Legislature Grapples with Proposed IT Policy Again

An information technology policy that’s stalled for more than a year came back to the forefront last week when some Putnam County legislators signaled their hope to pass a revised version, although a local civil liberties group has stated opposition to parts of it.

The wide-ranging policy would dictate how employees are supposed to use county equipment and systems while at work. Some of the policy requires employees to post honest and accurate information related to county business and prohibits personal devices to log on to county networks. The policy states employees shouldn’t expect privacy when using county data and regulates other issues connected to workers using county software.

Part of the proposed policy also delves into personal electronic use and speech for county employees.

The first sentence of the policy states all communications that relate in any way to the county, verbal or electronic, and made on or off duty, must comply with the county’s “values and expectations.” The first section of the policy states because each employee is an “ambassador of the county and its image and reputation” the county must ensure all electronic communications are appropriate when the county is identified.

“On personal time, employees may use their own electronic communications and conduct web posting freely provided that the communication is in compliance with this policy and all other county policies,” part of the policy proposes.

Shannon Brady of the county law department and Thomas Lannon of the IT department appeared in front of the legislature’s rules committee last Thursday. The latest proposal hopes to rectify previous concerns and questions surrounding the policy, Brady said. Brady said something like county email or county social media pages would apply during work and personal hours as long as the county data and system is being used.

Lannon said there could be a pop-up browser on county equipment to remind employees that they must conform to the county’s IT policy.

For the most part, lawmakers were receptive to passing the policy because they said it was long overdue.

Legislature Chairwoman Ginny Nacerino said the policy would address the ongoing changing landscape with technology and some county workers don’t realize they shouldn’t go on websites for personal use. She stressed this policy wasn’t for “snooping” or “Big Brother watching.”

“I believe this is really, really important to seal this up,” Nacerino said.

Legislator Carl Albano said it was important to have “ground rules” for county employees using county equipment and Internet. He said he would have pushed an IT policy forward a year ago, but there weren’t enough votes.

Legislator Dini LoBue, who was more skeptical, asked who would be in charge of making sure employees are using the county equipment appropriately, with the answer being the IT department and possibly a county department head depending on the situation.

She said the policy needs to be clearly defined because the county could be sued.

A similar IT policy was brought forward more than a year ago, but was put on pause after criticism from a few lawmakers and clear opposition from a Lower Hudson Valley civil rights organization. Lawmakers in Dec. 2015 complained the propose policy was ambiguous and that it possibly considered elected legislators on the same footing as county employees. Former legislator Kevin Wright called the proposal “asinine” during that Dec. 2015 committee meeting.

Last week, the NYCLU again came out opposed to parts of the IT policy because the adoption of this policy would result “in a chilling effect on its employees’ First Amendment-protected speech.”

Chapter director Shannon Wong wrote while the county has to grapple with social media magnifying speech, the county’s concern for its “image and brand” do not provide license for a government employer to exercise such far-reaching control over its employees’ private, personal communications.

“Please note that it has never been acceptable for an employer to go to an employee’s home, read his or her mail, peruse a personal diary or listen to an employee’s home phone call in order to monitor the contents of the communications that take place therein,” Wong wrote. “The same considerations should apply to electronic communication. A public social media post may be more easily accessible to an employer, but the core principle remains that government employers should not be in the business of actively policing the contents of its employees’ personal, off-hours communications.”

The next draft will be discussed at the November’s rules committee meeting.