Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Communications Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Upper Dublin committee revises social media policy language, asks staff for account-ownership plan
Summary
At its April policy meeting, the Upper Dublin School District policy committee reviewed proposed revisions to Policy 8.17 (Social Media Communications) and directed staff to return at the June meeting with a technical plan for account ownership, a registry of district accounts, and recommended language requiring district-affiliated email addresses for any official district account.
Get email alerts on the Communications Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its April policy meeting, the Upper Dublin School District policy committee reviewed proposed revisions to Policy 8.17 (Social Media Communications) and directed staff to return at the June meeting with a technical plan for account ownership, a registry of district accounts, and recommended language requiring district-affiliated email addresses for any official district account.
Committee members pressed for clearer definitions and consistent terminology. Members asked that “district-affiliated” cover pages and platforms that the district oversees (for example pages tied to an employee with district oversight), and that “non-district affiliated” replace the draft’s “third party” phrasing where appropriate. A committee member, Jenna (committee member), said, “I would say, like, on nondistrict affiliated social media pages,” urging consistent terminology between policy text and administrative regulations.
Committee members and staff discussed several operational details staff will address before the policy returns to the committee. Key points the committee asked staff to clarify or implement: - Account ownership and credentials: the committee asked that district accounts be created using district-affiliated email addresses so the district can reset passwords and maintain access if an employee leaves. Staff noted collecting passwords is risky; instead the committee favored district-controlled accounts or “role” accounts that are not tied to a single employee. The committee asked staff to propose an implementation plan that addresses two-factor authentication and recovery methods for major platforms. - Definitions and scope: the committee asked for clearer language distinguishing district-affiliated pages (those overseen by district employees or using district resources) from booster/PTO or purely volunteer pages. Members proposed using “oversight by a district employee” or “operated by district employees on behalf of the district” as part of the definition. - Non-district pages, logos and permission: the draft would prohibit use of district logos without “express written permission by the superintendent.” Committee members suggested adding “or designee” and clarifying what enforcement tools exist for non-district pages that use district branding. - Registry and maintenance: staff was asked to inventory existing district and building-level pages and to propose a process and timeline to bring existing accounts into compliance (for example, by migrating to district-owned accounts or documenting maintenance plans). Several members recommended that the administrative regulation require anyone who creates or maintains a district account to register it with the director of communications. - Direct messaging and professional boundaries: committee members raised repeated concerns about one-on-one direct messaging between employees and students. The group agreed the social-media policy should reference the district’s professional-boundaries policy (Policy 3.54) rather than attempt to restate that entire framework. The committee asked staff to propose clear cross-references and to recommend whether the social-media policy should explicitly discourage one-on-one direct messaging to students or require an adult third party or parent/guardian be included when practicable.
The committee also asked staff to survey practices in neighboring districts and to evaluate platform-specific administration options (for example how platforms handle co-admins, business/organization accounts, and two-factor authentication). The committee did not adopt final policy language at the meeting; members agreed to give staff additional time to produce a technical and legal implementation plan and to return the revised policy at the June policy meeting.
Ending: The committee left the policy in committee for further work; staff were directed to return with a registry proposal, recommended account-ownership model, and draft administrative regulations clarifying account creation, maintenance, and the required use of district-affiliated email addresses for district accounts.

