TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:I have often responded to the email with a request that they do not send inappropriate email to my work email address. That response email then becomes part of my defense if ever asked the question.

I do the same thing.

I never send personal e-mail from work or expose my work e-mail address to public view. I give it only to specific people or a few companies that I do business with.

Nevertheless, I get spam from businesses and organizations that I have nothing to do with.

On my personal e-mail, I get messages from people I never heard of because someone responds to a three- or four-times forwarded e-mail. These are usually internet urban legends that have been circulating for years. Some of them are hateful or obscene.

- Jim

suthdj wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Seems to me that all written communications by a public servant are -- or should be -- public records, except confidential stuff relating to current cases and non-public personnel disciplinary issues.

+1

Some of you seem to be forgetting that no one ever made an open-records request to the Friendswood police department for documents relating to racial profiling, racial or religious discrimination, sexist conduct, or anything of the sort (as far as I know).

Nor is there a credible accusation of discriminatory conduct by the Friendswood police department. (I have been in Friendswood thousands of times and never got a second look. Many members of this forum live there or are members of PSC range, which is located there.)

Someone combed through millions of illegally obtained e-mail messages and found a few naughty words. Heavens. That is the worst problem in the world today.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Some of you seem to be forgetting that no one ever made an open-records request to the Friendswood police department for documents relating to racial profiling, racial or religious discrimination, sexist conduct, or anything of the sort (as far as I know).

Nor is there a credible accusation of discriminatory conduct by the Friendswood police department. (I have been in Friendswood thousands of times and never got a second look. Many members of this forum live there or are members of PSC range, which is located there.)

Someone combed through millions of illegally obtained e-mail messages and found a few naughty words. Heavens. That is the worst problem in the world today.

- Jim

The first email was alledgedly from the chief andindicated he referred to someone using the B word and also referred to their race. This IS disturbing if true. All I said is that this warrants his bosses looking into it. It may be something, it may be nothing, but if they don't look into the allegation they are foolish and irresponsible. I don't know the man, nor do I care about him personally, but this gives him the opportunity to clear his name if he is indeed innocent of wrongdoing. Otherwise, he LOOKS bad regardless of what is true otherwise.

BTW, I do know where Friendswoord is, I've been there and saying basically we should stay out of the way they run their business is a non-starter. Why shouldn't I be concerned with how a TEXAS PEACE OFFICER, the CHIEF of police conducts himself. This is NOT a reflection of the rank and file officers of the department. It is potentially a reflection of the individual officer who happens to be the Chief of Police. And it does potentially affect me. If we subscribe to leaving him alone because we don't live there, we should leave Mayor Bloomberg alone as well..... I certainly don't live in NYC.

As I stated earlier:

1. This should be looked into by his bosses to confirm or clear and/or deal with appropriately.

2. The hacker should be in prison.

And I'll add:

I don't have to live there to be legitimately concerned about the behaviour of public officials. It potentially may affect me and I expect and demand that they, public officials, live up to the standard that they should and most do live up to. I don't live in Houston either, but I was concerned when Rosenthal was DA....

It sounds like it is being properly looked into. There may not be "credible" evidence of wrongdoing by the Chief, but someone sure is into wrongdoing. I hope he didn't do this, his name is cleared and the rightful wrongdoers caught. I'm confident the forensics will show the truth. BTW,The Galveston paper stating his denials is not really credible evidence either.

Credibility is subjective.

I trust the Galveston County Daily News with its 169-year publication history to quote a local public official more than I trust a web site that has is trying to attract eyeballs and has no skin in the game.

And I trust a statement by a sworn LEO who has never had an allegation of impropriety more than anonymous accusations.

I'm also going to say it again, because I am surprised by the politically correct attitudes I am seeing: It is not illegal to make racist or sexist jokes or even serious statements. It is not illegal to make defamatory statements about a particular religion. Those are core free-speech issues.

All of these things are in bad taste. They reflect poor judgment on the part of the person making them. They may be contrary to agency policy. In the context of a specific case, they may be evidence of illegal bias or prejudice.

But firing someone over a single e-mail that meets none of those conditions is a huge overreaction, IMHO.

I should add that I do not know the Friendswood police chief and wouldn't recognize him if I met him.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Credibility is subjective.

I trust the Galveston County Daily News with its 169-year publication history to quote a local public official more than I trust a web site that has is trying to attract eyeballs and has no skin in the game.

And I trust a statement by a sworn LEO who has never had an allegation of impropriety more than anonymous accusations.

I'm also going to say it again, because I am surprised by the politically correct attitudes I am seeing: It is not illegal to make racist or sexist jokes or even serious statements. It is not illegal to make defamatory statements about a particular religion. Those are core free-speech issues.

All of these things are in bad taste. They reflect poor judgment on the part of the person making them. They may be contrary to agency policy. In the context of a specific case, they may be evidence of illegal bias or prejudice.

But firing someone over a single e-mail that meets none of those conditions is a huge overreaction, IMHO.

I should add that I do not know the Friendswood police chief and wouldn't recognize him if I met him.

- Jim

Jim, we pretty much agree. Firing him is an overreaction, I definately agree. And yes, credibility is subjective. He deserves a fair investigation, but his sworn word alone is not enough in my view. It should be easy to objectively prove that he did not do this if that is truely the case. IT experts should have no problem figuring this out. I suspect and hope he is innocent. If so, it should be commu icated as widely as the negative press he receives. If not, that's a matter for his bosses. Where you and I may diverge is that yes what was said (if he did say it) may be free speech, but indicates, to me, an attitude that I would not want my Chief of Police to have. IF he did say that, and I was his boss, there would be consequences. I don't know what that would be, but there would be consideration and some sort of action. If he is found to have not said this, I would hope those responsible are found, prosecuted, and sent to prison. I don't know the Chief either, but I sincerely hope the investigation clears his name. Although I have concerns about the direction some law enforcement tendancies are headed (increased use of SWAT, perceived increased ability to do warrantless searches and no knock warrants) I truly believe the overwhelming majority of LEOs are good and decent people, much more so than the general population, who want to serve an do the right thing.

For clarity, free speech is a constitutionaly protected right, but Texas is at at will employment state. I'm not saying he should be fired, we don't even know if he did what he is accused of doing. All I am saying is that free speech is not a shield to hide behind to protect employment. There are limits to speech that your employer may impose. Sometimes you have to make a choice.

seamusTX wrote:I'm also going to say it again, because I am surprised by the politically correct attitudes I am seeing: It is not illegal to make racist or sexist jokes or even serious statements. It is not illegal to make defamatory statements about a particular religion. Those are core free-speech issues.

First, I agree with about everything you've said regarding, "no proof", "give the man a chance", etc.

But from a management perspective, those are not free speech issues. They make the entity vulnerable to EEOC charges and lawsuits and can have a severe financial/litigation impact. To say that has no proper place in the workplace is not being "politically correct", it is being fiscally wise.

EEOC issues are no joke. I used to work for a well-known company that had to pay a $9 million fine, where emails such as the ones alleged here were part of the picture.

I see double standards are alive and well.

I know full well the legalities of emails whether on one's own computer, an employer's computer, or a government agency's computer. My problem is hypocrisy. While there may or may not be a legal significance, there is absolutely no moral distinction the comments being made by the Chief or anyone on this forum. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I know the Chief, I know how he runs his department, I know what he has done for Friendswood and I know how he feels about the Second Amendment. He's a retired Marine Corps. Col. and yes his "language" got rather salty. But he didn't publish his comments, that was done by a lowlife dirtbag that no one here seems to condemn. The Chief's comments were private emails to friends and colleagues. (Again, I'm not speaking in legal terms.) To those who want to end his career and cost Friendswood an excellent Chief, how about sending me an unaltered copy of your hard drive and I'll see if I can find something you would rather not be made public.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I see double standards are alive and well.

I know full well the legalities of emails whether on one's own computer, an employer's computer, or a government agency's computer. My problem is hypocrisy. While there may or may not be a legal significance, there is absolutely no moral distinction the comments being made by the Chief or anyone on this forum. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I know the Chief, I know how he runs his department, I know what he has done for Friendswood and I know how he feels about the Second Amendment. He's a retired Marine Corps. Col. and yes his "language" got rather salty. But he didn't publish his comments, that was done by a lowlife dirtbag that no one here seems to condemn. The Chief's comments were private emails to friends and colleagues. (Again, I'm not speaking in legal terms.) To those who want to end his career and cost Friendswood an excellent Chief, how about sending me an unaltered copy of your hard drive and I'll see if I can find something you would rather not be made public.

Chas.

Charles, if you are referring to me, I never once said he should be fired, I never once said he actually did anything wrong, I never said they were not private emails, I never said I wanted his career ended, and the difference between my hard drive and his is that mine belongs to me and his belongs to the gov't. Different standards apply. I also don't have the authority or ability to affect others lives directly as a result of my chosen profession in the public sector.

I did say he deserves every chance to be exonerated, and that i hope and believe he did not write these emails. I did say the scum that hacked into these should go to prison.

I also stand by my view that if he did say these things, regardless of his character, the incidents mentioned show a serious lapse of judgement, that should be dealt with by those that hired him. One did sound somewhat racist to me.

I have been a member of this forum for a long time but my last 2 serious discussion threads have gone badly. Maybe its me, so maybe I should take a break from this for awhile. I do know I will bow out of this particular discussion.

Thanks for all you do, I really mean that, even if I may disagree on any particular item....

Best regards,

GK.

It puzzles me, how such stereotyping and fearing mongering against Muslims is easily passed around. This weekend, we had our Eid Fitr (Holiday) weekend celebration. a Dozen or so of my friends met many times throughout the week with their families and we had a great time. All of them are first immigrants, from Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. All of them are highly Specialized Doctors practicing at the best Hospital in TX and LA. You can add 3 PhD-level Engineers working at the best Fortune 500 US Companies.

Why some claim that such people are having

"

The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence or even mental retardation, handicaps and diseases often leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are:

Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures and painful treatment procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control most often leads to anti-social behavior.

I only see the opposite.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I see double standards are alive and well.

I know full well the legalities of emails whether on one's own computer, an employer's computer, or a government agency's computer. My problem is hypocrisy. While there may or may not be a legal significance, there is absolutely no moral distinction the comments being made by the Chief or anyone on this forum. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I know the Chief, I know how he runs his department, I know what he has done for Friendswood and I know how he feels about the Second Amendment. He's a retired Marine Corps. Col. and yes his "language" got rather salty. But he didn't publish his comments, that was done by a lowlife dirtbag that no one here seems to condemn. The Chief's comments were private emails to friends and colleagues. (Again, I'm not speaking in legal terms.) To those who want to end his career and cost Friendswood an excellent Chief, how about sending me an unaltered copy of your hard drive and I'll see if I can find something you would rather not be made public.

Chas.

THIS!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I see double standards are alive and well.

That's nothing new. The government has been monitoring our email for years. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

It's like cops recording traffic stops and then arresting citizens who record traffic stops. Double standard. Alive and well.

Jumping Frog wrote:But from a management perspective, those are not free speech issues. They make the entity vulnerable to EEOC charges and lawsuits and can have a severe financial/litigation impact. To say that has no proper place in the workplace is not being "politically correct", it is being fiscally wise.

I understand that employers have both the legitimate power and responsibility to regulate what their employees say and write on the job—particularly high-ranking employees who make policy decisions.

There is no right to free speech at work for an employee of a privately owned company or organization. Constitutional rights apply only to the actions of government. I work for a company under a policy that would have me fired in a New York minute if I circulated offensive e-mail or spoke that way in the office.

There's the rub. The police chief works for a city. The city's rules have to meet a higher standard of scrutiny when they seem to impinge upon constitutional rights.

I am not a constitutional lawyer and don't play one on TV, so I can't cite all the relevant laws. A lot of it is federal case law.

Also a government employee is not an at-will employee to the same degree as one working for a private concern. Government employees are entitled to due process. Top-tier managers such as police chiefs nearly always have a contract that makes it difficult to fire them without an iron-clad reason. (Otherwise the employer usually pays them quite a bit to shut up and go away.)

We'll see what happens in this case. I just think it's premature to form even a preliminary opinion based on the information that has been made public.

- Jim