Fears Stoke-on-Trent City Council's Twitter guidelines will 'silence' opposition
A TWEETING councillor has hit out at the council's 'draconian' social media rulebook.
Abi Brown, Conservative member for Meir Park, is concerned that Stoke-on-Trent City Council's new social media policy effectively bans her from using Twitter to discuss any of her work as a councillor.
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Council's new social media policy has drawn criticism from councillors who use twitter to discuss their work.
• Read Stoke-on-Trent City Council's social media policy for councillors in full
The Sentinel reported last week that the council was introducing the policy in an attempt to avoid embarrassing outbursts from members on sites like Facebook and Twitter.
Do you have an interview coming up and would like some professional help and support. Contact BlueSky CVs - the local specialist to help and support you!
10% discount off web prices.
Terms: 1 session per person
Contact: 01538 710408
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
But concerns have been raised about a clause which orders members to avoid mentioning 'customers' – council jargon for residents – without written permission.
Mrs Brown, left, who has used Twitter for more than three years, said: "Having been through the policy, it does seem draconian.
"It is really quite scary that after several years of using social media without getting into trouble whatsoever, the council suddenly owns my accounts.
"Saying we can't talk about customers means I can't even say that I've been contacted about an issue.
"I welcome members being given some guidance but for somebody in opposition like me, it's going to basically mean they can stop me from saying anything."
Further guidance in the policy advises members to think twice about discussing 'controversial' topics – including politics.
The authority says the social networking policy is 'responsible housekeeping'.
'Advice worth following – but why did it take so long': Page 10
Comments
by strandedhere
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 5:14PM
“Am I right in thinking that by referencing private companies' policies,posters are saying that the council leader might be trying to stop whistle-blowing,and that that might be legitimate?
Of course councillors-even Labour ones-are meant to tell the public about abuses,the wasting of money,etc.”
by I_Norris
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 3:05PM
“Warren are you seriously say cllrs should only comment in meetings?
You avoided are sm policy attached to contracts for guidanve only or will you face action if you break sm policy”
by warren-lloyd
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 10:39AM
“They are still employees though Ian. Council cambers are there for debate, not Facebook and Twitter. There is nothing to say council members can not use social media in there personal life as many do.”
by I_Norris
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 8:15AM
“Warren "many employers draw up policy added to contracts"
They do indeed, now are these social media policies for guidance only or will any action be taken if broken?
Councillors are currently covered by code of conduct, standards board and DPA. So if those broken action can already be taken.
Most employer social media policy is to pritect their good name as they are private companies they dont wish to lose customers. That not same for councillors who are the employers and should be FREE to say what they like about the Council and policies without fear.”
by Anti2Moaner
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 8:08AM
“by warren-lloyd
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 3:48AM
"By the way, many employers draw up policy added to contracts that prevent employees publishing some aspects of there job on social media."
That's very true and proper but Councillors are not employees they are representatives and as such should not be restricted in what they tell their real employers , the voters.”
by warren-lloyd
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 3:48AM
“By the way, many employers draw up policy added to contracts that prevent employees publishing some aspects of there job on social media.”
by warren-lloyd
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 3:39AM
“At least non of the present council members have been found guilty in court for sicken things they have posted on the internet, know what I mean.”
by strandedhere
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 12:43AM
“I find the claim that Mr.Pervez is the boss of every councillor quite worrying.An employer dictates to his employees how the shall occupy themselves during the working day.In this case,raising the issues worrying their constituents.
I understand-sort of-that the party/Whip system means that as the top Labour bod Pervez can dictate to his own party underlings,including councillors even though they're in theory there for their constituents.
But in what sense is Pervez the capo dei capi,the boss of bosses of opposition councillors?
Isn't the suggestion that he is,quite scary?”
by I_Norris
Tuesday, September 11 2012, 8:59PM
“Robnoxious: the councillors are suppise to be the employers, not the employee.
Yes guidance is good briefings on how to deal with the media it all its forms is correct.
But to be banned from talking about council policy or politics in case you step out of line is wrong.”
by Robnoxious
Tuesday, September 11 2012, 7:31PM
“It may come across as these measures being draconion, But i think what is happening here is after the recent events that have been reported in the media, S-O-T City Council , as being good employers are putting it down in black and white, as to the guide lines, They to have a duty to their employees, pointing out risk and dangers. Then should any of these councillors find themselves in hot water they will only have themselves to blame. When they do go in front of the Standards Committee it will be one excuse less they will come up with. They did not know, why didn't you tell me . In short they are covering their own backsides.”