FCPG social media policy set for adoption July 19

A Fallbrook Community Planning Group policy for social media use involving official planning group matters is expected to be adopted at the July 19 planning group meeting.

Due to bylaw requirements the draft policy was presented at the June 21 planning group meeting and a 14-0 vote that night, with Stephani Baxter out of town and not having Zoom teleconference ability, set the July 19 date to vote on the adoption of the policy.

"I think it's awesome to see everyone coming together on that," said planning group member Tom Harrington.

An issue involving a social media poll which was not discussed by the planning group and resulted in a different preference than what planning group committee meetings determined led to the planning group's desire to create a policy to ensure that social media activity is not misinterpreted to reflect actual planning group matters.

The planning group voted 15-0 June 7 to create an ad hoc committee to provide a policy and to have Roy Moosa chair that committee. Moosa was given the authority to appoint members of the committee, and five other planning group members were placed on the ad hoc committee.

The ad hoc committee met earlier June 21 and unanimously recommended 11 points for the policy. "The spirit of working together really showed at this meeting," Moosa said.

One of those points, that planning group members who are presented with questions from members of the public should contact the chair rather than a county staff member unless directed to do otherwise, is not relevant to social media and was not included in the policy. The planning group also recommended clarification on two of the points, but those were accepted without opposition.

The points are that no planning group member shall identify as representing the planning group unless authorized by the chair (planning group committee chairs may address committee activities), that a planning group member can identify an issue but not claim to represent the planning group on that issue, that members can receive input and provide information on an item on an upcoming planning group agenda but can not give an opinion, that partisan political views should not be included, that political signs or messages not be visible on social media posts or during teleconference meetings (the clarifications include that this applies only to planning group members and not to members of the public participating in teleconference meetings), that a planning group member requested by a member of the public to provide information should refer that person to the planning group chair unless otherwise directed, that the planning group members should present themselves as impartial and unbiased on any planning group issue prior to planning group (including committee) discussion, that the planning group may have a social media page with conditions to ensure neutrality, that the planning group chair can appoint another planning group member to oversee social media pages, and that the social media policy is not intended to be more restrictive than the state Brown Act which covers public meetings or county Policy I-1 which addresses community planning and sponsor groups.

"The results turned out just great," said planning group member Mark Mervich.

"It's not an easy issue to address," said planning group chair Jack Wood. "It's brand new territory."