It's OVER!~!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

It's OVER!~!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Pary all you want, but your guys are gone!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Yippee
"Pary all you want, but your guys are gone!"

Uh, NO, it looks like your guy is gone!!! LOL!!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Nope... the deal has been cut. G&S agreed to resign. This is just an opportunity for them to submit some blather about their concern for academic integrity when, in fact, they engaged in a malicious witch hunt.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Yippee
"Nope... the deal has been cut. G&S agreed to resign. This is just an opportunity for them to submit some blather about their concern for academic integrity when, in fact, they engaged in a malicious witch hunt."

GO AWAY, YOU IGNORANT TROLL!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Yippie's quite right. It's over and the conspiracy theorists in here are already showing their anger.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Prove it. Tell us what you know and stop repeating yourself. Simple as that.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I don't have to prove it because you guys will know the result soon enough.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Stephen Dietz
"Yippie's quite right. It's over and the conspiracy theorists in here are already showing their anger. "

Interesting choice of words for someone who has voluntarily chosen to read this forum. . Dietz, I'm surprised!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Stephen Dietz
"I don't have to prove it because you guys will know the result soon enough. "

You know, I don't know why I am even using the energy to try to talk to you because you just seem to want to make us all mad. BUT what I am really interested in is HOW YOU KNOW that they have resigned. Obviously no one wants to give away their sources (on either side), but at least say that you have sources or "I am the source." Are you so high up there in the university, possibly the president himself or his aid, that you know this?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Everybody needs some entertainment now and then.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Stephen Dietz
"Everybody needs some entertainment now and then."

And I think we can all thank SFT for the entertainment value of his testimony this morning. . perhaps next weekend he can read more faculty emails to schoolchildren at the Hattiesburg Public Library and call it service to his community.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Stephen Dietz
"Everybody needs some entertainment now and then."

Pleeze - go away.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Yippe and I are not the same person and I do not know if they (Glamser and Stringer) have resigned or not. The results of the hearing have not been made public yet. I'm only saying that in my opinion it is quite obvious that Glamser and Stringer's days at Southern Miss are over.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I will go away soon enough for I have a job that actually requires working so I do not have time to sit here all day.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Stephen Dietz
"Yippe and I are not the same person and I do not know if they (Glamser and Stringer) have resigned or not. The results of the hearing have not been made public yet. I'm only saying that in my opinion it is quite obvious that Glamser and Stringer's days at Southern Miss are over. "

"In your opinion" is not synonymous with "it is quite obvious."

But you may well be right. Roy Klumb has essentially already told us what the IHL action will be. And he has 2-3 weeks to lobby his fellow board members, convincing them that this case will be the "watershed" event in his stated objective, the destruction of the "archaic" tenure system.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

It does not seem to have occur to all you supporters of G&S that based on the evidience presented by Dr. Thames today that G&S may have viloated the Federal Privacy Act as well a few other potential viloations associated with using telephone and e-mail communciations (under FCC control) to misslead Univ. of Kentucky officials.

The evidence also shows that Dr. Dvorak's resume is, in the opion of the Univ. of Kentucky, correct and factual. The only facist on the USM campus have been G&S who acted outside the rules in order to push their personal agenda and in doing so have caused a loss in moral on campus and an embarsment for USM in the public eye. That they acted through students to spread their poision is disgusting. Their supporters may aswell have put on brown shirts and hailed G&S at their rallies.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Very well put.

The atmosphere in here has turned from one of anger to one of complete silence.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

The only thing that seemed to even be a real issue was the social security number. Yet it had been released to the public by the university PR department. That doesn't make it very private.

The professors had nothing to gain by accepting anything other than reinstatement. They would have their retirement either way. They would not have agreed to quit before cross-examination if the judge had not already decided Thames' case was too weak to justify continuing.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Stephen Dietz must not be too busy. Note his participation in Tuesdays with Thames.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040414/localnews/231955.html

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Dietz is an economic development grad student - a partisan doofus in a fake department in a university torn asunder by blazingly incompetent administrators; Dietz is clearly delusional and desperately needs to consider the ramifications of not taking prescribed medication. Up yours, Shelbyville!

On a less inflammatory note, did no one notice Glamser and Stringer’s expressions, and their spouse’s expressions as the settlement was reached and as they left the courtroom? They certainly didn’t look unhappy; in fact, I understand that they were grinning ear-to-ear, and the thumbs-ups were exchanged between various G&S family members. Also, have Dietz and Yippe not read the posts by various trial lawyers on the subject of settlement procedure? Apparently, Reuben acted in a manner wholly consistent with courtroom procedure wherein the prosecution has presented an insufficient body of evidence, insufficient to the point where the case cannot be continued and the prosecution is forced to make a settlement – apparently due to their own incompetence. We don’t know, but we shall find out shortly, and, circumstances do seem to indicate that Glamser and Stringer have come out on the long end of the stick.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Shelby's Right
"It does not seem to have occur to all you supporters of G&S that based on the evidience presented by Dr. Thames today that G&S may have viloated the Federal Privacy Act as well a few other potential viloations associated with using telephone and e-mail communciations (under FCC control) to misslead Univ. of Kentucky officials. The evidence also shows that Dr. Dvorak's resume is, in the opion of the Univ. of Kentucky, correct and factual. The only facist on the USM campus have been G&S who acted outside the rules in order to push their personal agenda and in doing so have caused a loss in moral on campus and an embarsment for USM in the public eye. That they acted through students to spread their poision is disgusting. Their supporters may aswell have put on brown shirts and hailed G&S at their rallies."

If you call that blathering load of crap that Thames tried to say was evidence of Glamser and Stringer's guilt the truth, I've got some land at Big Bay Lake that I'd like to sell you. Thames had nothing-plain and simple. If you want to talk about something, let's talk about the illegal means that Thames used to garner this information- which were private emails apparently lifted off the harddrive from their computers.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Another point to consider is that Anderson was appointed to "ensure fairness" in response to the large public outcry regarding these firings. If this settlement is in any way against the best interests of the professors, not allowing them to present their full case will be construed as unfair, and the College Board will be left yet another huge problem on its hands.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: veritas
"On a less inflammatory note, did no one notice Glamser and Stringer’s expressions, and their spouse’s expressions as the settlement was reached and as they left the courtroom? They certainly didn’t look unhappy; in fact, I understand that they were grinning ear-to-ear, and the thumbs-ups were exchanged between various G&S family members."

Any more info from actual observers? How did SFT look?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Wary, the e-mails came off a USM computer. The federal courts have ruled employers have the right to monitor e-mails and other activities on their systems. That G&S did not have the sense to do this from their homes goes to show their intent appears to have been to use their USM e-mail address in an attempt to mislead and convince Univ. of Kentucky officials that they had authority to request the infomation they were seeking.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Shelby's Right
"Wary, the e-mails came off a USM computer. The federal courts have ruled employers have the right to monitor e-mails and other activities on their systems. That G&S did not have the sense to do this from their homes goes to show their intent appears to have been to use their USM e-mail address in an attempt to mislead and convince Univ. of Kentucky officials that they had authority to request the infomation they were seeking. "

Pure speculation. There was no evidence to back it up.

They were conducting the investigation on behalf of the faculty. They had the right to use the university computers.

Freshmen students with 1.0 GPAs have university email accounts. Only a true idiot would assume anything about a person just because the email comes from a university.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Aghast, the following is from an AP release,

"The professors have said their investigation into whether Vice President Angie Dvorak lied on her resume didn't start until December of 2003, when Thames failed to act on information given to him regarding Dvorak's credentials.

E-mails presented into evidence on Wednesday morning showed that Glamser and Stringer began gathering information on Dvorak as early as May 2003. E-mails showed that information they gathered dealt not just with Dvorak's academic credentials, but other information on her.

The university presented evidence that Glamser and Stringer used Dvorak's Social Security Number to gather information on her.

E-mails dated in July 2003 also showed the professors were gathering information on Dvorak then."

As you can read Aghast, the e-mails did come off their USM computers. In their statements this afternoon they did not deny it.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

couple comments -

USM did not have faculty sign or in any way acknowledge the new computer usage policy when it was put into effect. The administration legally has the right to read any employees email. BUT, they can NOT use what they find against an employee unless the employees understand the rules and regulations that are in place. In 99% of schools and businesses this is done with a written policy. For any policy to be inforced four things must happen.

1. It must be Distributed to all individuals who are expected to comply with it
2. Readily available for employee reference.
3. Easily understood with multilanguage translations and translations for visually impaired or literacy-impared employees
4. Acknowledged by the employee, usually by means of a signed form.

SECONDLY

We reamed the Hattiesburg American and Clarion Ledger for not doing REAL investigative reporting.. After the hearing, all I can think to say is, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE.. WHAT WAS THERE TO REPORT.

Im watching the news right now.. and it is pro SFT..

Lastly, since the pro-SFT trolls want to bring federal laws into this, I can say that I looked into it and NO federal laws were broken. This website should call the FBI (601)948-5000 and state that they would like to use the Freedom of Information act to find out all they can about Shelby Thames and Angeline Dvorak

Date: Apr 28, 2004

wusm has the archive audio up for personal study and reportage:

http://www.usm.edu/wusm/

Date: Apr 28, 2004

sorry about my 8000 grammaticla errors, I'm doing at least 8 things right now.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" Any more info from actual observers? How did SFT look?"

I saw SFT and his entourage (his coccoon of bodyguards) leaving the Union. I couldn't really determine his expression though. Kind of puffy and squinty. No real emotion that I could discern.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Flyonthewall,

With reguard to USM IT policy, you may want to refer to: http://www.usm.edu/infosec/policy

Under routine conditions, the content of electronic communications is not monitored and network connectivity will not be revoked without informing affected parties prior to the interruption of service. However, the university has the authority to:

monitor network traffic, including e-mail and Web browsing patterns
impound university-owned computers for any reason
disconnect any computer from the network for the purpose of isolating it for analysis or to protect other resources from attacks originating on the computer

USM does have policies and guide lines which either G&S were aware, or should have been aware.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Just saw the 6pm news on WDAM about the hearings. Is Thames really green?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

THE POINT IS THAT THEY HAVE TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY EACH AND EVERY PERSON IT PERTAINS TO..

YOU CAN NOT LEGALLY ENFORCE A POLICY THAT USERS ARE NOT AWARE OF.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Flyonthewall,

Have either Glamser or Stringer stated that they were not aware of the USM IT policies and rules? Have they denied that they sent any of the e-mails placed into evidence today?

The answer to both is "No."

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Shelby's "Right"

Despite your characterization of the professors' conduct as possibly violating the Federal Privacy Act or other laws, you offer no citations or other language supporting your position. My understanding of the Federal Privacy Act is that is relates to federal agencies' use and retention of personal information. I would be interested to know how you think the Federal Privacy Act is implicated here. The only provision that applies to individuals relates to obtaining records from a federal agency based on false pretenses.

In addition, you make vague allegations related to making misleading statements through e-mail and telecommunications equipment. I'm sure that we would all be interested in knowing exactly which federal crimes you think are implicated by these acts. Without the specifics, your allegations just ring hollow.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: mad grad
"Just saw the 6pm news on WDAM about the hearings. Is Thames really green?"

Oh, man, that was SO funny! He was sure green at 6:00, wonder what he'll look like at 10:00? Speaking of the 10:00 newscast, they say there is "more to come" at 10:00, but with the "no talking" rule in place, I'm not sure how much more they can report.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Everyone might want to note that Anderson said Thames was immediately making a recommendation to the College Board "to resolve this matter between Dr. Stringer and Dr. Glamser." He also said details of the recommendation will not be made public until it is reviewed and accepted by the College Board, which oversees Mississippi's public universities. He also said those involved would not comment until after the board acts.

If Anderson had found that Thames' evidence was insufficient, as some of you wish to believe, Anderson would have himself made a recommendation to the IHL Board himself that Thames' action be dismissed. The fact that Thames made a recommendation this afternoon would tend to indicate that Anderson found enough evidence and has most likely encouraged Thames to allow G&S to resign and avoid their records showing they were fired, and for G&S not to fight this action any futher or run the high risk of their being fired. Anderson's action appear to be the right one of quickly bringing this incident to and end and getting behind with as little additional turmoil as possible.

Its over. G&S are to leave and Thames will continue on. Thames does have the very large task, if not impossible, of trying to rebuild a productive working relationship between the faculty and the adminstration. The faculty also have the same task. The University and its students are what matter most so lets hope both parties rise up to the task.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

I've been listening to the testimony, and I have to say that neither of the two professors sounds like a man who has just agreed to give up a job he loves, nor does either sound like a man who feels publicly humiliated or ashamed or convicted. Similarly, the lawyer for the two profs doesn't sound at all embarrassed about representing these two. Instead, their tones sound like those of the kind of men described in an earlier message -- the kind who supposedly left the hearing smiling and giving thumbs-up signs.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Shelby's Right
"If Anderson had found that Thames' evidence was insufficient, as some of you wish to believe, Anderson would have himself made a recommendation to the IHL Board himself that Thames' action be dismissed. The fact that Thames made a recommendation this afternoon would tend to indicate that Anderson found enough evidence and has most likely encouraged Thames to allow G&S to resign and avoid their records showing they were fired, and for G&S not to fight this action any futher or run the high risk of their being fired."

These events can also be explained as the judge giving SFT a way to save some face.

If you listen to the recorded hearing, Gary Stringer and his lawyer are laughing, making jokes -- sure don't sound like guys who have just had their gooses cooked!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Shelby's Right
"Everyone might want to note that Anderson said Thames was immediately making a recommendation to the College Board "to resolve this matter between Dr. Stringer and Dr. Glamser." He also said details of the recommendation will not be made public until it is reviewed and accepted by the College Board, which oversees Mississippi's public universities. He also said those involved would not comment until after the board acts. If Anderson had found that Thames' evidence was insufficient, as some of you wish to believe, Anderson would have himself made a recommendation to the IHL Board himself that Thames' action be dismissed. The fact that Thames made a recommendation this afternoon would tend to indicate that Anderson found enough evidence and has most likely encouraged Thames to allow G&S to resign and avoid their records showing they were fired, and for G&S not to fight this action any futher or run the high risk of their being fired. Anderson's action appear to be the right one of quickly bringing this incident to and end and getting behind with as little additional turmoil as possible. Its over. G&S are to leave and Thames will continue on. Thames does have the very large task, if not impossible, of trying to rebuild a productive working relationship between the faculty and the adminstration. The faculty also have the same task. The University and its students are what matter most so lets hope both parties rise up to the task."

Kenbot, is that you??? Have you been drinking again? I think your job snowball just melted...AWWWWWWWW!!!!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Shelby's Right
"If Anderson had found that Thames' evidence was insufficient, as some of you wish to believe, Anderson would have himself made a recommendation to the IHL Board himself that Thames' action be dismissed. The fact that Thames made a recommendation this afternoon would tend to indicate that Anderson found enough evidence and has most likely encouraged Thames to allow G&S to resign and avoid their records showing they were fired, and for G&S not to fight this action any futher or run the high risk of their being fired."

These events can also be explained as the judge giving SFT a way to save some face.

If you listen to the recorded hearing, Gary Stringer and his lawyer are laughing, making jokes -- sure don't sound like guys who have just had their gooses cooked!

Date: Apr 28, 2004

DCeagle,

Background

Congress enacted the federal Privacy Act of 1974, which is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The act governs the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by federal agencies.(1) Nine states have enacted state privacy acts based largely on the provisions of the federal Privacy Act. Those states are California, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Virginia. The state acts govern the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by the states and political subdivisions of those states.(2) It is important to understand that, in spite of the name "privacy act", the federal and state privacy acts afford no greater protection against the release of confidential or private information than the federal or state open records acts with which they must be construed. The reason for this is that privacy acts typically provide that disclosure of "personal information" is barred unless required by that political subdivision's open records act. Also, it should be noted that none of these acts - neither state nor federal - govern the collection or use of "personal information" by non-governmental entities.

As G&S are located in Mississippi and their actions involved the Univ. of Kentucky, in Kentucky, and involved federally regulated means of communcations, if an investigation were to be under taken the FBI would most likely have jurisdiction. This is not ment to imply that G&S have violated any law. Only a court may make that finding.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Shelby's Right
"DCeagle, Background Congress enacted the federal Privacy Act of 1974, which is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The act governs the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by federal agencies.(1) Nine states have enacted state privacy acts based largely on the provisions of the federal Privacy Act. Those states are California, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Virginia. The state acts govern the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by the states and political subdivisions of those states.(2) It is important to understand that, in spite of the name "privacy act", the federal and state privacy acts afford no greater protection against the release of confidential or private information than the federal or state open records acts with which they must be construed. The reason for this is that privacy acts typically provide that disclosure of "personal information" is barred unless required by that political subdivision's open records act. Also, it should be noted that none of these acts - neither state nor federal - govern the collection or use of "personal information" by non-governmental entities. As G&S are located in Mississippi and their actions involved the Univ. of Kentucky, in Kentucky, and involved federally regulated means of communcations, if an investigation were to be under taken the FBI would most likely have jurisdiction. This is not ment to imply that G&S have violated any law. Only a court may make that finding."

This has nothing to do with one individual collecting information on the other. What is your point here?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

DCeagle,

Background

Congress enacted the federal Privacy Act of 1974, which is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The act governs the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by federal agencies.(1) Nine states have enacted state privacy acts based largely on the provisions of the federal Privacy Act. Those states are California, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Virginia. The state acts govern the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by the states and political subdivisions of those states.(2) It is important to understand that, in spite of the name "privacy act", the federal and state privacy acts afford no greater protection against the release of confidential or private information than the federal or state open records acts with which they must be construed. The reason for this is that privacy acts typically provide that disclosure of "personal information" is barred unless required by that political subdivision's open records act. Also, it should be noted that none of these acts - neither state nor federal - govern the collection or use of "personal information" by non-governmental entities.

As G&S are located in Mississippi and their actions involved the Univ. of Kentucky, in Kentucky, and involved federally regulated means of communcations, if an investigation were to be under taken the FBI would most likely have jurisdiction. This is not ment to imply that G&S have violated any law. Only a court may make that finding.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

My guess is that Judge Anderson was more than a little surprised by the lack of substance in Shelby's "evidence" and by the fact that Shelby had been spying on G&S's email for many months. Maybe Shelby didn't break a law, but who looked like they were conducting a witchhunt? Not G&S. Then Shelby's "you can pick on me but not my people" quip sounded so old-boy network. Shelby was out to embarass two professors who he thought had embarrassed him, and he wanted to pull a power play to show them who was "boss."

For those deluded enough to follow dear leader no matter the weight of countervailing evidence, ponder this: why in the world would G&S agree to "resign"? They had already intiated retirement proceedings and if they lost they would be fired/retired. What did they possibly have to lose by letting their attorneys tear into Shelby via a cross-examination? Nothing. Only Shelby had something to lose. Judge Anderson would never have stopped a case or encouraged a settlement in a situation in which he was hired to ensure fairness to the defendants after only the Prosecution had presented their case. He allowed it to be stopped because there was not enough evidence of any serious wrongdoing, much less illegality, on the part of G&S. If this isn't the scenario once the settlement is announced I'll stoop so low as to shake Shelby's hand.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

DCeagle,

Background

Congress enacted the federal Privacy Act of 1974, which is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The act governs the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by federal agencies.(1) Nine states have enacted state privacy acts based largely on the provisions of the federal Privacy Act. Those states are California, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Virginia. The state acts govern the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by the states and political subdivisions of those states.(2) It is important to understand that, in spite of the name "privacy act", the federal and state privacy acts afford no greater protection against the release of confidential or private information than the federal or state open records acts with which they must be construed. The reason for this is that privacy acts typically provide that disclosure of "personal information" is barred unless required by that political subdivision's open records act. Also, it should be noted that none of these acts - neither state nor federal - govern the collection or use of "personal information" by non-governmental entities.

As G&S are located in Mississippi and their actions involved the Univ. of Kentucky, in Kentucky, and involved federally regulated means of communcations, if an investigation were to be under taken the FBI would most likely have jurisdiction. This is not ment to imply that G&S have violated any law. Only a court may make that finding.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Shelby's Right
"DCeagle, Background Congress enacted the federal Privacy Act of 1974, which is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The act governs the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by federal agencies.(1) Nine states have enacted state privacy acts based largely on the provisions of the federal Privacy Act. Those states are California, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Virginia. The state acts govern the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" by the states and political subdivisions of those states.(2) It is important to understand that, in spite of the name "privacy act", the federal and state privacy acts afford no greater protection against the release of confidential or private information than the federal or state open records acts with which they must be construed. The reason for this is that privacy acts typically provide that disclosure of "personal information" is barred unless required by that political subdivision's open records act. Also, it should be noted that none of these acts - neither state nor federal - govern the collection or use of "personal information" by non-governmental entities. As G&S are located in Mississippi and their actions involved the Univ. of Kentucky, in Kentucky, and involved federally regulated means of communcations, if an investigation were to be under taken the FBI would most likely have jurisdiction. This is not ment to imply that G&S have violated any law. Only a court may make that finding."

Hello people - G&S obtained only PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE INFORMATION ABOUT DVORAK. Even Thames could only say that he thought their MOTIVES were less than sincere. The SS# thing is bulls--t since it was sent to Stringer from an official in KY and was sent by Lisa Mader to the media - or did I hear different testimony this morning? The "sharing confidential information about a faculty member and a student" was also BS as shown in G&S's testimony in the afternoon - which is why they insisted on getting their say in.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

E-mails presented into evidence on Wednesday morning showed that Glamser and Stringer began gathering information on Dvorak as early as May 2003. E-mails showed that information they gathered dealt not just with Dvorak's academic credentials, but other information on her.
########################

You are so right..................why didn't they begin as early as January 2003? Why on earth guy did they wait so long?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

Hey, "Shelby's Right"--

Don't bother to call the FBI. The statute you cited doesn't apply to individuals acting in their own capacity:

The act governs the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" BY FEDERAL AGENCIES (emphasis added) (1) Nine states have enacted state privacy acts based largely on the provisions of the federal Privacy Act. Those states are California, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Virginia. The state acts govern the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of "personal information" BY THE STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THOSE STATES(emphasis added).

Maybe Stringer and Glamser were agents of USM, and maybe USM is a political subdivision of Mississippi, and maybe because this controversy involves information passing across state lines in interstate commerce, maybe that makes it a federal . . . Oh, never mind.

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Shelby's Right
"Flyonthewall, Have either Glamser or Stringer stated that they were not aware of the USM IT policies and rules? Have they denied that they sent any of the e-mails placed into evidence today? The answer to both is "No.""
Shelby's Right:

When this computer policy was first promulgated I personally raised concerns with both provosts and my dean about the fact that there is a provision that discusses the university's rights but there is no provision for "faculty rights." Subsequently iI expressed those concerns in wiritng, and suggested that there was a need for change.

I also pursured this dicussion with Myron henry, president of Faculty Senate, and the Senate took up this issue on at least two occasions and you wil note that it is mentioned as a concern in several of the communications that came from Senate.

The fact is that this policy was not discussed with the faculty, the adminsitration never offered to work out our concerns. Foisting a policy on a faculty that objects to it is not the same as saying that we have all seen it and that it has been widely disseminated) with the implication that the faculty has agreed with it.) The faculty has not.

The policy, as far as I am concerned, is in defult and has been used not to protect the integrity of the computer system, but as a weapon on intimidation and now used to undermine faculty credibility.

I'd like to be able to pull emails off Shelby's computer -- I'll bet I could make a great case that he dislikes his faculty and is conspiring to fire some of them. Course, since we don't control the computer system and didn't write the rules, we can;t use the technology policy to our advantage.

Can you spell abuse of power?

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
""

Sorry for the double entry and also the typos but it has been a very long day and my fingers aren't so nimble . . . .

Date: Apr 28, 2004

"Shelby's Right" wrote:

Its over. G&S are to leave and Thames will continue on.

==================================

SR, there's no indication that Professors Glamser and Stringer are leaving, although I, as one of many who are leaving Southern Mess, would not blame these two gentlemen and scholars if they did decide to leave.

As for Thames continuing on:
IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL THAMES IS GONE!

F I R E S H E L B Y T H A M E S ! ! !
F I R E S H E L B Y T H A M E S ! ! !
F I R E S H E L B Y T H A M E S ! ! !

Date: Apr 28, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Yippee
"Nope... the deal has been cut. G&S agreed to resign. This is just an opportunity for them to submit some blather about their concern for academic integrity when, in fact, they engaged in a malicious witch hunt."

Obviously, a successful one...the surely found a witch.