Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter asks board to consider social‑media standards after member shares polarizing post
Summary
A resident criticized a sitting USD 383 board member for sharing a Facebook post she said suggested Trump supporters are "stupid," and asked the board to consider standards for social media; a board member responded that personal social‑media posts fall under First Amendment speech and declined to impose censorship.
During the visitor‑comment period, a Manhattan resident told the board she was concerned about a Facebook post shared by a sitting board member and said the post alienated students, staff and families.
Kim Phillips, who identified herself at the meeting as a Manhattan resident, told the board she had documented a post shared by board member Brent Coyne and read part of the language aloud. Phillips said she had a screenshot and offered to share it with board members. She criticized the post as polarizing and asked whether board members should be held to the same social‑media standards they expect of students and staff. “I think you all should be held to a bare minimum the same standards you would expect your students and staff to follow, if not indeed a higher standard,” Phillips said.
Phillips asked the board to consider how sharing such posts might alienate families and students who hold different political views and whether board members should exercise greater restraint in public posts.
Board response and discussion
A board member responded during the meeting that being an elected official does not eliminate a person’s First Amendment rights and that they would not censor their personal social‑media posts. In remarks recorded in the transcript, a board member identified themself as a school board member and said: “I am not gonna censor what I say on my personal page, nor do I think any of us should censor what we say on our personal pages.” The same speaker emphasized that if a board member posted with the title “school board member” they might need to be more cautious but stopped short of proposing new district rules.
Procedure and outcome
The board’s visitor‑comment rules, read earlier in the meeting, state that items not on the agenda will not be acted on at that meeting and will instead be referred to administrators for follow‑up; no formal board action was taken on the subject during the meeting.
Ending
The public comment closed without a motion or board vote; the board did not adopt a new policy or standard at the meeting. The commenter offered to share screenshots with board members.
