Group requests access to a University of North Carolina(Chapel Hill) Professor's correspondences.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kanluwen**

Be warned that this is a pretty wordy article.

A group of law professors at UNC-Chapel Hill is standing behind Gene Nichol, director of the school’s poverty center, after a conservative think tank requested the left-leaning professor’s emails, phone records and calendars.

Thirty law professors signed a letter questioning the motives of the Raleigh-based Civitas Institute, which promotes limited government and implementation of conservative policies. On Oct. 25, the institute used the state’s public records law to seek six weeks’ worth of Nichol’s email correspondence, his calendar entries, phone logs, text messages and a list of electronic devices issued to Nichol by the university.

“Surveilling a professor’s communications is a really troubling approach to protecting liberty,” the law professors wrote in a letter published Tuesday on the Chapel Hill News website and in the paper’s Wednesday print edition. “We deeply admire Gene Nichol’s commitment to protecting and speaking for the state’s poor and disempowered. The only comfort we take from this sorry request by Civitas is our confidence that it will increase his passion.”

Nichol, the former law dean, is the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, founded at the law school and previously connected to former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. Nichol also writes an op-ed column for The News & Observer, frequently expressing his views on policy and politics.

Eric Muller, a UNC law professor who teaches constitutional and criminal law, helped circulate the letter in support of Nichol after hearing about Civitas’ records requests.

“I personally think that these kinds of requests are attempts at intimidation,” said Muller, who emphasized that he was not speaking for the group.

Civitas President Francis De Luca laughed at that idea.

‘What are they scared of?’

“They’re all tenured law professors making big bucks, far more than I make,” De Luca said. “I don’t have any fancy degrees or anything. What are they scared of?”

De Luca declined to say exactly why Civitas sought Nichol’s email. But he pointed out that Nichol, as director of the poverty center, is “not your normal faculty member.”

“I’m not saying why, but there is reason to want to know what he does, way outside of his role as a professor,” De Luca said.

In an interview Tuesday, Nichol said the Civitas records request came days after he wrote a stinging column for The N&O’s opinion page that was critical of Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, whom he called “Hapless Pat.” In it, Nichol chided McCrory for not attending the funeral of civil rights leader Julius Chambers and later signing “the country’s most oppressive voting bill.”

Nichol said he saw the records request as an easy ploy and payback for his piece on McCrory. “I think the theory is that, ‘We’re going to teach him a little bit of a lesson.’”

Civitas responded to Nichol’s McCrory column with one on Nichol. Posted on its website and written by De Luca and Jane Shaw, president of the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, the piece was titled, “Academic Freedom or Shrill Partisanship?”

The Civitas post denounced Nichol for referring to McCrory as the 21st century successor to segregationist governors during the Civil Rights era.

“Nichol’s nastiness and increasingly unhinged partisanship – legally allowable but an embarrassment to the university of which he is a part – reflects an arrogance and radicalism that have been building for years,” De Luca and Shaw wrote.

The piece went on to add: “If President (Barack) Obama and left-wing progressives want to see a more civil tone in public debate, they should start by addressing the rhetoric of Gene Nichol.”

The war of words has now become a battle over records.

Nichol pointed out that Civitas is not requesting records related to the poverty center. He said the all-encompassing nature of the request was unusual.

“The first question for me,” he said, “what do you do with emails from my daughters? ... I also thing the university ought to take the position that a blanket open records request just for everything you’ve ever received is not a real open records request. But I think the university is probably a little scared of Civitas itself, so I doubt that’s the position they’re going to take.”

‘Intimidating and stifling’

Muller said the request would set a chilling precedent for faculty.

“I don’t have the first idea who Gene Nichol talked to during those six weeks,” he said. “I don’t care. I think it’s just an effort at intimidating and stifling what ought to be a place where freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry are celebrated. That’s what a university is for.”

De Luca said anyone who works in state government or public universities should know that their communications are public records under the law. Media organizations, including The N&O, routinely seek emails of public employees. And any individual has the right to pursue such public records.

De Luca called the law professors’ concerns “a lot of bluster about academic freedom.”

When asked if he had been told to stop speaking out on politics by anyone at the university or in the political realm, Nichol paused and said only, “No comment.”

When asked whether the Civitas probe would curtail his commentary, Nichol said: “I’m too old for that. I try to avoid being bullied by thugs, so I don’t think I’ll change.”

Source

Here is a link to the opinion piece that Nichol wrote for the News & Observer

**Kovnik Obama**

De Luca wrote:“I’m not saying why, but there is reason to want to know what he does, way outside of his role as a professor,”

If you can't say, for any other reason then restriction based on the proceedings, then you shouldn't have sufficient cause to initiate the request.

Nichol wrote:“The first question for me,” he said, “what do you do with emails from my daughters? ... I also thing the university ought to take the position that a blanket open records request just for everything you’ve ever received is not a real open records request. But I think the university is probably a little scared of Civitas itself, so I doubt that’s the position they’re going to take.”

This. The University should have a policy against blanket request which doesn't specify a deontological ethics issue.

**Seaward**

Puuuuuuuublic reeeeeeeeeecords.

I don't know what you want everyone to say about this, Kan. Seems like a pretty pointless slapfight.

**Kanluwen**

It's more of a local thing admittedly, but given the statements I have made about the current political climate in North Carolina I felt it worthwhile to give an example.

Also, this comes on the heel of two things:
1) Francis DeLuca(the Civitas Institute representative from the original article I linked) was recently appointed to the State Ethics Commission.
2)Public records are now requiring "special service charges" to access

**Seaward**

Do you think the public should be able to access public records?

**Peregrine**

Seaward wrote:
Do you think the public should be able to access public records?

Depends on the public records and whether the public has a legitimate interest in having them. In this case there doesn't seem to be any legitimate interest in getting those records, and some serious privacy concerns since things like email with a professor involve other people whose activities aren't public record. For example, should it be freely available public record if a struggling student emails a professor asking for help? Keep in mind that the conversation could involve things like medical issues where the student has a right to privacy.

Now, if the group asking for those records could explain why they need them and narrow the scope of their search to specific items they'd have a much better case for getting that access.

**Frazzled**

My disdain for tenured professors sucking off the government teat is legendary. This falls under that.

**Ouze**

De Luca said anyone who works in state government or public universities should know that their communications are public records under the law. Media organizations, including The N&O, routinely seek emails of public employees. And any individual has the right to pursue such public records.

As it should be. I see no harm here. The partisan motivations of whomever filled the request are irrelevant.

Kanluwen wrote:
Public records are now requiring "special service charges" to access

This is horsegak of the highest order.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Public records are now requiring "special service charges" to access

This is horsegak of the highest order.

For the work blocked, and those on phones;

RALEIGH, N.C. — As a candidate, Pat McCrory pledged a transparent and accountable government. But now that he is governor, those seeking access to public records are often met with long delays and unprecedented demands for payment.

McCrory's staff has interpreted a one-sentence clause in North Carolina's public records law as providing broad authority to assess a "special service charge" on any records request taking more than 30 minutes for an employee to process. Invoices totaling hundreds of dollars have also been assessed for requests for digital copies of emails that have routinely been produced by past administrations without charge.

The fees appear to run contrary to the primary principle expressed in North Carolina's public records law, which says government documents "are the property of the people" and that copies should be provided "as promptly as possible" at "free or at minimal cost."

Agencies can charge under the law for expenses related to the actual cost of duplication, such as the cost of sheets of paper or a CD. However, there is no mention of a 30-minute limit on staff time.

Lawyers representing some of the state's largest newspapers and broadcasters have advised their clients that the demands for payment are "unjustified, improper and in violation of the law." Media organizations have been advised to pay the fees only under protest.

Mike Tadych, a Raleigh lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases, called the fees unprecedented.

"The special service charge for administrative time in excess of 30 minutes has the potential for enormous impact on accessibility of public information and is inconsistent with the notion that these records belong to the people," he said.

McCrory, a Republican, took office in January. However, media outlets began receiving invoices for records requests only in recent months.

Tadych and other media lawyers met in early October with Chief McCrory Legal Counsel Bob Stephens, Budget Director Art Pope and Communications Director Kim Genardo to discuss the new fee policy. Tadych said there has been no progress as a result of that meeting or subsequent talks.

Genardo said in an interview last week that the administration has processed many smaller public records requests without charge, including some filed by The Associated Press. But she stood by the policy of charging fees for requests that take more than 30 minutes.

"I can tell you that with extensive staff time, we are going to charge. Because everyone here has a job to do and a job function. And, yes, we do have to facilitate public records," Genardo said.

Top managers at some of the state's leading news outlets said they hope McCrory will change the policy.

"This is clearly an attempt to make public information more difficult to get," said John Drescher, the executive editor of The News & Observer in Raleigh. "These are records that already exist and that the public has already paid for. It's just a matter of the McCrory administration providing a copy of them."

Rick Gall, the news director at WRAL-TV in Raleigh, said his station had paid hundreds of dollars in fees for records under protest and expects to pay hundreds more. But he worried whether such charges might have a "chilling effect" on smaller media outlets or average citizens seeking records.

"I would hope that through discussions between the media coalition, our attorneys and state officials, that somehow we would work out a resolution to this that does not involve us paying what we consider to be inordinate and unfair fees," Gall said.

A coalition of 10 media companies that included the AP, the N&O and WRAL sued Gov. Mike Easley in 2008 over his administration's mass deletion of emails that were public records. That lawsuit was settled in 2009 through an executive order issued by his successor, Gov. Beverly Perdue, that requires all state employee emails to be archived for at least 10 years.

To meet that order, the state spent more than $1 million to automatically archive emails sent or received over state computer servers in a searchable database. At the time, officials said the system allows state employees to easily search and copy archived emails without assistance from information technology staff. Step-by-step instructions for the process are posted on a state website.

But the McCrory administration claims producing copies of emails requires specialized assistance from IT workers at a cost to the requester of $54.47 an hour. In addition, McCrory's staff says it may also hire temporary workers to handle public records requests, at a cost of $21.73 an hour.

Among the state agencies that has left some records requests pending for months and demanded hundreds of dollars in payments is the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. The agency has been under fire in recent months for hiring former political staffers at high salaries for jobs in areas for which they have little experience, huge payments to politically connected contractors and botched roll-outs of computer systems for processing Medicaid claims and food stamp applications. Those issues came to light, in large part, through public records.

At a legislative oversight hearing last month, DHHS Secretary Aldona Wos suggested complying with the public records law is burdensome.

"It is very time-consuming for us and is pulling us away from the work we should be doing, whether it's Medicaid reform, whether it's now the federal shutdown, whether it's sequestration," Wos said.

Wos' agency has at least 17 employees working in its public affairs office, according to an internal staffing plan. Only one is currently tasked with handling public records requests. That employee, Kevin Howell, is a lawyer who previously worked as the communications director for the N.C. Republican Party.

Drescher said the state has a large contingent of well-paid public information staff that should be more than capable of fulfilling requests in a timely manner and without charging excessive fees.

"This policy makes it a lot more difficult for the public to know what's going on in its government, which they pay for," Drescher said.

So will the policy of charging for these records disenfranchise minorities due to institutional racism, as well as unfairly impact those not as economically well off?

**Ouze**

At a legislative oversight hearing last month, DHHS Secretary Aldona Wos suggested complying with the public records law is burdensome.

"It is very time-consuming for us and is pulling us away from the work we should be doing...

I make that argument every time I get stopped by a cop; that complying with the law is a huge pain in the ass, and it usually works pretty well.

**hotsauceman1**

I am so confused. What gives these guys the right to look at someones emails?

**Frazzled**

Those emails are with a public entity. Thats the right.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
Those emails are with a public entity. Thats the right.

Not really. The disclosure of those emails is not for a fishing expedition like we're seeing here. DeLuca even flatout admits that in the piece:

De Luca declined to say exactly why Civitas sought Nichol’s email. But he pointed out that Nichol, as director of the poverty center, is “not your normal faculty member.”
“I’m not saying why, but there is reason to want to know what he does, way outside of his role as a professor,” De Luca said.

But of course none of that matters since they're big scary "tenured professors", huh Frazzled?

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Those emails are with a public entity. Thats the right.

Not really. The disclosure of those emails is not for a fishing expedition like we're seeing here. DeLuca even flatout admits that in the piece:

De Luca declined to say exactly why Civitas sought Nichol’s email. But he pointed out that Nichol, as director of the poverty center, is “not your normal faculty member.”
“I’m not saying why, but there is reason to want to know what he does, way outside of his role as a professor,” De Luca said.

But of course none of that matters since they're big scary "tenured professors", huh Frazzled?

Yea it is the right. He is a public employee. Stare decisis in many jurisdictions is such that public entity emails are subject to public disclosure laws. I don't give a flying feth about intent as that wasn't what the point was about.

**hotsauceman1**

So if you work for the government you are subject to give you emails to people? And do you hate professors? Or are you one of those people who think everyone who goes to college is uppity?

**d-usa**

The problem with open records such as University emails is that it includes emails with people that are not subject t to open records requirements.

That is the balancing act. The activities of a professor, on university owned hardware and software, is by law a public record and can be requested. But students will email personal details to their professors because they assume that they have an expectation of privacy.

If the professor is using his work email for non-work related activities that he would like to remain secret then he should follow the lead of our elected officials in Oklahoma:

"Here are all my emails, you see I didn't do anything questionable. What's that over there you ask? That's my private Yahoo mail account, not public at all. I never use it at work or for government related things *wink wink*"

**Daba**

Freedom of Information act/bill means the document fall under it, information has to be provided, if the the request is in writing. You don't even need to give a reason.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So if you work for the government you are subject to give you emails to people? And do you hate professors? Or are you one of those people who think everyone who goes to college is uppity?

1. Yes
2. No I hate tenure.
3. Everyone who goes to college is very uppity. on the positive the Boy has an A average in what is effectively his second year (but he just started). Frazzled proud.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daba wrote:
Freedom of Information act/bill means the document fall under it, information has to be provided, if the the request is in writing. You don't even need to give a reason.

Exactly. Good reason bad reason no reason. Not saying I agree with it, just that thats generally da rule.

**Kanluwen**

So basically, once again, you cannot see the precedent being set here?

Pathetic, Frazzled.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
So basically, once again, you cannot see the precedent being set here?

Pathetic, Frazzled.

What precedent. They could already do that.

As for the personal comment, considering you're a lovely proponent for the destruction of the Bill of Rights by The Man, you don't have a leg to stand on, and I take it as a complement.

Do you get mad at your calculator when it spits out a number you don't like too?

**Kanluwen**

For someone who is supposed to be a lawyer and so concerned with the Bill of Rights, I'm surprised that you cannot see the precedent here.

The governor of a state has now used a political attack group to go after critics. And to top it off?

That same governor now has appointed the leader of said political attack group to a position in his administration.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
For someone who is supposed to be a lawyer and so concerned with the Bill of Rights, I'm surprised that you cannot see the precedent here.

The governor of a state has now used a political attack group to go after critics. And to top it off?

That same governor now has appointed the leader of said political attack group to a position in his administration.

My response was to whether or not it was legal. People who work for the government should not expect privacy for what they do there. If you don't like it, don't work for the government.

In actuality I don't know anything about the situation so I am not commenting on it. PLus I don't really care about North Carolina. They have no inherent skill in the art of queso.

**nkelsch**

This happens all the time in government agencies. You take the King's coin, you do the King's bidding.

Your email is not your email. It is a government-owned tool for you to do your work. If you are doing personal and inappropriate things on your government work phones or emails, you are held responsible for your actions and it is a matter of public record.

Work emails in private companies are also not private and is property of your employer which they can do with as they please.

If you want privacy... go get gmail (lawl)

**hotsauceman1**

The point is, Why do they want these emails, and what about emails from students(Who are not on the Kings coin)

Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
So if you work for the government you are subject to give you emails to people? And do you hate professors? Or are you one of those people who think everyone who goes to college is uppity?

1. Yes
2. No I hate tenure.
3. Everyone who goes to college is very uppity. on the positive the Boy has an A average in what is effectively his second year (but he just started). Frazzled proud.

.

1: That is a gross invasion of privacy. Not only for people who own the email, but people who sent them
2: Tenure is a good system, I prevents people who have been there long enough from loosing their job.
3: good for him, Im poised for going to one of the best schools in the entire state GO BEARS!!!!!!!!!!
3B Not veryone is uppity, but some people consider academia uppity which I dont understand

**juraigamer**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I am so confused. What gives these guys the right to look at someones emails?

Republicanismism

Also refered to as "political party petty tantrum syndrome"

**nkelsch**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

3B Not veryone is uppity, but some people consider academia uppity which I dont understand

College professors are not qualified to teach, simply to be 'subject matter experts'. This results in a 'keep up for fail' attitude which means a lot of college is self-education. Tenure makes it hard for professors who can't or won't teach from being removed. I have seen professors who say "Women can't do math, if you are a female, you will earn no higher than a C in my class." and they get away with it and there is nothing anyone can do. I have also seen professors who grade people based upon how much the students fundraise for his personal charities and doesn't actually teach. He gives coursework for self-study, holds no classes and your grade is based upon how much charity you raise for his foundation. He grades on a Bell curve so half the people will fail regardless and most people will be forced to fundraise for a C at best. Again, nothing can be done and they are like 'you should expect such freedom in higher education.'

Which you pay for the privilege to educate yourself and put yourself in almost crippling debt which is close to enslavement for some.

And it is all for money. To think colleges do it for 'the kids' are naïve or liars. And they upsell college to people who shouldn't be going and they discredit very valid alternatives to higher education all in the name of driving people through their system with no need for them to succeed, become educated or successful. Higher education is a myth and pointless for a vast majority of people and they would be better off without 100k of debt and a worthless degree and zero skills.

There is no expectation of privacy, people who send emails to government emails have no expectation of privacy. Who guarantees this false premise of privacy? Pretty much every 'contact us' has clear disclaimers saying there is no privacy and most companies, private and government have legal language attached to in and outbound emails saying 'there is no privacy'.

If they don't like it, don't be inappropriate with your work emails and don't work for a government institution.

**Kanluwen**

nkelsch wrote:
This happens all the time in government agencies. You take the King's coin, you do the King's bidding.

Your email is not your email. It is a government-owned tool for you to do your work. If you are doing personal and inappropriate things on your government work phones or emails, you are held responsible for your actions and it is a matter of public record.

You know how I can tell you did not read the article?

**cincydooley**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
.
1: That is a gross invasion of privacy. Not only for people who own the email, but people who sent them

No, it isn't. As a public employee your email is part of the public record. They tell everyone that works for a public school (k-12 or uni) right when you start.

2: Tenure is a good system, I prevents people who have been there long enough from loosing their job.

So what about that makes tenure a "good system"? In public schools tenure often makes bad or over the hill educators very hard to get rid of. No disrespect intended here, but you clearly don't know much about tenure if that's you're naive estimation if it.
]

**hotsauceman1**

Ok, Educate me, I see tenure as a good system. It allows teachers to be secure in their job.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:

3B Not veryone is uppity, but some people consider academia uppity which I dont understand

College professors are not qualified to teach, simply to be 'subject matter experts'.
.

I dont know where this comes from. Im trying to become a college professor, And I have to get my teaching credentials for it.
And it is those owns peoples fault for going to college if they are not prepared for. And there are ways to go to college and NOT pay massive debt. Im nearing the end(2-3 more years) and y'know how much debt I incured? None. NONE!!!!
And here is the thing, many jobs I know require a degree. If you want a good job, go to college or trade school.

**nkelsch**

Kanluwen wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
This happens all the time in government agencies. You take the King's coin, you do the King's bidding.

Your email is not your email. It is a government-owned tool for you to do your work. If you are doing personal and inappropriate things on your government work phones or emails, you are held responsible for your actions and it is a matter of public record.

You know how I can tell you did not read the article?

A public university is a university that is predominantly funded by public means through a national or subnational government, as opposed to private universities.

UNC is a public university. Employees of that university have no expectation of privacy and are subject to laws which impact other taxpayer funded institutions.

You want privacy? become a private university.

Both parties do this, so I am not going to get outraged at political witchhunt accusations as the Dems are spying their ass off via the NSA right now. Sure some people may use FOIA for political trickery but it is better to have transparency when they are spending taxpayer's dollars.

So I have no pity for this school, the employee or the smelly lawschool professors who signed a letter.