Friendswood Police Dept. emails leaked

[GrillKing]

So, to make a long story short, no. I have zero sympathy for the police chief venting in email. He is a public servant and his email are public records. He should know better.

Show us the statute that supports this.

Chas.

I am not a lawyer, but I do work for a State agency and deal with ORRs on a regular basis. If these emails were on a government system they absolutely are government records. Some records must be released w/o review. Some records cannot be released. Most records must be released but the agency can request a review by the OAG. If this request to the OAG is not made in a timely fashion the record must be released. The OAG can determine whether the record must be released, released in redacted form or not released. I suspect these are releasable if on a government email system.

Even releasable documents can contain automatic redaction of certain things - names of non involved parties, ss#'s, addresses, etc.

The fact that it is electronic (email) does not negate the fact that it is a government recd. I can't disclose my agency, but I can tell you that they take this seriously and comply to the letter and intent of the law.

Good advice was previously given, if you email it, there is a chance you and the recipients won't be the only ones to see it....

OAG opinion: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/open/og_faqs.shtml

I know all this; I use ORR rather extensively. My question to Jumping Frog is to show me the statue to support his claim that all of the Chief's emails are public record.

Chas.

I see now what you were asking. Charles, I know you know this far better than I, but for others..... if these were on a gov't system (email) they are absolutely gov't records. I agree, they may or may not be releasable. I suspect in this case an OAG review would be required to determine if these are truly 'personal' and whether or not they must be released. By law, if requested, if not approved excluded record types, they must be released or sent to the OAG for an opinion. The individual agency doesn't get to make the choice.

Btw, I agree 100% the hacker is a criminal. And should get a paid stay at the Graybar Hotel.

[GrillKing]

Boy, I am verbose, I could have just said 'they ARE gov't records, they may or may not be public records.'

[Beiruty]

Like any other non-public records in Big Corps. those emails can't be destroyed or altered after the fact and subject to discovery rules in a court of law.

[GrillKing]

Like any other non-public records in Big Corps. those emails can't be destroyed or altered after the fact and subject to discovery rules in a court of law.

Yep, gov't records (at least state gov't) are kept on well defined retention schedules and cannot be destroyed before their time. Unless someone wants to go to jail!

[Jumping Frog]

I know all this; I use ORR rather extensively. My question to Jumping Frog is to show me the statue to support his claim that all of the Chief's emails are public record.

Hey, I am not trying to argue with you; I respect who you are. But, with respect, you are the attorney experienced with ORR, not me. Instead of me taking substantial time to locate a statute that you obviously are already familiar with, why don't you provide us the link for the ORR statutes so we can all learn the specifics?

Also, I did not state "all of the Chief's emails" are public record, as my original comment clearly indicated there were limits. As other posters have credibly supported the notion that some unspecified portion of the emails are public records (including the OAG link), I guess the only question is which emails would or would not qualify.

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.

[rtschl]

This was hacking, and I agree with Charles regarding hacking. I will even go further: No matter what is discovered, the commission of a crime does not justify breaking into a computer or network and stealing.

On another note, I don't think it should be law or policy that "all" emails of a public servant/employee are potentially public. Personally, I believe if an email is not an official communication, his/her email should generally be private. Most people only have one email address or only access work email at work and personal email at home. Right or wrong, I think many people think their private conversations (though on a government email server) are just that, private conversations. What if this was carried to it's logical conclusion: the government should also retain a record (and recording) of all government phone and cell phone conversations as these devices are owned by the people and easily could be done to keep accurate government records, just like emails. Should every conversation that someone has on a government phone also be subject to FOI requests? An email is written conversation whereas a phone is verbal. But both are conversations. If one is subject to FOI, should not both be?

Ron

[Beiruty]

It is noted that there is no privacy when someone is using Corp email or communication devices, all can be used against the employee as evidence. Public employee should be treated alike when an investigation is conducted.

[seamusTX]

For those who are ready to end a man's career if not string him up, what proof do you have that he committed a crime?

If he did not commit a crime, what offense against morality or human decency did he commit?

How do you know this?

Hint: Blogs in and of themselves prove nothing.

- Jim

[RoyGBiv]

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.

110%

[Heartland Patriot]

This was hacking, and I agree with Charles regarding hacking. I will even go further: No matter what is discovered, the commission of a crime does not justify breaking into a computer or network and stealing.

On another note, I don't think it should be law or policy that "all" emails of a public servant/employee are potentially public. Personally, I believe if an email is not an official communication, his/her email should generally be private. Most people only have one email address or only access work email at work and personal email at home. Right or wrong, I think many people think their private conversations (though on a government email server) are just that, private conversations. What if this was carried to it's logical conclusion: the government should also retain a record (and recording) of all government phone and cell phone conversations as these devices are owned by the people and easily could be done to keep accurate government records, just like emails. Should every conversation that someone has on a government phone also be subject to FOI requests? An email is written conversation whereas a phone is verbal. But both are conversations. If one is subject to FOI, should not both be?

Ron

Your post brought something to mind: I wonder if there was anything to tell the men working there that their usage of the system was a consent to monitoring? The computers we used at work in the USAF, EVERY TIME YOU LOGGED IN, reminded you that under authority of Federal Code ### that you were consenting to monitoring. It would seem to many that it would be "common sense" since they are on a government computer, but as you say a lot of folks think if they are having a "conversation" with someone over email, that it is private...whether true by the letter of the law or not...of course, the REAL issue here is those hacker punks who aught to be tracked back and do time in a real jail for their little venture into things that don't concern them.

[GrillKing]

To assume emails on a gov't system are private is a poor personal policy. They may or may not be released, monitored or as we have seen, hacked. On a private email account, there is risk of exposure but it is significantly reduced. I keep my gov't account usage to official business (telling the wife you have to work late or you will pick up the kids is close enough!) and use personal email for personal communications. Even in official communications with your business or gov't email account, you want to be careful. What you say about someone else (ability to do the job, job performance, character, etc.) could come back to embarass you. I have seen it happen to people. They sorely wished they could retract emails that suddenly appeared during investigation of a situation. Even off color language can bite you.... just saying....

[GrillKing]

To keep it on topic, I don't know whether he should lose his job or not. If the emails are true, it would seem to show a lack of judgement and lack of respect for the position and public. I believe, even if obtained under the circumstances obtained, the evidence indicates he should at least be reviewed by his bosses (city council and counsel).

[Jumping Frog]

To keep it on topic, I don't know whether he should lose his job or not. If the emails are true, it would seem to show a lack of judgement and lack of respect for the position and public. I believe, even if obtained under the circumstances obtained, the evidence indicates he should at least be reviewed by his bosses (city council and counsel).

I also don't know whether he should lose his job or not. I certainly feel empathy for him facing these circumstances, as the possibility of losing your job is a tough risk to face.

Another factor you haven't mentioned, but I have often seen, is when a person's behavior creates a legal liability for an entity. The governing body can and does assess that litigation risk as a factor when determining what action - if any - to take.

[seamusTX]

Let me make this a little clearer:

There is no credible evidence that the Friendswood police chief wrote any e-mail that would be considered racially or sexually offensive, insulting to a religion, or prejudicial to a criminal case. None.

These hacked e-mails, if they are authentic, indicate that he received some e-mails that he deleted. Many e-mail systems have a folder where deleted e-mails go until they expire or are otherwise permanently deleted.

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/255354" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I get offensive e-mail messages all the time from people who forward everything they get to everyone in their address book. These range from racist and sexist jokes to goofy conspiracy theories and warnings that the gub'mint is gonna grab my guns. I almost never respond unless I think the sender is educable (which is rarely).

I certainly am not accountable for unsolicited garbage that other people send me.

I also find it remarkable that people who have never been to Friendswood and could not find it on a map are so concerned by how that town is run.

- Jim

[Jumping Frog]

I certainly am not accountable for unsolicited garbage that other people send me.

I have been on the receiving end of those as well. I agree. 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.

If it was particularly funny and the person was a friend, I might remind them to use my home email address instead.