Today's HA: SFT's email order was verbal

Date: May 26, 2004

Today's HA: SFT's email order was verbal

Date: May 26, 2004

"Thames said last week he is considering changing the university's policy to require the approval of the state attorney general or a judge before any monitoring takes place."

Yeah, right!! You're dah man, Shelby.

Date: May 26, 2004

from the article:

The USM Faculty Senate and the Academic Council have also asked for details on how the investigation was conducted, said Amy Young, sociology professor and Academic Council chair. They have not received the information, she said.

"If Shelby Thames thinks he has done only the right thing for the university, he should be ready to share that information with the public like a red-blooded American male," she said. "Secrecy sounds shady to me."

_________________________________________________

Brava to Amy Young!

Date: May 26, 2004

Okay, after reading the article...

The fact that the order was only a 'verbal' one makes it even more awful and suspicious. If it had been on the "up and up," wouldn't SFT have given Hanbury at least a range of dates to check out? I can picture SFT now, with his computer screen glowing eerily late into the night, sifting through all of the emails. Shame on you, SFT.

No one should feel safe using ANY USM communication device (email, phones, etc.) at this point.

PS-I love Amy Young's "red-blooded American male" quote! Good for you, Amy!

Date: May 26, 2004

Jim Keith represented the people of MS, through SFT, not SFT himself. Keith represented the university, which belongs to the people, not SFT. His attorney-client privilege argument is wrongheaded and should be challenged in a court by the FOIA requesters...

Date: May 26, 2004

Excellent, Amy!

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: elliott
"Jim Keith represented the people of MS, through SFT, not SFT himself. Keith represented the university, which belongs to the people, not SFT. His attorney-client privilege argument is wrongheaded and should be challenged in a court by the FOIA requesters..."

I contributed to the Stringer/Glamser legal defense fund, and I would also be happy to contribute to a fund supporting a FOIA court challenge such as elliott suggests, should AAUP decide to take that route. I can't contribute much, but I would gladly give till it hurt.

Date: May 26, 2004

Keith claimed attorney-client privilege prevents him from releasing the only other document related to the investigation. He said the document was a letter written by outside legal counsel to Southern Miss President Shelby F. Thames interpreting the university's e-mail policy.

"Most of it was verbal and it was very narrowly focused," he said.

"Most of it was verbal" implies that some of it was written. If Thames obtained outside legal counsel in this matter, perhaps the communication is protected, but wouldn't that depend on whether the "client" was SFT personally or the State of Mississippi?

"Narrowly focused" is just Keith's word on the matter.

Shouldn't the FOIA request have been reviewed by someone in the AG's office who had not been involved with the "controversy" at all?

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" "Most of it was verbal" implies that some of it was written. If Thames obtained outside legal counsel in this matter, perhaps the communication is protected, but wouldn't that depend on whether the "client" was SFT personally or the State of Mississippi? "Narrowly focused" is just Keith's word on the matter. Shouldn't the FOIA request have been reviewed by someone in the AG's office who had not been involved with the "controversy" at all?"

Invictus - your question is absolutely valid! How do we pin them on it?

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: educator
"Invictus - your question is absolutely valid! How do we pin them on it?"

Obviously I'm no lawyer but anyone who suspects they, too, were monitored, indeed, any group or class of people who suspect they were monitored has every legal right to seek counsel today and find the legal means necessary to discover if indeed their mail was monitored.

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jonathan Barron
"Obviously I'm no lawyer but anyone who suspects they, too, were monitored, indeed, any group or class of people who suspect they were monitored has every legal right to seek counsel today and find the legal means necessary to discover if indeed their mail was monitored."

Even prior to the time the news broke about Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer's computers being inappropriately seized and their emails inappropriately confiscated, I was beginning to suspect that something was rotten in Denmark regarding the USM work environment. Thus, I ceased saying anything of consequence via the USM communication systems (email or telephone). I had nothing to hide whatsoever, but I did not cotten up to even the remote notion that a third party might be privy to any communication of mine, regardless of how innocous those communications might be (and they were, I assure you, all innocuous). I suppose that my now-confirmed, ominous, gut-level suspicions demonstrate, to some extent, how terribly oppressive I perceived the work environment to be.

Date: May 26, 2004

The rumors of phone bugging (and I assume e-mail monitoring) went back as far as around the time the Deans were fired. I know at least one person that has been told (by whom he won't say) that he is currently being monitored. And a reminder--we know that they were monitoring e-mail unrelated to Frank and Gary. There is proof of that in the evidence package used at the hearing. So I don't believe 'em . . . . .and I have good reason.

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"The rumors of phone bugging (and I assume e-mail monitoring) went back as far as around the time the Deans were fired. I know at least one person that has been told (by whom he won't say) that he is currently being monitored. And a reminder--we know that they were monitoring e-mail unrelated to Frank and Gary. There is proof of that in the evidence package used at the hearing. So I don't believe 'em . . . . .and I have good reason."

And if you read on the "PUC" thread, you will see that SFT is all about justifiying his snooping. Nothing has changed, not one thing.

Date: May 26, 2004

Why do I doubt that a goodly number on this board do not share the opine of hope the writer expresses? It is simple. This board is blinded by hatred. I witness it here on a regular basis.

This hatred has blinded a vast majority of individuals here to believe they are on some holy crusade. That the cause is just, and so is any means to it's end. This was the downfall of Gary Stringer. Stringer believed and still believes that the ends justified his means in the Dvorak hunt. Many of you no doubt feel the same way and in your heart of hearts believe he did nothing wrong. Stringer was justified to conduct the investigation, I won't argue there. But, he crossed the line when he used the SSN without premission. It dosen't matter what he used it for or whome he shared it with, it was unauthorized by the individual who owned the number.

Many individuals on this board care nothing of the means to oust Thames as long as the objective is met. These individuals are no more willing to work with Thames than they accuse him of being. I am not saying you have no right to feel this way, but understand that you are as much of the problem as Thames.

Share the Blame.....Clean House.

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker's Risk Manager
"Why do I doubt that a goodly number on this board do not share the opine of hope the writer expresses? It is simple. This board is blinded by hatred. I witness it here on a regular basis. This hatred has blinded a vast majority of individuals here to believe they are on some holy crusade. That the cause is just, and so is any means to it's end. This was the downfall of Gary Stringer. Stringer believed and still believes that the ends justified his means in the Dvorak hunt. Many of you no doubt feel the same way and in your heart of hearts believe he did nothing wrong. Stringer was justified to conduct the investigation, I won't argue there. But, he crossed the line when he used the SSN without premission. It dosen't matter what he used it for or whome he shared it with, it was unauthorized by the individual who owned the number. Many individuals on this board care nothing of the means to oust Thames as long as the objective is met. These individuals are no more willing to work with Thames than they accuse him of being. I am not saying you have no right to feel this way, but understand that you are as much of the problem as Thames. Share the Blame.....Clean House."

He said "premission."

Date: May 26, 2004

With this board closing down tomorrow, I must say I'll really miss my daily lecture from Seeker's Risk Manager and Machiavelli about how much hate there is among the faculty and their supporters. I haven't seen so much self-righteousness since my days in Baton Rouge at the height of the Jimmy Swaggart empire. And we saw how well he turned out.

Date: May 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lewis and Gilbert
"With this board closing down tomorrow, I must say I'll really miss my daily lecture from Seeker's Risk Manager and Machiavelli about how much hate there is among the faculty and their supporters. I haven't seen so much self-righteousness since my days in Baton Rouge at the height of the Jimmy Swaggart empire. And we saw how well he turned out. "

L&G, you are my hero!