What's Appropriate? Social Media Etiquette for Government Employees
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST
What's Appropriate?
Social Media Etiquette for Government Employees
By Tammy Duffy
Actual posting from the Hamilton Forum by a government employee
Use of social media has become prevalent among government employees and agencies. Federal employees would be wise to ponder before posting and to think through their tweeting in order to avoid running afoul of government ethics policies, according to newly released guidance from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Government employees are expected to set an example and standard of professional business conduct. When this is ignored, bad things happen.
Rules called the Standards of Conduct apply to social media in areas such as fundraising, seeking outside employment, use of an employee’s title and more for the government.
The Standards of Conduct do not prohibit government employees from establishing and maintaining personal social media accounts. As in any other context, however, employees must ensure that their social media activities comply with the Standards of Conduct and other applicable laws, including agency supplemental regulations and agency-specific policies. Violations can lead to disciplinary actions, up to firing.
One issue commonly arising, involves use of job titles on personal social media accounts. The rules generally require that employees avoid using their titles or positions in a way that would create an appearance that the government sanctions or endorses their activities or those of another.
A violation might occur if an employee refers to his or her connection to the government as support for the employee’s statements.
Additionally, a violation could occur if an employee “prominently features his or her agency’s name, seal, uniform or similar items on the employee’s social media account or in connection with specific social media activities,” among other situations.
The Office of Special Counsel, which enforces Hatch Act partisan political activities restrictions on federal employees, similarly has posted information on how that law applies to social media.
It says, for example, that there is no violation of the ban on soliciting donations for parties or partisan candidates if a social media “friend” of a federal employee posts a link to the contribution page of a partisan candidate on the employee’s page. However, the employee should not “like,” “share,” or “retweet” the solicitation, “or respond in any way that would tend to encourage other readers to donate,”. If you look at local social media pages, this is not the case. There are shares, likes and retweets happening all the time. So why is this ignored?
It's the government employee's job to use common sense when making his or her opinions public, and it's government's job to provide a set of general guidelines that will guide employees in the right direction.
Municipalities should be able to guide employees to smart use of social media and not try to dictate to them. Dictating rarely works in such cases anyway, so a government's goal should be to craft a social media policy that will encourage employees to think before posting. In the town of Hamilton township, they do have such a policy.
See link to Hamilton Township Social Media Policy
http://www.hamiltonnj.com/filestorage/118151/118153/118188/E-mail_and_Internet_Policy_for_Employees_2011_thru_present.pdf
"TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON POLICY AND PROCEDURE USE OF ELECTRONIC MAIL AND INTERNET SERVICES This policy establishes standards for the proper use of email and internet services provided by the Township of Hamilton. All email and internet services are owned by the Township of Hamilton and are to be used for Township business only. Use of these services for personal or non-business related purposes is not permitted. This policy applies to all full and part-time employees, contractors, volunteers and any other users of the Township of Hamilton Network.
Internet Policy Details Use of the Internet must be done responsibly and ethically, consistent with the purpose for which these services are provided.
The following activities are prohibited when using the Internet, including, but not limited to:
• Downloading, viewing or transmitting fraudulent, threatening, obscene, intimidating, defamatory, harassing, discriminatory or otherwise unlawful messages or images;
• Installing or downloading computer software, programs or executable files;
• Uploading or downloading copyrighted materials or proprietary agency information;
• Uploading or downloading access-restricted township information;
• Any activity with religious or political purposes outside the scope of the users assigned and authorized township duties;
• Any unauthorized purchase;
• Disruption, obstruction or burden of network resources;
• The intentional or negligent introduction of computer viruses into the Township Network. In short: Employees should visit only those Web sites necessary for their business duties Employees must understand that "surfing" the Web on company time is a violation of policy
Under no circumstances should any employee computer ever be used to visit "adult" or otherwise prohibited sites Employees with laptop or notebook computers or those who access Township systems remotely must understand that these rules apply to remote use as well as in-office Internet use Failure to comply with any of these policies may result in the loss of email and internet services, disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
The sending of e-mail using another’s identity, an assumed name, or anonymously is prohibited.
Prohibited in Hamilton, but it happens often. Why is that? Why are these behaviors tolerated by employees?
Below is another example of a township employee's postings on a blog. Does this seem inappropriate to you? Share your thoughts.
Towns acknowledge employee rights to privacy and free speech that may protect online activity conducted on personal social networks. However, what is published on such personal sites should not be attributed to or reference the town and should not appear to be endorsed by or originated from the town. Employees that choose to list their work affiliation or reference their employment with the town in any way on a social network should regard all communication on that network as if it were a professional network.
Online lives are ultimately linked, whether or not employees choose to mention the town on personal online networks. Town employees engaging in social media networks must at all times be conscious and respectful of the fact that their words and actions are representative of the town, regardless of when, where and how the content was posted.
In Roanoke County, Va., there was an incident in which an employee was fired for statements she posted online. In her online profile, she was listed as a county employee. In this case, she was clearly making threats and so she was justly fired. While threats aren't likely to be protected by anyone, government employees can protect themselves online by removing all job or employer references from their online activity. By simply adding the statement that its personal, rather than representative of their employer, towns can elevate a lot of headache and legal messes. Including the disclaimer, “Opinions are mine, not my employer's, should be part of a towns policy. Such a disclaimer makes intentions clear -- that they are communicating as an individual, not as a government representative. If they do not have this, it opens a lot of doors to litigation.
Many governments have a social media policy that outlines how the government's own social media presence should be run, with no mention of how employees should conduct themselves personally online. This is evident in the policy for Hamilton township. Such social media policy is even more crucial in government than it is in the private sector. At all times government employees are not just preserving an image or a brand name, they are a safety net, the single source provider to everybody who's in the towns audience. Towns must be all things to all people and they must maintain a really strong level of trust and confidence. This is what must be delivered and is what taxpayers expect.
Employees assume any and all risk associated with their off-duty personal/private blogging and use of social media on non-City-owned equipment. The City may require immediate removal of material and/or take disciplinary action for personal/private blogging or personal/private use of social media sites by employees that causes disruption of the workplace or impairs the mission of the City.
Employees who engage in personal/private blogging or use of social media sites may not:
a. Attribute personal statements, opinions, or beliefs to the City
b. Disclose confidential City information;
c. Use the City logo or trademarks; or
d. Post any material that: (i) constitutes harassment, hate speech, or libel; (ii) violates the privacy rights of fellow employees; or (iii) is disruptive to the work environment because it impairs workplace discipline or control, impairs or erodes working relationships, creates dissension among co-workers, interferes with job performance, or obstructs operations.”
Public employees are different than private sector workers, and everything they say becomes part of the public record. Public employees are held to a higher standard and they need to conduct themselves knowing that they work for a public entity and whatever they do could be reflected onto their organization.
A Middlesex County law clerk resigned from her position this month after posting disparaging Facebook comments about the death of New Jersey State Trooper Anthony Raspa.
In April, a Hamilton Township (Atlantic County) fire chief resigned from his position after racially insensitive posts on his Facebook page were brought to the township’s attention. While officials and experts warn personal social media pages can be dangerous for the careers of public employees, many municipalities do not have specific social media policies in place.
Here are some examples of postings by a high ranking Hamilton government employee. What are your thoughts on this persons online behavior? Is this the behavior we should allow of our township officials? Why is this acceptable? Someone had the courage to "out" "ISSUES ONLY" on the Hamilton Forum. Why is the township allowing its employees to behave in this manner?
Earlier this year, a Hamilton township council member was reported in the Trentonian to have made racial slurs about the Muslim community. Was there any update to the township social media policy after this debacle? No.
Link to article by the Trentonian below on racial slur by Hamilton township official
http://www.trentonian.com/general-news/20150722/hamilton-councilman-ed-gore-explains-his-muslim-scum-comment
In April, former Hamilton Township(Atlantic county) fire chief John Sauerwald resigned in the wake of racially insensitive posts on his Facebook page. Sauerwald resigned before any action was taken by the township and told the Press the posts were made on his personal Facebook page. A post from November on his page spoke out about to the incidents in Ferguson, Missouri, after the death of Michael Brown and referred to the rioters as "animals."
Another post described an Arab person in a derogatory way and said, "Our doors to this country should have been locked tight after 9/11."
I think it’s important for local government and state government that the public be assured government is unbiased and free of things that would make people feel distrustful. The use of social media is only dangerous if you abuse it. What you put on Facebook stays there forever. Words may be forgiven but not forgotten. It’s up to the individual judgment of the person that enters into that arena. The leaders in government positions must set the bar high for social media interactions and have low tolerance for their employees who abuse it.
Posted by tammyduffy
at 7:50 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 5 October 2015 4:11 PM EDT
