Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance And Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays decision on expanded website and communications access after debate over policy and liability
Summary
A proposal from Council member O'Rear to give all non-mayoral council members the same direct access to the city's communications channels as the mayor — including the city website, print and electronic media — was debated and postponed to the Feb. 25 Committee of the Whole meeting by a 4-3 vote. Council and staff discussed First Amendment risks,
Council member O'Rear moved to grant non-mayoral council members equal access to city communications channels (including the city website) that the mayor currently uses. The motion drew extended debate among council members and city staff over legal risk, moderation and policy.
Supporters framed the request as an equity issue: O'Rear said the mayor has access to a city‑hosted page that other council members do not, and he sought parity to allow council members to post council‑related updates and constituent notifications. Several council members said they simply wanted the ability to post brief, factual updates about council actions affecting their wards.
Opponents raised two principal concerns: (1) liability and moderation when the public may be allowed to comment on hosted pages or social media, which can create First Amendment litigation risks if the city later removes or moderates comments; and (2) the appearance of using a city-controlled platform for potentially partisan or personal political messaging. City Attorney commentary urged caution and recommended adopting a social media policy rather than an ordinance; staff noted that municipal websites can be treated differently than social-media platforms because many do not provide public comment functions.
After discussion, council voted 4-3 to postpone the item to the Feb. 25 Committee of the Whole to allow staff and the city attorney time to prepare policy options. The roll call on the postponement was: Yes — O'Rear, Root, Pinkerton, Hutchings; No — Williams, Roshe, Mayor Shoemaker.
Why it matters
How elected officials use a government website and other city-run communications platforms raises legal and ethical questions about free speech, moderation and the difference between city-hosted content and independent council-member social media. Council members asked for clear policies that define who can post, what is allowed, and how comments or moderation will be handled.
What staff recommended
City Attorney recommended developing a social media policy and urged caution because litigation across other jurisdictions has centered on moderation and First Amendment claims. Staff also suggested that linking to individual council members’ external pages (hosted and moderated by the council member) could be a lower-risk interim approach if council desires individual outreach that is not hosted directly on city servers.
Next steps
Council postponed the item to Feb. 25 and asked staff and counsel to draft a recommended social media/communications policy that addresses moderation, permitted content, and distinctions between city-hosted pages and external council-member pages.
