Pride
At the College of Business of the University of Southern Mississippi*
*From the point of view of one full professor
What is this about? It's about information and how the University acquires and uses it.
Just so you know, I'm not asking for emails about anyone but me. The University says I have a right to access University email -- that emails are public records to which I am entitled under the Open Records Act. http://www.usm.edu/itgovernance/policy/docs/email_policy3_15_05.pdf
However, a right isn't worth much if the information is available only when the University finds it convenient or useful for its own purposes.
Emails were obtained from the University system, both prospectively and retrospectively, for use in termination proceedings involving Drs. Glamser and Stringer. How was that done? I think we, as citizens of Mississippi and faculty of a public university are entitled to know. As stated in the Hattiesburg American, "An informed, active citizenry is one of the best antidotes to secrecy in government."
When I asked to depose Dr. Thames, the University's attorneys claimed that it was for the purpose of harassment. At a hearing on the issue scheduled for mid-April, I expect that they will make the same claim. However, "harassment" is only a lawyer's ruse to protect a client from answering troubling but lawful questions.
As my attorney stated,
"Thames is the most relevant, knowledgable person to ask practical questions about the capture and storage of e-mails. He requested that Glamser and Stringer's e-mails be monitored and or searched/recovered. He knows whom he asked, and how he asked that this be done. He knows what his tech people advised him as to feasiblity and cost. He understands from a non-technical administrative perspective how it was all done. We are asking for the same kind of information. We want access to the same kind of information he had at the same cost." Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash [deposition of Dr. Thames], para. VI]
