Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Media topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Policy committee sharpens social‑media rules, favors ‘limited’ forum and annual training
Summary
The Haverford Township School District policy committee reviewed proposed changes to Policy 8‑16 on social media and recommended treating district accounts as a limited public forum, adding annual training for account administrators and clarifying how club and booster pages relate to district accounts.
The Haverford Township School District policy committee reviewed proposed revisions to Policy 8‑16 governing district social‑media accounts and recommended the district revise language to treat district accounts as a limited public forum rather than a fully open public forum.
Committee members said the limited public‑forum approach would preserve the district’s ability to remove comments that violate policy while allowing community interaction on platforms where the district already enables commenting, such as Facebook. A staff member explained the draft adds a specific requirement that individuals who run district accounts receive annual training on moderation and allowable removals; committee members asked that frequency remain explicit in the policy language.
Legal questions about the First Amendment came up during discussion. A staff member cautioned that designating an account a public forum could restrict the district’s ability to remove content; another committee member urged keeping the policy framed as a limited forum so the district can regulate content that is unrelated to the specific school purpose of a page. The committee also discussed how the district currently runs its YouTube channel: the staff member said most videos are marked as children’s content, which disables comments as a historical best practice to avoid real‑time moderation burdens.
Committee members asked staff to clarify how school clubs, boosters and other school‑related groups that operate social pages will be treated. The draft includes a provision that district‑operated accounts be labeled as official on the pages and cross‑referenced on the district website; the committee directed staff to make that labeling explicit and to clarify when pages run by boosters or clubs are subject to district rules (for example, when a page “holds itself out” as district‑affiliated or uses district logos). Members also asked for clearer language on whether club pages run by students or volunteers are subject to the district’s First Amendment limits; staff said those pages are often not government actors unless they present themselves as district‑run and that treatment may require a case‑by‑case analysis.
No formal vote was recorded in committee; members asked staff to revise the draft to restore consistent “limited public forum” language throughout, to keep the annual training requirement, and to add clarifications about club and booster accounts before bringing a first reading to the full board.
The committee discussed next steps and a tentative timeline for bringing a revised policy to the March board meeting for a first reading. The policy will also identify which platforms are considered district‑operated and describe how official accounts will be listed on the district website.
