A serious question on E-mail Policy? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 23, 2004

A serious question on E-mail Policy?

Date: Jun 23, 2004

As part of their job, faculty members routinely communicate with other professors at universities all over the country (or world) on a regular basis. This is done to coordinate research and to participate in professional organizations. This is often done during the work day in one's office, and it is important to use one's ".edu" address to keep things official and above board.

To build professional relationships it is necessary that people feel free to communicate openly. The nagging concern that one is being monitored detracts from the ability to develop the kind of personal relationships that lead to future research collaboration and professional cooperation with other scholars.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Seeker,

You never answered my question: How did loud, bullying faculty members push Aubrey Lucas into making Shelby Thames a Vice President in the 1980s--and into keeping Thames in place for 6 years, despite complaints from every poor sap who had the misfortune to report to him?

We might like you better on this board if you ever bothered to deal with evidence that appears to contradict your generalizations.

Still, you've asked a perfectly legitimate question.

While email snooping is allowed under current law, employers who don't do "throughput monitoring" probably don't do very much snooping Those who do engage in email snooping and boast about it are widely regarded as untrustworthy and unethical. That's what happened to Shelby Thames at the Glamser-Stringer hearing (and I'll bet he still doesn't understand it).

There is an opening, in the wake of the Glamser-Stringer hearing, for the faculty at USM to put forward a model policy that forbids email snooping unless carried out by a law enforcement agency to investigate crime. The gutlessness of the PC on this issue is eminently predictable, but the failure of the Faculty Senate to put forward a model policy, at a time when much favorable media coverage would be ensured, continues to baffle me.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"As part of their job, faculty members routinely communicate with other professors at universities all over the country (or world) on a regular basis. This is done to coordinate research and to participate in professional organizations. This is often done during the work day in one's office, and it is important to use one's ".edu" address to keep things official and above board. To build professional relationships it is necessary that people feel free to communicate openly. The nagging concern that one is being monitored detracts from the ability to develop the kind of personal relationships that lead to future research collaboration and professional cooperation with other scholars."

Flash is quite correct. To that, I would add that there are some e-mail communications which, if read by other than the intended recipient, would upset the sender tremendously. For instance, some legitimate e-mails from students to faculty can contain rather sensitive material. Similarly, there can be legitimate e-mails from clients/patients in the university's many training clinics. Professional ethics mandates that those communications remain confidential. There is more, but these examples should suffice. Yours was a good question, Seeker. This topic was covered previously on the old message board, but it is certainly worth repeating here.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Robert Campbell,

You make so much sense. Thanks for your observations.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"This is pretty standard in the work place in the USA today."

Seeker--

To echo Dr. Campbell, you haven't answered the questions put to you, i.e., who are the 12-15 faculty that you assert should "share the blame" and whose removal would "clean the slate." And why do they bear the responsibility with which you have charged them? Seems to me that you have received fairly courteous responses despite your failures to reciprocate.

Maybe it's because you have done a fairly courteous thing: you have asked a question instead of making a declaration. Or maybe it's because there are a bunch of teachers on this board who just cannot let a question go. It may be a character flaw.

BTW, the corporation that I work for does not even allow us to access outside e-mail, so the folks at USM do have an alternate communication avenue that is not available to everyone. I know of at least two other companies that have the same policy. The rationale is fear of virus infection. I guess it works. No viruses so far.

Oh, yeah. Thanks for leaving off your standard tag lines, too.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"You guys dislike me, I understand. But, I have a serious question.

I understand that everyone is upset about the email policy. Can't say that I care for it myself, but at the same time, why is it such a big deal? Each of you can and probably do have non-University email addresses. Before coming back to school, I worked for a large company that had employee email servers. We all had email addresses with said company, but we knew that those emails could be monitored. So, if I had an email to send that I didn't want them peeking at, I used my hotmail account.

This is pretty standard in the work place in the USA today."

Good questions Seeker. First, I don't dislike you. I don't know you. All I/we did was point out you had "feelings", "beliefs" etc. that were never supported by facts or evidence.

Robert Cambell, ram and others provided good answers to your questions. I would like to point out that corporations usually have hourly employees. If the spend TIME on personal business during company time, then the company if losing money.

Faculty are not hourly employees. Most consider themselves "married" to their job and discipline. We work at home nights and weekends. It is much more efficient to do personal business while at work (if necessary) than leave work just to avoid using the university computer. I use my home computer to do university also, the university in not being cheated in any way I can see.

In addition the computer is not just a typewriter, but also a communication device, like a phone. Tapping a phone is a very serious matter. I sometimes receive confidential e-mails from students (or I used to before the hearings).

I hope this answered your question, Seeker.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"There is an opening, in the wake of the Glamser-Stringer hearing, for the faculty at USM to put forward a model policy that forbids email snooping unless carried out by a law enforcement agency to investigate crime. The gutlessness of the PC on this issue is eminently predictable, but the failure of the Faculty Senate to put forward a model policy, at a time when much favorable media coverage would be ensured, continues to baffle me."

Dr. Campbell--

I agree that the e-mail monitoring is an issue that should be addressed as quickly as possible. It would likely receive favorable coverage, and it is an issue the average person understands. (So's nepotism, but that is -- well -- another subject.) Despite the letters arguing that SFT had the "right" to monitor e-mail messages, most folks just don't like the idea of somebody snooping in private mail.

Your skepticism with regard to the PUC is understandable; but, hey, I believe there are some good folks on board who have agreed to give it their best shot. If they were totally gutless, they would have just declined to serve . . . like about 80% of any given population. I hope for the best. You seem to expect the worst. I suspect we'll all have to settle for something in between.

I am going to hazard a guess regarding the FacSen. We may just be witnessing the inefficiencies and delay inherent in a deliberative, representative body.

The senate only met once or twice after the Mail Monitor confessed and before summer semester started. On top of that, new senate officers have just been installed in the last week or so. As happens every year, one third of the senate has just been replaced -- so there are a lot of new people to incorporate.

I hope the e-mail policy is now under review and a model soon will be proposed. But it is probably being considered in committee, and something will be reported to the entire body in a few months. And then, sometime later, after it has been reviewed some more, the entire senate may actually take some formal action.

If I am right, it is an irritating aspect of democracy in action. Slow the wheels grind, but exceedingly fine.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

"Despite the letters arguing that SFT had the 'right' to monitor e-mail messages, most folks just don't like the idea of somebody snooping in private mail."

I keep telling you guys. Get the packets of evidence and the hearing transcript from Amy Young. Look at the emails Shelby presented as evidence against G&S. Look at the dates. Compare the dates against things that the AAUP was doing at the time. You will find VERY interesting -- and damning-- stuff about Shelboo and monitoring of email. This isn't a question of Shelboo's right, as a corporate boss, to monitor "his" employee's emails. It's a matter of his keeping track of what was going on on campus, perceiving potential problems for himself, and beginning to take steps to ensnare those he perceived as enemies. The idea that what has happened here is somehow comparable to ordinary life in the corporate world is simply wrongheaded.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Watch how Shelby and conspirators do not hit Melissa Whiting about any of this. The case will be in Federal Court soon. Why won't they go after her? She has damning evidence against them.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

First of all thanks for the honest, intelligent, well spoken answers. I share your feelings on the issue for the most part. Now on to answer a few questions asked of me.

Robert Campbell - I did state that during Dr Lucas' term that faculty member imposted their will upon him. At that point and time Dr Thames was one of the faculty members pushing Lucas around. So SFT is guilty of being a bully both as a faculty member and president. Dr. Lucas could have prevented Thames from becoming President, but he gave a positive recomedation to the IHL for Thames during the hiring process.

ram - Nothing good will come of me posting my list of faculty members that I belive need to be dismissed. I have only had two of them in class myself, and despite what you think. I passed both of the classes one with an A the other with a B. I did post the list back on the FS Board, and it was deleted several times. Despite what you think I am not a internet board troll by the classical defination.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" Dr. Campbell-- I agree that the e-mail monitoring is an issue that should be addressed as quickly as possible. It would likely receive favorable coverage, and it is an issue the average person understands. (So's nepotism, but that is -- well -- another subject.) Despite the letters arguing that SFT had the "right" to monitor e-mail messages, most folks just don't like the idea of somebody snooping in private mail. Your skepticism with regard to the PUC is understandable; but, hey, I believe there are some good folks on board who have agreed to give it their best shot. If they were totally gutless, they would have just declined to serve . . . like about 80% of any given population. I hope for the best. You seem to expect the worst. I suspect we'll all have to settle for something in between. I am going to hazard a guess regarding the FacSen. We may just be witnessing the inefficiencies and delay inherent in a deliberative, representative body. The senate only met once or twice after the Mail Monitor confessed and before summer semester started. On top of that, new senate officers have just been installed in the last week or so. As happens every year, one third of the senate has just been replaced -- so there are a lot of new people to incorporate. I hope the e-mail policy is now under review and a model soon will be proposed. But it is probably being considered in committee, and something will be reported to the entire body in a few months. And then, sometime later, after it has been reviewed some more, the entire senate may actually take some formal action. If I am right, it is an irritating aspect of democracy in action. Slow the wheels grind, but exceedingly fine."

Ram: you are correct. The senate is really only partly active in the summer as we are all scattered to the high winds. We had a meeting on Wednesday to discuss the pay raise issue but only a small number of senators and visitors were present --

The exac committee, however, is maintaining an active role in communicating with the admin and the rest of the senate and maintaining a prioritized list of action and study items.

I have no doubt that these issues will be taken up and with gusto when we begin meeting again. We already have a good sense that this year is going to be busy and that we will need to continue to work hard to maintain the few gains but also to make more progress on those issues of concern . . . .

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
" Ram: you are correct. The senate is really only partly active in the summer as we are all scattered to the high winds. We had a meeting on Wednesday to discuss the pay raise issue but only a small number of senators and visitors were present -- The exac committee, however, is maintaining an active role in communicating with the admin and the rest of the senate and maintaining a prioritized list of action and study items. I have no doubt that these issues will be taken up and with gusto when we begin meeting again. We already have a good sense that this year is going to be busy and that we will need to continue to work hard to maintain the few gains but also to make more progress on those issues of concern . . . . "

Well said, Dr. Judd. As someone else said, the stones grind slow, but fine.