This page provides an overview of various approaches to text messaging policies, including sample policy language and examples for local government staff and elected officials in Washington State.
It is part of MRSC's Electronic Records Policy Tool Kit, created in partnership with the Washington State Auditor's Center for Government Innovation.
Overview
Text messaging is an important part of communication that is increasingly used by local government staff and elected officials. Like many other forms of communication, it is important to remember that text messages that relate to local government business can be considered public records. In 2015, the decision in Nissen v. Pierce County clarified this by stating that:
text messages sent and received by a public employee in the employee’s official capacity are public records of the employer, even if the employee uses a private cell phone. (Emphasis added.)
All local governments should develop a clear policy for how text messaging can or cannot be used by employees and elected officials, as well as how text messages will be managed and retained to satisfy the requirements of the Public Records Act (PRA).
Below are various policy approaches that jurisdictions in Washington have taken, as well as sample policy language options for each of the approaches. Local governments can use or modify the language options provided to fit their specific needs. MRSC also highly recommends reviewing the Washington State Archives Text Messaging Guidance Sheets before developing a policy, particularly the information regarding the retention and management of text message records.
Ban on Texting
One approach is to ban the use of text messages without exception. While the simplicity of this approach is appealing, it does not account for the extent to which the use of text messages has become commonplace in society. For more on what to do if an agency employee or official sends agency texts from a personal device or account, please see MRSC’s blog PRA Applies to Work-Related Texting on a Personal Cell Phone.
Example
Texting Banned with Limited Exceptions
Another approach is to ban texting generally but provide a process by which employees can receive authorization to text based on specific circumstances.
Examples
- Benton County Portable Electronic Device Usage Policy (2016) – Generally no texting. Exceptions are allowed but must be approved in writing by a department head or elected official and must be coordinated with Central Services in order to “effectuate the archiving of such text messages.” See section 5h.
- Everett Electronic Communications Policy (2010) – Does not allow texting without approval from the Mayor or Mayor’s designee. Requests for exceptions must also include proposed procedures for meeting records retention requirements. See Policy 2.3G.
- Prosser Cell Phone Allowance (2022) – Allows texting only when the phone is synchronized with the city’s computer system so that proper retention can be ensured. See Policy 403.
Texting Allowed with Proper Retention Practices
Some agencies place responsibility on employees to ensure proper retention of agency text messages.
Example
- Grandview Personnel Manual (2022) – Does not have any specific policies regarding text messaging but makes it clear that work-related text messages are subject to public disclosure and that the employee is responsible for retaining such records in accordance with law. See Section 25.01.3.
Texting Allowed, but Only of a Transitory Nature
Another approach that some agencies are taking regarding text message policies relates to making a clear distinction between “transitory” and “non-transitory” records. Based on guidance from the Washington State Archives, “transitory” records have limited retention value and can be deleted when no longer needed for agency use.
Practice Tip: If a Public Records Request (PRA) is made, and there are transitory and/or other records that exist which are responsive to that request, those records need to be made available to the PRA requestor (subject to possible exemptions), regardless of whether those records could’ve been deleted as transitory records before the agency received the PRA request.
From a practical standpoint, this approach requires that agency staff and officials properly distinguish between a transitory vs. a non-transitory record. For agencies that go with this approach, we recommend that the policy is clear about:
- What constitutes a transitory record, including examples of such records
- What is explained above in the “Practice Tip” regarding transitory records that are responsive to PRA requests.
Examples
- Olympia Electronic Records – Allows texting of a routine or transitory nature but prohibits texts that involve substantive matters (“policy, contract, formal correspondence, or personnel related data”) Also says that any text messages that are work-related and need to be kept should be immediately transferred to the city’s network or devices. See Policy 4.4.4.
- Kent Text Messaging Policy (2015) – Draws a distinction between “transitory” and “non-transitory” texts and provides that non-transitory texts should not be sent. It also provides procedures to follow when a public records request for texts is received depending on whether the text is on a city-owned or a personal cell phone.
- Shoreline Use of Text Messaging for City Business (2017) – Establishes that all text messages should only be used to send messages of "transitory" nature. Provides examples of texts that are allowed and texts that are not allowed, as well as providing an exception to the policy for uncommon or major emergency responses.