As "The Church Lady" used to say . . . - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 27, 2004

As "The Church Lady" used to say . . .

Date: May 27, 2004

Convenient? Sorry, but it sounds too slick . . . I detect the connivings of a Risk Manager afoot in this . . .

Date: May 27, 2004

I realize that these may be pointless questions, but (a) isn't it very odd and unusual that such an important and ostensibly unprecedented decision was not committed to writing, and (b) does the failure to commit it to writing violate any university policies? If so, can anyone be held accountable?

In other words, can someone be held accountable for maneuvering to ensure that he is not held accountable?

Date: May 27, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"I realize that these may be pointless questions, but (a) isn't it very odd and unusual that such an important and ostensibly unprecedented decision was not committed to writing, and (b) does the failure to commit it to writing violate any university policies? If so, can anyone be held accountable? In other words, can someone be held accountable for maneuvering to ensure that he is not held accountable? "

Excellent questions!!!

A) I have to believe that this was planned . . . preciesly . . . in order for there to be no one who could be held accountable. It was a trial baloon, to see if they could get away with it. If monitoring turned sour for them, whoops!! we didn't commit it to writing, don't know who actually gave the order.

B) How can we know if it violates policy? We don't know what the policies are!!! Where's the Faculty Handbook? Isn't it nice to have an administration that can make up the rules as it goes?

Date: May 28, 2004

Hi all, yes I'm here too.

The "order" to snoop email was verbal, as in the other Angeline, SFT, Hanbury, and Mr. Dvorak all sat around and figured out how to save her job. My namesake Ms. Dvorak ran the email investigation through Pileum, hers and SFT's little technology snooping consulting group. Kind of ironic that she ran the investigation of the people who investigated her, huh? Now that's convenient! Oh yeah, her husband helped too - now his job is done - he saved his wife's job while rifling the HR files of others - so he can move on now. Ole Hanbury actually had little to do with the investigation of G&S, but his face did put a thin veneer of respectability on the proceedings since he was the RM.

Date: May 28, 2004

Not pointless questions at all. You could even make the case that that's become policy here: no paper trail means imminent deniability. Elliott Pood, one of Shelby's sharks, is notorious for not putting anything resembling an actual decision in writing, and is making himself look more and more ridiculous, under the circumstances (if that's possible), by appending to his emails a "confidentiality" statement that threatens legal action against anybody who shares his email with anybody else. He apparently doesn't know that NOBODY's email is confidential at USM. Sheesh.

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"I realize that these may be pointless questions, but (a) isn't it very odd and unusual that such an important and ostensibly unprecedented decision was not committed to writing, and (b) does the failure to commit it to writing violate any university policies? If so, can anyone be held accountable? In other words, can someone be held accountable for maneuvering to ensure that he is not held accountable? "

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"Hi all, yes I'm here too. The "order" to snoop email was verbal, as in the other Angeline, SFT, Hanbury, and Mr. Dvorak all sat around and figured out how to save her job. My namesake Ms. Dvorak ran the email investigation through Pileum, hers and SFT's little technology snooping consulting group. Kind of ironic that she ran the investigation of the people who investigated her, huh? Now that's convenient! Oh yeah, her husband helped too - now his job is done - he saved his wife's job while rifling the HR files of others - so he can move on now. Ole Hanbury actually had little to do with the investigation of G&S, but his face did put a thin veneer of respectability on the proceedings since he was the RM."

Actually, to be precise, in legal parlance "verbal" means anything "in words" (which would include an utterance as well as something written). The correct legal term for SFT's orders, as the AAUP website reports, is "oral."

Don't you love how, all of a sudden, Mark Dvorak's position as HR director was termed "interim" as he planned to leave? Yep, he was interim, alright.

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: East R. Buni
"Elliott Pood, one of Shelby's sharks, is notorious for not putting anything resembling an actual decision in writing, and is making himself look more and more ridiculous, under the circumstances (if that's possible), by appending to his emails a "confidentiality" statement that threatens legal action against anybody who shares his email with anybody else. He apparently doesn't know that NOBODY's email is confidential at USM. Sheesh."

If someone gets an email from Pood, please cut and paste his disclaimer on the board. That would be priceless.

Guess he got that idea from his "nebulous and misguided" counsel.

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: East R. Buni
""

East R. Buni,

Oops! I sure hope you haven't violated the statement of confidentiality be revealing the existence of the statement of confidentiality!

Date: May 28, 2004

Here 'tis:

Confidentiality and Privacy Notice:
This email is intended only for the individual(s) or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain information that
is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. Further, if the reader of this communication
is the original intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination of this communication, in any form,
beyond the original, intended recipient list without the
express written permission of the author(s) is considered a
violation of confidentiality and applicable privacy laws. If
the reader of the communication is not the original intended
recipient then you are notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please reply
to the sender or call 601-266-4316, and then please delete
the message from your inbox. Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" If someone gets an email from Pood, please cut and paste his disclaimer on the board. That would be priceless. Guess he got that idea from his "nebulous and misguided" counsel. "

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: East R. Buni
""

The only thing he missed in this little confidentiality rant is:

"Hi, Shelby!"

Date: May 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" Guess he got that idea from his "nebulous and misguided" counsel. "

Heck, he got the disclaimer itself from his nebulous and misguided counsel... you see nearly the same language on many, many law firm e-mail these days.

Date: May 28, 2004

Confused?? Does this disclaimer neutralize the email surveilance policy in effect at USM? Then if everybody adds this to his/her email-does that make the email surveilance at USM moot? If Gary Stringer had added this disclaimer, would he have been protected from Big Brother? Whose legality is legal?

Date: May 28, 2004

surveillance--oops--

Date: May 28, 2004

That's exactly my point---the whole idea of "confidentiality" on this campus is so completely ridiculous as to make anybody who claims it look like a fool.

quote:
Originally posted by: cockeyedoptimist
" Confused?? Does this disclaimer neutralize the email surveilance policy in effect at USM? Then if everybody adds this to his/her email-does that make the email surveilance at USM moot? If Gary Stringer had added this disclaimer, would he have been protected from Big Brother? Whose legality is legal?"