Earle adopts pair of new policies

Earle adopts pair of new policies

Social media, personal property claims fall under new regulations

news@theeveningtimes.com

Earle adopted new guidelines that will govern what employees can post on social media, and when or if the city will pay claims to residents who suffer damage to their personal property where the city may be at fault.

“I think it is a great idea,” said Councilwoman Jimmie Barham. “I’m glad we have a mayor who had the forethought to do it.”

The city’s social media policy will allow employees to post on social media as long as the content is respectful, honest and accurate, and is clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the city.

Retaliation and posts that are discriminatory, harassing, or threats of violence or similar unlawful conduct would be prohibited and subject an employee to discipline or termination.

The city found itself needing to set clear policies for social media following an embarrassing incident in which a member of the volunteer fire department posted a comment on Facebook suggesting that NFL football players should be shot if they take a knee or stay in the locker room during the playing of the national anthem.

The comment made national news and resulted in an apology from the firefighter who was subsequently dismissed from the department.

Earle Fire Department has a policy which prohibits its members from posting comments on social media which reflect poorly on the department.

“It gives us some teeth,” said Mayor Sherman Smith. “We will have some policies in place now and they will know what we expect of them.”

Barham agreed. “It is wise for us to have a policy,” Barham said. “You don’t want people saying things out of turn on Facebook.”

Each employee will be given a copy of the policy and be required to sign an acknowledgment.

The city also adopted new guidelines to determine whether the city is at fault for residents who suffer damage to their personal property.

The city has insurance covering the city, elected officials, and employees when claims for damage to personal property alleged to have been caused by the city are made. In the past, the city would pay for damages on a caseby- case basis when the claim was below their deductible and they determined the city was at fault.

Claims that were above the deductible and officials felt were covered by insurance, were sent to the insurance carrier for action.

The city was written up by auditors for not having a policy in place. Auditors noted that the city paid $976 after a city tractor hit a parked car in an alley.

Auditors informed the city that they have some immunity from paying damages and need to have a written policy to determine when to send claims to their insurance carrier.

Under the new policy, all claims for damage to personal property made against the city will need to be turned in to the mayor or city clerk in writing.

The mayor — with the advice of other city officials as he deems necessary — will then made a determination if the claim is one that would be covered by insurance. If the claim is found to be one that is covered, the city will then forward it on to the city’s insurance carrier.

If the mayor determines that the claim is not covered by insurance, then the claim will be denied and

the city will send a response in writing explaining the denial.

“This has to do with if somebody hits a pot hole and gets a flat tire or a rock hits a window while we are out mowing,” Smith said.

“Those are the kinds of things we are talking about.”

Smith said he had an incident where a resident complained that they hit a pot hole and got a flat tire and wanted the city to pay for it. “I don’t know if she hit it or not” Smith said. “You can’t just go start paying for stuff just because people say it. If not, you can be deemed to be giving away city property. This helps cut down on fraudulent claims going forward.”

Councilman Kenneth Cross suggested they change the wording to include the city council and not just the mayor in the decision process of which claims to pay or turn down.

“I think it should be the mayor along with the city council,” Cross said.

Barham disagreed.

“Mr. Cross, sometimes we have opposite opinions,” Barham said. “If our attorney includes the council in this, I would hate to see us get in a position to where we couldn’t agree on something.”

“It’s just my opinion,” Cross responded.

Smith said he doesn’t care how they word it, but reminded Cross that the mayor is responsible for running the day-to-day operations of the city, not the city council.

“There is legislative responsibility and there is executive responsibility,” Smith said. “The mayor is the contractor for the city.

He or she is the one who executes the process. You don’t need to come back and help me.”

Cross reiterated his position that the council should be included in the process.

“I’m just expressing my opinion,” Cross said.

Smith said it has always been his policy to keep the city council as informed as possible.

“The way I operate is I am going to bring it to the council — because I want to,” Smith said. “I always want you to be as informed as you can. That’s just the person I am.”

By Mark Randall