BALTIMORE — In 2024, Alison Rudolph found herself in the middle of a social media spat with Carroll County school board member Steve Whisler, who accused the bookstore owner and former teacher of “sexualizing kids” because she promoted an annual Banned Books Week on her store’s Facebook page.

Rudolph said Whisler’s comments triggered a wave of negative reviews and damaged her business, and she petitioned the state school board to remove him from office. Her effort failed — in a February 2025 opinion, the state board criticized Whisler’s posts as unsuitable because of his position, but said there was no clear violation that warranted his removal.

The board advised Whisler to “exercise caution in his online posts related to his public office,” and said “his social media posts complained of here, and other posts we have reviewed, are not the sort of respectful behavior we expect from local board members who serve as leaders in the community and role models to our youth whose very interests they seek to represent.”

Whisler did not reply to a request for comment.

The case is an example of what happens when school board members use social media without clear guardrails — even when conduct is deemed unbecoming. The absence of explicit policy leaves authorities without grounds to act.

The gap is not unique to Carroll County.

The Baltimore Sun asked all 24 public school systems in the state to provide policies related to their school board members’ social media use.

Of the 21 school systems that provided information, only Baltimore, Howard and Washington counties had specific social media use rules for school board members that clearly outlined acceptable online conduct.

The Sun was able to confirm that 11 districts did not have any social media policy established specifically for board members. Four school systems had social media policies that were vague, mentioning social media conduct without giving clear restrictions. Three others provided general social media policies, but did not specify if they applied to school board members.

The state board of education has repeatedly told school board members to clearly differentiate personal posts from school board membership-related posts and recommended that local school boards implement their own social media policies.

Some school systems have declined to take that step.

State board President Joshua Michael said, “it can be confusing to the public about when a board member is speaking on their own personal behalf (or) on their behalf as a member,” which is why, he said, the state board recommends school boards implement a policy.

But it’s not legally required: “We think it’s best practice. That’s why we do it, and that’s why we recommended it.”

In a 2022 case, the state board recognized social media as a platform for discourse: “The exchange of political views, even if those views are undesirable to some, is part of the democratic process. Although it is not without limits, board members are free to engage in the exchange of competing views.”

Washington County gives strict parameters for how board members can represent themselves, and says they must refrain from mentioning other board members, system employees of other school community members on personal social media without their consent. They also aren’t supposed to “state or imply” that they represent the school system or board of education.

Howard County board members are instructed to give disclaimers on social media accounts: “Do not let negative emotions drive your posts or responses. Do not use abusive, profane, threatening, or offensive language.”

Baltimore County similarly cautions board members from letting their emotions get the best of them: “Do not allow anger or other negative emotions to cause you to post information that you will be sorry for later.” They list other specific social media rules board members should follow.

Other systems, such as Montgomery and Wicomico counties, define rules for school employees and told The Sun that school board members are expected to abide by those rules.

“Do not post or forward unsubstantiated rumors,” the Montgomery County guidance for school system employees says. “Think about how postings you share on social media may be interpreted by colleagues or the greater community.” Montgomery County Schools employees are prohibited from leading a reader to believe they represent the school system in an official capacity.

Wicomico County guidance says employees can’t post content that is “defamatory, pornographic, harassing, libelous, or that may create a negative or hostile work environment or that may intend to incite violence or criminal activity.” A Wicomico schools spokesperson told The Sun that board members are held to employee conduct rules because they use school system emails and laptops. They do not have a board member-specific policy.

Carroll and Caroline counties mention social media in board member conduct guidance, but they do not clearly define acceptable use.

Carroll’s board member handbook says the superintendent and members should avoid conversing about board-related matters over social media. Caroline’s handbook says members should presume that any communication with anyone in the school system is a matter of public record.

Several school boards make no mention of social media at all in board member conduct and ethics policies.

Sometimes conduct can be deemed markedly offensive, but the behavior doesn’t amount to the legal definition of “misconduct” that would lead to removal.

In Prince George’s County, a public school board member, David Murray, posted a photo in 2021 of other board members, with the image “altered so that a meme of the basketball star Michael Jordan crying (‘Crying Jordan Meme’) appears over the faces.” He deleted the photo within 24 hours.

The post was just one component of the case, but the state dismissed the removal request, while admonishing Murray’s behavior: “Mr. Murray’s social media post was inappropriate and unprofessional, and is not the sort of respectful behavior that we expect from local board members.”

Michael said that in his view, the need to require boards to adopt a policy isn’t yet there. “From my perspective, our local school boards are pretty good about upholding their own members to high standards, and we’ve got processes in place for addressing individual conduct,” he said.

Michael said that democracy gives communities the best tools to rebuke the actions of an elected official: “If people don’t like the conduct of their local school board members, they have agency to change that.”

Rudolph shuttered her bookstore in fall 2025 and later decided to run for a state delegate seat in this year’s election, opposing Whisler. They are both candidates for the state House of Delegates in District 5, which covers Westminster, Eldersburg and western Carroll County, along with a small part of eastern Frederick County.

Rudolph, a Democrat, said her interactions with Whisler, a Republican, “absolutely” influenced her decision to run.

“Maybe there was a time when it wasn’t the place of … organizations, governing bodies like the state board of education, to implement things like social media policy use,” Rudolph said, adding: “Times have changed a lot.”

©2026 Baltimore Sun. Visit baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.