Cityscape • March 2026 • City Social Media: Best Practices and Pitfalls to Avoid

In an increasingly contentious political environment, government bodies benefit from clear policies developed to help city officials navigate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, along with Chapter 21 (Open Meetings) and Chapter 22 (Open Records) of the Iowa Code. Formal technology and communications policies addressing such issues as city officials’ use of the internet, social media, computers, tablets, cellphones and similar devices can help ensure the best use of online tools.

The Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) guidance recommends that any such policy should ideally address how the governmental entity or its lawful custodian will retrieve public records from personal devices, such as a phone or laptop. Chapter 22 is silent on how a lawful custodian should retrieve, review and release public records. Each party involved needs to understand how access to these government-owned devices and private devices that are used to conduct government business will be handled if needed. The governmental body can enact policies that prohibit blending public and private communications, such as through a city email. To ensure that public records requests can be easily and accurately responded to, a government official’s personal and public communications should be clearly differentiated. A clear policy addressing the use of personal devices to conduct public business can help eliminate problems before they start.

Social media has created new avenues for local governments to connect with the public. When utilized correctly, social media can provide benefits such as timely access to information and the ability for residents to express their views informally. The explosion of social media has resulted in increased concerns from staff, elected officials and the public about how to facilitate accounts that are compliant with First Amendment, open meetings and open records concerns. A recent example of these concerns coming to a head is the U.S. Supreme Court case Lindke v. Freed, centered on a city manager blocking a user on the city manager’s personal social media page. While the ruling largely protected governmental officials’ use of personal social media accounts, it cautioned: “A public official who fails to keep personal posts in a clearly designated personal account therefore exposes himself to greater potential liability.”

Consider the implications of this ruling. Many elected officials and staff maintain personal social media accounts. Serving in an elected, appointed, or staff position does not negate those individuals’ First Amendment right to express themselves on their private accounts. However, when government officials, appointees or employees blend their personal social media accounts with official government business, they risk the exposure the Supreme Court cautioned against in Lindke v. Freed.

Elected officials may also have a page dedicated to their city service where they may share information with the public. While this type of social media activity can be beneficial, it can also create a need to develop a social media policy for a public page and post it for viewers to see. Be sure to consistently and fairly enforce the policy. Elected officials, appointees and employees acting in their official capacity on a public social media page can create liability for themselves and the City if their statements violate the law, including being defamatory, discriminatory, or retaliatory

Also note that there are limitations to how a governmental body, public entity, or public official can regulate comments on public pages. The First Amendment prohibits blocking, penalizing, or suppressing viewpoints and the individuals who express them on public forums. While public pages can have the ability to turn off comments on posts, those decisions must be content-neutral. In other words, the public page cannot block or delete comments of users that disagree with the opinion of the page owner unless they violate the policy (which may address comments that encourage violence, defamatory statements and the like). Remember that social media communications regarding public business on a public page and concerning public business on private pages, are subject to Iowa’s open records laws.

Thankfully, best practices have begun to emerge regarding social media. Any elected official or staff member should be conscious of the manner in which they are utilizing social media and the purpose of official communications. IPIB recommends that “to better ensure clear boundaries for compliance with Iowa Code Chapter 22 between a personal social media page and a government-moderated or public official’s page, the following best practices are recommended:

• If the social media is a personal page, clearly label the social media page as personal, including statements such as: “This is the personal page of…” or with disclaimers such as “The views expressed are strictly my own.”

• Avoid utilizing a personal social media page for clearly governmental functions, such as soliciting public comments on regulations or policies, hosting live council meetings, or similar official government-focused communications or functions. Id. at 203.

• Avoid posting personal information on an official or government-moderated social media page.

• Social media pages for candidates should follow specific guidance from the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board regarding the required disclosures and their limited use.

Another unique consideration public officials must navigate is how to respond if a citizen uses an official’s page to make a complaint on areas under the city’s purview or make an open records request. Talk with your city clerk to learn how open records requests are handled and the most efficient manner to forward such requests or complaints to the city. Public officials need to be aware that liking, commenting, or friending fellow members of a governmental body may result in a walking quorum that violates open meetings requirements. A majority of the council members engaging in social media conversations regarding city business at the same time could be considered a meeting that would be subject to the open meetings law. Having a policy governing these concerns for officials to share with citizens provides consistency and transparency.