Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSAD 51 board adopts employee social media guidance and security camera policy
Summary
The board approved policy GCSB (employee use of social media) and a new security camera policy (ECAD) addressing camera placement, access, retention and parental review; both passed unanimously on June 5.
Get email alerts on the School Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The MSAD 51 Board of Directors on June 5 approved two policies: GCSB, which provides guidance for school employees’ use of social media, and ECAD, a new policy establishing rules for security camera systems in district buildings and on buses.
Social media policy (GCSB) The policy clarifies expectations for school employees who maintain personal social media accounts and suggests sample language administrators can use to distinguish personal posts from official district communications. The policy also restricts friending or direct private‑message interactions with students on personal accounts unless those interactions are part of an established, supervised instructional platform.
As the policy presenter noted, the language was developed with input from school staff and legal counsel to align with recent court decisions and to balance staff First Amendment concerns with student‑safety obligations. “We looked at ... sample language, that in this case, school administrators could use on their personal social media pages ... to differentiate those from speaking on behalf of the district,” the presenter said.
Security camera policy (ECAD) The new policy describes camera placement, permitted uses, who may view recordings, storage and retention guidelines, and limits on public access. Key provisions discussed: - Limited access: administrators, designated staff, transportation personnel and law enforcement (in emergencies or with proper legal process) may view footage; access is intended to be restricted and logged. - Retention: district staff said the policy allows up to 30 days retention in policy language, but that current district technical capability and practice keeps most footage for 14 days unless a file is preserved for an active investigation or legal requirement. - Parental review: parents may request to view a portion of footage involving their child; the standard practice is to view the clip with a school administrator present so that other students are not broadly shared. - FOIA and legal limits: staff said general security footage is not routinely released under public‑records requests because of student privacy protections; footage can be disclosed when legally demanded by subpoena or court order. “They cannot be FOIAed,” a board member said during the discussion, summarizing legal counsel’s advice about routine public‑records requests.
Board questions and safeguards Board members asked about who is designated to have login access, whether logs record when footage is viewed, and how parents request review. Staff said access is controlled and that viewing is logged; they agreed to confirm the technical logging details. School administrators noted transportation staff review bus camera footage for bus incidents and that school leadership can preserve clips while investigations remain open.
Ending Both policies passed unanimously. Staff said they will publish administrative guidelines, train relevant staff, and include the camera policy in school communications and handbooks in advance of the next school year.

