Police and Fire Commission members discussed a proposed Marshfield Police Department social media policy but took no formal action at the meeting.

Police Chief Jody presented a draft policy adapted from Wausau Police Department and said the department wants tools to protect employees and the public while keeping comment sections open. "Social media can get pretty nasty at times and can single out individuals, either our employees or citizens," Chief Jody said. She also stressed the department's outreach: "With that engagement, we've been able to build followers of over 30,000, which would be impossible for us to reach today." Chief Jody said she prefers keeping comments enabled for transparency and community engagement while seeking clear rules for moderation.

The city attorney cautioned that recent court decisions narrow government authority to remove or block user content based on viewpoint or vaguely defined standards. "You are a government entity. So once you do that, it creates an expectation," the city attorney said, explaining litigation risk and the need for narrowly tailored, well‑documented moderation rules. He cited a recent appeals decision that limited the use of "off topic" as a moderation ground and referenced the case cited in the meeting, Fresno v. Newton (7th Cir.), as an example of shifting law the city must consider.

Commissioners and staff discussed tradeoffs between engagement and legal risk. Commissioner Gershman asked whether the city's general social media policy already covers police accounts; staff replied the city policy currently treats some departments differently and does not give the police department clear authority to remove third‑party posts. Participants discussed specific moderation terms in the draft—examples included "off topic," "profane," and "salacious"—and several speakers said such terms need precise definitions and written implementation procedures to avoid arbitrary enforcement.

Several participants proposed an incremental approach: revise the current department draft rather than replace the city's existing policy wholesale; coordinate with the city attorney, IT, and other commissions; and develop an implementation plan (who moderates, archival/open‑records processes, and automated flagging thresholds). The city attorney recommended tightening the draft to define whether "off topic" means off the page as a whole or off a specific post and to document moderation decisions for transparency and open‑records responses.

No motion or formal vote was taken. The commission directed the chief and staff to work with the city attorney, review the city's policy and Lexipol material, and return with a revised draft and line‑by‑line questions at a future meeting. The chief volunteered to work with HAP and provide comparative examples from other jurisdictions for the commission to review.

The commission did not adopt the proposed policy at this meeting; members requested more specific definitions and implementation procedures before any formal adoption.

Ending: The commission asked staff to return a revised draft and a recommended implementation plan at a subsequent meeting; no budget or disciplinary actions were decided.