Board debates revised Policy 3-320 on employee speech; members split on scope and language

During the second read of Policy 3-320, board members debated a revised employee freedom-of-speech policy that aims to clarify when employee speech may prompt district discipline and how social-media use outside work should be handled.

Marilyn (Speaker 7) raised concerns about scope and phrasing, saying, "I'm concerned about the length and the details, that are in this particular version of policy 3-20 as compared to what we had previously. Again, I think there is a bit of an overreach." She argued the policy should more clearly distinguish employees' private speech from on-duty conduct. Other board members, including Speaker 3, defended detailed language as necessary given recent litigation in other districts: "More is better here... we wanna make it as detailed as possible," the speaker said, arguing that detail reduces ambiguity in discipline decisions.

A point of contention involved language that "encourages, but does not require" employees to avoid identifying themselves as district employees on social media; some members called that contradictory and suggested such content belong in an administrative regulation rather than a policy. Multiple members noted the policy was reviewed and drafted by the district solicitor; one speaker said it was a customized policy written for West York, not a verbatim PSBA template.

The board did not vote; the policy will be on the agenda for approval at a future meeting after additional review and discussion.