Local council blogging policy and self-censorship
Image by zachstern via Flickr
Jack Pickard has a great post about policy on council staff blogging, which is sparked by Cambridgeshire making their Social Network and Blogging Policy publicly available.
He notes that it is mercifully brief and written in plain English but points out that the bit which relates back to the council’s general policy on how staff behaviour: it is full of hazy statements about ‘bring us into disrepute’ and ‘being libelous’.
There’s a slight difference in implication here. Some [definitions] seem to suggest that any negative statement may be defamation, but it would only become slander or libel under other circumstances (for example, it not being true). I would assume that the Council would be using the term ‘defamation’ meaning ‘untrue and negative remarks’, but this isn’t entirely clear.
After all, if they were simply using it in the ‘negative’ sense only, this would mean that if I was a resident and an employee of a local authority, then I would have less rights to complain about something the Council was doing badly than some other resident would have. And surely that can’t be right.
I agree, it’s not right. Council staff do appear to have less rights to voice their opinion of the council than other residents.
As a former journo I well understand that libel can indeed be read many ways and in practice it is the decisions of courts which set precedents.
There was a famous case in Australia where a fat rugby player successfully sued because being called fat would affect his income. I don’t know if this precedent was overturned by another Australian court decision (and Australian law has its basis in English law) but we’ve all seen the rich use ‘libel tourism’ in English courts to slap the bothersome down.
I also know from my own experience that the vagueness and lack of clear examples of where exactly the council draws the line has a chilling effect – as libel law can – and in practice can mean that council staff become expected to be a-political in their own time, much like civil servants, despite this not being part of the contract they sign up for.
I first became aware of this problem at my previous council job when a manager spoke negatively about my posting comments on a local bulletin board. I was told this had been ‘noticed’ and I ‘had to be careful’. Then I was referred to the ‘code of conduct’ – after I asked what ‘careful’ meant.
This appeared to relate entirely to whether you could complain about the council in a letter to the local newspaper – like most councils I expect they had a neurotic co-dependent relationship with the local newspaper – and could easily be read as saying you couldn’t complain about the state of the flowerbeds.
This had a chilling effect on me because I could see how a manager could use it to threaten anyone who lived in the town as I did and took an interest in local affairs which they didn’t approve of.
In practice a couple of staff I knew were in fact involved in ‘political’ areas locally where clashes with the council happened and their manager’s were OK with it.
I’m certain – I know – that others weren’t either because the policy was so vague, or because it was assumed they shouldn’t get involved. And as almost any civic activity relates to the council in some way I’m sure it would put people off.
I’m sure staff thought of themselves as being policed and regarded in the same way that civil servants are when in fact that’s not what the contract is between a council and its workers. I know I did. I simply stopped posting comments on local issues on the bulletin board.
I did point out the problem with managers, the union and even a councilor but none of them understood it as a problem (It probably didn’t help that most staff didn’t actually live in the city) so as far as I know this vague ‘code of conduct’ still exists.
Council staff can potentially have all sorts of comments they make online used against them due to the vagueness not of blogging policy but the age-old and undoubtedly identical contractual ‘conduct’ policies which they refer to.
As Jack says, yes, having a blogging policy is a great step forward but unless a lot more work is done most council staff simply won’t feel free to express themselves online let alone talk freely about their work lives.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=402b347f-04d4-4153-86de-27c5f38fd06d)
Categories: All WW, Comment, Free Speech Campaign, Internet / Technical, Legal, Online Media
Excellent piece, but they are going to get a nasty shock if they think that this is what a blog is, particularly with people (like me) trying to convince Ultralocal sites that they have a core duty to scrutinise politicians with as much vigour as possible:
“Definitions
The term ‘blog’ is short for ‘web log’. A blog is an online diary detailing personal insights and experiences. This is shared with an online audience.”
Wardman Wire? Pickled Politics? Liberal Conspiracy? Problogger? The defn is at least 3-4 years out of date.
There seems to be a grey area in the relation of employee actions outside work as being grounds for disciplinary action for “bringing the council into disrepute”. We need clarity about “just what is a council intended to take an interest in”.
And something of a defensive attitude, which I can perhaps understand but not appreciate.
Well there’s been great interest in the policy in the ‘egov’ community because this is regarded as enormous progress!
.-= paul canning´s last blog ..Council blogging policy and self-censorship =-.
Certainly agree that it is progress
They should have had you write it.
Unfortunately for employees, disciplinary procedures are & always will be deliberately vague – it’s absolutely impossible to even imagine some of the incidents that do arise as a disciplinary matter.
The ACAS Code of Practice (employers are expected to take this into account when forming & going through a disciplinary process) makes clear that policies should give an idea of the types of conduct that may be minor, serious, or gross misconduct. The final assessment will always rest with managers, but if the employee could not reasonably recognise that their conduct was inappropriate, a warning & necessary training should follow.
“…unless a lot more work is done most council staff simply won’t feel free to express themselves online let alone talk freely about their work lives.” Unfortunately, this work will be in the form of disciplinary action – the policy will evolve as it is called upon, but until the first few cases arise & set precedent on what the treatment is (employers need to act consistently in these processes) the employees will have to venture into blogging unclear about the rules.
Indeed.
My other issue is that the guidance is relatively defensive in tone – “how does this threaten us” rather than “how can we use this to help our residents”.
I’d like to see the Tom Watson’s Civil Service Code of Practice used as a model, with existing general conduct procedures doing the rest:
“Principles for participation online
1. Be credible
* Be accurate, fair, thorough and transparent.
2. Be consistent
* Encourage constructive criticism and deliberation. Be cordial, honest and professional at all times.
3. Be responsive
* When you gain insight, share it where appropriate.
4. Be integrated
* Wherever possible, align online participation with other offline communications.
5. Be a civil servant
* Remember that you are an ambassador for your organisation. Wherever possible, disclose your position as a representative of your department or agency.”
Thanks for the feedback Karl.
Wow, reality strikes. ‘Boundaries will be set by count cases’. This just makes me more determined to post stuff like this and carry on questioning the spin around SocMed in government.
.-= paul canning´s last blog ..Council blogging policy and self-censorship =-.
>‘Boundaries will be set by count cases’
That will always be the case
, and is why I argue that Defamation Law is a legal problem which ultimately needs a political solution to change the values and principles underlying the law.
The legal profession in the courts – like the police – are essentially (and a bit simplistically) implementing procedures and principles decided by someone else, and practice ethics demand that procedures can followed to their limit in the name of client’s rights to have their full representation, thus the possibility of practitioners altering those practices and procedures is much reduced.
On the Civil Service policy. it was actually written by Jeremy Gould who is one person who has made an enormous difference during his time in the civil service. Gould blogs at Whitehall Webby.
.-= paul canning´s last blog ..Council blogging policy and self-censorship =-.
I write a non anonymous blog about the video game industry, Bruceongames.com. Recently I have written some articles about Evony, all that I wrote was provable fact or fair comment. My blog is written in the UK and hosted in the USA. Evony is Chinese. But they are threatening to sue me for libel in Australia. I obviously cannot defend the case despite being in the right and they can enforce any judgement due to reciprocal arrangements.
So they will rewrite history in their favour, stifle fair criticism and destroy any notion of free speech. We are all potential victims of this sort of bullying. Our only way out is to rely on Streisand effect.
Obviously, being a blog I have written this up: http://www.bruceongames.com/2009/08/26/why-use-warren-mckeon-dickson-to-threaten-me/