Today's PUC meeting - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 26, 2004

Today's PUC meeting

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Any report yet from today's meeting of the PUC, er, President's Council?
Robert Campbell"

Well, I sat in the peanut gallery and observed. I hope someone else will also report, as I’m sure my account will be stilted.

Endless discussions of how Shelby can retain the right to monitor e-mail (and phones and computer seizures, etc., etc.). Lee Gore was there to suggest that it was improper to seek the approval of a judge, as a judge would be involved only in a “criminal matter” and they want the right to run these “investigations” in non-criminal matters. Several PUCers repeatedly pressed for an example of an appropriate, but non-criminal issue, and Gore kept coming up with examples which were rather obviously criminal (misuse of funds, hacking into defense computers, etc.). Gore/Shelby suggest that they should seek advice from the state attorney general before electronic surveillance. Again, after being pressed by several PUCer’s, Gore conceded that he was the representative from the AG. PUCers attempted to get some faculty committee or other in the mix, but (in a cruelly ironic twist) Shelby became concerned with confidentiality.

Shelby did agree to let the faculty handbook committee finalize the handbook. (He seemed to be wanting the deans to do it??? I was unclear on that point).

There was also a long discussion of turning the PUC into an elected body. Shelby seemed to have a great deal of trouble understanding why anyone would prefer democracy. He ultimately agreed to have a campus-wide vote taken, to see if people would prefer an elected vs. an appointed PUC. (That’s right– we are going to vote to see if we want to vote.) Personally, I hope there is a third choice: elected, appointed or disbanded.

I would also like to add that it certainly appeared to me that none of the PUCers really wanted to be there. They seem to be either hiding (many were silent) or were pushing Shelby as hard as they thought they could. None of this appeared to be their fault.

Date: May 26, 2004

Report from PUC:

The important topics covered are:

1. drug and alcohol policy

2. email policy

3. faculty handbook

4. PUC as elected body

Drug and Alcohol Policy: Essentially, Thames appointed a committee headed up by Mitch Berman and others. After a bit of a battle, this it was decided that the new policy would go back to the elected bodies (faculty senate, staff council, SGA) for a final look.

Email policy: We lost some ground here. Thames brought in university counsel Lee Gore who essentially said that someone from the AG's office (which includes Lee Gore) will advise the president concerning email/harddrive/telephone monitoring (which LG refers to as "investigation"). After another battle, some body (hopefully elected) of faculty and staff will anonymously serve to look over any "investigations," again anonymously, before the investigation proceeds. This excludes anything criminal.

faculty handbook: again a battle. Thames wanted Bill Taylor and the deans to make changes. Thames wanted the new draft to be disseminated to all faculty who could make comments directly to their dean. After a long battle, we got agreement that this needs to be a discussionof the old faculty handbook committee (Bill Taylor, Myron Henry, Brad Bond) and back to faculty and faculty senate.

PUC as elected. No progress. Thames is willing to "consider" elected, so long as no members of faculty senate, academic council, graduate council, staff council, etc. are NOT elected to PUC. But not yet. Thames wants a few more quick meetings.

Date: May 26, 2004

It's time for the Faculty Senate (if it's willing to move on this issue) or for someone else to make a counterproposal that would ban email surveillance and other forms of spying on communications except in criminal matters.

Otherwise, Thames will just temporize until he feels he has more power.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"ban email surveillance and other forms of spying on communications; except in criminal matters."

Perfect. That would also mean he couldn't do it without getting a court order, meeting a reasonable standard of probable cause, etc. I'm imagining a judge laughing at him and Hanbury when they laid out their plan against F&G. None of that would have happened.

Date: May 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"It's time for the Faculty Senate (if it's willing to move on this issue) or for someone else to make a counterproposal that would ban email surveillance and other forms of spying on communications except in criminal matters.

I don't disagree with the spirit, but I think you're asking USM to give up what all other employers arguably have at their disposal, and when you consider their style is to destroy clearly established rights--tenure, for example--then I suspect it would be almost a wasted effort. Maybe a creative method to reach a similar result...? In a dream world, it could be the sort of policy an IHL Board might put into place for all the state's schools...?

(I know; I must be hallucinating...)

Date: May 27, 2004

Employers arguably have the right to do aall this snooping, yes.

But the failure to protect computer-based communications is a mistake, founded on the assumption that a computer is just another piece of company equipment.

And most employers would not want to become publicly known for email snooping.

Because of the terrible publicity Thames has gotten for email snooping, this is the perfect opportunity to propose a policy that maximally restricts it. And then let Thames and his cronies and backers explain to everyone why they're against the policy. If they reject the new policy, they will reap more bad publicity.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 27, 2004

I think I recall that "all" has one "a"...

Date: May 28, 2004

Since it was announced at the hearing that Thames had snooped on faculty email, I've noticed that ALL of my friends and colleagues at USM are now giving me home email addresses to write to. No one seems to want to use the USM address for anything other than office/school business. We have learned our lesson. I have been informing all friends not associated with usm to no longer email me at the usm address. I have always had an off-campus address but would often just tell people to email me at either one. No more. I also plan to buy a new computer this fall since I've been using a usm one at home. No more. I will do work on MY computer and I will email on MY computer. And nothing will be going through the usm server except what's on my office computer which is only for business. Just the way the public and IHL like it. I hate this atmosphere of paranoia. I hate working under administrators upheld by an IHL that is "at war with its faculty", to quote Neil McMillen.

No quarter!

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Employers arguably have the right to do aall this snooping, yes. But the failure to protect computer-based communications is a mistake, founded on the assumption that a computer is just another piece of company equipment. And most employers would not want to become publicly known for email snooping. Because of the terrible publicity Thames has gotten for email snooping, this is the perfect opportunity to propose a policy that maximally restricts it. And then let Thames and his cronies and backers explain to everyone why they're against the policy. If they reject the new policy, they will reap more bad publicity. Robert Campbell "

This is an important post. Robert, you're exactly right. Strike while the iron is hot, Faculty Senate! Put SFT on the defensive, and let him explain why he "needs" to snoop so much.