Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Media Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Upper Dublin committee pauses social-media policy review to clarify scope, monitoring and disruption threshold
Summary
Committee members asked staff to revisit the draft social-media policy (08/17), remove or rework a confusing applicability paragraph, add a clear definition of "social media," and clarify whether enforcement/reporting steps should go to district administration rather than the school board.
Upper Dublin School District policy committee members reviewed a proposed social-media policy (08/17) on Feb. 5 and asked staff to return with revisions clarifying what the policy covers and how the district would monitor or enforce it.
Committee members said the draft mixes two aims: preventing staff from creating the impression they speak for the district when they post personally, and setting standards for pages that do represent the district (coaches, clubs, school groups). Several members recommended removing or substantially shortening a paragraph (1.3) that attempted to draw a line between communications "related to matters of public concern" and those that are not, saying the wording was confusing.
Members asked staff to replace platform-specific references (for example, a named social platform) with a single definition of "social media" that covers blogs, web pages, and social networking platforms so the policy will not become outdated. Committee members also discussed whether the board or district administration should be the point of contact for allegations of inappropriate posts; multiple members suggested limiting the board's role in day-to-day monitoring and directing concerns to district administration for handling and discipline decisions.
Several members emphasized the need to respect employees' free-speech rights while avoiding situations in which the public could reasonably assume an employee is speaking on behalf of the district. The draft administrative regulation language that described disciplinary consequences was flagged for revision so it identifies district administration rather than the board as the body to receive complaints and take action.
The committee did not send the policy to legislative. Members asked staff for another draft that: deletes or narrows the 1.3 applicability sentence except for a final clarifying sentence; adds a clear definition of social media; and separates substantive enforcement mechanics into an administrative regulation. The committee said it will revisit the policy in a future meeting before forwarding it to legislative.
Ending: Staff were asked to return the social-media policy with the requested clarifications and suggested AR language; committee members signaled no urgency to finalize the policy immediately and indicated a subsequent working session would be appropriate.
