Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Social Media Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wallingford policy committee reviews personnel social-media rule, board members debate monitoring and First Amendment limits
Summary
Committee reviewed revisions to the personnel social-media policy drafted by Shipman & Goodwin to address mixed personal/official social-media use after a 2024 Supreme Court decision; board members debated whether to add language asking employees to "reflect positively" on the district and raised concerns about monitoring and enforcement.
The Wallingford Board of Education policy committee on Monday reviewed proposed revisions to the district’s personnel social-media policy (4118.5/4218.5) intended to clarify how personal and official social-media use is treated under the First Amendment.
Policy committee staff member Ms. Latour said the revisions, provided by the law firm Shipman & Goodwin, add language distinguishing personal social-media use from official use and flag that some posts may be treated as mixed personal/government action under recent court guidance. “These uses are subject to different considerations under the first amendment,” Latour said.
The changes also include technical edits and updated legal references. Ms. Latour said the language is intended to identify steps employees can take “to avoid finding a state action on their personal social media pages.”
Board member Ms. Passaretti proposed adding wording modeled on another district’s policy that would ask employees to refrain from social-media posts that “harm the goodwill and reputation of the school district in the community.” “All posts should reflect positively on the school district and avoid any content that could be considered offensive, harmful, or disruptive,” she read from that example.
Several committee members pushed back on the enforceability and constitutional limits of a broadly phrased “reflect positively” requirement. Board member Jen said employees retain the right to express opinions as community members and warned a broad requirement could be challenged as infringing free speech. “If it’s in our policy that that’s viewed as hurting our district, then that would be an issue,” she said.
Members discussed how incidents are discovered and handled. Latour said the district does not actively monitor all employee accounts but typically learns of disruptive posts through calls from parents or staff. She said follow-up is fact-specific: where a post may implicate personnel rules or legal concerns, the district consults legal counsel and addresses the matter on a case-by-case basis.
Committee members also cited a neighboring district’s recent disciplinary action against an educator whose social-media post was found to disrupt the educational environment. That example underscored members’ differing views about whether the policy should include aspirational language about portraying the district positively or stick to narrower, enforceable prohibitions.
No formal vote was taken to adopt the revised social-media policy during the meeting. Ms. Latour said the draft will be forwarded to the district’s instructional meeting in March for further consideration.
