<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday, March 28, 2024
March 28, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Keep Track of Social Media

Archiving county officials’ posts lawful record-keeping, not free speech attack

The Columbian
Published: January 29, 2016, 6:01am

A suggestion that social media posts from Clark County councilors should be considered public documents — when those posts are related to county business — is rooted in logic. Consider these facts:

• In 2010, the governor’s office advised that social media posts could be subject to public records requests. The Municipal Research and Services Center, a nonprofit research organization that focuses on local governments in Washington, also advises that social media posts from officials should be considered public records.

• The state’s Public Records Act defines “Public record” as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government.” It later defines “writing” as “any form of communication.”

• And the law says definitions “shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed.”

So, while the issue has not yet been challenged in court, there is some legal foundation to suggest that social media posts are public records. And there is some reasonable foundation for Deputy Prosecutor Chris Horne to recommend that councilors’ posts should be archived — which is what he did last week. In order to ensure archiving, posts would have to come through the county’s computer server.

This did not sit well with Councilor David Madore, who on Saturday took to his Facebook page to decry the recommendation. “Yesterday revealed more of our county government’s continuing transformation to the dark side by the new liberal majority on the Clark County Council helped along by our county manager and prosecuting attorney’s office,” Madore wrote. He concluded with: “Notice that this Facebook page is my newspaper. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech, once lost, would complete our transformation to the dark side. That will not happen on my watch — not without a fight.”

At a Tuesday council meeting, Madore reiterated that he would not yield his First Amendment rights, failing to recognize that nobody has suggested that he should. In the process, Madore has demonstrated several traits that have served him poorly as a county councilor: He has completely misrepresented the discussion, suggesting that it is an effort to limit his speech; he has demonstrated an overly sensitive persecution complex; and he has picked an unnecessary fight with other public employees.

As Horne told The Columbian, “Clark County’s sole purpose in discussing councilors’ social media was simply to preserve records in the event that we received a public records request.” The importance of public records was demonstrated recently by a court decision in which the Clark County Sheriff’s Office was fined $35,000 for failing to respond in a timely fashion to a records request.

Councilors Jeanne Stewart and Julie Olson, along with council Chair Marc Boldt, agreed with Horne’s interpretation of the discussion. “If we use social media to actively engage in conversations, then we should use a county server so that those communications can be captured and put in a record so if we get a request, we can meet state law requirements,” Stewart said Tuesday.

There is irony in Madore’s assertion that he is a staunch defender of the First Amendment. He frequently uses his Facebook page to discuss county business and often blocks dissenters from commenting. Madore’s actions suggest that his version of the First Amendment extends only to his acolytes.

Fortunately, Horne and three members of the council have demonstrated a more thorough understanding of the First Amendment and of state law.

Loading...