Glamser/Stringer/Dvorak - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 15, 2006

RE: Glamser/Stringer/Dvorak

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Gumshoe wrote:

Communications Attorney wrote: You are correct on the law. Monitoring of university e-mail traffic is both legal and commonplace

Please don't think I'm seeking free legal advice, counsel, but how an off-the-record comment about this: You said that Coast Resident is legally correct. Granted. But the written USM policy promulgated at the time stated that emails would only be monitored under extraordinary circumstances, among other things. While the monitoring may have been legal, did it violate the university's own written policy at the time?

You know the old saw about free advice being worth what you pay for it. The best I can do in a pinch is give your questions a lick and a promise anyway. Here goes...

I agree completely with your earlier comment re the questionable ethics of Thames and company. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that legal conduct equated to ethical conduct. Quite the contrary. My intent was actually to deliver a caveat. The administration's conduct, while appalling, had the law on its side. In other words, be judicious with your confidential communications and the manner in which they're conducted vis-a-vis the university's hardware and e-mail accounts.

As to your second question concerning monitoring as a violation of university policy, from what little I know I'd say it's a case of dueling regulations; the question is which governs. Unfortunately for you folks, it appears that the university president, in your case Dr. Thames, as both arbiter and implementer of the university's monitoring policy could reasonably argue that he was the individual empowered to define "extraordinary circumstances." Much like the president declaring martial law, he'd be the decider as to whether extraordinary circumstances existed. I'd guess he received advice in this vein from Hanbury before the plundering of your e-mail accounts began. Back to your question, if his argument prevailed, then he'd be inside the law and university regs. Even if this argument wasn't sufficiently compelling, then he could argue that the law superceded university monitoring regs, and would probably still prevail.

I've got to make a meeting, but hope I provided some insight into your question. Just remember my original counsel. Beware, be careful, and be vigilant.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

My disagreement is with statements posted like: “There were flagrant, ugly crimes being committed” and “how many people's privacy was invaded” and “breaking into the faculty members' offices at night.” Faculty offices are also state (public) property and are subject to inspection at will. I would say doing so with out good cause and in the absence of the faculty member is bad form but it is not “breaking into”

Coast Resident, In lieu of the term "breaking into" would you prefer that the phrase "gently placed a master key into the door lock and politely traversing the threshold of the absent faculty member's office?"

Why might it be necessary to gently place a master key into the door lock of an absent faculty member's office in the dark of the night and politely traverse the threshold?

Are you aware of anything relevant in the scriptures that speaks to men and darkness? I was too busy swatting the pesty flying gnatts in church on that hot sultry summer night in the delta and I didn't pay much attention to what the preacher was saying that night. Besides, Bobbie Lou was waiting for me outside and I was eager to . . . well, let's just say that I wasn't paying much attention to the preacher.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Communications Attorney wrote:

Here goes... I agree completely with your earlier comment re the questionable ethics of Thames and company.

Communications Attorney, thanks for your prompt and informative reply. Just to set the record straight, however, please note that the only comment I made about ethics was a generic one and it was not specific to any person or group of persons. My generic statement was: "just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical."

Date: Mar 15, 2006

LVN wrote:

If it was ok, why was it done secretly and at night? If it was ok, iTech or whomever could have just walked in in the middle of the afternoon and said, "Scuse me, Prof, I gotta look at your hard drive. Won't be a sec." If it was ok, why was someone fired for refusing to do it? And no, I won't say the name.

LVN, with all due respect, I never did say it was “ok”, I only pointed out it was legal, which as others have noted, is a different issue than is it ethical (legal does not equal ethical). As to “why was it done secretly and at night?” to answer that would require a conjecture on my part as I am not privy to why Thames does what he does. Again let me state that the issues are not was it legal for Thames et al to do what they did (it was), but was it the best way to go about it (a management style issue) and what was done based on what information was learned from these actions(e-mail and office search).

The latter issue has for the most part (better or worse) been resolved with the Thames/Glassmer/Stringer settlement. As to the management style issue, I have stated that it is my personal opinion that Thames management style for the most part has been lacking. This is proven in great part by the fact that we are even having these kinds of discussions. Thames was placed in charge of managing USM thus the “management issue” is perhaps of some importance. Focus on this and not all these distracting side items if you want to move USM forward.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

As to “why was it done secretly and at night?” to answer that would require a conjecture on my part as I am not privy to why Thames does what he does. Again let me state that the issues are not was it legal for Thames et al to do what they did (it was), but was it the best way to go about it (a management style issue) and what was done based on what information was learned from these actions(e-mail and office search).

I'd prefer "a lack of management style" issue...

Date: Mar 15, 2006

One can be in charge of an organization or business and follow the law in every regard but still be a failure. If the person in charge is a tyrant and bully, he ultimately will fail regardless of how lawful his activities. If email was misused, i.e., email users did not follow the rules, there were many avenues to remedy the situation. Such was not the case at USM. The activities in which SFT and minions engaged were undertaken for personal reasons not for institutional reasons. That is, SFT could care less about the misuse of email; the email issue was a vehicle by which he could go after those who did not agree with him. He also knew that he reduce communication between faculty by making examples of Glamser-Stringer. SFT has rabbit ears and he cannot ignore criticism. He does not have any capacity for introspection, so criticism of him is an attack and must be punished. He would be going after faculty now full throttle if he had been successful in the Glamser-Stringer lawsuit. However, he lost, and the university lost. At this point the Board put some constraints on him that reduced his ability to react. Those constraints are still there and likely will be there until a year from this May.

What will be interesting as his departure date gets closer is how his enemies will start sniping at him. Each successful snipe will embolden others and by this time next year the woods will be full of snipers, and some who will be confronting him openly and publicly. With a short period left, any retaliation he tries will be difficult to enforce and time will be against him.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Cossack wrote:

... What will be interesting as his departure date gets closer is how his enemies will start sniping at him. Each successful snipe will embolden others and by this time next year the woods will be full of snipers, and some who will be confronting him openly and publicly. With a short period left, any retaliation he tries will be difficult to enforce and time will be against him.

I can't wait for SFT to rejoin the faculty. Do you think CoST may elect him to Faculty Senate so his great ideas can be debated? Surely his great leadership style will lead him to be President of FS. I can see it now SFT president elect and Myron Henry president of FS.

But seriously, Cossack, don't you think SFT will be insulted daily on campus when he rejoins the faculty? I can't believe he just wouldn't retire.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Cossack--a perceptive observation--especially since I agree in all points!

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Angeline wrote:

A little history: Dvorak's husband ran HR at the time and scoured everyone's complete files (have you checked yours since then?), Hanbury ran the legal interference, and PILEUM (aka Jill Beneke, ex-Worldcom employee) was running iTech at the time and set up the email monitoring mechanisms. Evil crowd. And as non-academic in purpose as they come.

I am ashamed of USM and ashamed of our entire university community for not choking the Thames administration on this wad of illegalities. Those victimized could have owned very dollar Shelboo has. They would have thoroughly fleeced his @ss. Don't talk to me about AAUP. It is a spineless group of blowhards. If AAUP did not take on the university for this issue of SPYING, then forget it in the future. Nothing but hot air, in my opinion. Actually, in FACT.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

It must be something. Getting up in the morning and going to work with an ego that can hardly be measured. And not realizing that all around you think you are a person with a Napoleon complex and actually hate having to associate with you. Poor Tiny. Poor Dana. Poor US!

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Cossack wrote:

One can be in charge of an organization or business and follow the law in every regard but still be a failure. If the person in charge is a tyrant and bully, he ultimately will fail regardless of how lawful his activities. If email was misused, i.e., email users did not follow the rules, there were many avenues to remedy the situation. Such was not the case at USM. The activities in which SFT and minions engaged were undertaken for personal reasons not for institutional reasons. That is, SFT could care less about the misuse of email; the email issue was a vehicle by which he could go after those who did not agree with him. He also knew that he reduce communication between faculty by making examples of Glamser-Stringer. SFT has rabbit ears and he cannot ignore criticism. He does not have any capacity for introspection, so criticism of him is an attack and must be punished. He would be going after faculty now full throttle if he had been successful in the Glamser-Stringer lawsuit. However, he lost, and the university lost. At this point the Board put some constraints on him that reduced his ability to react. Those constraints are still there and likely will be there until a year from this May. What will be interesting as his departure date gets closer is how his enemies will start sniping at him. Each successful snipe will embolden others and by this time next year the woods will be full of snipers, and some who will be confronting him openly and publicly. With a short period left, any retaliation he tries will be difficult to enforce and time will be against him.

It's beginning to sound as though you've achieved the same level of enlightenment as LVN. That's a high compliment, by the way. I look forward to your insights and always sensible approach, whatever the topic. Just thought I'd say thanks, and keep it coming.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Bubba's back wrote:

Are you aware of anything relevant in the scriptures that speaks to men and darkness? I was too busy swatting the pesty flying gnatts in church on that hot sultry.

I looked at my mom's King James Big Print Edition. Try John 3:19

Date: Mar 15, 2006

donald wrote:

Angeline wrote: A little history: Dvorak's husband ran HR at the time and scoured everyone's complete files (have you checked yours since then?), Hanbury ran the legal interference, and PILEUM (aka Jill Beneke, ex-Worldcom employee) was running iTech at the time and set up the email monitoring mechanisms. Evil crowd. And as non-academic in purpose as they come.

I am ashamed of USM and ashamed of our entire university community for not choking the Thames administration on this wad of illegalities. Those victimized could have owned very dollar Shelboo has. They would have thoroughly fleeced his @ss. Don't talk to me about AAUP. It is a spineless group of blowhards. If AAUP did not take on the university for this issue of SPYING, then forget it in the future. Nothing but hot air, in my opinion. Actually, in FACT.

With all due respect, Donald, just what would you have done? Are you talking of a lawsuit? Based on what crime and by whom? Just asking what you think the AAUP could have done, but didn't.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

I too wish more action could have been taken, but one of the main issues was money. Remember, Dr. Thames had unlimited resources at his back. Nobody at AAUP had the dollars. The students were really the ones who could have taken him to the mat.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

LeftASAP wrote:

I am ashamed of USM and ashamed of our entire university community for not choking the Thames administration on this wad of illegalities. Those victimized could have owned very dollar Shelboo has. They would have thoroughly fleeced his @ss. Don't talk to me about AAUP. It is a spineless group of blowhards. If AAUP did not take on the university for this issue of SPYING, then forget it in the future. Nothing but hot air, in my opinion.

Actually, in FACT. With all due respect, Donald, just what would you have done? Are you talking of a lawsuit? Based on what crime and by whom? Just asking what you think the AAUP could have done, but didn't.

I'll second that. Where were you when we needed you? Can you cite any laws that Thames and his enforcers broke with their "wad of illegalities," violations that could have been used as a basis for a lawsuit? Gary and Frank were well represented. So far as I can tell, neither of them were advised to file suit against Thames or USM. If we've missed something, please educate us in the error of our ways.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

LVN wrote:

I too wish more action could have been taken, but one of the main issues was money. Remember, Dr. Thames had unlimited resources at his back. Nobody at AAUP had the dollars. The students were really the ones who could have taken him to the mat.

What really could the students have done? If members of AAUP didn't have the money, the students most certainly didn't.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Look at the doctoral candidate in English who was in legal limbo for 20 years. I would say if there is any way other than litigation to get a measure of justice, find it.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Andy, I probably didn't phrase that well. If students, particularly Miss Quinlivin, had had the means and the inclination, they would probably have been on the most solid ground, legally. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I thought students should sue. Besides, they'd be grandparents before we saw the end of it.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Wouldn't you just love to know how Professors Ginn and Moore reacted to the news that their email was being read?

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Inner Circle wrote:

Wouldn't you just love to know how Professors Ginn and Moore reacted to the news that their email was being read?

They may have known of the monitoring, and were not really using it much. May have been cover.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

smokescreen wrote:

Inner Circle wrote: Wouldn't you just love to know how Professors Ginn and Moore reacted to the news that their email was being read?

They may have known of the monitoring, and were not really using it much. May have been cover.

Cover? You mean like the old police ploy where they make a big show of arresting their planted informant along with the bad guys, then quietly release him when no one's looking? That sounds a bit underhanded. Dishonest even. Yep, that's likely the way it happened. However, that crap cuts both ways. Reliable sources report that Tim Hudson accidentally learned the full scope of Shelby's e-mail monitoring shortly before he left for Texas. He had the last laugh by sending out misleading or totally bogus messages specifically designed to trigger wild goose chases by the evesdropping Thames minions. He gives full credit for the idea to DeeDee, who helped author some of the e-mails. Good material for a novel.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Watching Too Much TV wrote:

smokescreen wrote:

Inner Circle wrote: Wouldn't you just love to know how Professors Ginn and Moore reacted to the news that their email was being read?
They may have known of the monitoring, and were not really using it much. May have been cover.

Cover? You mean like the old police ploy where they make a big show of arresting their planted informant along with the bad guys, then quietly release him when no one's looking? That sounds a bit underhanded. Dishonest even. Yep, that's likely the way it happened. However, that crap cuts both ways. Reliable sources report that Tim Hudson accidentally learned the full scope of Shelby's e-mail monitoring shortly before he left for Texas. He had the last laugh by sending out misleading or totally bogus messages specifically designed to trigger wild goose chases by the evesdropping Thames minions. He gives full credit for the idea to DeeDee, who helped author some of the e-mails. Good material for a novel.

Great story about Hudson.

It is very likely (as was said earlier) that the Kentucky mafia was behind all of this. Angie monitored Moore because she wanted to make sure she (Angie) kept the upper hand. They monitored Ginn because of his relationship with Lucas, Paul because he'll go whichever way the wind blows, Hudson because they didn't trust him, etc. etc.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Watching Too Much TV wrote:

Reliable sources report that Tim Hudson accidentally learned the full scope of Shelby's e-mail monitoring shortly before he left for Texas. He had the last laugh by sending out misleading or totally bogus messages specifically designed to trigger wild goose chases by the evesdropping Thames minions.

That's funny as hell. Why didn't I think of that? It must have driven Shelby and Angie D nuts to read those phony e-mails, as much as they disliked Hudson. I'd guess Thames eventually figured out he'd been played. Hence the efforts to blame everything from SACS probation to leaky roofs on TH after he was long gone. ROTFLMAO!

Date: Mar 15, 2006

donald wrote:

I am ashamed of USM and ashamed of our entire university community for not choking the Thames administration on this wad of illegalities. Those victimized could have owned very dollar Shelboo has. They would have thoroughly fleeced his @ss. Don't talk to me about AAUP. It is a spineless group of blowhards. If AAUP did not take on the university for this issue of SPYING, then forget it in the future. Nothing but hot air, in my opinion. Actually, in FACT.

Monitoring of email is both legal and provided for by University policy. The issue at hand is that the University policy is written to allow broad latitude to those who would abuse it, as it was in this case.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

donald wrote:

Don't talk to me about AAUP. It is a spineless group of blowhards

It was the AAUP that publicly resisted the flawed drug and alcohol policy.

It was the AAUP that broke the bogus enrollment story.

It was the AAUP that investigated that highly publicized vita.

It was the attack on the AAUP's president and investigator that resulted
in the hasty departure of what some have called the Kentucky cabal.

What have you done "Donald"? And have you taken any public stands "Donald"?

Date: Mar 15, 2006

There's no justice at USM. The haves walk with impunity on the backs of the have-nots. There's only one person in the city of Hattiesburg who is fighting for the little man. His name is Mayor Johnny DuPree.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Justice for All wrote:

There's no justice at USM. The haves walk with impunity on the backs of the have-nots. There's only one person in the city of Hattiesburg who is fighting for the little man. His name is Mayor Johnny DuPree.

I thought the little man was Shelby Thames.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Ignorant Newcomer wrote:

Justice for All wrote: There's no justice at USM. The haves walk with impunity on the backs of the have-nots. There's only one person in the city of Hattiesburg who is fighting for the little man. His name is Mayor Johnny DuPree.

I thought the little man was Shelby Thames.

You forgot your punctuation, Newcomer. You need a

after your sentence.

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Justice for All wrote:

There's no justice at USM. The haves walk with impunity on the backs of the have-nots.

Take a look.

www.usmpride.com