The News Journal ran a front page story today about some proposed rules about Kent County government employees and social media use.
Click Here to read the article.
So, here’s the thing – I’ve made it very clear that one of my primary motives in the social media initiative is to undermine government – to get people to see government as the entity that exists to serve the public, provide infrastructure, etc. – NOT to see government as the organization that gives society permission.
I would argue that by taking this ham-fisted approach to social media, our friends in Kent County are making themselves irrelevant to the public conversation and demonstrating just how limited they are in their understanding of society.
Here’s a video of me talking about this during our social media training event in Newark this morning:
There will be more on this next week.
Seriously Kent County – keep up the great work, thanks for joining me in my efforts to undermine the government!
The citizens of Kent County need to get on this to fight it.
Interesting take Ken. Given that politicians such as our president and Delaware governor have figured out to embrace social media, ironic that some are choosing to shun it.
Ken:
I think you mis-read the article, which does not say that the policy prohibits employees from using social media. It says that the policy prohibits employee from using social media to engage in conduct that would impute liability to the County. Here’s a post about the difference: http://bit.ly/lE2vwb.
Molly, thanks for the input – now that I have more than 140 characters to work with, allow me to expand on this a little.
First to the specifics – I’m very curious (and yes, we need to see the policy for clarification) about who determines what would “reflect unfavorably on county government” and what would be considered a “legitimate matter of public concern” – what if I’m a county employee who has some concern about a proposed county ordinance and express that in social media and a Levy Court Commissioner sees that as a personal attack?
Also, when I read Mr. Sparks’ comments that Kent County’s approach “goes further” than he expected based on the 2006 Garcetti v. Ceballos case, that indicates that these proposed policies may be on the extreme side (again, we need to see the policy).
But, more important than the specific policy is the attitude behind it. I believe in good, well-defined policies, but this one seems to send a strong message that Kent County government is both ignorant of the potential good of social media, fearful of technology, and not willing to engage the public in what is arguably the best tool for free speech and civic engagement conceived to date.
As the News Journal article pointed out, we have the state government and the other two counties embracing social media to enhance communication between government workers and the citizens they serve – if Kent County were wise, it would do the same.
Obviously these are just my opinions and I could be wrong.
I don’t really agree on the matter, but regardless a very well written post – I’ll link back from my website in the comments on my next blog post
Based on this and the other pieces I’ve read about this situation, I think the Levy Court was wise to send this policy back for additional revisions. Although well intentioned from a risk management perspective, the drafters missed the mark in several key ways.
I recently wrote a piece entitled “Social Media Policies: Necessary but not Sufficient” that addresses the subject in a fairly comprehensive manner. It can be accessed via http://tiny.cc/SMinOrgsPolicyPost.
Courtney Hunt
Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community
Principal, Renaissance Strategic Solutions