Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Social Media topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caledonia trustees debate code of conduct and social media policy; motion to create a policy fails
Summary
Trustees debated a proposed trustee code of conduct and social media policy after one trustee said social posts had slandered colleagues. Outside counsel warned the issue is fact-intensive and that consequences/due process must be clarified; a motion to direct staff to draft a code failed for lack of support.
Trustee Holly urged the Committee of the Whole to adopt a code of conduct and a social media policy, saying trustees "should be bound to a higher standard" and that recent posts had harmed her family and reputation. She asked the board to consider a policy that would hold trustees accountable for how they use their names and post about fellow trustees.
Other trustees pushed back, arguing that private social-media posts raise First Amendment concerns and citing recent case law. One trustee referenced a Supreme Court decision discussed in the meeting and said the ruling limits a municipality's ability to regulate officials' personal social-media accounts. That speaker said: "There is a Supreme Court case from 2024 called Linn K v Freed 601 US that dealt with exactly this, social media by public officials." (The reference was made by a trustee during debate; the meeting transcript contains the phrasing as spoken.)
Outside counsel Hannah Colberg, representing the Von Briesen firm, told trustees the question is fact‑intensive and depends on who is speaking and whether the official "possess[es] actual authority to speak on the government's behalf on that particular issue." She recommended trustees decide what outcome they want before drafting policy and cautioned that any policy imposing consequences requires a due‑process framework: "If you put in a policy for which there's no consequence, then what suppression of speech exists?" she said. She also warned that some consequences (for example, removal from office) implicate statutory protections and would require specific procedures.
The committee considered multiple procedural motions. After confusion and competing wording, a motion to direct staff to draft a trustee code of conduct and social media policy was moved and then, in a separate proposal, a motion was placed on the floor that would prevent bringing such a policy to the full board. Ultimately a motion to create a trustee code of conduct (as phrased later in the meeting) failed for lack of a second and the meeting adjourned without the committee directing staff to prepare an ordinance or policy.
The exchange included repeated appeals to respect among trustees and repeated cautions by colleagues about enforceability and enforcement mechanisms. The committee did not adopt a code or policy at the meeting and left further action to a future full‑board agenda if requested.
