Not much to offer in the way of experience I'm afraid, but I wonder if there's scope for defining a "limbo" space between the organisation's communications, and "public" communications. This would have to be negotiated from both "sides" (internal vs external) but could offer a bridge between the two. e.g. Certain people in the organisation hold a "communication" role, these people sign up *as themselves* on social media sites (rather than as the organisation), and while their interaction is not *controlled* by the organisation, the individual does *represent* the organisation.

The idea would be to create a state of comms something akin to "parrhesia" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesia - those in this role would be responsible to *both* their organisation and to the wider audience, but both sides must realise that the individualism of this role is where the value lies.

OK, I'm thinking out loud. Could be one to clarify in a blog post later... :)

I helped a business friend deploy some social media apps on a totally separate network for security reasons. Employees have access to use small netbooks. This takes care of the main network being uninvolved. It means they can promote their product without compromising security on the main network. They find they are engaging and replying promptly to new leads. They are used solely for company promotion and monitored.

IMHO this is a win win approach. I also feel there is no point in trying to engage without encompassing whatever medium the people are using. If they want to use twitter then twitter it is. Times change fast, and to stay involved you have to move with the times. Ease of access and swift replies are essential. There is no point in having followers if you don't reply. The more you let your people use these applications the faster they will become used to them and learn the rules and not abuse, if you don't play the game you get unfollowed quickly. Having heaps of followers is nothing to be proud of, bums on seats don't count, just go for quality and engage, contribute, question and constructively use whatever the internet can give you in social media. People are generally on these sites to find information as well as give it. Quite often if your organisation warrants it is sometimes better to encourage two identities for users, one for work, one for home. Although it is nice to see the personal side of a government employee now and then, the real reason one follows them is for information, not amusement.
Hope this helps, it is only my take on it, but all feedback is only opinions when all is said and done, there are no real experts, only people using it! Anyone who professes to be an 'expert' in social media is usually an ass.

Kirklees Council are on facebook; some others are too: ask them?

Lots of councillors have blogs many are quite active with feedback eg www.frankbranston.co.uk elected Mayor of Bedford. Maybe this domain belongs to the Members?

Top tips on how IBM uses social media (via @cityferret):

http://bit.ly/oJ8Xz

http://bit.ly/tgEFc

You may want to take a look at a recent paper I did on Social Networking and SD Governance (http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/social_net_gov.pdf). While not aimed specifically at local government, this paper explores some mechanisms through which online social networking may impact on governance for sustainable development. Are social networking sites driving the transformation of the governance landscape, or are they merely diverting vast amounts of time from addressing the difficult sustainable development challenges at hand? And if they are useful tools for sustainable development, how can we ensure that they live up to their potential?

P.S. It may also help to define what each service is *for*, beyond the rather vague notion of engagement or communication - i.e. communication for what purpose? It's probably a good way in to thinking more generally about how citizen and councils interact - what questions are being asked, what responses are expected, etc.

But on the other hand, you don't want to overthink these things as well. Controlled interaction is very, very obvious on the web, and people will just go elsewhere if they think the conversation has "limits".

Hi Trish, same problems here at Salford. However I am on a project that is looking to bring in a work social network, along with personal profiles and hoping to be used to develop internal communications and learning.
A side product of developing an internal social network is that it could also be used to build your case for opening essential community based workers onto the wider social networks using as one of the previous commenters mentioned a remote network. The management issues are very traditional and sound like the utterings of those who want to manage a service but do not enjoy managing employees. The kind of conduct they fear is usually covered in terms of use of the internet policies - I know we have one here. I think there may be enough authorities branching out into the world of Web 2.0 and collaborative technologies that a 'critical point' may be hit and a wave of authorities will rush to use them. Those with forward thinking leadership will already be there, so it reverts back to how well you make your case I suppose - good luck!

We're grappling with these issues at the moment too. As people have grown used to using web 2.0 features like commenting, user generated content, building networks, their inability to do so at work becomes increasingly remiss.

Moreover, as more people use social networks to organise their work and personal lives, blocking access from the office starts to impact on your ability to manage your work-life balance. Taken together, these two factors start to have a negative impact on employee engagement.

Another issue we considered was that in Sutton our employees rate us highly; surveys show our employees will speak highly of us if someone asked them about the council. So by blocking access we actually prevent our employees from advocating on our behalf. Similarly, by blocking access from work we limit the effectiveness of any external social networking campaigns, as it's difficult for these to take off virally without beginning with our own workforce.

These four factors present, for me, a strong business case for opening access to social media for employees. Naturally this needs to be mindful of Government Connect standards, etc, which may mean having a 'two tier' access policy with access to some sites remaining restricted for those who need to access secure data.

The timewasting argument is a strong one, but (like excessive use of the phone or internet) is a management issue, for line managers to monitor.

We recently developed a Responsible Conduct Policy for employee use of social media which is being rolled out as employee access to these sites is granted. This is based on three principles - Be Professional, Be Responsible, Be Credible - and sets out responsibilities for those who use social media either at work, our outside of work if talking about the council.