope the people mentioned above sue you for degredation of charecter. and I hope someone catches you drinking underage and puts it all up over the internet.

I will not be shut up. I will get my views heard. If you delete them from here, prepare for you mail box, the flier in the JC, the kiosks, the pathways, the mailboxes etc. to be attacked.

this type of censorship must be stopped.

If you are interested in posting your views that were deleted, please contact me.

Kate

Christopher
22 Oct 2007, 00:53

Threatening to vandalize things in print on line with a traceable e-mail account doesn't seem like the wisest idea.

Whitney Rhodes
22 Oct 2007, 08:09

The following is text from a previous comment. The comment was deleted because it did not comply with Broadside policy.

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

vandalize is an interesting word choice. I wouldn't be vandalizing. All the ways mentioned are ways to advertise which are permitted by the university. Deciding to censor students. That is the un-wise thing to do.

And trace-able email is also a curious concept.

Mostly it just seems interesting to me that Broadside would choose to censor at all seeing as they used to be so favorable towards open and free information.

It makes me wonder what it is they are trying to hide.

In protest,
Kate

kate
22 Oct 2007, 15:19

So here is what I don't get.

1) What about the above comment required that it be deleted?

2) If it was so bad that it had to be removed, why has it been reposted by the online editor?

3) Why are you reposting some comments that you take down and not others?

I would really appreciate answers to the above questions.

In question,
Kate

Kate
22 Oct 2007, 15:20

Christopher
22 Oct 2007, 16:14

QUOTE: "If you delete them from here, prepare for you mail box, the flier in the JC, the kiosks, the pathways, the mailboxes etc. to BE ATTACKED."

How would you attack them?

Traceable e-mail isn't a just "curious concept" but a reality which belies the assumption of privacy most of us have when doing things on the Internet. E-mail can be traced just as documents and other things done on a computer can be found even when they have seemingly been "deleted."

kate
22 Oct 2007, 16:59

Interesting for you to talk about traceable emails when you are the one who won't give your email address.

For those reading the quotes above, I realize they are not grammatically correct or spelled properly.

Also, I apologize for the double comment, it wasn't loading so I retyped it.

Lastly, in regards to the "attack"- I am not in any way attempting to "threaten" the broadside. (I promise, I'm not going to put anthrax in your mail or anything...so don't trip!) All I meant by that was that I would post my comments on the sidewalks, the fliers in the JC, and continue to post on here until I was no longer censored. I refuse to be silenced.

In frustration,
Kate

Christopher
22 Oct 2007, 17:19

How exactly is it interesting for me to talk? My e-mail was provided to the web site moderator and therefore could be traced as well. However, I'm also the one who didn't write something with clumsy verbiage which could be perceived as a threat without specifying the precise nature of what I really meant.

Mason Student
22 Oct 2007, 21:05

The broadside might have caught a big fish here.

Of course "we're" all just a bunch of college students trying to party and drink...but at a Democratic Headquarters? Are you kidding? This might not be news for you, but to the rest of the surrounding area, this will influence votes, especially against Bruce Roemmelt, for saying he knew about it before he knew about it, then getting his other campaign manager to write another statement, then for not firing this de la Piedra already.

Anonymous
22 Oct 2007, 22:52

Christopher: Emails from the original source can't always be traced. There are anonymizers and other methods to hide your original path. Some highly technical, complex, and illegal. Others, well, use Tor and find an exit node that doesn't log.

I, however, would NOT advise people to attack or threaten people through email. It's a waste of time, and not to mention, an unneeded note on your record.

Not Carl Bernstein
23 Oct 2007, 15:46

Perhaps instead of having all your editors running around McLean chasing a story you can't even confirm, it would be wise to actually edit your paper. Im sure Copy Chief in particular could have spent his time better than on this story.

A Simple Questioner
25 Oct 2007, 10:52

A simple Question for the Staff of broadside....

Does the broadside have any concrete evidence (photos, 2 or more people who will be quoted as being there...) tat proves that this event was not a joke and actually happened?

If Broadside does, i would advise them to post it or I for one would be willing to support a petition telling the BOV and the administration that the student body has lost faith in the newspaper and the space that they have been given could be used in a better way.

Kiel Stone
25 Oct 2007, 14:11

I suppose in the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I am the previous Editor in Chief of Broadside. You can gleam whatever you like out of such an admission. Personally, I do not feel that my former professional relationship with the paper has any impact on my thinking, but I understand and appreciate why many would feel differently; especially given the heated nature of this article and the posts that followed.

In any event, I would like to echo a point an earlier poster brought up, one that I feel most everyone else is overlooking; namely the fact that this party happened at a Democratic Headquarters. You can argue until you are blue in the face about how this is college and that it is hardly a surprise underage drinking is going on. Great…Fantastic…Wonderful point, however, it is completely irrelevant. First of all, until action is taken to make it otherwise, it is still a crime to be found drinking while under the age of 21. This law is true whether the drinking is being done by ‘college kids’ or not. Now, whether the law is ridiculous or not is certainly up for debate, however, this article neither states nor implies anything on that matter. Secondly, the incident in question did not take place on a college campus, rendering the nonsensical “they’re just college kids drinking on a college campus” excuse invalid once again. The fact that the party took place at Democratic Headquarters, and was at least tacitly supported by a political campaign, (by way of one of its members distributing invitations and acting as the host) is what makes this a story, and an important one at that. You can argue, and to a point I would agree with you that this is tabloid-esque and reeks of a newspaper trying to play gotcha with a political campaign. However, to not have reported on such an event arguably speaks worse and certainly speaks no better of a newspaper’s integrity. At the very least I should think you would be able to appreciate the difficult position the staff of Broadside was in and respect the courage it took for them to run the article while knowing full-well the assault that was ultimately released was inevitable.

Further, for all the indignation surrounding Broadside’s use of Facebook as a source and the shoddy reporting (that has been both implied and stated) supposedly inherent in the article, there is no public outcry (at least that I am aware of, but perhaps I am wrong) from those who stand to lose the most from such an article. There are no claims from those individuals doubting the validity of the article or the validity of the assertions in the article; doubting the credibility of the authors or the credibility of the newspaper. If this article is as baseless as many posters here are purporting why is no lawsuit being filed against paper? Why, then, are the, for lack of a better phrase, embarrassed not making an attempt to clear their name? Could this in fact be an instance where the proof is in the pudding? I am inclined to believe so.

On an unrelated, yet still relevant note, to all of those who have criticized this paper, from its overall quality to its depth and scope of coverage and everything in between I would encourage you to put that passion in a pursuit more productive than anonymous and degrading postings. I am not saying that you do not have a right to do what you are doing or even that it should not be done, but that Broadside and George Mason University as a whole will benefit far more from increased student involvement of a positive nature than it can by the behavior it is currently receiving. If you are truly disappointed in the worth (or for many of you, the worthlessness) of the paper, get involved; write articles, edit them, take pictures, help with the layout, offer your ideas and suggestions. As a former member of Broadside I know help is always needed, especially from those who wish to see the product improved.

Respectfully

Kiel Stone
Class of ‘07

Not Carl Bernstein
25 Oct 2007, 18:33

Kiel,

Read the article, it never claims that the event took place. It seems your former colleagues did not even have enough material to suggest this party ever took place but went to print anyways in a sorry attempt to discredit an ex-boyfriend and his associates of an editor at your former newspaper.

I agree with "simple questioner" but would be happy with even a single source.

Robert Crofton
29 Oct 2007, 00:36

Even besides the fact that Rebecca Fulton has a political agenda in writing this article, it still sucks and is not worthy to be reported. Aren't there way more important things to cover, stuff that actually matters, rather than a foul piece of writing meant to harm the political careers of young democrats and is sourced through facebook. What genius reporting! Broadside needs to set its priorities straight.