An Unnecessary Hurdle

Buried in the information technology policy that the Southampton Village Board adopted this month is a “media contacts” section that prohibits village employees from speaking to the media on the village’s behalf without first contacting the village administrator. It also states that all media inquiries should be directed to the village administrator.

But why? This policy seeks to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and creates an unnecessary hurdle to keeping the public in the know.

The Southampton Press and other news outlets routinely speak with a variety of village employees, from interviewing police about accidents and investigations and emailing the village clerk Freedom of Information requests, to keeping abreast of street closings and snow removal by staying in touch with the Department of Public Works during a blizzard. Adding a third party to the mix, with the implied ability to give or deny permission for another employee to speak or even write an email, will lead to village residents being less informed.

The IT policy was ostensibly designed to satisfy the village’s insurance provider and mitigate rising premiums for cyberattack insurance, but the “media contacts” portion — inexplicably included under a section concerning social media (e.g. Facebook and Instagram) and not news media — has nothing to do with cyber risks.

When Mayor Jesse Warren questioned why the Village Board would want employees to go through the administrator before speaking to the media, Trustee Roy Stevenson floated an example of an employee who wants to say that he hates the mayor or a trustee, and using a village-owned device to do so. “We would like that not to happen,” Stevenson said.

The way Stevenson explains it, this media policy is designed to stop employees from sharing with reporters the personal grievances they have with Village Board members. He did not identify a purpose that would protect the taxpayers — only a purpose of protecting elected officials, including himself, from criticism.

Another concern board members raised was that an employee might divulge confidential information to the media. That’s a genuine concern — but the solution is wrong. It’s already the case that employees may not divulge confidential information to anyone, so creating this carve-out that specifically targets the media is, again, unnecessary.

In their discussion, the trustees and village attorney said the media contact rule only applies to employees’ activities on village-owned phones and computers. But on actual paper, the policy that the board approved — and is telling village employees to sign — does not distinguish between village-owned devices and personal devices. In fact, the policy, as written, also prohibits in-person interactions between employees and the media without first contacting the village administrator — and it provides no alternatives during nights, weekends, holidays and vacations, when the administrator is not available.

Warren, the only member of the Village Board who opposed the measure, suggested striking the “media contacts” section from the policy — an appropriate step — but the trustees did not agree. What’s more, rather than continuing the debate in public, Deputy Mayor Gina Arresta made a motion that flies in the face of the state’s Open Meetings Law. She moved to table the discussion to executive session — the closed-door portion of the Village Board’s meeting, when the public is excluded and the video cameras are off.

Village Board discussions, under state law, must occur in public, with very narrow exceptions, among them discussions of matters that pertain to lawsuits, negotiations, and criminal investigations or that would imperil public safety or disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer. Discussion of IT policy does not fit the bill in any regard.

There is another exception that allows a Village Board to seek legal advice privately. But the Committee on Open Government, a state agency, has long been firm in saying that when an attorney stops giving legal advice and a public body goes back to deliberating, the body should return to an open meeting.

Another way of saying that: Having an attorney in the room does not give a board blanket permission to lock out the public and turn off recording devices. The legal advice exception is not a bludgeon for a board member to use to put a stop to public debate.

This was not the first time that the deputy mayor has moved to table a discussion to executive session when she no longer wanted to hear the mayor’s concerns. It is a habit that needs to be broken.

Also notable is that this policy opens a new avenue for the village to discipline employees, and it was adopted without any negotiations with the unions that represent them.

The Village Board should rescind this policy — and, in the meantime, village employees should refuse to sign it.