Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Social Media topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to restore comments on Lewiston Police Department Facebook page, criticize process
Summary
Multiple Lewiston residents used public comment to urge the council to reconsider its decision to turn off comments on the Lewiston Police Department’s Facebook posts, citing transparency and free-speech concerns and asking for clearer public process.
Three residents called on the Lewiston City Council during the public-comment period to reverse a decision to close comments on the Lewiston Police Department’s Facebook page and to improve transparency around the matter.
Andrew Jones of Ward 2 said he was “here tonight to express my displeasure” at a decision made at a prior meeting to disable comments on the LPD page. Jones summarized various explanations council members and staff had offered and said the public was being misinformed by a post on the department’s page that attributed the change to lack of staff capacity. “Whoever wrote that obviously didn't watch the last city council meeting,” Jones said, urging council reconsideration and an agenda item to resolve the question.
Matthew Edgren, Ward 4, echoed concerns about the action being discussed outside a posted agenda item and said the decision could set a precedent for other city pages. Edgren also asked the mayor to restart an advisory committee on community safety and asked for an update on the Martell School senior-housing rebuild schedule.
Matt Roy (Ward 3) likewise characterized the council’s use of nonagenda workshop time for direction on social-media moderation as a loss of transparency and accountability. Speakers asked the council to make the topic a formal agenda item so members of the public can comment under the usual rules.
Why it matters: Commenters framed the issue as one of public accountability and civic voice; they argued disabling comments on a department account reduces opportunities for public input and can be presented to the public with inaccurate reasons. City staff and the city attorney’s office were referenced by speakers as having offered legal and operational rationales; no council vote on the matter occurred at this meeting.
Outcome
The statements were made during the meeting’s public-comment period; the transcript records no subsequent council vote or staff order altering the social-media policy during the session. Several speakers asked for a formal agenda item and clearer public communication.
Ending
Speakers closed public comment after other agenda items proceeded; the council did not take immediate action on social-media policy during the meeting.
