Thanks for demonstrating and supporting the 1st amendment and the implied, if not legal, rights of the public to know what board members are thinking. As a fellow board member, I know that we walk a fine line on many complex issues, but open, honest, constructive, and respectful communications are rarely, if ever, dangerous.

I share the blogosphere and Twittersphere with you and a small number of other Pennsylvania board members. We all adhere to standards of decorum as well as provide open disclaimers regarding what is appropriate communications.

It is not only plausible, but a regular occurrence, that such communications take place, and I encourage those that believe otherwise to actually experiment with the technology, observe the technology in use by others, and recognize that these are truly just different forms of communication. (This is also not about what I had for breakfast, a common misconception.)

Conversations at the grocery store are just as likely to be misquoted (I believe far more likely) in a “whisper down the lane” mode, and when I can go on record in a clear, careful, productive way, I will gladly do so.

I believe leaders show respect for those being lead when they take the time to share their thoughts and to show openness to hearing the thoughts of others. I have yet to find any board member who does not adhere to these principles in their online communications, or any who believe they are not better off for it. Even in disagreement, there can be respect and trust.

I truly hope that ISD 192 considers its position deeply and supports a steady expansion in their willingness to communicate and to share their thoughts in the community and marketplace of ideas. (Heck, you already publish your email addresses, which places you amongst fairly small company already.)

To be sure, as a sitting board member, I know I don’t have all the solutions, so I welcome any help I can get.

Best Wishes and Good luck,
Jim Butt
Director
School District of Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania

If this rule should pass, I expect Tim Burke to tweet during board meetings.

Bullshit does not begin to describe this proposal. Tim, you have my sympathies.

The general idea seems to be that some folks on the board wants the board to speak as one, rather than the individuals we elected to represent our values. I wasn’t aware that appropriateness is something we need to worry about at the school board level.

For example. As a school board member, there is nothing wrong with you saying that you feel the price of construction for the new high school was too high and perhaps even discussing with someone/everone (in person, in twitter, or on a website) the issues you see that lead up to it. You can even talk about the things you might do to help that not occur in the future.

I hate to say it, but I don’t hold out a lot of hope for the Farmington School district.

There needs to be a line set, of what is and is not appropriate conduct, how the content is distributed, is of little concern.

In this particular instance we’re talking about a school board member disagreeing with the use of social media because might not happen to agree with what another member says to the public about an issue. In my opinion that’s exactly what a school board is supposed to be like–a mix of individual opinions which may not see eye to eye. If we were looking for a single opinion on any given topic we’d only have the superintendent running things and the public wouldn’t have input into a bunch of other people to provide ultimate direction.

I watched the portion of the meeting three times now and each and every time I become more annoyed by the fact that a representative of the people does not have a basic understanding of the fundamental rights of this country. Being that this is the same school board that voted to close a meeting to TV viewers so they could have a candid and open conversation, I have to admit that if I lived in the district I’d be calling for their resignations. These are the people directing decisions which impact those who are impressionable and learning–these are not the teachings we want to provide our children with.

The discussion Monday night was on a possible change to board policy, that some members think is a good idea, to proscribe board members from using social media, not just Twitter, to discuss board business.

I think all of the other four board members present Monday thought this was a good idea to some degree or another. A few also recognized it might be very difficult to write a policy like that and perhaps harder still to police or enforce it.

There was no discussion about those other silly issues like whether this comported with our understanding of first amendment rights.

Tim Burke
Farmington School Board member

The last company I was at had a blanket statement of anti-defamation while you were employed with the company, and it also a no-no to discuss internal client related content with a non-employee, or other client.

If you’re going to go against your employers, or groups policy on what you say, or where you say it, then you’ll end up with what you get.

As for any group or employer to squelch an individuals right to the 1st, is complete bullshit. If my employer told me that I could not have a blog, twitter, FB or any other online presence, I would tell them where to stick it, and that I’d be filing a lawsuit.

There needs to be a line set, of what is and is not appropriate conduct, how the content is distributed, is of little concern. You could do similar damage with a single tweet, that might be seen by a small target audience, as you could blanketing a parking lot with fliers defaming someone, or something.

I’m in #196 and I’d LOVE to be able to follow all board members to learn more about them and their values.

I believe it was Veronica Walter who mentioned something about “the facts are being distorted”…yep, that happens in 2-page newsletters too.

Actually, the most shocking statement was from Veronica Walter where she referred to potential tweets from other board members that she wouldn’t agree with and said, “It doesn’t represent me and therefore it shouldn’t be out there.” WOW!!! So our state legislators shouldn’t tweet, Facebook, etc. their views because we might think other legislators agree with them?!? That line of reasoning is unbelievable in its ridiculousness.

Also, who else laughed when Bob Heman referred to “Twitters, blogs, etc.” Yes, all of those Twitters I write…nothing like proving you aren’t familiar with what you’re discussing in the first place.