Committee debates social‑media vetting: balance accuracy and committee voice

The Newburyport Resiliency Committee spent a sustained portion of its meeting discussing how committee communications should be handled on social media and whether posts should require city staff review.

Sarah Tapen (committee member) described a proposed approach that would allow the committee to repost city‑issued notices directly, while non‑city items or third‑party content would receive a second‑level vetting by a designated city staff member and a committee representative. "If it isn't city‑related, maybe a city staff person and myself or whoever we were designated to sort of give a sign‑off," she said.

Arguments and concerns: Some members supported a staff‑liaison check to avoid posting inaccurate or premature information about city projects or timelines; others said putting all content through administrative review risked diluting the committee's independent voice. "If the group turns into making everyone satisfied, you lose your mission," one participant cautioned, arguing the committee was formed to drive resiliency action and should retain a clear voice.

Practical steps: Members suggested Sarah and another volunteer work with Sean and city staff to draft a more specific policy that lists which accounts are covered, who has posting access, and how comments are handled. The committee discussed whether to allow public comments on posts and noted many municipal pages either disable comments or moderate them selectively.

What happens next: Sarah and a colleague agreed to draft a more detailed procedure to circulate to the committee and to consult the mayor’s office on how a city‑wide communications policy might align with committee practices.