LEWISTON — The City Council killed a proposed social media policy for employees after several people said they’re concerned that its unclear language would have a chilling effect on staff.

While city administration said the policy is meant to be a guideline and still ensures employees’ First Amendment right of freedom of speech, several residents and elected officials said they’re concerned by its ambiguous language that could potentially leave employees facing disciplinary action.

After a lengthy discussion, the council voted unanimously to table the proposed policy indefinitely, which kills the measure.

According to acting City Administrator Brian O’Malley, the policy change was brought forward by Angelynne Amores, the city’s director of marketing and communications, and the language was vetted by the city attorney.

O’Malley said the policy language was careful to say what actions on social media employees “should avoid,” and doesn’t prevent employees from posting personal opinions. The proposed policy did stipulate, however, that employees can not “disclose confidential or proprietary information.”

“If (an employee) doesn’t agree with something that’s happening, they can say this is my personal opinion, they just can’t be disclosing confidential information,” he said.

Several councilors and residents questioned why the policy was brought forward now, and whether it stemmed from specific employees’ actions online.

O’Malley said Amores presented it to update an outdated policy, which references now-defunct social media platforms such as MySpace, and was not a reaction to specific employees.

When the policy change was first made public, Lewiston Police Detective Joe Philippon, who is often outspoken on social media on city issues, posted opposition to the change. He said the policy “reads like nearly anything could be interpreted as a violation of this amended policy,” and questioned whether anything has posted in the past would be considered a violation under the amended policy.

Councilor Josh Nagine said he agreed that a lot of the existing policy is not “germane to anything in the world today,” but that he had three employees reach out to him about the proposal.

“The way this is written seems to dissuade people who work for the city to communicate on social media,” he said, and sometimes that communication is something as simple as a Public Works employee sharing paving schedules.

During public comment, former Councilor Luke Jensen questioned who would “police” the policy, and who would be the judge of what is considered confidential and proprietary information. He said the policy should include language that ensures staff “won’t be punished for what they say.”

“To see something that’s going to take away transparency and not add to it, why pass that?” he said, adding that it might make sense for a private entity, “But for a city, especially for Lewiston where it’s at right now, it doesn’t really help.”

Prior to the council vote to table indefinitely, Mayor Carl Sheline said the language could be “perceived as having a chilling effect” on staff and that the city should “air on the First Amendment side of things.”

Some suggested that the policy be sent back to a workshop where councilors could discuss it with the city attorney.

Nagine said he’d like to see the language updated, but that it’s “maybe not a top priority.”

“If we’re trying to attract and maintain quality staff, we might want to ensure staff feedback on this,” he said, and make it clear “it’s a guideline and does not effect employment or opportunities for advancement.”