Muncy Township supervisors have placed what amounts to a gag order on the township chief of police and other employees — raising significant First Amendment concerns for a township whose supervisors already are facing numerous questions from residents, developers and county officials.

“Anytime the government seeks to restrict the free flow of information about matters of public interest, it creates First Amendment concerns,” said Melissa Bevan Melewsky, media law counsel, Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association.

“This policy, with its absolute bar on public employees discussing several kinds of matters of public concern, raises constitutional issues,” she said.

Specifically, in a recently held non-disciplinary supervisory conference, township Supervisors Terri Lauchle, board chair, Denise Artley, vice-chair and Heath Ohnmeiss met privately with Police Chief Christopher McKibben to go over the policy and procedures.

Similar policies have resulted in federal lawsuits against government agencies. A case was litigated in federal court over Allegheny County Prison’s employee gag policy that limited employees’ right to speak to the press about issues of public concern, Melewsky cited.

The policy in place at the township raises similar constitutional concerns and creates potential liability while chilling the right to speak, the press’ ability to gather news and the public’s right to receive information about issues impacting the public interest, Melewsky said.

“There have been instances where you attended public board meetings while on duty, in uniform, and participated in discussions from the floor,” according to a section of the policy and procedures that was specific to McKibben. “Going forward, that will not occur,” it stated.

Another section of the policy and procedures was broadly based for all employees, saying, “No public advocacy or pressure regarding board decisions: All concerns raised through internal channels. These expectations are not optional and apply uniformly.”

“Public comments, whether at meetings or through the media, carry the weight of authority when made by a police officer or chief,” the policy and procedures document states. “Going forward, public statements must remain factual, neutral, and within the scope of assigned duties … Concerns regarding staffing, budget, or governance are to be raised internally with the board, not through public commentary or press engagement,” it reads.

The township board held the meeting in its role as employer.

The purpose, documents state, was to clarify expectations regarding professional conduct, meeting attendance, communications, and importance of neutrality — particularly during a period of heightened public attention.

The board indicated it was responsible for township governance, policy decisions and maintaining public confidence in township operations.

“Employees may attend meetings on duty only when assigned to security or operational purposes,” it read.